Reigning in the banks

By P. GUNASEGARAM

There is little question that banks need to be reigned in and watched closely – it’s a question of how much

THE international banking community, after having brought the world to the brink of disaster and having wreaked havoc on the economies of the world, is now griping, really griping.

The gripes stem from efforts being made around the world to regulate bank activities, particularly by US President Barack Obama who announced a number of key measures to help ensure that there is no repeat of the crisis that threatened to crash the world.

This, extracted from Obama’s speech last week on the financial reforms, outlines succinctly the changes: “For while the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it’s still operating under the same rules that led to its near collapse. These are rules that allowed firms to act contrary to the interests of customers; to conceal their exposure to debt through complex financial dealings; to benefit from taxpayer-insured deposits while making speculative investments; and to take on risks so vast that they posed threats to the entire system.

“That’s why we are seeking reforms to protect consumers; we intend to close loopholes that allowed big financial firms to trade risky financial products like credit default swaps and other derivatives without oversight; to identify system-wide risks that could cause a meltdown; to strengthen capital and liquidity requirements to make the system more stable; and to ensure that the failure of any large firm does not take the entire economy down with it. Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is ‘too big to fail’.”

It was quite clear to anyone who watched the situation closely the reasons for the financial crisis. Banks were taking too much risks with depositors money and were not doing the business of banking properly.
Bankers were being rewarded when huge risks they took resulted in extraordinary profits for them, paying themselves millions of ringgit in bonus. There were substantial incentives to take risk. The average bonus at Goldman Sachs for instance was almost US$500,000 a year!

This high figure is because of many staff who routinely earned millions of dollars a year. Goldman’s bonuses amounted to an incredible nearly 40% of revenue – revenue, not profit. And most of its revenues came from proprietary trading – trading for its own account. Because of their huge size, banks have tonnes of deposits.

Citibank’s deposits amount to over US$800bil. If they muscle into proprietary trading – and many of them have – they can move markets by using just a small portion of their deposits. These can be in the commodities, foreign exchange, derivatives or other markets.

In fact major investor/speculator/manipulator – depending on who you talk to – George Soros said at the World Economic Forum at Davos earlier this week that Obama did not go far enough to push banking reform. His arguments ran counter to those by bankers who predictably wanted less regulation. In situations like these, common sense should prevail.

And how about this one which Obama formulated with former Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker: “It’s for these reasons that I’m proposing a simple and common-sense reform, which we’re calling the ‘Volcker Rule’ – after this tall guy behind me. Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that’s something they’re free to do. Indeed, doing so – responsibly – is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

Around the world people should stand up and fight against this attempt by banks to stop close supervision of their activities, arguing that this will crimp their profits and cut the creation of jobs. The world needs to be protected against bad banking.

We should take heart in this extract of that speech by Obama: “So if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have. And my resolve is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices at some of the very firms fighting reform; and when I see soaring profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms claiming that they can’t lend more to small business, they can’t keep credit card rates low, they can’t pay a fee to refund taxpayers for the bailout without passing on the cost to shareholders or customers – that’s the claims they’re making. It’s exactly this kind of irresponsibility that makes clear reform is necessary.” Well said Obama.

Managing editor P. Gunasegaram says there is no harm done and every benefit derived, from requiring banks to be prudent. After all, are they not the custodians of our money?

A financial thriller

Too Big to Fail: Inside the battle to save Wall Street
Author: Andrew Ross Sorkin
Publisher: Allen Lane

IN the 2008 recession, millions of Americans lost their homes and jobs. While banks developed a sudden aversion to lending, businesses suffered as a result of tight financing. Negative sentiments shrouded the financial markets, confidence evaporated, and stock prices nose dived at unprecedented rates.

Soon, what began as an American credit crisis became global, affecting businesses around the globe and causing millions to lose their jobs. But this is not the way things are supposed to be; at least not what modern economics wants them to be.

Notwithstanding the cyclical nature of business, modern economics and its faith in free markets and globalisation have promised growth and prosperity. Furthermore, in the modern economy, financial innovations ranging from conventional options and futures to the more exotic mortgage-backed securities are supposed to hedge away risks, enabling predictability and safeguarding value of investments.

Or, at least that was what we were told, what Alan Greenspan believed, and what his optimism led us into believing. But theory crashed with reality in 2007. Not only were financial derivatives one of the causes of the crash, markets were not as efficient as it was said to be because prices of assets did not reflect the looming danger behind subprime mortgages.

More importantly, globalisation made the world so interconnected that a plague in the American financial system quickly became a contagion, wiping out jobs, wealth and savings and sending millions of people from less developed countries into poverty.

For those affected by the crisis and wish to gain insights into the circle of culprits and the events that unfolded behind closed doors months prior to the melt down, Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big to Fail enlightens as much as it piques.

It is a narrative masterpiece that reads like a novel. From one emergency to another, it takes us to stories, rumours, events, meetings and conversations between regulators and a cadre of investment brokers and bankers guilty of mismanaging their institutions.

Together they scrambled to rescue beleaguered, cash-strapped financial institutions in attempts to avoid a financial tsunami that was fast unravelling in early 2008 and which peaked in September 2008 with Lehman Brothers’s bankruptcy.

Though it spans over 550 pages, the book is highly readable as it focuses on people and their emotions, rather than on the technicalities related to the crisis. One may think of Warren Buffett as callous only to find him gentle and mild when approached as a potential saviour for the troubled Lehman Brothers.

The Wall Street crowd, however, is a different story. A glimpse into this small circle of elite who sit atop of the world of finance reveals that greed was not the only driving force behind the meltdown. These people, CEOs of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan, Bear Sterns and Merrill Lynch, in their own endeavour to outshine each other, had driven their firms into engaging in increasingly riskier transactions.

In the end, it was jealousy, ego, greed and their relentless pursuits of short term profit that ruined them as well as their century-old financial institutions, once the epitome of high finance.

However, Sorkin did not so much criticise these CEOs as mock them. If they are, in real life, boastful and vainglorious as any billionaire would be, then their dialogues documented in this book made them look more like a bunch of rollicking teenagers railing about the enormity of a problem presented in front of them.

Much to my surprise, however, the job of rescuing the financial sector was saddled on the shoulders of a few, namely Hank Paulson, former Treasury Secretary under the Bush Administration, Tim Geithner, who succeeded Paulson as Treasury Secretary, and Ben Bernanke, the present Chairman of Federal Reserve.
While each of them was impressive in their own way as pragmatic regulators who displayed their feat of strength and leadership in the face of adversity, their former president, George W. Bush, may struck one as senile. On one occasion when Paulson and Bernanke explained to him the negative impact a failed AIG would have on savings and retirement of millions of Americans, the former president asked innocently: “AIG does all that?”

For all its exhaustive reporting, Too Big to Fail is a wonderful human drama but some may find it offers insufficient analysis as to why the crisis happened, what it means, how and where we go from here, and what next.

Furthermore, Sorkin, in his haste to go from one bad firm to another, often explains the financial concepts at play in just a few words. Hence, anybody interested in understanding mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps and how they were responsible for the collapse will not find much help in this book.

That said, any criticism that the book has failed as an analytic source undermines Sorkin’s objective. As a financial reporter for New York Times and a columnist for Vanity Fair, Sorkin is there for the story, not the analysis. And the story, were it not all so frighteningly true, would have made a wondrous financial thriller.

1) Apple's tablet iPad faces opportunities, obstacles, 2) Analysts say iPad is bit too pricey, 3) Reverse Psychology: Chinese Knock-Off Firm to Sue Apple Over iPad

1) Apple's tablet iPad faces opportunities, obstacles

All eyes of the tech world were on Apple Wednesday as its CEO Steve Jobs showered his team's "latest creation" a tablet computer "iPad" in front of the palpitating industry, media and Apple fans.


Enjoying the new trendy device, many are also asking questions like: will iPad lead and set pace in the consumer electronics as iPod and iPhone did, and how far could it repackage the traditional media and become a benchmark of the industry.


Tablet computer is not a new idea. Companies including Apple, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard have attempted to enter the market before with limited success due to technical bugs, bulky sizes and high prices.


The top challenge for Apple appears to be whether it could forge a new ground of consumer needs and wants, and fit it into people's daily life.


"iPad creates and defines an entirely new category of devices that will connect users with their apps and content in a much more intimate, intuitive and fun way than ever before," Jobs said.


How could Apple persuade consumers to purchase a hybrid device crossing between a laptop and a smartphone as they already have both? Jobs said the iPad is "so much more intimate than a laptop and so much more capable than a smartphone."


Jobs and his team hope to create an ultimate multimedia experience with iPad through browsing the web, reading and sending email, enjoying photos, watching videos, listening to music, playing games, reading e-books and much more.


A newspaper reading program from The New York Times and the new iBooks store appears to be one of the main selling points of iPad.


Last week, The New York Times announced that it planned to demand payment for access to its website, which has been linked to the new Apple tablet by analysts.


It was announced at the Wednesday event that consumers could purchase e-books from large publishers in the iBooks store including Penguin, HaperCollins, Simon&Schuster, Macmillan and Hachette Book Group.


Apple is reported to have been amassing digital reading material for iPad since last year. Jobs and his team have sent representatives to the Frankfurt Book Fair last October and have been in talks with News Corp, The New York Times Co., Conde Nast Publications (publisher of 18 magazines), HarperCollins Publishers and television networks including CBS and Disney, according to reports last week from the Wall Street Journal which have always had the first-hand information on the Cupertino-based firm.


Meanwhile, the publishing industry have been holding the highest expectations to the iPad, hoping the innovative device could repackage their business model and usher in a digital future with more profits.


For example, The Financial Times is looking at a system of paying for selected articles, whose publisher Pearson, also a major textbooks producer, has expressed its high expectations to Apple's tablet.


However, trials are also waiting for the new device as the market of electronic reading has been shared by many such as Amazon's Kindle, Sony's Reader and Barney and Noble's Nook. Amazon and Sony were reported to upgrade their products this year.


Analysts pointed out that a low-end e-reader priced at 200 dollars could do a great job in e-reading and Apple needs to create a special reading experience to beat these inevitable rivals.


"Amazon has done a great job of pioneering this functionality with the Kindle," Jobs said. "We are going to stand on their shoulders."


PRICE TAG


Starting at 499 dollars, the price tag of iPad looks not to become a problem and polls showed that iPad has got a ready and waiting base before it is shipped to stores in March.


According to a survey on more than 3,300 U.S. consumers conducted by ChangeWave Research earlier this month, 4 percent of the people polled said they were "very likely" to buy an Apple tablet when it is available, while another 14 percent said they were "somewhat likely" to purchase the device.


Meanwhile, some 37 percent of consumers interested in the product said they would like to spend over 700 dollars, and 75 percent of those said they would pay 500 dollars or more.


There are six models with the basic starting at 499 dollars and the most expensive at 829 dollars. An estimated sale of 5 million units in the first year has been seen in several projections.


OTHER OBSTACLES


Although iPad is widely expected to shake up the industry, some analysts said some factors could make the device become an epic failure.


The virtual keyboard could be inconvenient to use as consumers have been complaining about the keyboard of iPhone.


Apple gave the solution to this by creating an almost full-size soft keyboard and iPad can also connects to a keyboard dock with a full-size traditional keyboard. However, people have just seen what it looks like and then consumers have to play with it and then pass judgments. For another, if TV networks and media outlets are not willing (or too willing, resulting in high prices) to partner with Apple, the content could be a stunting factor for the success of iPad. According to reports from the Wall Street Journal, the company has faced resistance from television companies and cable-network providers over its plan to license just their best content rather than all of it.


Besides, costs of 3G connectivity and the price of data could be another problem. It is unknown whether consumers are willing to pay for an additional tablet data plan besides their iPhone bills.


So far, two data plans from AT&T in the U.S. were also announced with 14.99 dollars per month for 250 megabytes of data and 29.99 dollars for unlimited data usage.

Source:Xinhua

2) Analysts say iPad is bit too pricey

Apple Inc's iPad tablet may take a year to turn into a "breakout" product with mass-market appeal as consumers wait for the price to drop below $499 and for more publishers to get on board, Piper Jaffray & Co said.


"It needs to be $300 to $400," said Gene Munster, an analyst with Piper Jaffray in Minneapolis. "It's an amazing device, but investors should have measured enthusiasm about how long it takes for something like this to gain traction."


Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs introduced the iPad, pitching it as a "magical" new category of mobile devices between Apple's MacBook laptop and the iPhone. The iPad, with a 25-cm color touch screen, lets users play music, videos and games, check e-mail and surf the Web.


Apple will start selling three models in the US in March, priced between $499 and $699, that let users connect to the Internet over Wi-Fi networks. Three models that work with AT&T Inc's 3G wireless-phone network will go on sale in April for $629 to $829, with an additional $14.99 or $29.99 a month for a service plan.


Jobs also said the gadget will include software called iBooks for displaying electronic books, setting up a challenge to dedicated e-book readers from Sony Corp and Amazon.com Inc, which offers its Kindle starting at $259.


Munster said he expects Apple will sell 3 million to 4 million iPads in the first year. It may sell as many 8 million in 2011, which would add $4.6 billion to revenue, almost equivalent to Apple's current iPod business. Some of those gains will likely come at the expense of Apple's current 3.5-inch iPod Touch player.


Munster has recommended buying Apple stock since 2004, according to Bloomberg data. The shares have soared more than 12-fold in that period.


Goldman Sachs Group Inc's David Bailey predicts sales of as many as 6 million iPads this year, adding $3.9 billion in revenue and 99 cents a share in profit.


"Apple's announcement highlights what we think is the company's multi-year lead in mobile devices," Bailey said. "That said, we expect the near-term impact on the stock to be muted as investor sentiment had been bullish ahead of the event."


Apple already has signed agreements with five publishers, including Pearson Plc's Penguin and News Corp's HarperCollins, and intends to form alliances with others that will be able to sell their titles through the company's new iBookstore, Jobs said. Pricing for iBook titles hasn't yet been disclosed.


Source: China Daily  

3) Reverse Psychology: Chinese Knock-Off Firm to Sue Apple Over iPad

BY Kit EatonToday

You'll need to put your best thinking cap on before tackling this one: That Chinese firm responsible for the iPhone-clone-esque tablet PC, that predated the iPad by several months, is crazy angry at Apple for copying them. And may sue.

Read that again. Get it? Okay, I'll try again: A company unashamedly rips-off Apple's iPhone design and look-and-feel and bolts it into a Windows tablet PC that's technically not too dissimilar from other similar tablet PCs. Apple then releases the iPad--a device that's been in the making, on and off, for over 20 years, and which builds on Apple's already wildly successful device designs (mostly the iPhone). The Chinese firm accuses Apple of copying it's design, and threatens to sue if Apple tries to sell iPads in China.

The news has surfaced over at Shanghaiist again, where they even have a quote from apparently incensed president of the Shenzen Great Long Brother Industrial company, Wu Xiaolong: "I was very angry and flabbergasted when I saw the news of the iPad presentation two days ago... It is certainly our design. They've stolen because we present our P88 to everyone six months ago at the IFA [in Berlin]."

Erm, Wu? It's not your design, mate. Your P88 looks just like a bloody big iPhone, running XP, and with an absolutely dreadful battery life. You may well have patented it in China (or at least you've begun that lengthy process) but I suspect Apple's patents are teeny bit more reliable on this front. And thank goodness you're admitting you "must follow the law," but I have to say that if you do go ahead and "sue them this Spring" if Apple sells iPads in China, then you're going to look like a right twit. If you'd come up with a totally original, compelling and consumer-exciting tablet all of your own design, then you'd probably not have anything to be so angry about. And we wouldn't have this intractable Gordian Knot of a who-designed-what-first patent problem to think about on a lazy Friday afternoon.

[Via Shanghaiist]

1. Gaming injuries up, tree-climbing injuries down; 2. Son allegedly stabs dad over PlayStation tactics

1. Gaming injuries up, tree-climbing injuries down

by Chris Matyszczyk

It seems that the best way to keep your kids from getting hurt is to get them out of the house.

According to figures from the U.K. government, obtained by the Sun under the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act, the number of kids under 15 injured while climbing trees, skateboarding, and the like has fallen.

Does this mean that children have become more athletic or less accident-prone? Does it mean they have perfected their tree-climbing and skateboarding skills?

Please be careful with those thumbs, kids, or you'll have nothing with which to pick your nose.

 

No, it seems that they are simply staying indoors more, glued to their screens like rubberneckers to an overturned truck. You see, the same figures revealed that injuries from playing video games have gone up 60 percent since 2002.

Severely pained thumbs appear to be the main cause of kids' visits to emergency rooms in the United Kingdom. And one can only wonder if the U.K. hospital system has developed special methods for massaging thumbs so that they can retake their rightful place in the World of Warcraft.

Perhaps soon special video game physiotherapy clinics will open, with doctors in frightening headgear making kids feel at home, even when they are away from their own frightening games.
I think that it could be big business. Soon, perhaps, your health insurance might have special coverage for acts of Warcraft, just as it has for acts of God.

Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.

2. Son allegedly stabs dad over PlayStation tactics

Despite the fact that the country does occasionally win the World Cup, however, the Italian brand of soccer is more venal than Ben Kingsley in "Sexy Beast."

The teams intimidate, they're negative, they will stoop to violence, and they're infinitely less interesting to watch than Joaquin Phoenix on the "Late Show with David Letterman."
I mention this because I understand that the Italian love of soccer, even virtual soccer, has led to a domestic dispute of stunningly negative proportions.

FIFA 2009: The game that led to the father-son melee.

According to Reuters, a 16-year-old boy identified as Mario R was merrily engrossed in a game of FIFA 2009 on his PlayStation when his dad decided to offer a little advice.

The story doesn't recount whether Dad suggested the son play another two men across the back (a very Italian suggestion) or whether he merely figured that Mario's team needed to get a one goal lead and then cease to play soccer altogether--another very Italian characteristic.

Mario was not impressed with Dad's tactics. Perhaps he expressed himself forcefully. For Dad's reaction was to turn off the TV.

Mario seems to have felt this was provocation beyond the limits of filial loyalty. This was provocation not unlike Italian defender Marco Materazzi offering allegedly disgraceful slurs that caused France's Zinedine Zidane to lose his head--into Materazzi's chest--during the 2006 World Cup Final.

Mario reportedly wandered into the kitchen, grabbed a 15-inch knife, and stabbed his dad in the neck. He then supposedly wandered back into the kitchen, washed the knife, as his mom looked on, still unknowing, and put it down to dry. This was as clinical as the famous Italian defender, Claudio Gentile, who could chop your legs away and smile benignly as if he'd merely just fed you some cake.

Mom thought nothing of it, until her husband walked into the kitchen clutching his neck.
The son didn't go back to his PlayStation. He merely locked himself in his room and waited for the police to arrive.

His mom was quoted by Reuters as saying: "Mario is obsessed. He's forever playing on his PlayStation, and we bought him FIFA 2009 because we didn't want him playing violent games."
She sounds like a very wise woman. However, when it comes to soccer in Italy, wisdom can often be in very short supply.

 comments

by eg6motion January 25, 2010 12:48 PM PST

wow, you'd think they would see this kind of violence in their kid before this event.

Like this Reply to this comment

by hightechfanboy January 25, 2010 12:48 PM PST

wow. at least people around me is lucky that they dont bother me or offer me advice of how to play when am playing Fifa 10 all day. I always have a spare pocket knive with me. lol.

Like this Reply to this comment

by PvtPockets January 25, 2010 1:12 PM PST

wow. what a long article, the title says it all, no need for the narrative

Like this Reply to this comment

by StryderSilverton January 25, 2010 1:14 PM PST

I think the narrative is quite telling... I would like to hear if the Dad survived though.

Like this Reply to this comment

by airsumo January 25, 2010 3:37 PM PST

I feel bad for that family. However, these incidents will increase in frequency as long as people continue to turn a blind eye to the harmful effects of games like Cooking Mama.

Like this Reply to this comment   5 More Comments:

by mjconver January 27, 2010 2:27 PM PST

And don't forget about rickets...

Like this Reply to this comment

by sailinganfd January 27, 2010 2:47 PM PST

If i had kids I think I would be a "bad parent" with limits on screen time...

Like this Reply to this comment

by sailinganfd January 27, 2010 2:47 PM PST

If i had kids I think I would be a "bad parent" with limits on screen time...

Like this Reply to this comment

by Len Bullard January 27, 2010 3:06 PM PST

So in one article on this page, ONR says gamers make better soldiers. In this article, gamers get hurt more often sitting in a chair than climbing a tree. Something doesn't quite compute. :)

Like this Reply to this comment

by mars729 January 27, 2010 4:42 PM PST

Its kind of sad that kids hardly play outside anymore. I personally will encourage my daughter to get outside as much as possible. I don't care if the risk of injury is a bit higher, being outside is more important. As for myself, I am a counter-trend. I try to get out into nature as much as possible. I hike, bicycle, kayak, snowshoe, x-c ski and wade as ways of getting around. I am also keen on birds and dragonflies but also observe anything else such as butterflies, bugs of all kinds, herps, mammals, lichens and more.

 

From One Son To Another

From One Son To Another

January 26, 2010 - 11:21 pm

Hana AlbertsBio | Email
Hana R. Alberts is a reporter for Forbes in Hong Kong. 

Behind any successful businessman is another one.

In this case, Wen Yunsong, the son of Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, has the backing of Japan's fourth-richest man.

Softbank Corp founder and CEO Masayoshi Son is funneling money into Wen's private equity firm, New Horizon Capital, which boasts a reported $500 million under management. Son has a net worth of $5.6 billion. (See his billionaire profile and Forbes' calculations of Japan's 40 Richest.)

News yesterday out of China was that Son's Softbank and Singapore's state-run investment firm Temasek Holdings, both early investors in New Horizon Capital, are once again supporters, pouring money into its latest $1 billion fund. Their investment helps New Horizon get to $750 million, very close to its goal. It will invest  the money in companies about to go public.

Softbank, seller of the popular iPhone in Japan, also has big stakes in Yahoo! Japan,  Chinese e-commerce site Alibaba.com. Plus its venture capital spinoff China Softbank is investing in Chinese internet companies as well as Vietnamese online marketplace Peacesoft.

Tags: billionaire, masayoshi son, softbank

Steve Jobs' Frenemies

Steve Jobs' Frenemies

By Brian Caulfield, 01.26.10, 06:00 PM EST

Who is the Apple chief's biggest friend or foe? It depends what year it is.

BURLINGAME, CALIF. -- For Apple, there's always a boogeyman. First it was IBM. Then it was Microsoft. Later it became Intel. Today it's Microsoft--again. And, one day it may be Google. In the world of Apple, today's eternal foe is tomorrow's fast friend.

Apple ( AAPL - news - people ) has never been afraid to pick a fight with the big guy. The first foe? Big Blue. It's easy to forget now how powerful IBM ( IBM - news - people ) once was on the desktop. The company is still a major force in the server rooms of government agencies and businesses, but it doesn't have clout in the consumer market, which is Apple's focus. Thus, IBM's relationship with Apple has changed dramatically over the decades, from foe to friend.

After IBM, of course, there was Microsoft ( MSFT - news - people ). While Apple's elegant computers fused hardware and software, Microsoft split the two apart and prospered. Its MS-DOS became a standard, thanks to its use on IBM's PCs.

In Pictures: Steve Jobs' Frenemies:http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/26/steve-jobs-microsoft-technology-business-intelligence-apple_slide_2.html

It earned the ire of the Mac faithful, however, with Windows. The software took its cues from Apple's graphical user interface, to be sure. It's commercial success, however, was what made Microsoft truly hated.

Hence the gasps when Microsoft founder Bill Gates ultimately rode to Apple's rescue in 1997. Apple struck an alliance with Microsoft, which invested $150 million in the then struggling company and committed to releasing a new version of Microsoft Office for the Macintosh. When newly returned Apple Chief Steve Jobs unveiled the alliance to the Apple faithful at the Macworld Expo, Gates' visage hovered over the crowd on an enormous screen.

Rather than marking a capitulation, however, that moment marked Apple's rebirth. While Microsoft remains a fierce Apple rival, it's also one of Apple's most important software developers, thanks to the Office software it makes for the Mac.

Meanwhile, Apple had other targets. Semiconductor giant Intel ( INTC - news - people ) made a good choice, if only because of its size and marketing presence. Apple commercials portrayed Intel's processors as a snail and mocked Intel's bunny-suited employees with commercials portraying them--and their processors--as "toasted."

And then came another dramatic turnabout. Jobs in 2005 revealed that Apple's OS X software was leading a "secret double life" on Intel's processors as well as on IBM's PowerPC chips. Jobs, and Apple, quickly hustled over to Intel's processors, turning a foe into a close friend.

That, of course, leaves Apple's ultimate enemy: the PC. With Microsoft's investment in Apple gone, Apple is free to pick on Microsoft once more, with commercials mocking Microsoft's Vista software and urging PC users to switch to the Mac.

So how long will the war last? Probably only until Apple can find a bigger, more polarizing foe to motivate its faithful. One possible candidate: Google ( GOOG - news - people ). Apple and the search rival don't compete quite as fiercely as Apple and Microsoft--yet.

But they're getting there, with Google pushing a new operating system for netbooks and building its own smart phone software and Apple nibbling on the mobile advertising market.

Reader Comments

To be respectful -- among these awesome thinkers and wizards -- from a creative artist's perspective with my A Billion Bucks cd, GettyMovie dvds & books out there at Amazon ... I would have to say th [Read More]
Tags: macdonald bank, gettymovie, firstbank studios, macdonald studiosPosted by grantmacdonald | 01/26/10 09:22 PM EST

Hi respectful WinderSmith: That is so great to read your comment. You seem know deeply in the case that you just describe, but i wonder how do/did you know that?
Tags: CAM, TzPosted by Soksant | 01/26/10 08:59 PM EST

You make some interesting points, Mr. Caulfield, but you lost me when you wrote that "Bill Gates ultimately rode to Apple's rescue in 1997." A better description is that Jobs brokered a truce with Ga [Read More]
Posted by WindsorSmith | 01/26/10 08:14 PM EST

Two approaches to ‘Allah’ issue

Two approaches to ‘Allah’ issue

Articles in the Wall Street Journal by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim show their contrasting approaches and political styles.

DATUK Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been on the ceramah trail the past couple of weeks. The last time he was this busy was when making his comeback as Permatang Pauh MP more than a year ago.

His sodomy trial starts next Tuesday and all this political activity is a sort of pre-trial campaign to reach out to as wide an audience as he can.

The Opposition Leader’s oratory at these ceramah have assumed a certain pattern.

Apart from providing his take on the forthcoming trial, his chief target has been Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, the man who stands in the way of his political ambitions.

The PKR leader has also been at pains to explain his party’s stand on the controversial “Allah” issue and at times, has come across as rather defensive especially when the audience is Malay and rural.

An overwhelming majority of Malay-Muslims are very uncomfortable with the High Court ruling in allowing the use of the word “Allah” in The Herald and Anwar has been grappling with the Malay-Muslim sentiment on the ground.

But his stand would go down well with the Western liberals who want to see Islam in a way convenient to them.

This came across quite clearly in the Wall Street Journal which published two articles yesterday on the issue – one by Najib and the other by Anwar.

Najib’s piece was titled, “Finding Unity in Diversity” while Anwar’s carried the heading, “Muslims have no Monopoly over ‘Allah’.”

The articles were quite a contrast, not only in content but in reflecting the priorities and political styles of the two men.

The Allah issue has become very political and at the same time very personal to the religious beliefs of the various communities.

Najib chose not to take the political argument. He pointed out that citizen action and spirit had prevailed in helping to maintain calm and peace following attacks on places of worship.

There is no denying Najib has been under a great deal of pressure over this issue and he admitted there are passionate views on many sides and that this was a complex issue that the Government was trying to resolve .

He spoke about the reform path that his administration would take and said Malaysia’s society and the economy could only be built on that which unites rather than which divides.

His message was not about blame or justification but about unity, building bridges and looking forward.

As he put it: “I am determined that the vandalism of the places of worship and arson at the Tabernacle (the church that suffered the most damage) and the powerful response from everyday Malaysians can be transformed into a moment from which we can learn.”

Anwar, in his article, offered a concerted argument why Muslim do not own the word Allah.

But the politician in Anwar dominated in his article and he pinned the blame for what had happened squarely on reckless politicians, the mainstream media and NGOs linked to Umno.

He accused these quarters of fermenting fear to divert attention from controversial court decisions and missing jet engines.

It was the written form of what he had been saying at many of his ceramah, a political attack on his chief nemesis Najib and the ruling coalition.

He went beyond the Allah issue and pronounced this country as going down the drain because of corruption, incompetence and religious extremism.

He said the vision of Malaysia as a peaceful and stable location was in peril.

Anwar, some fear, is about to launch a repeat what he had done back in 1998 when he came under siege for charges of corruption and sodomy.

He blamed Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for his troubles and in his anger, he not only ran down the former Prime Minister but the system and the country on the international front.

Anwar, they say, should try to draw the line between his personal issues and his politics from that of the country’s interests.

There is no denying that race relations have been affected by what has happened. Malaysians of all races are concerned about the future.

Some are pessimistic, others more hopeful. But what everyone wants now are solutions rather than finger-pointing.

Everyone wants a peaceful and acceptable solution to the “Allah” issue and the politics of blame will not help.