Slashdot Mirror

This is the precise sort of foolishness that lead to short sellers losing $1 billion in this article. In the long term, Tesla could be a guaranteed loser headed to liquidation and still you could go completely broke shorting Tesla stock, because in between the price could jump way higher before plummeting to zero. You go on margin and put yourself on hook for the upswings, and if you don't have enough money and there isn't enough stock available for sale at a price you can afford to cover then you go bust.

See the concept of a short squeeze. This is probably why the stock price is so high and even overvalued, the short sellers are attracted like moths to a flame and then get incinerated by a squeeze pushing the price even higher.

You can look at Tesla's financials and see for yourself that yes, they are lousy. But I still wouldn't short the stock if I had a million dollars and a firm conviction that the price will eventually go down.

Go read their actual Q1 report.

Tesla is losing money even before accounting for capital expenditures. Gross profit is $456 million, but operating and interest costs are more than twice that, leaving them with a $784 million net loss. Capital expenditures are another $655 million on top of that.

I previously wrote about Tesla's troubles based on their Q4 results. Looking at Q1, it seems like nothing's changed.

Unfortunately, they're already in a bad spot, so they really need a big change to keep it afloat. Production numbers are still low at 2500 per week. Better than before, but not nearly enough. Their margin is not bad at 19%, but that's all coming from Model S and X. Even if Model 3 could reach that level, selling 5000 per week still only comes out to $344 million in gross profit. They would have to produce and sell triple that number to be in the black.

They didn't have any stock offerings this time, so most of the losses were covered by new debt. The remainder came from their enormous pile of $2 billion in cash.

Tesla makes plenty of money on the S and X. It's just that they are investing that money on bringing up the Model 3 and other projects.

That's not the case at all. Money for the Model 3 is coming from investors and loans.

According to their Q4 report, their gross profit is $438 million a quarter. Of that, $146 million goes towards paying interest on their loans. Another $1 billion goes to other expenses, including R&D, marketing and administrative. Notice how they're already $600 million the red before we even get to the $786 million in capital expenditures (aka. factory construction).

So they paying for all this with loans, which is not really sustainable.

To get in the black, they'll need a combination of several things:
- Drastically increase gross profit.
- Cut R&D, marketing and administrative spending.
- Reduce interest costs.
- Stop building new factories.

I personally don't think any of those are viable. Their margin is relatively high at 19% right now because they're selling luxury models. But the Model 3 will have a much lower margin, perhaps only 10% (which is what Ford is working with). Even if they can sell their target 5,000 Model 3's a week, we're still looking at only $200 million in additional gross profit for the quarter. The other $400 million loss will have to be made up with cost cuts.

Maybe they can kill R&D ($350 million) at the cost of future competitiveness, but marketing and administrative expenses can't be cut without affecting sales or production.

Not much can be done about interest costs, since it's the banks that set the rates. They also need the money right now, so paying the loans off is not an option.

As for capital expenditures, well, they're definitely not going to make enough sales to save them if they don't have factories for the production volume.

All in all a pretty bleak picture. But they have the backings of millions of fanboys and more importantly, investors, so they'll be ok until something bad happens to Musk. Even if they did get out of this hole though, I still don't see them turning into the next Apple or Amazon.

No you are wrong. Tesla loses money on every car it sells. Cite: Tesla cash flow statements - see cash flows

I'm looking at it right now. Automotive gross margin, GAAP: 18,9%. It's dropped since 2016 when it was 22,6% because the margins on Model 3 are currently poor (actually slightly negative) due to its currently low rate of production, but will be positive in Q2 and should be similar to S and X by the end of 2018.

When will people learn to distinguish between margins and capex? Seriously people...

. Oh - how much does Apple pay in taxes again?

$10.4 billion in 2016.

The ship the money to Ireland to avoid US taxes.

That only lets them avoid paying US taxes on profits outside the US. They still pay taxes in the US on profits inside the US.

"Make money here - pay taxes here." Once corporations do that, then we can take a look at how much the taxes are.

That's how it works already. The US is one of the few countries that taxes money made outside the US. The Irish inversion is to avoid paying taxes from profits outside the US.

You're all upset over something that isn't even happening.

Really? http://files.shareholder.com/d...

Way to make his point.

And actually pull up Tesla's financial report before spouting that nonsense. I'll help. http://files.shareholder.com/d...

See the lines "Revenues" and "Cost of Revenues", where the former is greater than the latter. That's profit. Something tells me game developers don't require billions of dollars in capital expenses for manufacturing facilities, service centers, etc. Geese, why do I bother. You're probably just trolling.

Is it still a fun fact if it's neither fun nor a fact?

For the 9 months ending Sep 30 2016, they made $1,150,984,000 (1.1 billion) in revenue selling cars, of which $195,592,000 (0.1 billion) was from ZEV carbon credits.

In fact, they take OUT the carbon credits from their GAAP reporting numbers (what this article refers to) so that their results aren't skewed.

It's right there in black and white in the results: http://files.shareholder.com/d...

I know this may come as a shock, but your numbers appear to have little basis in reality. Instead, let's work with Apple's latest financial statements and draw our conclusions from there.

Focusing on page 3, here's what we can quickly glean using some simple arithmetic with their numbers from last quarter:
- They have a 38% margin after you deduct the cost of sales
- They have a 24% margin after you deduct operating expenses
- They have an 18.4% margin after you deduct taxes

According to page 28, operating expenses is where R&D, advertising, employee salaries, and other day-to-day costs fall, so it's safe to say that your claim regarding a "100% profit margin" has no factual basis, despite you being a random person on the Internet who has an opinion. Rather, depending on how we define "profit", we'd peg it at more like 18-24%.

As for why their margin isn't what you claimed, you probably grabbed your $200 number from this report that was widely circulated a few years ago, but it neglected to consider a number of costs beyond the bill of materials (BOM) and manufacturing. For instance, there's no mention of the cost to ship components to where they'll be assembled, the cost to package the final product, capital expenditures to customize or scale manufacturing, nor of the cost to ship the final product to its destination. These teardowns routinely come in FAR under the actual cost, and that trend has only been getting worse these last few years. It got so bad, in fact, that Tim Cook even took some time to address it last year.

Disclaimer: The numbers on page 3 (and here) represent their full product line, so I will readily admit that we can't take them as hard and fast numbers for iPhones specifically. That said, other statements I've read over the years have indicated that iPhone margins fall in line with their margins for their products as a whole, so we shouldn't expect them to be much different, if at all, given that iPhones account for 57% of their net sales, according to page 25.

From Microsoft's latest 10-Q SEC filing: "Even as we transition to a mobile-first and cloud-first strategy, the license-based proprietary software model generates most of our software revenue. We bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenue received from licensing our products."

EBITA (aka Earnings on Operations) is not profit. In fact EBITA is smoke they blow in your face, never trust a company that even mentions it. Look at these numbers and explain where they ever made a profit

OK, I bet there is an image of a crowd of thousands of men with their lunch pails all walking into their shift at the plant who then jump on the line and build cars.

No.

At best it's a couple of dozen people working in the back office and some techs to walk around and monitor the automated plant.

Tesla has 6000 employees

But go ahead and keep undermining your arguments with such unnecessary hyperbole, mister Anonymous Coward.

Not mentioned in the post for some reason was the loss of $49.8 million for the quarter compared to an $11.3 million profit in the same quarter last year. Accumulated losses since 2009 are on the order of $800 million.
http://files.shareholder.com/d...

Making cars is hard. Making a profit doing it is harder still.

You will find this informative. Conference call announcing it.

Speaking of SGI, they're still selling hardware (despite being sold and rebranded ... as ... themself?)

I'd count SGI for the sake of this argument.

I guess in a lot of these cases we end up on a semantic discussion of what constitutes a 'company.'

Is it the people? Jobs=dead; Wozniak=gone; Wayne=long gone.

Is it their primary business?
In that case, Apple is now a phone company.
http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/...

..or see p. 25
http://files.shareholder.com/d...

If Intel's investor day meeting is to be believed this is not true at least for their next 2 process nodes
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/2827417808x0x709360/2D44DBF8-58B8-403F-B0E8-16E114CFF0E8/2013_IM_Smith.pdf .
Look at Slide 36.

If I'm reading their 2012 year-end report correctly, JP Morgan getting fined $14 billion when they had $97 billion in revenue, $28 billion in pre-tax profit, and paid $7.6 billion in taxes, is like an individual getting fined $183k when they have an income of $1.268 million, expenses of $836k, an adjusted gross income of $375k, and $99k in taxes. Meaning after the fine, they'd still have $92k of disposable play money.

That's the sort of fine I wouldn't mind much.

Yeah, I'd say that JP Morgan's wrist stung for a few seconds. That'll teach 'em, right?

You had a list of revenue figures. You worked out the gross profit from one of the sectors, then renamed 'gross profit' to 'revenue' and compared that 'revenue' back with the actual revenue figures in the original list.

If you didn't follow the logic: At best Apple makes $1.26B in revenue from iTunes while they made $32B in revenue on hardware because we know 70% goes immediately to someone else. Even if I didn't take out the 70%, Apple still made 7x on hardware than software. Please use some logic.

You are either a quite talented troll or a complete idiot. Either compare revenue with revenue, or work out the gross profit for each product.

How about someone who actually uses the internet to look things up and can use logic? We don't know exactly how much margin makes on hardware as Apple does not disclose this information. But do know that Apple cannot make more than 30% margin on iTunes. Period. This is a simple fact. We know that Apple makes more than 30% overall. So logically if Apple makes less than 30% on iTunes but more than 30% overall, they must make more than 30% on hardware.

Hint: the margins are high for the hardware compared to the rest of the industry, but not as high as the iTunes 30%.

Apple says you're wrong. Gross Margin 2013: $64.3 (37.6%).

Note also that 'cost of sales' for non iTunes software and services is much lower than 70% of revenue, therefore your assumption that it is all iTunes is somewhat aggressive in reducing the gross profit.

Er what? You really think that making hardware costs less than selling software? That's rather absurd logic.

Um , no they dont and no the are not. . They subcontract all of the manufacturing of all their products to Chinese companies. Apple doesn't build squat. Here from there own web site:

http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/our-suppliers.html

And from their latest Form 10-Q:

Long-Term Supply Agreements
The Company has entered into long-term agreements to secure the supply of certain inventory components. Under certain of these agreements, which expire between 2013 and 2022, the Company has made prepayments for the future purchase of inventory components and has acquired capital equipment to use in the manufacturing of such components.

so they do appear to be investing some amount of money in manufacturing infrastructure, apparently by buying it themselves for use by their subcontractors.

...one has to consider what a broadcast entity dependent upon advertising revenues will do if those ads no longer generate cash.

That is certainly the argument Fox used. What they conveniently left out is that Fox collects retransmission fees from Dish.

In fact, Dish was at one time forced to drop Fox programming because, according to Dish :-

FOX is demanding a new contract with an unprecedented rate increase of more than 50 percent.

In addition, the broadcast networks including Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC have demanded that its affiliates hand over a percentage of the money they receive from local cable operators that retransmit their signals.

Broadcasters used to be content with the money they took in from advertisers, which supported "free" over-the-air television. But in recent years as broadcasters have lost viewers to cable and advertisers are shifting to the Internet, stations have been seeking new sources of revenue by demanding payment from cable and satellite companies for the right to retransmit their programming.

News Corp.'s Fox is not the only network seeking a slice of its affiliates' retransmission fees. CBS, ABC and NBC are also negotiating for a percentage. However, there is a consensus that Fox is being the most aggressive of the networks. None of the Big Three has yet threatened to drop its local affiliate if it doesn't get the money.

While the corporate skirmishing is waged far above the heads of TV viewers, it is likely to have a real-world effect on households that pay for cable or satellite service — about 90% of all TV-watching homes in the country — in the form of higher monthly rates as local providers look to make up the difference.

Basically, its all about the money. The broadcasting networks have already been paid by retransmission fees and are double dipping into advertising fees.

Hey guys, I did my own non-GAAP numbers for my income, and I made a net profit of $23 billion dollars last year! And I can prove it, I used Enron's old accountants to do it!

To quote "Non-GAAP Net earnings is defined as Net earnings excluding certain gains, losses, expenses, and their related tax effects, that we do not believe are indicative of our ongoing results and further adjusted to exclude stock based compensation expense and its related tax effects.

Non-GAAP Operating income is defined as Income from operations excluding certain gains, losses, and expenses that we do not believe are indicative of our ongoing operating results and further adjusted to exclude stock based compensation expense.

Non-GAAP Total operating expenses is defined as GAAP Total operating expenses excluding TAC and certain other expenses that we do not believe are indicative of our ongoing operating expenses and further adjusted to exclude stock - based compensation expense" http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/YHOO/2426873689x0x653799/c2ef68a1-49db-4bad-8e44-1f4f75bc81d4/YHOO_Q113EarningsPresentationFINAL.pdf

It is what it says it is; a way of *comparing* like with like around the core business. Is Motorola's restructuring costs a sensible way of measuring Googles search business? How about nokia selling off its HQ anything to so with its smartphones? How about Microsoft paying of the EU routine thing?

If you are looking at performance measures...you compare like for like otherwise its simply stupid, which is why unusual of non-business relates expenses/income should be ignored.

Sorry to destroy your little fantasy, but Google has 60b in short term assets (cash and equivalents):
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GOOG+Balance+Sheet&annual

Disney has 39b in stock holders equity:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=DIS+Balance+Sheet&annual

NBC Universal has 29b in stock holders equity:
http://apps.shareholder.com/sec/viewerContent.aspx?companyid=cmcsa&docid=8075925

So there goes 113% of Google's short-term assets with just those two companies... and they would have to take on 55b in additional liabilities. So they would have 0 cash, no short term assets, and over 75b in liabilities.

In other words.. never going to happen.

But guess who's still in the PC business after thirty-five years?

Due to the generous Microsoft investment seeking to avoid monopoly intervention from the government, all while they languished near death.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2028737183x0xS1047469-97-6960/320193/filing.pdf

Look at page 34. The fruit company ended that year with $1,230m in cash on hand. (Microsoft's $150m contribution to that is the tiny line labeled "Proceeds from issuance of preferred stock.")

"Generous" is not the word. "Insignificant" is the word.

I didn't fact check all of the companies on your list, but First Solar is not "near bankruptcy" - it's still trading on the NASDAQ with a stock price of $23, or a market cap of around $2B. In its last quarterly report, they claimed to have almost $700M of cash on hand, with $900M in revenues and 25% gross profit.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/FSLR/2133318876x0x587754/43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300/Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/

Even if much of the government money went to innovative companies that are struggling to get their product to market (i.e. Solyndra), that's pretty much where government money should be going -- if a company has a solid business plan and is on the track to profitability, the private sector will take care of them. But if a company with a promising product can't get enough private VC funding to get their product to market, then government funding can help them to compete against government subsidized foreign competitors. The alternative to government investment seems to be to let the Chinese dominate the alternative energy market.

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-comeback-story-2010-10?op=1
http://macdailynews.com/2009/04/14/steve_jobs_engineered_apples_resurrection/
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-return-19972011-10062011.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

I could go on forever on this one. It's very well documented that in 1997 Apple was extremely close to bankruptcy (some speculate days away) when Steve Jobs, then brought back to Apple as an "interim CEO", negotiated with Bill Gates to have Microsoft invest in Apple to the tune of $150M.

Thank you, that's exactly the only-reading-the-headlines garbage I was expecting you to come up with.

So let's look at the facts, shall we? I already linked you to Apple's quarterly filings.

The CNet article you cited in which Microsoft promised $150,000,000 was published August 6, 1997.
Apple's quarterly report Filed 08/11/97 for the Period Ending 06/27/97 showed that Apple had $1,018,000,000 on hand.

Look at those numbers again:
150,000,000 - Amount Apple got from MS
1,018,000,000 -- Amount Apple had sitting in the bank

The number on top is less than 15% of the number on the bottom. That's not rescuing a company from bankruptcy. That's a bad tip at a restaurant.

You may want to review this important lesson on honestly representing the difference between millions and billions.

Of course, Steve Jobs' ego knew no bounds, and he loved to say that he single-handedly rescued Apple with Bill Gates' money. But that's just not true. The benefit Apple got from BillG's pocket change was that it satisfied Microsoft that Apple was no longer a threat, so that Apple could build itself up to where it was a threat.

So basically, yes, they were in that shape, no, they did not have billions in the bank.

As of June 27, 1997, the last quarter before Microsoft "saved" Apple with its $150 million, Apple reported having $1 billion in cash and equivalents, and another $200 million in short-term investments.

So if Apple was "90 days from going bankrupt" with its $1 billion of cash on hand at that time, then Microsoft's $150 million gift would have given Apple an additional two weeks of operating capital.

You realize you are disputing Steve Jobs version of the situation (see the interviews)? Good to know your insight into the situation trumps his.

So basically, yes, they were in that shape, no, they did not have billions in the bank.

As of June 27, 1997, the last quarter before Microsoft "saved" Apple with its $150 million, Apple reported having $1 billion in cash and equivalents, and another $200 million in short-term investments.

So if Apple was "90 days from going bankrupt" with its $1 billion of cash on hand at that time, then Microsoft's $150 million gift would have given Apple an additional two weeks of operating capital.

It's especially egregious in Apple's case, as they have practically zero R&D to speak of.

Facts say other wise.

Research and Development Expense (“R&D”)
R&D expense increased $260 million or 45% to $841 million during the second quarter of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011 and increased $443 million or 38% to $1.6 billion during the first six months of 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. These increases were due primarily to an increase in headcount and related expenses to support expanded R&D activities.

Saying NYT made an incorrect calculation and explaining why is fine. But what was Apple's tax rate, then?

If you can't answer that, then you can't say the figure itself is incorrect, only the means used to arrive at it.

Are people dense today?

Apple's effective tax rates were approximately 24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Apple is a public company, remember? They report these things to their shareholders annually.

How did your post get +5 Insightful? Apple's report is linked right in the article!

Market cap is not a real indication of how "valuable" a company is. Apple has FAR less real money and revenue than, say, Microsoft.

Hmmm...

Apple's 10-Q says net income of $7.3b on revenues of $28.5b in the most recent quarter and $76b in cash and marketable securities on hand.
Microsoft's 10-Q says net income of $5.2b on revenues of $16.4b in the most recent quarter and $50.1b in cash and marketable securities on hand.

So... what were you saying again?

Google might be paying $12.5b, but they'll get back the cash on Motorola's balance sheet -- $3.3b according to their 1st quarter results.

Motorola Mobile's total liabilities almost exactly balance out total assets - and Motorola Mobility has been losing money every quarter...

Scroll down to "Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets". Total assets: $9,429 Total Liabilities: $9,429.

It should have jacked up the prices until it is back in the black and seriously considered 3 instead of this move. Level3 used to have good lawyers at least at some point. Back around 2000 they managed to twist the arms of Sprint, Ebone, MCI and other major players that were way more entrenched than Comcast. So winding it up so it lends a hand to FCC to do a competition case was a really really really bad move.

According to their 2009 annual report, they are already in the black. By a fair bit. As much as Netflix streaming has probably grown in the last year, I really don't think it ate up $3.6 billion in additional bandwidth costs.

Is it just me or do those numbers look too close to be statistically significant?

The summary mentions a sample size of 512. The standard error of the mean decreases by the square root of the sample size. For 95 % certainty, if the standard deviation of their measured data is less than (32 percentage points - 23 percentage points)*sqrt(512)/1.96 = 104 "percentage points", which is quite likely, (see a tutorial), then you *can* say that this is statistically significant.

If you want some real details and not my back of the envelope calculations of dubious quality, you can see the actual slides [PDF], which does have details on the statistical significance of the results.

Long story short, they're significant at the level tested (95 %, generally good enough for these kinds of studies).

http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/address.html

http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/address.cfm

http://geek.net/about/contact1/

Trollin or just lazy? All are clearly accessible and informatively labeled.

Its all about taking 30secs to 2 mins to find it.

Google:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/address.html (Google.com - About - Offices)

Yahoo:
http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/address.cfm (yahoo.com - Company Info - Our Address)

Slashdot (Geek Net):
http://geek.net/index.php/about/contact1/ (Copyright Notice at bottom - About Us - Contact Us)

Fabulis:
Requires a manual search of various records or articles to locate. And I've hit my 2 minute maximum attention span for a comment post, CLOSE THEIR ACCOUNTS! I COMMANDS IT!

Ahem.

cheers.

I would put my money on the Yahoo deal, not only because it gives them search, but because Yahoo mail is the #1 webmail provider which would give them a hell of a lot of data to mine and a hell of a lot of eyeballs to sell advertising space to. And let's face it: MSFT Search and Hotmail really do suck the big wet titty. pretty much the only way they are going to get out of dead last is to buy their way out, and by buying Yahoo they go up to #2 without actually having to build anything useful.

I just hope they don't ruin Yahoo Mail by making it "Yahoo Web 2.0 Live enabled Vista ready" crap. if there is anything MSFT has proven over the years it is that they REALLY suck at the web.

The linked article is rather sensationalized, the summary even more so

Here's the actual text. It's from Microsoft's own SEC filings, in the "Contingencies" section of the notes, not from the EU - this is Microsoft's opinion of what the European Commission might require, not something from the Comission itsself.

While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any Web browsing software on Windows, the Commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC. Such a remedy might include a requirement that OEMs distribute multiple browsers on new Windows-based PCs. We may also be required to disable certain unspecified Internet Explorer software code if a user chooses a competing browser.

Note, in particular, no mention of specific other browsers.

http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=33101&Player=1# the announcement

For those who are interested... Google is streaming a live feed of their Chrome beta release conference here: http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=33101&Player=2# Also a tech reporter named Rafe (forget which site he came from) is live-blogging from the conference and you can see what he's typing or ask him to ask a question on the chat applet here; http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=d9687919a4 So far they say they're releasing it at 12 noon Pacific time. From what I understand it should be available from http://google.com/chrome -- they also said they'd post a link on the googleblog ( http://googleblog.blogspot.com/ )

Check out the announcement online right now. Download will be available at noon PDT (19:00 GMT?).

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030035-2.html http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=33101&Player=1#

http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=33101&Player=1#

It looks like Yahoo's net income for 2007 was $660 million, or $0.47 per share. Where the hell do you get the idea that they're going to run OUT of cash when they're clearly operating at a profit? Care to explain why your analysis isn't utter nonsense? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me.

Yahoo's 2007 earnings report in case you're actually interested in, you know, evidence.

http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=308131
http://techwatch.reviewk.com/

Tivo's:
http://investor.tivo.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=304285

Dish's:
http://dish.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=304293

The latter includes these tidbits:

The decision, however, will have no effect on our current or future customers because EchoStar's engineers have developed and deployed 'next-generation' DVR software to our customers' DVRs. This improved software is fully operational, has been automatically downloaded to current customers, and does not infringe the Tivo patent at issue in the Federal Circuit's ruling.

"All DISH Network customers can continue to use their DVRs without any interruption or changes to the award-winning DVR features and services provided by DISH Network.

"We intend to appeal the Federal Circuit's ruling to the United States Supreme Court."

The best comments on the Chapter 11 filing were made months ago, by SCO themselves. Quoting from the Risk Factors section of their most recent 10Q filing:

"We may not prevail in our lawsuits with IBM, Novell and others, which may adversely affect our ability to continue in business."

"If Novell prevails in whole or in part on its summary judgment motions, some or all of our cash and cash equivalents could be encumbered and our claims against Novell and IBM may be substantially reduced or eliminated."

" In the event we are not successful with the IBM or Novell motions, or the continuing litigation requires more cash than expected, our business and operations would be materially harmed."
That's a pretty good summary of why they filed for Chapter 11 protection!

Just wanted to back you up with some figures on how little of an success that Microsofts Home and Entertainment division is so far (products in the division is Xbox 360; Xbox; Xbox Live; CPxG (consumer software and hardware products); and IPTV).

The total operating loss for that division for the years 2004 to 2006 is $3.084 billion (yes $3084 million) on a total revenue that was, for those years, $10.133 billion. So they have to turn that divsions average 30% operating loss into a profit and try to recoup those $3 billion. That will not be easy.

Source Microsofts 10-K filed with the SEC:http://microsoft.shareholder.com/redesign/Edga rDetail.asp?CIK=789019&FID=1193125-06-180008&SID=0 6-00

Is PayPal a "bank"?

Paypal is about to become one, at least in Europe:

• PayPal becomes European bank
• PayPal Expands European Growth With Bank Charter And New European Headquarters

There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage or web search results pages. There will not be crazy, flashy, graphical doodads flying and popping up all over the Google site. Ever.
Marissa Meyer, 2005

Well we don't have anything to announce on that today. I do think this opens the door for the introduction of richer media into the search results page. We are now going to understand how users interact with that. And as Alan always likes to say search is about finding the best answer, not just the best URL or the best textual snippet.

For us ads are answers as well. Searching ads is just as hard as searching the Web, as searching images. And so I was hoping that we could bring some of these same advances in terms of the richness of media to ads.
Marissa Meyer, 2007