| Steve Jobs Posted: 05 Oct 2011 06:09 PM PDT Heartbreaking news tonight about Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Words are entirely and perilously inadequate. Statement by Apple’s Board of Directors CUPERTINO, Calif., Oct 05, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) — We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today. Steve’s brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve. His greatest love was for his wife, Laurene, and his family. Our hearts go out to them and to all who were touched by his extraordinary gifts. SOURCE: Apple
via Statement by Apple’s Board of Directors – MarketWatch. And this, on the Apple website tonight at apple.com/stevejobs: 
Plus the home page: 
 |
| Refuting Dan Yergin Posted: 05 Oct 2011 05:30 PM PDT My friends Gregor Macdonald and Chris Nelder counter Dan Yergin’s recent WSJ assertions about oil and the economy: Daniel Yergin’s typically sunny outlook on oil in his recent Wall Street Journal piece, “There Will Be Oil,” suggested that technology and new energy discoveries would avert any of the economic disasters portended by peak oil. We found Mr. Yergin’s dismissal of these risks premature and repetitive. After all, he has asserted since 2004 that global oil production was nothing to worry about, and that there would be few effects on the economy. We counter that managers who would see their businesses survive the next few decades of extreme economic volatility will need to develop some literacy about oil and its complex relationships with the economy. They would be wise to consider the long list of peak oil analyses by the world’s militaries, and they would take heed of the sobering outlook offered by veteran analyst Robert Hirsch for the Department of Energy. And we must correct some of Mr. Yergin’s assertions.
Read the full thing here: There Will Be Oil, But At What Price? – Chris Nelder and Gregor Macdonald – Harvard Business Review. 
 |
| The Anti-Peak Case for Commodities Posted: 05 Oct 2011 05:24 PM PDT From a paper recently presented at a U.K. mining conference, the anti-peak case for commodities. Future Rx: Optimism, preparation, acceptance of risk L. M. Cathles
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 The world population, presently at 7 billion, will rise to 10.5 billion in the next century, and all 10.5 billion will rightly expect at least a European living standard. Our great challenge is to provide the energy and mineral resources needed to meet this expectation. Can we? I believe we unquestionably can, provided we have optimism, preparation, and acceptance of risk. Considering the oceans, the world is a planet awash in energy and mineral resources. Raising energy consumption to the European level of 7 kW/p for the current population would require tripling our present total energy production from 15 TW to 45 TW, and accommodating a population growth to 10.5 bn would require 72 TWe. Growing from 15 to 72 TW over 100 years represents a modest compound growth rate of 1.6%/yr. With breeder technology, the 4.6x109tonnes of U dissolved in the oceans (not to mention Th which is a better nuclear fuel) can sustain a 72 TW production for 78 centuries. My estimated seafloor Cu and Zn resources can sustain humanity for 50 and 140 centuries, respectively. Three percent of the Li dissolved in the oceans could provide ¼ of a hybrid car per person for 10.5 bn. Deep-sea muds contain a resource of the rare earth elements that is at least as abundant as that on land. The deep ocean could sustain the phosphate needs of world agriculture for 33 centuries. Thus if we tap the oceans, humanity has the resources needed for a sustainable future. Furthermore, the oceans offer more equitable access to these resources, and the mobility of the ocean mining infrastructure means these resources can be surgically mined and recovered with less environmental damage and greater safety than is possible on land. Risk remains, but we need to accept it with the confidence that we can fix any problems that arise and thereby become ever better at mitigating it. This approach is far less risky than trying to avoid all risk. To move forward we need to accelerate laying the knowledge foundation for recovering ocean resources in the most environmentally and ecologically acceptable way possible, and impress the next generation, not with the immensity of future pain, but the immensity of future gain: sustaining everyone at a European standard indefinitely with the huge increases in the scientific understanding of natural systems that meeting this challenge will provide. 
 |
| Microsoft, the Bearish Case Posted: 05 Oct 2011 04:08 PM PDT Microsoft has become one of those “Someone else” companies. Someone else buys their products; someone else will always have to buy Microsoft technologies, etc. I have a general view that such companies in technology, which become part of the landscape, are among the best short-selling opportunities out there. They pull in value investors — ooooh, Microsoft is cheap! — and then, suddenly, the business begins falling apart, a process that accelerates until the value trap becomes obvious. The trouble, as always, is finding a catalyst and timing the thing. I have been thinking a lot about it because I’ve been aching for some time to be short Microsoft. They are spending heavily, with meager results, meanwhile doing some poor acquisitions, with more ahead, and a general sense that growth, having slowed, will never come back. On other other hand, there is no sign that cash flow is tapering off, with the company still increasing monstrous numbers to the bottom line. So, what might some collective signs & catalysts be? - More poor acquisitions. I wasn’t a fan of the Skype deal, but a Yahoo deal would likely make things worse, so that rumored deal is one to watch.
- Any deceleration in Windows license sales.
- Inability to increase presence in mobile OS market in next year, which will be a crucial time.
- Inability to increase presence in cloud services market in next year.
- Significant improvements in Google Docs, which would further eat into Microsoft Office.
Other thoughts? I’m mostly trying to convince myself here, but I’m open to other ideas, including the idea that I have Microsoft dead wrong and better days are immediately ahead. I think that is a loony idea, but I also have a hard time believing that it is going to continue to flat line much longer. 
 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment