Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alomex who wrote (26971)	11/12/1999 2:22:00 PM
From: Doren	Respond to of 213182

The Mac Computer is user friendly, Apple Corp. is not. Very true. Successes in the consumer realm have made them more cocky and even less friendly. This is not universal. Their help lines are much better according to my girlbuddy. It's just a perception on my part that they've gotten worse. How can anyone doubt this after the ROM incident, the subsequent lying, and the downgrading incident with the lame RAM excuses? It would be interesting to see statistics on this from veteran users. Hey maybe it's better for investors if Apple makes the transition into a giant company that screws its customers and anyone else anytime they get a chance. It worked for Microsoft! Might even be better for us that make a living using these boxes, to leave now than try to hang on. I've been thinking about the speculation that Jobs is grooming Apple and Pixar for a Disney takeover. Both are companies whose stock prices exist to a large degree on perception. Both face stiff competition, with no clear future, they are insolid. Apple make products that have no residuals. Pixar has only one residual stream with no guaranteed future successes and huge competition. Disney is solid to the core, with a residual library that won't quit. Seems very plausible to me. Apple as a consumer oriented company making boxes for children to view Disney product and computer phobes to surf the internet. Makes a lot of sense, both from a business aspect and from a Jobs ego aspect. I can see Jobs seeing himself as vulnerable at the head of both Pixar and Apple. As the CEO of the Disney empire he sits on solid ground. He's a crafty one. The no salary thing has always been somewhat of a mystery. It only makes sense if he was back for purly benevolent reasons. That just doesn't jibe with his actions. The only other way it makes sense is as a faint.