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: RocketMan who wrote (3569)	12/27/1998 6:03:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

Re: It is logical to assume AOL will go DSL, since they already made a mistake buying NSCP. Although I never understood NSCP's allure, I am not ready to concede the purchase is a mistake. AOL has great penetration of the home consumer market, so would it have been wiser for them to expand/fortify this with broadband at this point, or to try to enter the business market with NSCP/SUNW?. FWIW, AOL's purchase of NSCP provides it with an additional portal, & control over user interface with the Web second only to IE 4.0. By acquiring NSCP, AOL is now gains immediate access to a large percentage of Internet surfers who presently don not rely upon the AOL gateway. The game AOL is playing is similar to what MSFT has been playing -- control or tremendous influence over what we see when we "connect" online. AOL's purchase of NSCP was not a mistake in light of its overall strategy - control of customer interface with the Internet. I concur with your statement.

To: RocketMan who wrote (3569)	12/28/1998 3:36:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

Your view is conventional. What the pressthink would like the public to believe. What does NSCP offer? The deal doesn't steer them towards DSL. Nothing actually steers them there, they'll find a way on their own. DSL reminds me of HDTV. The democrats wanted to launch a $100 billion crash program to hatch HDTV. Like with HDTV many large companies like TXN think DSL is viable. I asserted a year ago that TXN is wrong. I'm winning. I have given all the reason why DSL is a failed technology on this thread. It's easy for fools to pursue failure. MSFT has never been arrogant. I was developer for them for almost 10 years until last year. I have many criticisms of MSFT, but almost none that agree with the popular view of them as the Octopus. I stated in my last post, they are changing into the popular view because of the garbage perpetrated by NSCP, SUNW, ORCL, through the government. MSFT is in court only because NSCP refused to choose any of many lines of competition available to them, so opted for a retreat into claims of unfairness. They loved the oxymoron, unfair competition. That isn't even American. So now they're dead. I suggested one line of competition myself. The development of what I called Netux, a disk supported only compact LINUX based OS oriented around JAVA and the Net (VJ++, that is). Maybe AOL will do something with the skunkworks NSCP had working on that. That's the only possible value that can come out of the purchase. What did they get that they didn't have before? As far as this split business, I guess you're part of the public that believes that splits are bullish for a company's stock. Do you think that? I can see price action has inured your attitude down the line of "when someone is wrong about predicting a price decline, it implies the price will rise". You can't succeed at investment by making decisions based on what others do. It is like contrary opinion. It always works but you never know the opinion to go contrary. I never said AOL should be sold and I've never heard a good opinion why they should not do well. I know of no analyst who is negative on the company. A few think it's fully priced. Most don't. You can find my comments in this thread suggesting many constructive factors moving in their direction, so I don't see how you can view my previous post a s a bearish opinion towards AOL. I said it is topping. You can make book on that. So you think AOL will always be with us like the cockroach. What if I told you a certain large RBOC is planning to make a hostile bid for AOL? That would relieve you of having to sell the stock at providential prices, so you wouldn't get the opportunity to ride it down. Guess I won't tell you that. AOL was thrown up it no time. It can disappear in no time also. I don't think you should fool yourself into believing that you know something about this industry either the copper side or the the cable side. You haven't even read this thread. If you had, you wouldn't make the comments you have. They are standard news agency comprehension. As far as comparing IBM and AOL, that wasn't my intention. My intention was to demonstrate that though a company's stock reaches a significant top and then takes a major hit, if the company can survive, it can go on to new highs. In 1994 it looked like IBM was in big trouble. They might have gone out of business. The stock went from about 200 down to about 40. It's ok to sell when a company resists necessary change. How is MSFT similar to AOL? The stock dynamics are completely dissimilar. MSFT spent 5 years grinding out a slow advance while the institutions shunned it for airhead reasons. This is nothing like AOL's stock price evolution. IBM wasn't moving out of mainframes. Still represents 83% of revenues. You are again expressing news group think. It's hard to stand in front of the momentum train? Stock price has no momentum. How do you define momentum? Mass times velocity? Probably you have this popular myth in mind that a stock rising tends to continue to rise. If that was true, the public would be making tons doing simple trend analysis. Guess they have been since 1995. That must prove that stocks will forever advance at 50% per annum. Stocks turn on a dime all the time. What happened to their momentum? Oh, they didn't have any. No, it changed. Oh. If Gates said that in 1992 to AOL, then the company must have been around before they mailed disks. If Gates said that later so what? It is entirely and elementarily true. You make it sound like it is bad. This is more evidence that you have become prejudiced by the populist press. I never have understood why Americans are so brainwashed, no hypocritical, about wealth, success, achievement. It's "your wealth is evil, mine is good because I worked hard for mine, but you got yours easy". Of course, then they sick their trained dog, government, to go in and hurt you for unfairness. That confirms that they got heir money righteously. Ah, Calvanism lives. XRX? Mac? Unfair competition? You need to learn what happened way back when with respect to these Esaus. Long after XRX and AAPL, MSFT came along and created the environment that saved these ramshackle operations. I predict you don't have a clue. Just another amateur that understands up to the latest groupthink. You have to dig in for years before you have a hint about what is happening. You have to understand technology technically, business as a businessman, and the stock market from the position of a private proprietary investment manager. These factors force on you the necessity of getting to the truth. You can't waltz around with myths.