a survey and observation around the Thanksgiving table

Our Thanksgiving routine is probably a typical scene with four distinct phases:

1. Pre-game/pre-dinner bonding around the kitchen table or football couch
2. The main event 
3. Dinner clean-up and dessert presentation time out (back to football)
4. Dessert

Around yesterday's table/couches the inevitable 'what phone are you using' conversation came up. While the family favors Apple by 3:1, Android has made some inroads and the lone Blackberry holdout is no longer derided, but now viewed as the eccentric uncle.

What was missing from the conversation, however, was the word 'cool'. Past years phone purchases/plans were punctuated by arm waving and passion. Now, iPhone buyers spoke about 'my other devices are....'  and Android folk were about pricing and screen size. In other words, over the past year, at least for us,  phone innovation has taken a breather in favor of a platform and pricing.

If we are a representative sample, the consequences for Apple are dramatic. As a premium priced vendor, they are at a disadvantage in garnering market share in the incredibly price sensitive, and fast growing Asian and African regions. Of course, their growth, through line extensions to their platform and sales of high margin products (software commissions), should continue. But growth will no longer be torrid. 2012 is notable for Apple losing its cool.

Cool isn't necessarily gone forever, heck, Apple's taken a couple of cool vacations and it's not like other vendors have replaced its cool. Microsoft's cool with Surface and Windows8 feels like a parent trying to be cool at a kid's sporting event or Sweet 16. It's forced and unnatural...untrue to the brand. Google's products are really pragmatic, but just not cool. Pinterest's UI was, at first, cool. Now it's expected. *

Innovations on the horizon with LTE networks, NFC, faster chips, and innovative user interfaces are the basic ingredients for cool. They are waiting for the chef with the right recipe to whip up something that gets a 5 star rating. Someone who people first laugh at, then ignore, then fight, and finally lose to (a bastardized Gandhi quote).

All the best for a great Holiday weekend.

* kudos to cousin Ken for coming up with a 'cool' suggestion....he noted that when ordering pizza, you can get crumbled sausage (which he and most people around the table prefer to sliced sausage, but he's never seen crumbled pepperoni., only sliced. Here's to you Ken....bring it to market!!!

Happy 5th birthday iPhone

On the occasion of the iPhone's 5th birthday, I thought it would be interesting to reread the Apple press release introducing the device. Some reviewers, and most competitors, highlighted that there was really nothing new there and, the press release reinforced it by noting it's a "widescreen iPod, an Internet communications device, and a revolutionary phone". Of course, the revolution was combining these elements behind a UI which redefined the way people interacted with their phones. Point and tap replacing hunt and click captured the phone business, undermined the laptop world, and has stalled the desktop market.

Almost as a throwaway, it had a camera too.

Going mobile

Somewhat obscured by the iPad announcement the other day is the speed to which Apple has led the 'post-PC' vanguard noted for its mobility. Here are some of the stats for Apple:

• 172mm "post PC devices" (e.g. iPads, iPods, and iPhones) sold in the last YEAR
• In the past quarter 85% of company revenue came from these devices. 
• Apple is now the largest manufacturer of computing devices
• The iPad sold more units than any other computer manufacturer
• 40.5mm iPads were sold last year

These stark numbers represent the five year mobile paradigm shift, starting with the iPhone, that will only gain momentum as 4G LTE networks proliferate. With the realistic potential for 10Mbt/s on the upload and 15-25 Mbt/s on the download, it represents substantial improvement over existing 3g networks. No doubt software and media players will be enhancing applications and content (e.g. more video) to take advantage of the enhanced connectivity and giving even greater utility to mobile users.

Apple just may be right on this one...Adobe Elements

I have spent the last few evenings preparing a photo montage for a family event and have been using my trusty Adobe Elements 7 program. It's a user friendly photo editing/storage program that is lighter than Photoshop and more featured than many web based programs. However, much to my surprise, it comes with a huge, customer unfriendly feature.

Let me digress a moment. Over the past decade, many software/web companies have pursued a 'freemium' business model, whereas a user receives some crippled functionality, in a 'try and buy' mode, towards a hoped for later conversion to a paying customer. Adobe has pursued a similar strategy, preferring a limited time free offer, then charging $79-$99 for this program. They also offer a companion program, referred to as a companion program for video editing called Adobe Essentials. Essentials adds tools for enhanced photographic effects, enlargements, etc.

What Adobe does NOT tell you is that if you happen to prepare a slide montage in Elements, you can only output it to a CD, and only in the .wmv format. Outputting to a DVD is a crippled feature that requires a purchase of Essentials. I can see how this decision was a classic product management debate where one side said something to the effect of 'gee,we can get all this upgrade revenue by hooking the customer with all their data, giving them a crippled output facility that will force an upgrade. Oh, and let's be 'careful' about messaging it in the product as the focus groups didn't like it.

The other side of the argument would have highlighted how this will probably attract more revenue but is totally customer hostile. Customers expect real value for the incremental purchase price and this feature is such a no-brainer that we will only upset our customers and present a really bad picture to the press.

Adding to my frustration, and that of many of my peers is that when you try to download Premiere you are caught in an Adobe/Akamai endless loop of problems. Why Adobe decided to put someone between themselves and their customer who only adds to the problem is beyond me. In fact, it gives great justification, from a users perspective, why Steve Jobs is loathe to do the same with Flash.

Too bad the wrong guys won these product battles at Adobe....probably the same folk who decided not to support the Mac 5 years ago.

Any suggestions on the best way to wean me from my Elements addiction? Household moving to Mac's shortly....

Nonlinear

Over the past two weeks, I have spent considerable time in beginning of the year board meetings, as well as speaking with a number of entrepreneurs about the prospects for their companies. In the course of these conversations, I was struck by the linearity of just about all the plans: constructed with a firm belief in rational, predictive growth that approximates a straight line.

Of course, we live in a multi-variate system where nonlinear events (aka chaos) is the norm. It's logical to plan in a linear manner, but only as a guide as Black Swans are more common than we think. It's a rare person whose mind works in a Black Swan way recognizing that shifting sands of technology, competition, and individual execution most often lead to nonlinear performance; for good or for ill. During '08 and '09 the venture industry certainly had its share of nonlinear events that more than made up for the wonderful '99-01 years.

While the planning process is important to determine asset allocations and to culturally be sure team members are marching towards a common objective, I have come to believe that an integral predictor for success is how well a management team deals with unpredictable events, and how well investors and board members, often under time/financial/opportunity pressures, advise them in the process.

I suspect the recent announcement of the iPad represents such a nonlinear moment. Publishers seem to think it represents a grand new opportunity while Sony and Amazon face steep new competition to core initiatives. Investors are wondering if it bodes well for the burgeoning mobile opportunity, or represents a desktop extension used within WiFi comfortable walls.

Time will tell whether the best laid plans will lead to success for these vendors, or if it will be the power and insight of the re-plan that's the ultimate differentiator.

Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth- Mike Tyson

Much has been made of the upcoming war brewing over market share for the real personal computer; the one you wear, put in your pocket, where you store your most intimate photos and videos. Yes, the device formerly known as your phone is the latest step in a continual line of cheaper, smaller, more 'personal' devices that date back to, at least the 1975 introduction of the Apple 1. As of now, it seems as if the latest battlefield will be seriously joined by, at least 6 mega-vendors coming from 3 directions:

The computing field: Microsoft and Apple (sort of sad that IBM has abdicated its computing relevance for the mainstream consumer and will sit this one out, while DELL continues to plan and test their market entry)
The web: Google
The phone: Nokia, RIM and Motorola

The platform shift from desktop to mobile, or for some vendors from phone to the 'new' personal computer, is as titanic (threat/opportunity) to these vendors as the shift from mainframes to mini's then to micro computers was to IBM, DEC, DG, Motorola, and the BUNCH. Most of these now forlorn Princes faced extinction with little grace when they were unable to navigate the shifting landscape. The impact of new distribution, pricing, business models, digesting dynamic market needs and an accelerated pace of innovation stress the culture of incumbents to the breaking point.

In this light, Apple's transition from a desktop centric vendor in 2006, to one where the Mac line accounts for only 38% of revenue and less than 14% of unit shipments (in '10 they should break 100mm shipments of 'stuff'...Nokia ships >450mm units), while not missing a beat, is a staggering achievement. I would bet their acquisition of Quattro wireless portends another evolution of their business model, one that prepares it to do battle with folk who 'give away' their IP, in return for harnessing and directing attention.

When navigating new waters, I think company culture and communication of a meaningful strategy plays a large part of a firm's success potential. Therefore, I dug up SEC filings for these titans to revisit what they share with shareholders/employees about their strategic directions. It makes for good reading and should help you in handicapping the race:


Apple business strategy (per their '09 10k):

The Company is committed to bringing the best personal computing, mobile communication and portable digital music and video experience to consumers, students, educators, businesses, and government agencies through its innovative hardware, software, peripherals, services, and Internet offerings.

Google business strategy (per their 10k)

Our mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. We believe that the most effective, and ultimately the most profitable, way to accomplish our mission is to put the needs of our users first. We have found that offering a high-quality user experience leads to increased traffic and strong word-of-mouth promotion.

Microsoft's business strategy (per their 10k)

Our mission is to enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential. Since the company was founded in 1975, we have worked to achieve this mission by creating technology that transforms the way people work, play, and communicate. We develop and market software, services, hardware, and solutions that we believe deliver new opportunities, greater convenience, and enhanced value to people’s lives.

Motorola's business strategy, (per their 10k)

Motorola seeks to be a leading supplier of wireless handsets and mobile experiences to customers globally. To
accomplish this objective, our strategy is focused on simplifying product platforms, enhancing our mid- and
high-tier product portfolio, and strengthening our position in priority markets.

Nokia's business strategy (per their form 20-F)

Our mobile device market share is driven by our ability to have a competitive product portfolio with
attractive aesthetics, design and combination of valueadding
functionalities and services for all major
consumer segments and price points. Market share is also impacted by our brand, manufacturing and
logistics, distribution, competitive cost structure, pricing and how we differentiate our products from
those of our competitors. We believe that product differentiation will be based increasingly on service
innovations and how these services are integrated with devices to improve the user experience.

Research in Motion (Annual report)

RIM helps users all over the globe connect to the specific people, information and
media that makes their worlds go round. The success of BlackBerry products
and services is driven by passionate employees, outstanding partnerships,
distinctive technological expertise, a commitment to quality and a culture that
embraces innovation, customer service and operational excellence.

And for your viewing pleasure, a Rocky take-off:

AAPL Tablet vs Kindle?

We have 2 Kindle's in our household and have experienced mixed reviews on its utility. On one hand, it is a great device for traveling, on the other, it's just so parochially just a reader (a good one) that, along with the Blackberry, I feel Internet and application disabled when compared next to the iPhone.

Amazon has been testing the Kindle in a few Universities (wonderful idea for backpack laden Middle schoolers too). Unfortunately, the initial review from Princeton is not too compelling. The need is there for a tablet sized real internet device (sorry MSFT, still suffering from buying your Gen 1 OS). Between smart phones, tablets, PC's and the iTouch, there seems to have been enough trial and error to collect solid information for product managers somewhere to hit one out of the ballpark.

Billions of applications downloades; where's the beef?

Per Apple, as reported in BusinessInsider, more than 2 billion applications have been downloaded onto iPhones. A truly incredible number, and with 85,000 applications in hundreds of niches, represents the democratization (commoditization) of software as I suspect that the vast majority of these downloads were of software that cost less than $2.00/download (with no maintenance charges). More than 10 MILLION applications are downloaded each day! 40 applications per phone....(maybe I should insert disposable before application?).

But (and there always needs to be a but), where are the great new emerging iPhone software companies that are roaring their way to the IPO bank, or into the adoring arms of buyers?

Perhaps, the iPhone really represents a watershed, and terminal, event in the software market. The tipping point of consumer software, where it's now an element of 'Free', a way station towards advertising, subscription, or commerce revenues. No longer a revenue objective in its own right. If so, wherefore art thou future MSFT, EA, Intuit (note the Mint acquisition as highly strategic in a deeply commoditized IP world)? Do your businesses look like Google or Amazon?

Larry Ellison and 'why I acquired Sun'

Interesting post by Will Price describing Larry Ellison's speech Monday night.

Essentially, he argues that the Enterprise business may now be best served by rejecting the move to a components based horizontal approach, where the customer chooses a multitude of 'best of breed' vendors. Instead, a 'vertical' approach (harken back to dominant IBM) where one vendor supplies, or integrates the total solution is best for the customer.

I suppose he's right in an environment where innovation is stilted, and competition offers many alternatives. Or, you have a culture of intense innovation (Apple). I think you need two of these conditions to be present for his vision to be successful.

Here's a snippet of Mr. Ellison entertaining the crowd on his view of cloud computing

Copy of FCC letters...

Courtesy of Techcrunch

FCC Letter to Apple

July 31, 2009


Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President
Worldwide Government Affairs
Apple Inc.
901 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

RE: Google Voice and related iPhone applications

Dear Ms. Novelli:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.
2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?
3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?
6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Request for Confidential Treatment. If Apple requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission

FCC Letter to Google

July 31, 2009

Richard S. Whitt, Esq.
Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue, NW, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005

RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application

Dear Mr. Whitt:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Please provide a description of the proposed Google Voice application for iPhone. What are the key features, and how does it operate (over a voice or data network, etc.)?
2. What explanation was given (if any) for Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application (and for any other Google applications for iPhone that have been rejected, such as Google Latitude)? Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.
3. Has Apple approved any Google applications for the Apple App Store? If so, what services do they provide, and, in Google’s opinion, are they similar to any Apple/AT&T-provided applications?
4. Does Google have any other proposed applications pending with Apple, and if so, what services do they provide?
5. Are there other mechanisms by which an iPhone user will be able to access either some or all of the features of Google Voice? If so, please explain how and to what extent iPhone users can utilize Google Voice despite the fact that it is not available through Apple’s App Store.
6. Please provide a description of the standards for considering and approving applications with respect to Google’s Android platform. What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Request for Confidential Treatment. If Google requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission

FCC Letter to AT&T

July 31, 2009

James W. Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs
AT&T Services, Inc.
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036

RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application

Dear Mr. Cicconi:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications? What role, if any, does AT&T play in consideration of iPhone applications generally? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or in any non-contractual understanding between the companies) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
2. Did Apple consult with AT&T in the process of deciding to reject the Google Voice application? If so, please describe any communications between AT&T and Apple or Google on this topic, including the parties involved and a summary of any meetings or discussions.
3. Please explain AT&T’s understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone.
4. To AT&T’s knowledge, what other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone? Which of these applications were designed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network? What was AT&T’s role in considering whether such applications would be approved or rejected?
5. Please detail any conditions included in AT&T’s agreements or contracts with Apple for the iPhone related to the certification of applications or any particular application’s ability to use AT&T’s 3G network.
6. Are there any terms in AT&T’s customer agreements that limit customer usage of certain third-party applications? If so, please indicate how consumers are informed of such limitations and whether such limitations are posted on the iTunes website as well. In general, what is AT&T’s role in certifying applications on devices that run over AT&T’s 3G network? What, if any, applications require AT&T’s approval to be added to a device? Are there any differences between AT&T’s treatment of the iPhone and other devices used on its 3G network?
7. Please list the services/applications that AT&T provides for the iPhone, and whether there any similar, competing iPhone applications offered by other providers in Apple’s App Store.
8. Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of the Google Voice application? Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of other applications that have been rejected for the iPhone?
9. Please explain whether, on AT&T’s network, consumers’ access to and usage of Google Voice is disabled on the iPhone but permitted on other handsets, including Research in Motion’s BlackBerry devices.

Request for Confidential Treatment. If AT&T requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission

FCC inquiry into GOOG Voice's elimination from App Store

I can only applaud the continued weakening of the carrier hegemony. Here's the CNN synopsis.

Looking for the trickle down

Apple announced great results yesterday highlighted by some interesting iphone statistics:

5.2 million phones sold in the last quarter
1.5B apps downloaded in the first year of the App Store

Here is a replay of the earnings webcast.

Now that billions of applications have been downloaded by tens of millions of people, I am wondering why we have not seen a robust next generation of mobile-centric software app companies, centered on this platform, achieve critical mass. If not, while many were bemoaning the lack of paradigm shifts, it seems as if we have seen the market pendulum swing away from downloaded applications and towards platform independent web based applications.

Thinking of market shifts, here's a post from David Winer, that reflects on the rise of the internet and its implication to MSFT, and a warning to entrepreneurs who may seek 'account' control based on a platform (the internet) that's by definition, open and near frictionless.

All that shines is not Chrome

I've been doing some more thinking about the Chrome OS and its implications/next steps.

1. Google's ecosystem today is concentrated on breaking its service (SEO) vs supporting its infrastructure. There will have to be a huge amount of work to switch the DNA of this relationship to create the primordial muck for a new OS to be successful.

2. The OS will have a Linux kernel and much Javascript. The later is known for not being a speed demon and performance will be the first measure for its competitiveness (similar to the Chrome browser).

3. Despite the OS being 'fast, lightweight and optimized for the cloud' it will need to run/support some local applications. Such applications need to be readily available, perhaps via a GOOG iTunes like application store.

4. With Android and Chrome OS I would not be surprised if Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board as the more he takes on MSFT, the more Apple is exposed to 'friendly fire'

5. The PC era is now rapidly being commoditized from two fronts. The iPhone, which is now a computer, phone, camera, video camera, GPS, music player and game platform represents fantastic value and a classic example of exporting deflation for the benefit of customers. Let's do the math* (courtesy of Amazon):

Netbook PC $375
Phone (Nokia) $ 90
Camera (p&s) $125
Flip video $129
GPS $ 90
iPod $224
Nintendo DS $130

Total $1163

iPhone $399

Savings $764
% savings 66%

The other commoditizing force is the cloud which moves storage and computations away from the personal computer. Hence the move to low cost netbooks that, despite being low(er) power, represent the fastest growing segment of the PC market.

It's easy to look at Apple as a purveyor of premium priced products that gets away with it due to design and brand. I think this is a misplaced perspective that competitors will ignore at their peril.


*I know it's not totally 'apples to apples' due to quality of comparisons (e.g. camera pixels)


MOGUAI - Sittin On Chrome - The best home videos are here

Apple's CFO summarizes core values

Peter Oppenheimer, CFO of Apple, outlined the company's core values:

1. We believe in the simple, not the complex.
2. We believe we need to own the primary technologies that we make, and only participate in markets where we can make a significant contribution.
3. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups. We don't settle for anything less than excellence. We admit when we are wrong and have the courage to change.

On a somewhat related topic, here's a link to the 2005 Stanford commencement address by Steve Jobs

An ambulance chaser's view of Apple's disclosures

Joe Nocera of the New York Times, has been following the Steve Jobs health situation for years now. He makes a number of good points and shares a juicy insider's perspective, but I think he misses a major issue that one of my litigious relatives (e.g. plaintiff bar member) raised.

Before commenting, let me say that, despite the Enron mischief and the restatements (sometimes criminal) of countless technology companies for backdating options, it took the Madoff abomination to make me listen more carefully to whining from the plaintiff bar. With that qualification, his perspective is twofold.

First, many small investors are committing inordinate amounts of their personal wealth behind the fortunes of Apple's stock. It may be irrational, but for sure, people of passion have done far whackier things. If there is material news known to an ever growing circle of people (directors, doctors, nurses, household help, attorneys etc), it's essential to make it public to ensure a level investment playing field for the average investor and avoid yet another body blow to the underpinning of our financial system; TRUST. I would bet dollars for donuts that professionals, who manage Apple positions in the tens of millions of dollars, are doing everything they can to lawfully ferret out the truth. We know that every confidant has a confidant, that's why we have these rules.

Let's not expose our system to yet another gross inequity...not while Madoff is ensconced in his penthouse apartment suffering the pain of having to order take-out from the Four Seasons.

The second point he made was to highlight the unfair burden Mr. Jobs, and the Company, are putting on directors, and all the people who have this material (a vague concept, but looking at the stock's gyrations on positive/negative news on his health, it's hard to deny materiality) information. If they sell, or buy Apple equity/options, while possessing this information, they open themselves to liability for what could be perceived of as, at worst, a criminal act. Does Albert Gore, Jr, or Dr. Eric Schmidt need this; do we?