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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michaelth1 who wrote (24884)	8/23/2000 5:30:53 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

AOL and ATHM do not compete directly. Competition typically means competition within an industry, whereby each competitor’s products are close substitutes for each other. Clearly, AOL’s and ATHM’s products are not close substitutes. AOL and ATHM products are, in fact, complementary (especially so if you believe that ATHM should be just a dumb pipe). Andrew Grove argued that both substitutes and complements influence demand in an industry. The substitute for ATHM is a national distribution system with access to a BB last mile solution (clearly not AOL), the complement are services like the AOL bring your own access option and ATHM’s own Excite portal.

To: Michaelth1 who wrote (24884)	8/23/2000 5:37:19 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

What kind of an idiot are you? Ahhaha got in on the pre-IPO offering, rode it up to $98 where he sold off his shares to dolts, who then rode them down to 14 1/4 where they sold them to you. Can't you tell from his condescending attitude? Ahhaha for President? Naw, he's overqualified. Orca

To: Michaelth1 who wrote (24884)	8/24/2000 2:05:28 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Finally I know to whom your posts are directed and why your posts rarely make sense, except in theory. It is reassuring to hear that you only deal in fact. Your history of the Excite merger is interesting, but don't blame me for it. You blame yourself? I've always been, and remain, an advocate of @Home basically being a dumb pipe. The geek from Yahoo doesn't agree. @Home should have simply aligned itself with multiple portals via joint ventures and never entered the content business. "aligned(sic) itself with multiple portals" is another one of these vanishing "big talk" expressions. Since you don't know what a "portal" is, you can't give an example. Let's see you try, big mouth. competition- the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. To the extent this attempt at definition tries to attain accuracy, to that extent it isn't accurate. No third party is required. I should alert you to the fact that Merriam Webster's dictionary is distorted because its creators are fixed to a predilection for socialism. Besides that, it is pretentious to reach for over definition where under definition is appropriate. The word "competition" is very difficult to define and must remain ill-defined. This is due to the etymology of the word. Tell those hacks at Merriam that I'm calling them out and claiming they're frauds. I don't expect that you can see why a third party is superfluous. Therefore, AOL/@Home are each acting independently to secure the Business of the Third Parties, each by providing terms that they feel are most favorable. Let's assume the definition of "competition" is the one involving pursuit of third parties. You have assumed that all the third parties are the same third parties and this is precisely false. AOL subs elect AOL for reasons unconnected to what ATHM provides and connected to the price point. This effectively separates the market. It is hoped by ATHM management that when the AOL sub matures, they will opt for @Home rather than the alternative, XYZW. (the hypothetical competitor that you need but doesn't yet exist) You can play games with the definitions if you like and make the Business "broadband access to the Internet" or something similarly narrow, but that's not reality. It is you who are playing games with definitions. You have assumed that what others have believed or asserted must be true whether that's Merriam or Street.com. You have to forget authority and use your own mind. Then you made some elementary deductions that your conclusions must be true, yet on close examination, your claims all vanish. This topic was discussed here 1 1/2 years ago. Most thought you were right(remember Eric?) and I argued against it because it doesn't hold water under investigation and it doesn't hold out in the real world of experience. So where in the hell aside from your imagination, does it hold? Got it! In Jermo's. Reality is there's a finite amount of people accessing the Internet and they'll pay for either broadband or narrowband, but rarely both. Well now, I guess you have just separated your third parties into mutually disjoint sets. AOL isn't going to simply give those paying subs to @Home; Now we see how the amateur thinks. Such thinking always deals with some sand box level of confrontation. AOL will market the crap out of them (including giving away free months) to try to brainwash them and keep them from migrating. This is what they do against dial-up encroachment. Case has stated rather convincingly and by his actions that he doesn't consider cable broadband a threat. So far it hasn't been one, so what sort of imaginary creation have you put together, or is it borrowed from a flunky like Jermo? Please point out where this doesn't fit the definition of competition, I have, to underwrite how brainwashed by presumed authority you are. and please don't say something akin to "obviously this isn't competition you [insert childish name], only you can't see why" That is true, you missed it. However, I didn't need your inability to show the flaw in your reasoning. It was there in your face just like it is there in the real world. ATHM isn't competing with anyone except themselves. The company is a basket case because they have interfered with what would have come naturally. That's why you can't ever necessarily succeed in stocks, because success assumes companies won't be so clever that they shoot themselves in the foot. The better something is, the more likely that is to occur. What makes anyone a loser is the need to expose what they've done in the market. This is typical of amateurs. There is a psychology in it geared to win-win, but the problem is that it's another attempt at steal-steal. Those kind of attempts always make you pay, especially a big mouth. What you've done is pseudo-clever incompetence. You think you have it covered. What you have put together guarantees that you can't succeed regardless of what ATHM does.