Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 8
http://www.tsrec.com/rnwkgorilla.html

This one will be controversial and I did not pen a full Gorilla report with this column (unfortunately haste got in the way) but the general rationale is laid and I also further illustrate the metrics I'm using to follow Gorilla and Gorilla-candidate companies in the column. The plight of Citrix brought home how important it is to follow your companies metrics on a quarter to quarter basis. With some companies I own like CREE and NTAP I find that is all the monitoring I need to do.

Interested in feed back which I'll try to address in a more formal Gorilla report.

Tinker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ok you got me interested, with only Notepad, Word and I.E. to go RealPlayer got something on its side( I read they were adding 100,000 users a day, pretty cool).

Top 10 Software Application Usage, March 2000 (U.S. Home Windows and Mac)

...........................................................Unique Users (000's) % of Users
1 Microsoft Internet Explorer......................49,250...................... 52.9%
2 Microsoft Word......................................40,325...................... 43.3%
3 Microsoft Notepad..................................30,507.......................32.7%
4 RealNetworks RealPlayer....................28,917......................31.0%
5 America Online......................................27,919......................30.0%
6 Microsoft Outlook Express......................27,883......................29.9%
7 Microsoft Office......................................24,928......................26.8%
8 AOL Netscape Navigator/Communicator...23,406......................25.1%
9 InstallShield...........................................22,817......................24.5%
10 Microsoft Solitaire.................................21,036......................22.6%
Source: Media Metrix

Here's the link and story.
http://www.mediametrix.com/usa/press/releases/20000522a.jsp



I guess your right that Microsoft won't want to move to do anything to encourage the UNIX flavours. I checked out the system requirements of Microsofts I.E 5 ( the 53% leader) and low and behold it was only for Windows 95 and Windows 98 and Windows NT. Commercial sucicide for any other company.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Ie/TechInfo/default.ASP

Also RNWK has a great partners list including Adobe, Akamai, Digital Island, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Macromedia, PanAmSat, Red Hat, Silicon Graphics, and Sun Microsystems.


I wonder what if MSFT gets split up? If the windows player is put with the OS great, but if they give it to the application division or worse have an Internet division then there should be no such reticence. An I.E. port to UNIX and an insistence that streaming is part of I.E. and you've got a competitor. Having said that MSFT movie type, AVI, was beaten hands down by Apple's Quicktime.

I appreciate there is a Godzilla network affect involved but I'd be interested on the Gorilla part. Is it the compresssion algorithms or a proprietary file format?

This one will be controversial and I did not pen a full Gorilla report with this column

I can't believe it is going to be more controversial than the Cloned Mice Gorilla game :)


Anyway, I'll wait for you're next posting.

Appologies for my spelling Hotmail is down, which I use for this duty. Might end up getting Word
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Also RNWK has a great partners list including Adobe, Akamai, Digital Island, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Macromedia, PanAmSat, Red Hat, Silicon Graphics, and Sun Microsystems.

GG, you forgot to mention Apple:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/june/12realnetworks.html

which is, and will remain, #1 in CONTENT CREATION for
streaming video.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can't believe it is going to be more controversial than the Cloned Mice Gorilla game :)

That was a bit of a doozy;) Just wait until I dig into GSTRF this weekend. So many people say that it cannot work, will not work, no one will want it, it is screaming to me that it can't miss. The architecture itself is unique in its ability to extend voice and data (high speed data even on airlines) globally.

But I'll have to see what I come up with their.

In regards to algorithm or file format I believe it is both. Unlike Netscape where HTML standards rule streaming media content must be specifically formatted and then streamed using algorithms. Thus creating a Gorilla market. But I'll try to address all these details later in my column.

Tinker


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That was a bit of a doozy;) Just wait until I dig into GSTRF this weekend. So many people say that it cannot work, will not work, no one will want it, it is screaming to me that it can't miss. The architecture itself is unique in its ability to extend voice and data (high speed data even on airlines) globally.

Let us know what you think -- it looks like a LEAPS play to me (along with QCOM) because either it works or it doesn't (this, obviously, is much less applicable with QCOM).

On another note, a friend was advised by AG Edwards that there may be something behind the NOK/QCOM rumor. The market believes it at least to some extent (look at a chart comparing the two since Thursday -- they move in opposition which is what one would expect). Anyway, I would never suggest that anybody invest based upon rumor, but if anybody out there is holding way out of the money QCOM LEAPS (as I was), you might want to think of selling just until this passes; i.e., if the rumor does turn out to be true, out of the money LEAPS might instantly become worthless depending upon how the deal is structured.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sly Ace:
"Anyway, I would never suggest that anybody invest based upon rumor, but if anybody out there is
holding way out of the money QCOM LEAPS (as I was), you might want to think of selling just until this passes; i.e., if the
rumor does turn out to be true, out of the money LEAPS might instantly become worthless depending upon how the deal is
structured."


Well, that didn't sound too good. Since I just bought a Jan 2002 leap. So, I looked it up and sure enough, from
CBOE:

When an underlying security is converted into a right to receive a fixed amount of cash, options on
that security will generally be adjusted to require the delivery upon exercise of a fixed amount of
cash, and trading in the options will ordinarily cease when the conversion becomes effective. As a result, after such an adjustment is made all options on that security that are not in the money will
become worthless and all that are in the money will have no time value. If the option is
European-style (as may be the case for a flexibly structured stock option designated as a
European-style option), the expiration date of the option will ordinarily be accelerated to fall on or shortly after the date on which the conversion of the underlying security to a right to receive cash
occurs. Holders of an in the money option whose expiration date is accelerated must be prepared to exercise that option prior to the accelerated exercise cut off time in order to prevent the option from expiring unexercised. Writers of European-style options whose expiration date is subject to being
accelerated bear the risk that, in the event of such an acceleration , they may be assigned an
exercise notice and be required to perform their obligations as writers prior to the original expiration date. When the expiration date of a European-style option is accelerated, no adjustment will be made to reflect the accelerated expiration date. There is no assurance that the exercise settlement date for an accelerated option will coincide with the date that the cash payment to the holders of the underlying security becomes available from the issuer of the underlying security. Covered writers of
an accelerated option may therefore be required to pay the cash amount in respect of the option before they receive the cash payment on the underlying security.

As a general rule, adjustments are not made for tender offers or exchange offers, whether by the
issuer or a third party, and whether for cash, securities (including issuer securities), or other property. This presents a risk for writers of put options, because a successful tender offer or
exchange offer (whether by the issuer or by a third party) may have a significant effect on the market value of the security that the put writers would be obligated to purchase if the put options are
exercised after the expiration of the offer.

As a general rule, adjustments will not be made to reflect changes in the capital structure of the
issuer where all of the underlying securities outstanding in the hands of the public (other than
dissenters' shares) are not changed into another security, cash or other property.

As a general rule, an adjustment that is made in an option will become effective on the ex-date
established by the primary market for trading in the underlying security.


So, basically, if it's an all-cash offer for less than $80 per share, I'm screwed. I can't imagine it would be for less than that, but it would have to be for atleast
$102 for me to get my money back, correct?

Anybody?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
tjbd,

Thanks for doing the work re finding the official word from the CBOE. To answer your question, yes, if you paid $22 for a QCOM Jan02 $80 LEAPS, then you lose money on any tender offer of less than $102, and you lose if all if under $80.

I found the following CBOE statement to be of interest:

As a general rule, adjustments are not made for tender offers or exchange offers, whether by the
issuer or a third party, and whether for cash, securities (including issuer securities), or other property. This presents a risk for writers of put options, because a successful tender offer or
exchange offer (whether by the issuer or by a third party) may have a significant effect on the market value of the security that the put writers would be obligated to purchase if the put options are
exercised after the expiration of the offer.


So, as far as call holders go, it does not really matter if the offer is in cash or in NOK stock; i.e., if the offer is x number of shares of NOK stock for each share of QCOM stock, a call holder would just exercise early (hence all that language about how European style options get treated) in order to be treated as a QCOM shareholder in order to receive the NOK shares. So long as the value of the NOK offer is worth more than the strike price, call holders would be better of exercising.


I ended up selling my LEAPS and buying deep in the money July calls, my thinking being that if the rumor is true, I benefit via the calls and if it is false, the calls still have value as a result of being deep in the money; I then sell the calls and buy back the LEAPS. Most of my QCOM is in actual shares which, of course, I left alone.

Print the post Back To Top