NYTimes explains why Sony is struggling

[Zeus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/techn ... .html?_r=1

[Eric]

That's neat, so what new tech will Sony show us. :p

[kali o.]

I don't need to click a link to know that answer -- they've clinged to Apple style marketing (overpriced, dedicated stores) but without the benefit of Apple-style moronic customers willing to pay the premium of a "brand" name. It's been that way for...like the last 10 years at least. The only reason they are not bankrupt and selling off valuable assets is the playstation brand and obscene format royalties.

You know, Apple should buy Sony, they are direct competitors anyway and Sony's value must be in the toilet....20b I think? Not like that is likely to happen, but talk about a win/win for Apple--- they get the Playstation Brand to kick start their entry into that market, which they've wanted to do for a while, retail space, etc etc. Probably never happen though, it's a Japanese company afterall...still...

[Zeus]

Sony, like Nintendo, has a "we will build it and they will come" mentality. They do not react well to the market because they feel that they can define the market. In Sony's case, they have so many business lines that it's a little magnified when they fall behind due to their arrogance and stubbornness.

In the HD TV market they've always trailed and have never caught up. You'd think they might change, maybe even react to these new competitors but nooooo. They think they will eventually just get back to the top with their marketing because that's how it's always been for them. They still haven't gotten used to the fact the unlimited information available on the Internet has rendered much of their BS PR ineffective.

Don't think the same won't happen to Apple someday. They defined the mp3, Idiotphone, and tablet markets on their first tries, building off of, repackaging, and marketing other companies' inventions. Not so sure they know how to react to others doing that to them. Their entry into and exit from the desktop computing market twice doesn't set a good precedence.

[SineSwiper]

Old, but worth repeating:

http://www.theonion.com/video/sony-rele ... snt,14309/

You know, Apple should buy Sony, they are direct competitors anyway and Sony's value must be in the toilet....20b I think? Not like that is likely to happen, but talk about a win/win for Apple--- they get the Playstation Brand to kick start their entry into that market, which they've wanted to do for a while, retail space, etc etc. Probably never happen though, it's a Japanese company afterall...still...

Hehe, Apple? Shit, they are in huge trouble, too. Haven't quite recovered since Steve Jobs died, and they probably never will. Good riddance to both of them.

[Oracle]

Hehe, Apple? Shit, they are in huge trouble, too. Haven't quite recovered since Steve Jobs died, and they probably never will. Good riddance to both of them.

WTF are you talking about?

Apple stock, day the Jobs died: $378.25
Apple stock, today: $571.70

[Flip]

Apple even went up to like $645 at one point, but it has dropped rather rapidly since.

[Eric]

Hehe, Apple? Shit, they are in huge trouble, too. Haven't quite recovered since Steve Jobs died, and they probably never will. Good riddance to both of them.

WTF are you talking about?

Apple stock, day the Jobs died: $378.25
Apple stock, today: $571.70

It's Sine, these things happen. ;p

[SineSwiper]

Hehe, Apple? Shit, they are in huge trouble, too. Haven't quite recovered since Steve Jobs died, and they probably never will. Good riddance to both of them.

WTF are you talking about?

Apple stock, day the Jobs died: $378.25
Apple stock, today: $571.70

Well, one, you can't exact compare with the "day Jobs died" with anything. Maybe compare the day BEFORE Jobs died. Of course it's going to drop like a rock with Jobs' death, but I'm talking more about longer term average.

In any case, I stand corrected because it does look like it's been constantly going up. (Funny, I can't even find the dip with Jobs' death, and I could have swore it was noticeable.) However, I remain suspect of the growth pattern. It's going up TOO quickly. A 200+ point increase since YTD? I mean I know we're not talking about mutual funds here, but the prices here are closer to Google's range, and they stay that high on purpose.

Oh well, wishful thinking, I guess...

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

In any case, I stand corrected because it does look like it's been constantly going up. (Funny, I can't even find the dip with Jobs' death, and I could have swore it was noticeable.)

There was no dip. Apple's stock price was constrained by the uncertainty created by Jobs' ill health. When he passed and it became clear that Apple had a succession plan that constraint was removed and its stock price normalised upwards.