>>I'll have to think about it, then I'll vote for the other guy.<<
:-) "The other guy" is the one I need to think about before pulling the lever for him. He's just too avid for opening wide the gates to every man, woman, child, sperm, tubercle bacillus, criminal, and terrorist in Mexico.
>>Probably interpreted as a negative . . . but knowing Jobs, not necessarily so. He doesn't like third parties spilling Apple's beans.<<
That's exactly why I think he sealed the AT&T CEO's lips. And I think it's a repeat performance. I'm almost certain it's how the script went in a previous AT&T earnings report that closely preceded that of Apple.
>>That was my initial assumption until you mentioned the AT&T iPhone numbers (which turned out not to happen, but ptobably had an effect anyway).<<
Maybe it was cumulative . . . profit-taking before the fast runup could fall back to earth, analyst downgrades, oil soaring higher, yesterday afternoon's disappointing ERs.
About AT&T's iPhone numbers, Erick Schonfeld linked AAPL's slump with them. There's too much to quote sans guilt trip, so I'll include just the most pertinent:
Investors were hoping for some indication that AT&T blew the doors off its iPhone sales, and some assurance that Apple would hit its goal of selling 10 million iPhones by the end of the year. Anything over one million new iPhone subscribers would have been well received. It doesn’t look like Apple delivered anywhere near that number, since AT&T added 1.3 million net new subscribers across all phones. (It added 5 million gross new subscribers before accounting for churn).
The rest is short but informative and includes AT&T's ARPU and a quote from SAI referencing something said at the CC.
Whatever AT&T's iPhone numbers, they don't include Europe's and the black market's.
My apologies to Citigroup, yesterday they UPgraded AAPL. And Lehman last night started AAPL at Overweight with a $195 target.
Oh, maybe this was the straw that broke the camel's back? I should've gone to AppleInsider first. Shaw Wu has _consistently_ been in Apple's corner, so his remarks probably shook investors. But note his outlook is NEAR term, and this might be his first AAPL downgrade in _years_:
Investment firm American Technology Research on Tuesday cut its long-standing Buy rating on shares of Apple Inc. to Neutral, citing near-term concerns with the stock's valuation, high expectations on the part of investors, and a potential product vacuum ahead of the third calendar quarter.
More Wu quotes and details in the article, including his not seeing until July the 3G shipping in volume. His comments indicate he's concerned about investors' myopia but definitely not concerned about Apple's future.
I've always appreciated the American Tech analyst who covers Akamai. Maybe this is one firm that values integrity? I don't want to tempt fate by saying this, but I don't dare sell ahead of Apple's ER. Jobs pulls rabbits out of hats, and no one knows the iPhone numbers outside of AT&T. And how will Apple _guide_ now that it's on the cusp of opening up the 3G iPhone market?
>>If indeed the impending merger was the cause of its fall, but I suspect it was just profit taking ($450 to $600 in a little over a week will do that).<<
Whistle! Up 33.33%! I didn't realize GOOG's gain was that great. You just made me realize AOL didn't send its usual market summary on Saturday. I don't know what the other stocks did percentagewise, but I do know my (rebalanced) portfolio is looking better now than it did before the crash. I hope that's not as bad an omen as the last time it had gained substantially.
>>I don't expect any gain, I think there will probably be more profit taking.<<
Maybe over a couple days' time, but not premarket this morning. In Europe, GOOG is up in one market and down in another, both moves only fractional. But here, as of 7:54, it's up 3.73% to $603. Of course that could be short-lived. Almost all the stocks we follow are down in Europe.
CNBC has a report from Yahoo's perspective. A "source close to Yahoo" claims Microsoft lied regarding its reason for rescinding its bid. It's an interesting article. Maybe Jim Goldman has already 'talked' it on CNBC?
Even more interesting regarding Google/GOOG is this opinion by Dana Gardner:
An emboldened and stronger Google, resulting from a hobbled Yahoo and a runner-up Microsoft, means that more partners and applications will emerge around the Google ecology. We'll see more deals with Google from Salesforce.com (CRM), IBM (IBM), Apple (AAPL), mobile handset providers, mobile Internet device makers, and probably the major media companies (lacking a choice). This just makes Google stronger, more diversified, able to spend $1 billion per quarter on capital investments, able to woo the best engineers, and a darling of online start-ups and entrepreneurial developers and content creators. This means Google is not only a channel for enterprises to reach consumers, it increasingly becomes the provider or channel for more and more business services to more types of businesses in more global locations.
I wonder if YHOO's current price is a buying op. It's down 21% to $22.65. Do you think it's a kneejerk reaction?
>>Yes, I thought it would hold at $35 but it pretty much held at $34. I don't think it will take off, but subject to market fluctuations, make steady progress toward $40 this quarter.<<
Only one week before Akamai's ER, when AKAM was being bid up by speculators, it closed at $34.08, and the day before it closed at $32.71. You can see that was pre-ER goldrushing. Friday's close at $34.95 was higher than Thursday's at $34.37. It's looking good! And exactly like it's steadily progressing toward $40. I was just looking at it in the stairstep chart. When you step back and look at the 5-year version, AKAM's struggle looks like just a couple of broken steps.
GOOG's already losing altitude. Now (15 minutes ago) it's back a bit below $600.
Picking up where I left off when I maxed out Yahoo's character limit. :-)
>>Doesn't look like it [might join the risers]. I'd guess profit taking. Up $150 in a week and one half is pretty damn steep.<<
Yes, it is. Some profit taking should probably have been expected. Even with that, my streamer's live chart (now in suspended animation) indicates that, although GOOG lost almost 2% Friday, even diving for about five minutes near the close, from around $584 to $579.30, GOOG's last few trades were at the asking price, not at the bid, and that price ratcheted up to settle at $581.29.
Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I've been wondering if the looming Microsoft-Yahoo-merger decision also might have affected GOOG's action that day. It seems like it must have because YHOO gained 6.94% while MSFT lost 0.54%. According to Eric Savitz at 3:04 PM, word was going around that the Microsoft-Yahoo talks had intensified. The WSJ had already put the word out. And in the late morning, Henry Blodget was citing the WSJ as having stated Microsoft had raised its bid "by several dollars." Given the impact that merger would have made on Google, at least on traders' perception of the impact, would you want to bet your GOOG stock that those reports were not impacting its price?
But now the story has a fairy tale ending. So maybe GOOG will pop on Monday? Some analysts think Microsoft's move is a ploy to try to get Yahoo's shareholders over to Microsoft's side, but if you google for "Microsoft Corp. said it abandoned its offer for Yahoo" you'll find a WSJ article ("Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Offer After Sweetened Bid Is Rejected") citing a person close to Microsoft who, speaking as "we," does "not at all" view Microsoft's withdrawal as a negotiating tactic:
. . . one person familiar with Microsoft's thinking said it decided not to go hostile because "it was becoming clearer and clearer to us that it was not becoming a good environment for us to come together even if we could agree on price." This person cited enhanced employee-severance benefits Yahoo instituted in February in case of a change of control and Yahoo's pursuit of a pact to carry search advertising from Google Inc., which Microsoft believes carries regulatory and legal issues.
The WSJ article also cites a person "familiar with the matter" who says that Yahoo will push further in the coming days "to reach the deal to carry search advertising from Google." Some analysts expect Yahoo's cash flow to benefit "significantly" from the deal. What do you project (not a dollar figure, but a broad gauge) will be Google's gain from it?
Did you notice that after its mostly tethered day AKAM climbed almost without pause from around 2:10 till the close (and all that while hovering just under its upper Bollinger band)? It looks like you were right about AKAM continuing on up after the goldrush traders finished selling off their shares. This is some contrast!
PE, I'm making this a new thread, for the usual reason plus Yahoo's current unreliability. I'm replying to your post 184263 (Re: (OT) A few stocks (2) (b) (ii)) at
>>But when my post wouldn't fly, I went on to reply to another post on another topic and it did fly. That makes me doubt it's time related, i.e. Yahoo isn't working for a while because of some hack.<<
That's true. And other times, chopping up the URLs seemed to do the trick for me, which made me think Yahoo was being territorial again. But now that that theory is negated, too, I'm wondering if I just struck it lucky.
Also, if your post that flew was the one Yahoo deleted Thursday afternoon after you posted it, that post, too, fell victim to something Yahooey. That post (the one replying to mine about Akamai's CC, in your "Pretty much in line" thread) must have been deleted quickly, because I looked for your replies and neither appeared, so I assumed you'd left early.
In fact, even now, there's a post missing between your post at 10:27 this morning (the one to which I'm replying now) and one by alienbones at 12:08. Did you try to reply to my post of this morning in that same "Pretty much in line" thread? If so, it, too, got deleted.
If your deletion(s) was/were like mine, they happen instantaneously. After I click the 'Post Message' button, the blue eventually goes all the way across the address bar, my 'Preview' version disappears, and I THINK my post posted. But it does not appear in the thread list to which Yahoo returns us after we reply, and when I open up the message board page again, it is not in the page's list of forty posts.
That happened several times the first time this problem occurred. Between posted posts on the message board page, there were several missing numbers (detectable when mousing over the post titles). All I can suggest is that you keep a copy of whatever you post until you see your post actually appear in the list. Unless Yahoo sells insurance policies on endangered posts.
>>. . . there's no way of knowing whether this attack . . . (script injection into SQL databases) has anything to do with it. It could just as well be a Yahoo problem. Apparently the nature of Java and ActiveX are what allow the attacks, . . . it's Microsoft's fault. <<
In my classic Explorer browser, I can deselect ActiveX. I've left it deselected for as long as I can remember because years ago I read warnings about it. I rarely use that browser any more because Safari and Firefox added together do almost everything I want them to do. But in those two browsers I haven't found an option to turn ActiveX on or off. Are we forced to have ActiveX active? Or is it not a component of Safari and/or Firefox?
>>We don't know how Yahoo manages its databases or what's in them, so what is happening to them will just be a guess. I can't think of why any of this would affect posting (in my case Yahoo just refused to post my post). <<
And deleted your following post. And it can get scarier. Yahoo deleted most of captiva_sun2000's posts. Maybe somebody went whining to Yahoo about him. If not, some huge chunks of Yahoo's databases have gone to Yahoo's nether regions, if those still exist.
>>If your post posted but didn't show up in the database, one can imagine that could be due to the SQL thingy (got to find the appropriate word to call it . . . virus, Trojan Horse, worm, rogue script, combo?)<<
In his article about the attacks, David Utter called it a Trojan. Rogue script sounds apt, too.
>>I didn't quote anything except a little bit of your post wondering if the articles hadn't indicated stuff on your own computer got hckd (I think just the sites need to be hckd). It was all my own words (or yours) so I can only assume the content was the problem.<<
Since the problem has been so erratic, I have a hard time believing that the content is the problem. Remember when I couldn't post the other night and then, the next day, the very same post, with URLs intact and not chopped, flew without a single hitch? That makes me more inclined to think Yahoo has been having a sporadic problem.
Could the SQL injections that attacked Yahoo's banner ads also have attacked its programming code? At least one article I read said something about the hack getting into (every line of?) the database.
In case the 'n i h a o r r' (sans spaces) is keeping this from posting, I'll substitute a string of seven x's in instances of that domain name below.
The Register's article said that the group responsible was using the 'xxxxxxx1.com' domain name. When I just now googled for 'xxxxxxx1', Google brought up 93,600 results. One person wrote: "The script -www.xxxxxxx1.com/1.js is getting inserted into every record of my organizations SQL db." (I'm guessing 'db' stands for 'database'.)
This blue link itself says:
CTBTO: 30th Session of Advisor<script src=http://www.xxxxxxx1.com ...
This site may harm your computer.
When I added 'database' to my search for 'xxxxxxx1', Google found 782 instances, and the very top one said "Presumably, that script www.xxxxxxx1.com/1.js is getting inserted into some kind of a character field in the data base, right?"
Remember my search for just 'xxxxxxx1' brought up 93,600 results? Google must've omitted some (maybe doublets?) because a couple references in this, the second search (likely in the first search, too), say: "This Yahoo search returned 173000 results for the term "xxxxxxx1," which is part of the address."
Here's a site in which someone replies to "Anyone know about www.xxxxxxx1.com/1.js? " And the reply includes:
Now, last night we were hit by the xxxxxxx1 attack. Last nights was a little more sophisticated. It inserted script logic into various fields in the database. We ran sql queries to clean it out since no data was removed.
It appears to be a SQL Injector. But, we have not found the exact fix for our asp scripts to stop it. . . . Interesting part is that it came from a local connection. This appears to be a virus that hijacks a computer to do it's dirty work, since the source is not from China.
I remember reading elsewhere about 'asp' and/or 'aspx' scripts. That letter group is not in Yahoo's post URLs or in the message board's address bar.
Boiling down my musings, is it possible that the hack is in whatever programming code Yahoo uses for our posting, and, if so, could it have _random_ effects? Could certain text or URLs activate a rejection in one time span and not in another?
. . . . . . . . . . . .
This afternoon when I tried to post this, I thought it had posted okay, then found it never appeared in the post list. That's what happened the very first time, too, when I thought the problem was my quoting too much of a Dow Jones article. If you mouse over my last post to you and the preceding posts while looking at the progress bar, you'll see the post number of my attempt, but no post.
Now you'll see a second post-less number. This is my second attempt tonight.
>>So you do. Tried Google . . . the pictures are linked to some digital camera test. Weird.<<
That's weird indeed. Because in the 'old days', the huge majority of pictures that posters chose for their profiles were Yahoo's 'yimg' pictures. In fact, did your photo of the scraggly, one-eye-closed grey cat come from Yahoo's yimg collection? If so, I'll bet it's still out there. I just tried to find it, but will venture beyond p. 4 later.
Google's finding only Yahoo pictures linked to a digital camera test confirms that Google deselects Yahoo items in its searches. Obviously not all Yahoo items, but maybe those that would draw surfers from Google to Yahoo?
>>It happened to me. I was discussing my theory of how the virus/Trojan Horse/whatever we've been discussing works . . . I'm wondering if there's some censoring going on.<<
Replying to my post of yesterday afternoon re that topic? Censoring is the first thing I thought of the first time it happened to me. I had quoted from a Dow Jones article and my post just would not post. After I shortened my quote, it still wouldn't post. Finally, after I chopped up the URL, it posted. And since then, there have been similar repeats. But the puzzler is that it's not _consistent_. I can cite a DJ article or about 99 percent of the time quote something from The Fly on the Wall and my post will sail through. But the other night, my post could not get past the censor, if that's what's doing it, no matter what I tried, and then the next day the very same post with the very same quotes and URLs sailed without my even splitting one URL. Can you figure anything out from these irregularities? If it were censoring, wouldn't it be consistent?
Please do try your explanation again, if you don't mind all that typing a second time. Use bstdk's infms shrthnd if u nd to. I'm a lngst. LOL
>>I remember seeing that but the symptoms are totally different. Lucianne's virus screwed up the text on the pages. Must be a multi-talented virus.<<
Yes, I remember we were supposed to omit apostrophes in our comments. Well, if that virus is multi-talented, could it possibly be the root of our inconsistently thwarted attempts to post?
>>[GOOG] Backed off hard.<<
You know why, don't you? The economic news was good today, fewer job losses reported. Since the market has been rising on bad economic news, of course many stocks would tank today. Seriously, I don't know why GOOG reversed. Some of the red stocks seem to be coming back now; maybe GOOG will join the party? At second look, I think it's trying! Other recent Fridays have had good closes. Cross your fingers . . .
>>Hmmm. I haven't seen anything like that, of course I don't pay much attention to feminine deodorant ads.<<
LOL Now that I think of it, I actually notice very few ads. Having plugins turned off (in Safari, can't in Firefox?) helps immensely. But I think the bigger reason is that they are so ubiquitous. If you're stung by a hive full of bees, can you possibly notice one sting in particular?
I don't know how I missed this post yesterday, you posted it well before ER, but I did.
>>That makes sense, but there's nothing at yimg.com (or l.yimg, or d.yimg)<<
That's strange! Stranger yet, a site called 'Alexa' says yimg.com has a traffic rank of 361, loads fast, 25 other sites link to it, and it's been online since May 1997. It even gives company info, which includes Yahoo's street address and phone number. Also, a site called 'StumbleUpon' ("the best way to discover great web sites, videos, photos, blogs and more") reviews D.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/200... as a site to discover.
It's now a day later and after some more searching and experimenting I've found _content_ at yimg.com. When you search for 'yimg' in Google's or Yahoo's Images search (not news or Web), then you'll get about 174 yimg images via Google or 26,446 images via Yahoo. Does Google not restrict searches in accordance with its own interests?!
>>It's faster. You don't have to authorize everything to get a page (evidently not everything is crucial to the presentation) and leaving out stuff speeds it up.<<
That's very good. And No-Script does allow things like the forward and back buttons to appear?
>>I really doubt that, it only tries to steal passwords and IDs, not mess with page presentation . . . or do you mean some other hack like the one that screwed up Lucianne.<<
No, and I don't know why Yahoo only randomly prevents me from posting. Usually when I split the URL(s), that does the trick. But that night, neither splitting the URLs nor shortening my quotes of those pages would budge Yahoo. It acted like it used to if one posted several posts too quickly in succession. The blue in the address bar never budged beyond an inch.
About Lucianne, I thought the person battling the problem there concluded the hack was this current one. I don't remember whether he mentioned SQL-injection, but he did think it was this current hack.
It looks like GOOG is going to reach $600 today. And TI says its next resistance is $609.99!
Oh, almost forgot, I also found another article about Yahoo's banner ads. I think this has a bit more detail than the other one.
>>No, and why would it have to [infect more than banner ads] if its purpose is to gather info about your interaction with that site?<<
I thought the info it wanted to gather was in our computers. They're looking for passwords to gaming sites, billing info, and such. I'm finding some of the articles again. The hackers try to "drop a gaming trojan onto a victim's system" (David Utter, SecurityProNews). Couldn't the hackers find their way into more people's computers if they infected buttons, like the ones that say 'print', 'email', 'next', 'submit', etc. on sites? Or can't those buttons be infected? too sparse code comprising them?
This article sounds like more than banner ads are infected, but I'm not sure as not all the jargon is familiar to me.
Many of the Web sites unknowingly carried malicious advertisements in their banner ads. Others are hacked using Web site vulnerabilities, PHP issues, SQL injection, and so on.
>>Extensions in the Add-Ons window under the Tools menu, but I don't think that has anything to do with ads. No-Script lets you turn off a lot of the ads, especially the ones with video.<<
I'm looking there, but it contains only 'DOM Inspector' and 'Talkback', nothing for turning off plugins. Firefox likes you best!
>>Judging by when the 3G is to replace the 2G, about a year.<<
Only one year in the 3G iPhone's lifecycle? That means Apple expects to sell 12–12.5 million of the 3Gs in the six months following its release! Why even think about Apple's old 10-million-in-2008 expectation?
My gosh, did you see how close GOOG is to $600?! And I just noticed AAPL cracked $180 and closed there and it's AAPL's high of the day. Besides that, it opened on a gap up. Was there some news? And ETFC closed only one penny short of its HOD, up 5.28%! All this happened about seven minutes before I noticed. An emailed alert that the NASDAQ had rocketed 2.8% clued me in. LOL Why couldn't AKAM have gained, too, on this green Naz day?
This morning I checked the max pain numbers, as I hadn't since the last witching Friday. Are you ready for this? On 10 April, GOOG's max pain was $460. Today it's $510. Most of the max pains are up. Is that a good indication that the market has seen its bottom?
>>No, it's been down all day, I don't think it will stay down, or will at least close with a much smaller loss for the day.<<
It's almost eerie. The average of AKAM's high and low of the day is $34.38. AKAM closed at $34.37.
>>I suppose it varies depending on the virus. I'm not sure this one actually resides on your computer. It might only infect the sites you visit and launch the attack from there (which No-Script would then block), unless of course you save the pages from an infected site.<<
I remember reading that the hack originally resides on sites located on Microsoft servers and there can infect a site's banner ads, but I don't remember whether it infects anything other than banner ads. Did you read anywhere that it infects more than banner ads?
Is it impossible to turn off plugins in Firefox? I hate those flashing ads. Firefox lets one turn off the graphics altogether, but that also makes the buttons, such as Yahoo's little forward and backward angle brackets, disappear. Nowhere have I been able to find a way to turn off plugins while retaining non-flashing graphics. Have you found such an option in Firefox?
>>iPhone, the Italian version is supposed to be unblocked so Canadians could use it with regular cellular service (maybe that won't work for 3G . . . don't know).<<
Oh, so Canadians will be able to avoid paying the Jolly Rogers' fee? That would be good! It would force him to lower his exhorbitant prices.
>>If you look at the article over on the Yahoo AAPL page it will tell you how unspectacular that is.<<
The spectacular I'm hoping for is US + European + Asian + Canadian sales totaling way more than the old expected number of 10 million iPhones. When Eric Savitz reported Hon Hai would be assembling them, he said that "Apple expects to ship a total of 24-25 million units throughout the lifecycle of the new model, and that “shipments of the 3G iPhone are expected to top three million units in June."
The big question is, how long is an iPhone model's lifecycle? If you know the answer to that (some of Eric's readers take a stab at it, but I don't know if any are correct), maybe you can guess how many will be sold in 2008?
Do you remember the title of the article on Yahoo's AAPL page? I can't find one about the iPhone in Canada. I did find a Fortune article that says AT&T is going to be subsidizing the iPhone, cutting $200 off its price for those who sign up for two years. The author (the infamous Scott Moritz formerly of TheStreet.com) says his source confirms the iPhone will have "a GPS chip for navigation and other location-based services."
Can you imagine how many iPhones its GPS feature alone could sell? Might Exxon's $10.9 billion profit on sales of $117 billion give a clue?
I haven't turned on my streamer yet, but see AKAM's short term trading numbers are green at Trade Ideas.
>>Pretty well crashed into the close. Everything went red except GOOG and AKAM.<<
And now AKAM is losing altitude, though the real tell won't be till ER. It might even be coming back up already.
GOOG closed up 2.83%! I wonder what's impelling it!
I'll wait and reply to the rest of your post after the ER dust settles, because somewhere along the line this thread could get lost.
AKAM's a mix right now. Are you seeing AH quotes in the $34.40s alternating with $34.80s? Uh oh, now $34.00 even, in the $33s . . .
SAI will have earnings call live here:
AKAM's back in the $34s now . . .