To: soup who wrote (2946 ) 4/27/1999 4:53:00 PM From: Cesare J Marini Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 5843
In any case, what part(s) of that article do you think is (are) wrong or do you think labeling the author "a known supporter of Apple" sufficient to make your case that his observations are invalid? Um, excuse me? I never said his views were "invalid." I said that they were not "impartial."How much money is RNWK making from those partners? How much does it expect to make in the future with both AAPL and MSFT poised to enter the field? Oh come on. Are you serious? That's a ridiculous question. Just because you sign up partners does not mean that you automatically recognize revenue based on the partnership. It's what results from the partnership that counts. In RNWK's case, the results may appear tomorrow, next week, or a few months from now. The AP is now supporting Real's format. Do you think that will produce revenue tomorrow morning? Of course not.dailynews.yahoo.com AAPL, on the other hand, can't seem to keep a partnership together if it were running a lemonade stand. Their own developers are constantly pissed at them. The staffing merry-go-round is legendary here in Silicon Valley -- AAPL is a great provider of talent to the industry.This implies impressive YTY growth. Do agree with those numbers? More important, do you think it's sustainable? I think that RNWK certainly has the potential to achieve those numbers and grow revenue that quickly. For how long? Well, I'm not exactly sure. But I'm also not obsessed with RNWK's daily price. It was Tevanian's testimony for the DOJ that MSFT coerced Compaq *not* to bundle QT with their CPUs. RNWK, may have AAPL to thank for keeping MSFT from doing the same to them. MSFT has done everything they can to try and stamp out RNWK. They can't. Great partnerships and 85% market share does that for you. And don't even try to bring up NSCP -- COMPLETELY different situation.