Friday, October 12, 2012
Amazon doesn't make profit from its Kindle's.
Amazon Confirms It Sells Kindles at Cost
Posted 3 hours ago
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos confirmed that his conpany is selling its Kindle e-reader "at cost" with profits coming from the sales of online content, according to Reuters.
Bezos' remarks, in an interview with the BBC, marked the first time the company had confirmed long-held Wall Street assumptions that it did not make a profit on sales of the popular tablet.
The aggressive pricing furthers Bezos' goal of getting Kindle tablets into the hands of as many buyers of Amazon's online content -- from games and books to video -- as possible.
This technique has allowed Amazon to enter the tablet market fairly quickly and undercut most competition. The company recently announced a 8.9-inch Kindle Fire HD tablet.
Apple, on the other hand, makes much of its profit from hardware sales. The company is said to be announcing an iPad mini on October 23rd which would have a lower price tag than its big brother.
iPod Touch 5 review
When last we got a new iPod touch, the fourth-generation from 2010, it was so thin relative to other devices of that era we said it looked like "a toothpick." Its 7.2mm thinness was unparalleled -- at the time. But now, just two years later, the iPhone 5 is less than a half-millimeter thicker, and that is of course packing a lot more wizardry inside. Suddenly, that toothpick is looking a little portly, which means it's time for the touch to lose a little weight.
Enter the fifth-generation iPod touch, the 2012 model that has slimmed down to a mere 6.1mm in thickness. It's also about 10 percent lighter -- despite being grafted with a new 4-inch Retina display. Not only is it bigger and thinner, but it's far faster and has hugely improved cameras on both the front and rear. The perfect PMP package for $299? Click on through to find out.
View Gallery:iPod touch review (2012)
Hardware
The fourth-generation iPod touch had a curved chrome back that looked absolutely lovely coming out of the box. Roughly 30 seconds later that mirrored look would evaporate, replaced by a scratched-up patina that no amount of careful handling could prevent. But, its shape felt good in the hand, with its size and weight both seeming minimal compared to nearly every other device on the market -- two ingredients for a top-notch device.
The fifth generation improves on that in every regard. As mentioned above, it now measures 6.1mm thick, while its width and height clock in at 4.86 by 2.31 inches (123.4 x 58.6mm). Compared to the fourth-generation touch, which measured 111 x 58.9 x 7.2mm, the new iPod is considerably thinner, fractionally narrower and massively taller. It's also noticeably lighter, at 3.1 ounces (88 grams) compared to 3.56 ounces (101 grams) for the outgoing model. Storage capacities are now 32 or 64GB, priced at $299 and $399, respectively.
Gone is the mirrored back, replaced by a matte aluminum shell available in your choice of six anodized colors. We chose the special edition (Product) Red to evaluate and as soon as it came out of the box we were confident we made the right call. It's beautiful. The crimson hue sets up a nice contrast to the white bezel around the glass on the front, as well as the white plastic that forms the rim of the 3.5mm headphone jack, which still lives on the bottom, but has moved to the left to match the placement on the iPhone 5.
View Gallery:iPod touch (2012) vs. iPhone 5
That red color bathes a machined aluminum back that has a rather more square profile than the previous iPod touch, but it's still decidedly more comfortable in the hand than the angular, industrial iPhone. The metal enclosure (which has a soft feel similar to a MacBook) is punctuated for numerous sensors, buttons and other accoutrement, with the power/lock toggle still residing in the upper-right and the volume rocker on the left side. On the bottom, next to the headphone jack, is the new Lightning connector, which is rimmed by about a millimeter's worth of raw, uncolored aluminum. Five tiny holes are drilled on the other side of the bottom, making up a puny speaker grille.
On the back, the camera still peeks out of the top-left, but the module is considerably larger now and, where it was inset on the fourth-gen iPod touch, it now protrudes slightly -- just over 0.6mm, by our measurements. This means the overall actual thickness of the device is closer to 6.8mm, a difference that only those wearing the tightest of skinny jeans need concern themselves with. The camera portal is considerably wider in diameter, too, still flanked by a small microphone opening but now joined by a third opening: an LED flash. It's a 5-megapixel sensor this time with the same basic array of lenses and mechanics found in the iPhone 4S.
Keep moving across the top back and you'll find a small black plastic patch, similar in feel to the plastic section on the top of the iPad. It's here that the iPod's dual-band 802.11a/b/g/n module sends and receives its data. There's Bluetooth 4.0 support in here too, as well as Nike+ connectivity, but sadly still no GPS. The ability to properly track your movement using fitness apps like Strava would make this an even more compelling workout companion, and of course geotagging photos is more popular than ever. Sadly, the iPod touch is left out of that party yet again.
The most curious bit of connectivity is found at the bottom of the device. It's a little brushed metal circle that, when pushed, pops out slightly. It's here that you attach the curious little microfiber wrist strap that Apple includes with the device. But, in typical Apple style, it isn't called a wrist strap. It's "the loop" and it's designed to further ramp up this thing's street cred as a compact camera.
Finally, on the front things are more or less as they were before -- just taller. Up top, there's a 1.2-megapixel FaceTime HD camera peeking out of the bezel. Down below, there's the same subtly recessed home button we've come to expect. In between? Here lies something special.
Display
The vertical growth of the iPod touch is for one reason and one reason only: to accommodate the new 4-inch display that debuted in the iPhone 5. Yes, this is the exact same panel as the iPhone, not a cut-rate version like the last iPod touch received. That means a 326dpi, 1,136 x 640 IPS LCD screen.
We gushed about this panel in the recent iPhone 5 review, so we won't spend too much time covering such well-trod ground, but we will reiterate our thoughts from before: this is among the best panels on any mobile device. Brightness and contrast are top-notch and viewing angles are wide enough to ensure that you can enjoy everything from all sides. However, we would point out the lack of a brightness sensor here, so unlike the iPhone (and, indeed, the last iPod touch) this thing won't use an appropriate brightness for all lighting conditions -- at least, not without a little help from you.
Performance
The fifth-generation iPod touch sports a dual-core A5 processor and, while Apple isn't quoting specs, thanks to benchmarking apps we know it's running at 800MHz and is paired with dual-core PowerVR graphics. So, just like the iPhone 4S that came before. And our benchmark results back that up. An average Geekbench score of 627 is right where the 4S tends to rank in, and an average SunSpider score of 1,785 is even better. Our impressions upon using the device definitely match up with those numbers. The iPhone 5 leaves the new iPod in the dust in all regards, but it's a massive leap beyond the old iPod.
We've not been able to run the device through a full battery test, but Apple rates the new iPod touch as having the same music listening time as the previous generation (40 hours) and rates its video playback for an hour longer -- eight versus seven. We've never had a complaint with the longevity of the fourth-gen iPod, so we expect this new model to live up to expectations.
Cameras
While the new display is the most noticeable departure from the previous-generation iPod and the new silicon on the inside certainly makes for a markedly improved experience, it's the pair of new shooters that mark the biggest step forward from the previous touch. The 1.2-megapixel FaceTime HD camera up front appears to be the same as we've seen in other devices, meaning it's quite good even in conditions with middling light.
View Gallery:iPod touch review (2012) : sample shots
It's the 5-megapixel setup on the back that's the star of the show. No, it isn't as nice as the new 8-megapixel module on the iPhone 5, but the new iPod does match the performance of the iPhone 4S in most regards, which is to say it takes some great stills. Photos are light-years beyond those captured by the previous touch, meaning this does indeed do a reasonably good job as a compact camera. They don't live up to the photos on the 5, and indeed in lower light you'll see a good amount of noise, so serious photogs will still want to lug along something with a bit more horsepower. But, for more casual holiday snaps, the touch does a respectable job.
It also captures compelling video at 1080p, though the video stabilization here doesn't seem nearly as good as that on the iPhone 5. Trying to walk while filming, a situation handled commendably by the 5, creates a jittery mess here. You'll want to practice those deep-breathing and soft-walking techniques you learned in sniper school. Additionally, you're unable to take stills while recording video, as you can on the iPhone, but overall video quality is more than acceptable.
Software
Well, it's iOS 6, so you should know more or less what to expect here. Siri is now here, so you can get yourself some spoken-word advice from your slender PMP, and all the iCloud, Safari and other upgrades that were grafted onto the latest version of Apple's mobile OS have all come along for the ride.
There's also the new Maps, for better or for worse, but without GPS you'll be a little bit restricted in terms of what you can do with it. You can also load up third-party navigation apps like TomTom or CoPilot Live, but again they won't be much use anyway.
Sound quality
We stacked the new iPod touch up against a number of comparable offerings, including the fourth-generation touch, the new iPhone 5 and the new nano as well. We also lined up three sets of headphones, starting with Apple's own EarPods, which we put through the paces and found to be perfectly adequate. We also went a little higher-end with a set of Klipsch S4i buds and, finally, some Sennheiser HD555 cans. The new touch performed well with all, not noticeably better or worse than its predecessor. The internal speaker, meanwhile, is predictably weak, again performing about as well (or, rather, as poorly) as that on the previous touch. You can hear it, but you certainly won't want to use it for much.
Wrap-up
More Info
Apple announces fifth-generation iPod touch: 4-inch screen, 6.1mm thick, Siri included, starts at $299
Fifth-generation iPod touch hands-on
Apple EarPods review
As an upgrade, the fifth-generation iPod touch hits all the right marks. It's thinner and lighter despite packing a bigger and (far) better screen. It's faster despite having better battery life, its pair of cameras are markedly better than those found in the previous touch and its new matte aluminum exterior certainly seems like it will prove rather more durable in the long-run -- though time shall tell on that front.
That the new touch is rocking Apple's new Lightning connector will be a drawback for those with legacy docks and the like, but this is clearly the path the company is taking going forward, and there's not a lot of sugar we can put on that pill. The iPod touch is a comprehensively better package than the previous-gen unit but, at $299 to start, it certainly doesn't come cheap. If you're reasonably content with your fourth-gen this is probably not worth the upgrade, but if you have an older iPod that's ready for retirement, or are indeed just jumping on the iOS bandwagon for the first time and are happy with your current phone, this is a great place to start.
The Bottom Line
Pros
Beautiful design
Best-in-class 4-inch display
Much-improved cameras
Siri
Cons
Still no GPS
Pricey
Bottomline
Apple's latest iPod touch is by far its best, but it's priced far out of impulse-buy territory.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Will Apple build their own chip ware?
Apple has poached Samsung talent to develop in-house chips for the Mac.
Apple and Samsung are in the midst of what is perhaps the most heated patent lawsuit in history, but that doesn’t mean the two companies won’t still steal from each other’s camps. One of Samsung’s most prominent chip designers has joined Apple, the Korean company’s sworn enemy. “Veteran” processor guru Jim Mergar could help Apple create proprietary chips for the Mac, reports The Wall Street Journal.
Mergar’s expertise could mean that Apple will eventually switch from Intel on the Mac to its own processors, like its in-house “A” chip series for iOS devices.
According to The Journal, Mergar was “known for playing a leading role in the development of a high-profile AMD chip that carried the code name Brazos and was designed for low-end portable computers.” He was seen as an instrumental part of Samsung’s team, and he also specializes in PC processor development.
Patrick Moorhead, a former AMD executive who now leads the research firm Moor Insights & Strategy, said Mergard brings deep expertise in both PC technology as well as in products known as SoCs–systems on a chip–that combine various kinds of special-function circuitry on a single piece of silicon.
Besides the current breed of Apple smartphones and tablets, Moorhead says Mergard’s talents could potentially be applied to Apple’s PC efforts, where its Macs use Intel chips but not SoCs. “He would be very capable of pulling together internal and external resources to do a PC processor for Apple,” Moorhead says.
A longstanding rumor has been that Apple is looking to ditch Intel’s processors on the Mac platform for its own. Chip design expertise is obviously needed to reach that goal, and Mergar may be the missing piece Apple needs.
Apple and Samsung are in the midst of what is perhaps the most heated patent lawsuit in history, but that doesn’t mean the two companies won’t still steal from each other’s camps. One of Samsung’s most prominent chip designers has joined Apple, the Korean company’s sworn enemy. “Veteran” processor guru Jim Mergar could help Apple create proprietary chips for the Mac, reports The Wall Street Journal.
Mergar’s expertise could mean that Apple will eventually switch from Intel on the Mac to its own processors, like its in-house “A” chip series for iOS devices.
According to The Journal, Mergar was “known for playing a leading role in the development of a high-profile AMD chip that carried the code name Brazos and was designed for low-end portable computers.” He was seen as an instrumental part of Samsung’s team, and he also specializes in PC processor development.
Patrick Moorhead, a former AMD executive who now leads the research firm Moor Insights & Strategy, said Mergard brings deep expertise in both PC technology as well as in products known as SoCs–systems on a chip–that combine various kinds of special-function circuitry on a single piece of silicon.
Besides the current breed of Apple smartphones and tablets, Moorhead says Mergard’s talents could potentially be applied to Apple’s PC efforts, where its Macs use Intel chips but not SoCs. “He would be very capable of pulling together internal and external resources to do a PC processor for Apple,” Moorhead says.
A longstanding rumor has been that Apple is looking to ditch Intel’s processors on the Mac platform for its own. Chip design expertise is obviously needed to reach that goal, and Mergar may be the missing piece Apple needs.
Microsoft and Klout? Influencers or influential?
Microsoft invests in Klout; integrates data into Bing
Summary: Microsoft's Bing team is teaming up with social-media vendor Klout in the name of social-influence and big data.
By Mary Jo Foley for All About Microsoft | September 27, 2012 -- 20:36 GMT (13:36 PDT)
5
Comments
0
Votes
inShare
more +
Microsoft is making a "strategic investment" of an undisclosed size in social-media vendor Klout, company officials announced on its Bing Community blog on September 27.
On Bing, Microsoft is going to display Klout data -- including a person's Klout score and topics they are "influential" about -- on the new Bing Sidebar pane for those users who can and want to see this information. And on Klout, "highlights from Bing will begin surfacing in the 'moments' section of some people's Klout profiles," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
This new partnership is related to Microsoft's ongoing work to integrate social-search results into its Bing search engine via the sidebar panel, the same way that it does with Quora and foursquare.
Your reaction to this news probably indicates a lot of things about you. (I know it does of me.)
If you're living in the Silicon Valley area and/or are someone who thinks your Klout score really matters, you probably are thinking: "Wow, Microsoft!" If you're a jaded non-Bubble-dwelling person like me, you might be thinking something more like "Wow, Microsoft?"
As one of my Twitter chums joked today, my Klout score on Microsoft -- which I truly don't know and don't care -- is probably minus-500 after my tweets and this post.
Microsoft is maintaining this isn't all fluff and no stuff. There's also a big-data connection to today's partnership and investment, according to today's post. Microsoft officials have said repeatedly that one of the biggest benefits of Bing is massive amount of information it helps Microsoft collect and parse.
"Search as a new outbound signal is an interesting new development in the way we think about big data and how it can add value to lots of the other services we use each day," according to today's post. (And no, I don't really know what, if anything, that sentence actually means, either.)
I'm not anti-social media. I find Twitter really useful, and I know some do take Klout score quite seriously. I am not among them. I would never use Klout to find an expert in a subject area, as I know that many folks give one another Klout points as jokes. But I'm also someone who doesn't want to see my Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn friend's recommendations on my search queries, either -- which is something Microsoft is encouraging with its latest Bing redesign, which the company announced in March 2012.
To try the new Klout-Bing integration, users should go to Bing.com, log into Facebook and try some searches. Microsoft suggests starting with “movies, nfl schedule, or stanford university."
Update: So maybe there really is a big data --and a Hadoop-specific play -- in this Klout arrangement after all. Thanks to another of my Twitter buds, @Lizasisler from Perficient, comes this May 2012 GigaOm story about the relationship between Hadoop, Microsoft and Klout. (Remember, Microsoft is working on Hadoop for Windows Azure, and supposedly still Hadoop for Windows Server.) It sounds from this article as though Klout is a big SQL Server shop and a likely MySQL switcher.
Summary: Microsoft's Bing team is teaming up with social-media vendor Klout in the name of social-influence and big data.
By Mary Jo Foley for All About Microsoft | September 27, 2012 -- 20:36 GMT (13:36 PDT)
5
Comments
0
Votes
inShare
more +
Microsoft is making a "strategic investment" of an undisclosed size in social-media vendor Klout, company officials announced on its Bing Community blog on September 27.
On Bing, Microsoft is going to display Klout data -- including a person's Klout score and topics they are "influential" about -- on the new Bing Sidebar pane for those users who can and want to see this information. And on Klout, "highlights from Bing will begin surfacing in the 'moments' section of some people's Klout profiles," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
This new partnership is related to Microsoft's ongoing work to integrate social-search results into its Bing search engine via the sidebar panel, the same way that it does with Quora and foursquare.
Your reaction to this news probably indicates a lot of things about you. (I know it does of me.)
If you're living in the Silicon Valley area and/or are someone who thinks your Klout score really matters, you probably are thinking: "Wow, Microsoft!" If you're a jaded non-Bubble-dwelling person like me, you might be thinking something more like "Wow, Microsoft?"
As one of my Twitter chums joked today, my Klout score on Microsoft -- which I truly don't know and don't care -- is probably minus-500 after my tweets and this post.
Microsoft is maintaining this isn't all fluff and no stuff. There's also a big-data connection to today's partnership and investment, according to today's post. Microsoft officials have said repeatedly that one of the biggest benefits of Bing is massive amount of information it helps Microsoft collect and parse.
"Search as a new outbound signal is an interesting new development in the way we think about big data and how it can add value to lots of the other services we use each day," according to today's post. (And no, I don't really know what, if anything, that sentence actually means, either.)
I'm not anti-social media. I find Twitter really useful, and I know some do take Klout score quite seriously. I am not among them. I would never use Klout to find an expert in a subject area, as I know that many folks give one another Klout points as jokes. But I'm also someone who doesn't want to see my Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn friend's recommendations on my search queries, either -- which is something Microsoft is encouraging with its latest Bing redesign, which the company announced in March 2012.
To try the new Klout-Bing integration, users should go to Bing.com, log into Facebook and try some searches. Microsoft suggests starting with “movies, nfl schedule, or stanford university."
Update: So maybe there really is a big data --and a Hadoop-specific play -- in this Klout arrangement after all. Thanks to another of my Twitter buds, @Lizasisler from Perficient, comes this May 2012 GigaOm story about the relationship between Hadoop, Microsoft and Klout. (Remember, Microsoft is working on Hadoop for Windows Azure, and supposedly still Hadoop for Windows Server.) It sounds from this article as though Klout is a big SQL Server shop and a likely MySQL switcher.
iPod Touch number 5 teardown
iPod touch teardown: cheaper display assembly, weaker home button, low repairability
Published on October 11th, 2012
Written by: Christian Zibreg
Next
Skip to Responses
Prev
Apple’s fifth-generation iPod touch, which debuted alongside the iPhone 5 during the September 12 keynote, is on sale now, first reviews are great and already the wizards at iFixit have done what they do best: they tore apart the device to peek under the hood and analyze its innards.
Unlike the iPhone 5 that runs the latest A6 chip with 1GB of RAM, Apple’s ultra-thin (just 6.1mm) media player packs in the Apple-designed A5 processor with 512MB of Hynix-supplied RAM. The same silicon also powers the iPad 2 (the iPad 3 runs a souped up variant labeled the A5X). Perhaps unexpectedly, the new iPod touch has a weaker home button than that on the iPhone 5…
Other tidbits include NAND flash from Toshiba, meaning Apple passed on Samsung and turned to other suppliers for both the iPod touch’s storage and on-chip RAM. Note that Apple’s been distancing itself from Samsung on the display front as well, although the South Korean conglomerate continues to build Apple’s in-house designed processors at its facility in Austin, Texas.
Broadcom supplies the BCM 5976 touchscreen controller and Texas Instruments won a touchscreen system-on-a-chip contract (the 27AZ5R1 module). WiFi module is provided by Murata (the 339S0171) and the three-axis gyroscope is from STMicroelectronics (the AGD32229ESGEK module).
The impossibly thin iPod touch is quite a marvel of engineering.
As for the display, even though the iPod touch packs in all of the display technologies Apple uses for the iPhone 5, the manufacturing process is being described as cheaper.
When comparing the Touch to the iPhone 5 display assembly, it’s apparent that this is a much simpler, cheaper design, despite Apple claiming the two have very similar functionality.
The fourth-generation iPod touch’s display was of a noticeable lower quality compared to the iPhone 4/4S, especially when viewed at an angle.
Here’s a side-by-side comparison of the iPhone 5′s and iPod touch’s profile.
The iPod touch, pictured on the left, is jut 6.1mm thin versus the iPhone 5 (right) that is 7.6mm deep.
The backside iSight camera on the new iPod touch is essentially a rehashed version of the five-megapixel module found on the previous-generation model, capable of shooting 1080p video at 30 frames per second.
As for repairability, the new iPod touch scores 3 out of 10 (versus 7 out of 10 for the iPhone 5), largely due to hard-to-manage ribbon cables on the logic board and absence of external screws.
In case you thought that a quick zap with the heat gun and a gentle pry is all it would take to get into the Touch, think again! There are several clips and adhesive holding this iPod together.
The disassembly also found the volume buttons, microphone, LED flash and power button all connected through the same ribbon cable, which easily peels from the rear case.
The shift to a single ribbon cable is more cost-effective for the manufacturer, but unfortunately it has a negative impact on repairability. Cables connected to the logic board run over the top and connect on the bottom, making it difficult to remove the board or disconnect the cables.
iFixit notes that even though repair is not impossible, “it’s certainly going to be difficult and expensive if one component breaks”. The teardown experts were also surprised to find a weaker home button compared to the iPhone 5, largely stemming from a rubber-membrane design.
In our recent iPhone 5 teardown, we praised Apple for redesigning a stronger home button. We were somewhat disappointed with the weaker, rubber-membrane design of the iPod Touch’s home button.
I think the new iPod touch is a marvel of engineering and the best media player there is. I’d say that a weaker home button, cheaper display assembly (though image quality is on par with the iPhone 5) and low repairability score are all necessary trade-offs due to its impossibly thin design, ones that not many people will notice anyway.
For more, check out Jeff’s unboxing video and another one depicting the iPhone 5 versus iPod touch boot test. Also, stay tuned for his review, coming up later today.
Do you think the new iPod touch is worth the asking price of $299/$399 for the 32/64GB model?
Branding, Logo's and fame.
Infographic: The Cost Of A Famous Logo? From $0 To $211 Million
INFOGRAPHIC OF THE DAY
HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK BP SPENT ON ITS LATEST REBRANDING? YOU PROBABLY DON’T WANT TO KNOW.
Google spent nothing--Sergey Brin just opened up the free graphics app Gimp. Same with Coca-Cola--though John Pemberton’s bookkeeper drew the logo’s Spencerian script by hand. Nike famously gave just $35 to a design student. Which used to be an impressively thrifty figure, until Twitter picked up their ubiquitous bird for a mere $15 on iStockPhoto.
These, obviously, represent the low-end of what some of the world’s biggest companies have spent on their branding. The figures are from a list recently assembled by Stocklogos and Business Insider, which Trendland turned into a series of infographics. And if you think a company that spends nothing on their logo is a bit nauseating, wait until you see the opposite end of the spectrum.
Pepsi spent $1 million on their Obama-esque rebranding a few years back, and the BBC spent almost double that on a logo that basically just untoggled the italics button. But that’s nothing compared to the $221 million BP paid to make their oil company look like a new-age organic grocer--though maybe it was one of the few cases where we can all agree it was worth every penny. (It’s not clear from the stats here whether that $221 million was just for design services, or for the rebranding campaign, in which case $221 million is probably low.)
INFOGRAPHIC OF THE DAY
HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK BP SPENT ON ITS LATEST REBRANDING? YOU PROBABLY DON’T WANT TO KNOW.
Google spent nothing--Sergey Brin just opened up the free graphics app Gimp. Same with Coca-Cola--though John Pemberton’s bookkeeper drew the logo’s Spencerian script by hand. Nike famously gave just $35 to a design student. Which used to be an impressively thrifty figure, until Twitter picked up their ubiquitous bird for a mere $15 on iStockPhoto.
These, obviously, represent the low-end of what some of the world’s biggest companies have spent on their branding. The figures are from a list recently assembled by Stocklogos and Business Insider, which Trendland turned into a series of infographics. And if you think a company that spends nothing on their logo is a bit nauseating, wait until you see the opposite end of the spectrum.
Pepsi spent $1 million on their Obama-esque rebranding a few years back, and the BBC spent almost double that on a logo that basically just untoggled the italics button. But that’s nothing compared to the $221 million BP paid to make their oil company look like a new-age organic grocer--though maybe it was one of the few cases where we can all agree it was worth every penny. (It’s not clear from the stats here whether that $221 million was just for design services, or for the rebranding campaign, in which case $221 million is probably low.)
To succeed, you must have the right help.
Your Key to Investing Success
Dan Caplinger - October 11, 2012
No matter how good an investor you are, you can't do everything by yourself. Even if you do all your own research and analysis, digging through thousands of stocks and funds in search of the perfect investment, you still need a strong broker on your side at the end of the day to help you buy those investments, sell others, and eventually create the ideal portfolio.
Making sure you have the right broker on your side can make a huge difference in how successful you are over the long run. But how can you tell whether a particular broker will give you everything you need? You can get some of the answers by following one of many broker surveys that regularly come out, as long as you recognize the fact that brokers are not one-size-fits-all and that your specific needs may lead to a totally different decision.
A new winner
Kiplinger recently came out with its list of best online brokers for 2012. Given the cost savings that online brokers can give you compared to Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and other full-service offerings, many investors turn to them first.
If you look no further than the headline, you'll see that E*TRADE Financial (Nasdaq: ETFC) beat out all its peers to take the top spot. With E*TRADE earning top ratings for investment choices and customer service, countless readers will inevitably pick the discount broker simply on that basis alone.
But if you dig deeper into the report, you'll realize that different brokers do well at different things. For instance, for research tools, Fidelity scored the best. For the best user experience with their websites, Scottrade and Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) Merrill Edge joined E*TRADE as top picks. And for those looking for banking services to go along with their brokerage accounts, Merrill Edge and Fidelity received top scores.
Even with this added level of scrutiny, you still can't rely entirely on the report for definitive advice. For instance, one big omission from the list is Vanguard, which didn't even make the cut for consideration.
In addition, drilling down beyond broad categories often leads to different results. For instance, the primary motivation for E*TRADE's strong score for breadth of investment choices came from its extensive individual bond offerings. Yet if you want to invest with exchange-traded funds, then E*TRADE falls short, and TD AMERITRADE's (NYSE: AMTD) list of more than 100 commission-free ETFs from a variety of different ETF providers easily goes to the top of the list. If you prefer a certain brand of ETFs, though, you might be best served by a broker that has a specific relationship with that ETF provider, such as Fidelity's deal to offer 30 different offerings from BlackRock's (NYSE: BLK) iShares family of ETFs.
Dealing with costs
Perhaps the most contentious area in trying to compare brokers is cost. The most readily available piece of information is how much a broker charges for stock commissions, but if you're not a frequent trader, that number may not be nearly as important as other fees.
To make a better choice, be sure to consider how you're likely to invest and what sorts of miscellaneous fees you're likely to incur. Don't just look at the cover page for that information; dig deep into the brokerage agreement to ferret out obscure charges like inactivity fees or account closure and transfer fees. That way, you'll avoid a nasty surprise at some point down the road.
Go your own way
Guides and lists of brokers can be helpful in gathering information you can use to make an informed selection, but don't simply take a recommendation from a survey without understanding its methodology. That way, you can be sure that the broker you choose will be right for you.
Dan Caplinger - October 11, 2012
No matter how good an investor you are, you can't do everything by yourself. Even if you do all your own research and analysis, digging through thousands of stocks and funds in search of the perfect investment, you still need a strong broker on your side at the end of the day to help you buy those investments, sell others, and eventually create the ideal portfolio.
Making sure you have the right broker on your side can make a huge difference in how successful you are over the long run. But how can you tell whether a particular broker will give you everything you need? You can get some of the answers by following one of many broker surveys that regularly come out, as long as you recognize the fact that brokers are not one-size-fits-all and that your specific needs may lead to a totally different decision.
A new winner
Kiplinger recently came out with its list of best online brokers for 2012. Given the cost savings that online brokers can give you compared to Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and other full-service offerings, many investors turn to them first.
If you look no further than the headline, you'll see that E*TRADE Financial (Nasdaq: ETFC) beat out all its peers to take the top spot. With E*TRADE earning top ratings for investment choices and customer service, countless readers will inevitably pick the discount broker simply on that basis alone.
But if you dig deeper into the report, you'll realize that different brokers do well at different things. For instance, for research tools, Fidelity scored the best. For the best user experience with their websites, Scottrade and Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) Merrill Edge joined E*TRADE as top picks. And for those looking for banking services to go along with their brokerage accounts, Merrill Edge and Fidelity received top scores.
Even with this added level of scrutiny, you still can't rely entirely on the report for definitive advice. For instance, one big omission from the list is Vanguard, which didn't even make the cut for consideration.
In addition, drilling down beyond broad categories often leads to different results. For instance, the primary motivation for E*TRADE's strong score for breadth of investment choices came from its extensive individual bond offerings. Yet if you want to invest with exchange-traded funds, then E*TRADE falls short, and TD AMERITRADE's (NYSE: AMTD) list of more than 100 commission-free ETFs from a variety of different ETF providers easily goes to the top of the list. If you prefer a certain brand of ETFs, though, you might be best served by a broker that has a specific relationship with that ETF provider, such as Fidelity's deal to offer 30 different offerings from BlackRock's (NYSE: BLK) iShares family of ETFs.
Dealing with costs
Perhaps the most contentious area in trying to compare brokers is cost. The most readily available piece of information is how much a broker charges for stock commissions, but if you're not a frequent trader, that number may not be nearly as important as other fees.
To make a better choice, be sure to consider how you're likely to invest and what sorts of miscellaneous fees you're likely to incur. Don't just look at the cover page for that information; dig deep into the brokerage agreement to ferret out obscure charges like inactivity fees or account closure and transfer fees. That way, you'll avoid a nasty surprise at some point down the road.
Go your own way
Guides and lists of brokers can be helpful in gathering information you can use to make an informed selection, but don't simply take a recommendation from a survey without understanding its methodology. That way, you can be sure that the broker you choose will be right for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)