Liberty

While I think it's good that Apple is reducing the barrier to getting a new phone by helping transfer address book information (that's surprisingly extremely hard to do), I don't like the fact that Apple is taking in Android and Blackberry phones. That seems to value things which are already devalued or of no value. I think the messaging would be better if you just showed Apple your Android or Blackberry phone and they gave you the discount, but Apple didn't actually take in the phone. When Microsoft took in Macbooks in exchange for Surfaces, they were acknowledging they had to bribe people to get Surfaces. The dynamics are different here, but the messaging of actually taking in the old devices, which should rightfully be seen as worthless, seems odd. Maybe. I think they're mostly doing it for the convenience to the buyer (it's just a better experience not to have to deal with that on your own), and as a recycler, to reduce e-waste.

Not my favorite thing, but better at 200 than closer to 100 a few months ago, and it's probably prudent to do.

http://www.macstories.net/linked/feeling-the-interface/ No doubt the future (ForceTouch tech in New trackpads and Watch)

http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2015/03/treps/

http://9to5mac.com/2015/03/16/apple-will-offer-android-switchers-gift-cards-to-trade-in-rival-smartphones-for-iphones/ Smart if true. They no doubt make more from iPhones sold in their own retail stores than in carrier stores, and they also have better chance to cross-sell things like Watch, Macs, accessories, etc. Smart move, especially when Android is weak. Whatever they pay in gift card might be partly offset by whatever the cut of a carrier would be, plus whatever else they can sell on top.

Nothing new, but Bill Gates commenting on the Berkshire letter and the 50th:

So you work in HFT, eh? I don't have to answer this, but no. And my opinion about him was the same before "Flash Boys" Opinions are opinions, no worries. But you have to admit, someone just had to ask, it was too obvious :D

So you work in HFT, eh?

That should seal it. I wonder what was Pershing and Valueact's involvement, if any...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/14/us-salix-pharm-m-a-valeant-pharms-idUSKBN0M928420150314 Seems like it might be around 170.

http://manualofideas.com/members/pmr201004_allan_mecham_interview.pdf

1 year after the book, good piece by Michael Lewis: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/03/michael-lewis-flash-boys-one-year-later

Thanks for posting.

Share count did go up, though not nearly at same rate as equity. There's been a huge split at some point too iirc. What matters in the end is the per share number, of course. But yes, my last message had no detail, so you could add some precision to every single sentence.

From the 2011 report: http://i.imgur.com/Xgf1JlN.jpg Since then the equity went up to 98.5m. Without capex or even salaries to any employees. And they've started a new phase of capital deployment and new financial products launches... See's Candies wasn't worth book either. I'd be surprised if someone holding this for 10 years wasn't pleased at the end.

Yes. Am I the only one that finds it absurdly priced at 50x revenue and 90x earnings? Probably not. But I'm not sure you're looking at the right metrics.

Yes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/business/dealbook/valeant-said-to-be-planning-to-raise-its-bid-for-salix-pharmaceuticals.html?ref=dealbook

People who knew Jobs for decades say it doesn't show who he really was (see Ed Catmull's comments on this, among many others). Part of the problem, I think, is that while Isaacson is quite smart, he doesn't really get design, which was the central part of Jobs' existence, and his understanding of technology and Apple in particular is lacking. He also mostly got people from his early days to comment, so we got more a portrait of the 20-year-old Jobs. Almost all the people who worked with him starting in the late 90s either stayed at Apple, or left but wanted to be in good terms with the company to be able to come back (it's a known thing that many Apple employees leave to take a kind of sabbatical, work on their own thing, and then come back), so they don't talk to the press. As long as Jobs was alive, many people just wouldn't speak because they knew he was very private and didn't want secrets to leak out and spoil the surprises that everybody worked so hard to create. I also think the book was probably rushed when it was clear that Jobs was dying. I've read his book on Benjamin Franklin, and the Jobs book seems a bit like a draft. Also, just from reading and listening to people who worked with him (even just folklore.org or podcasts with ex-Apple employees) it's clear to me there's a lot that's missing from the Isaacson book. This new biography that is coming out later this month will probably have got a lot of people to speak on record because 1) Jobs is dead and 2) they feel like Isaacson got it wrong and it feels unjust.

Really cool stuff. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-11/apple-researchkit-sees-thousands-sign-up-amid-bias-criticism

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-endo-m-a-analysis-idUSKBN0M82NE20150312

http://ir.valeant.com/investor-relations/news-releases/news-release-details/2015/Valeant-Announces-Pricing-Of-Private-Offering-Of-Senior-Notes-3132015/default.aspx Raised 10.1 billion instead of 9.6.

+16% http://www.ebix.com/PressRelease/PressReleasebyID/332

Tom Cook offered part of his liver to Jobs. Wow. http://www.macrumors.com/2015/03/12/becoming-steve-jobs-early-leaks/ I'm really looking forward to that book, I've heard good things from those with advanced copies. Isaacson might be a good biographer, but his book on Jobs was seriously flawed.

Sears wishes it was even just the old Apple :P