1. In many tech area: networks effects and zero marginal costs creates winner(s) take all. In that sense it make sense to follow the winners as previously investors underestimated how big winner could be (e.g. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple).
2. Everywhere else: betting on underdogs that are mispriced is much better strategy in long-run. See Warren Buffet got huge returns by looking at fundamentals, but his strategy would not work well in tech.
Most famously perhaps his investment in Coca Cola in 1988. It was his single largest holding back then, and still is one of his largest today.
In some sense, for Warren Buffet a mispriced top dog is much more valuable, because he can put more capital to work.
Things that are incredibly profitable are by definition not loss leaders.
>Even with high retail price, margins are low.
Is this true? Being as how one can purchase a similarly spec'd laptop for a fraction of the cost of a MBP makes me skeptical. I'd assume they're killing it on their laptops.
Is this true? Do you have a spec sheet? My own research suggests for about the last 5 years Apple hardware has been pretty competitive.
The dell is an abhorrent disgrace in every other matter. It weights two tons, is unable to dissipate heat because surprise surprise bulky plastic is bad for that, is filled with weird bugs, has a bizarrely large spacing between keys on the keyboard, a bad screen, bad track pad, terrible battery life, etc
Apple earns more profits from the Tablet market than all the other hardware venders combined.
Apple earns more profits from the PC market than all the other hardware venders combined.
It’s still only 6% of global search vs 86% for google.
- DuckDuckGo
- Ecosia
- Qwant
- OneSearch
- Search Encrypt
- Swisscows
- etc.
> In July 2016, DuckDuckGo officially announced the extension of its partnership with Yahoo! that brought new features to all users of the search engine, including date filtering of results and additional site links. It also partners with Bing, Yandex, and Wikipedia to produce results or make use of features offered. The company also confirmed that it does not share user information with partner companies, as has always been its policy.
Doing this on DuckDuckGo: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=my+user+agent&t=hk&ia=answer , reviles http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm in the snippet for whatsmyuseragent.org .
Horse racing is a better place to make the point. Risking your bets on likely winners has a low payout overall — underdogs have a reward that batter aligns with risk.
I worked with a pretty hardcore handicapper. He would plan for certain races for weeks and look at training and other factors. Basically, he'd cover the Saratoga meet and pair favorites a longshots and come out ahead enough to stay ahead. You could tell how well he did by the toys purchased in the Fall. Good year, a truck, bad year a laptop.
Tech is still young, and we shall see. Google made around $16 billion dollars in 2014. That means an economic rationalist is willing to pay everyone on earth something in the order of $2 dollars to use their service rather than Google's.
It isn't too late to discover that the equilibrium position is we get paid to use certain search engines or social networks. That'd drive the marginal cost up.