Market cap by itself is indeed "wishful thinking" - see the AOL merger with Time Warner. AOL had a much larger market cap from investors running up the share price, but Time Warner had far more assets and made far more actual money.
But market cap is much more relevant when it comes to hostile takeovers if the hostile party has enough cash to buy out much or most of said market cap.
Because Nokia licenses their patents under RAND terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory, iirc). Charging or demanding more from Apple than other phone manufacturers would possibly violate those terms.
Offer $5 more than the going share price and watch sellers line up. And you don't necessarily have to buy a majority of the shares to be in a dominant position within the company, since not all shareholders vote. And if they did buy Nokia, their international litigation over this would go away.
Nokia is the one of the largest cell phone makers in the world, a profitable company, and has large marketshare where Apple has little to no presence - and you think buying them would be a bad move?
So do you keep your head up your ass because it's a comfortable position for you, or is it for the warmth, or what?
Just keep telling yourself it's as simple as that.
Because it is that simple. Americans have been snookered by corporatist propaganda that appeals to their own greed and egos.
I question their lingering legacy.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you're from some other planet where workers are paid what they are worth and are not abused or put in dangerous situations needlessly. But here on planet Earth, Wal-Mart gets busted for forcing employees to work off the clock and airline pilots are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps or have to take a second job.
I saw this at the university level once. I knew a student living in the dorms who applied to get a static ip address for his computer (default was DHCP) and he registered a domain name to that ip address. The admin in charge of the campus network sent him a very terse email telling the student that this was against school policy, and that he had to take it down NOW.
The student immediately complied with the request, but then made the mistake of actually reading the school's network policies to try and see where this was prohibited. Unable to find any such policy, he wrote back to the head administrator and asked where registering a domain name to a campus ip address was forbidden.
The admins response? Tried to get the student kicked out of the computer science program AND suspended for the rest of the year.
Other than the part where Nokia wanted more money and more patents from Apple than from other manufacturers, of course. Somebody might be acting childish, but it sure isn't Apple.
Nokia might have more employees and sell more phones, but Apple makes more money - in fact they could buy a controlling interest in Nokia with their cash-on-hand and fire Durrant's ass on the spot.
It's worth noting that if Apple were a smaller company, this sort of behavior would (or should, you can always find more shills) get doors slammed in its face at media outlets pretty fast.
You must not read Glenn Greenwald. Our media doesn't give a shit about proper journalism, it cares about "access" so it can get the scoop and be a part of the "Kool Kids Club". If any reporter did what you suggest upon being offered an Apple exclusive, their editor would fire them on the spot.
Yes, because private businesses never suffer from waste or bad employees that manage to avoid being fired. The problems you describe aren't due to unions, but due to human beings.
It is basically impossible to fire the old IBM mainframer who refuses to learn anything new because he is retiring in 5-10 years and pines for the old days.
And I worked a shop that made Wal-Mart look pro-union, yet they never managed to fire a Navy vet who would spend more time telling management how to run the place than doing his job, when he wasn't sexually harassing female employees.
Therefore, private businesses are bad and should be banned.
So in these difficult budget times, we have to lay off the young, productive staff and are stuck with the useless ones.
There is nothing about unions that prevents bad employees from being fired anymore than at private businesses. And you haven't worked at many non-union shops if you've never had to do the work of another employee that wasn't pulling his own weight. What makes you think union workers are any more happy to do that than you are?
The problems with Unions is not that they exist, but that they forgot what their job was.
Hardly.
The problems with unions is that they forgot that and started focusing on pay and benefits.
I can't believe someone would type something that stupid and have enough brain power to keep their lungs functioning. First of all, on what planet are workers not concerned about pay and benefits? And where do you think pay (overtime) and benefits (a weekend) come from? That's right, unions.
And in the process hurting the employer by creating pay structures and job restrictions that are not sustainable.
Nonsense. Unions want businesses to be sustainable and profitable, just like management, for the same reasons: more take home pay. Unions have taken enormous cuts in pay and benefits to keep jobs, but for some reason they get pissed when workers are expected to make the sacrifices while the executives continue to get their golden parachutes and 15% annual increases in compensation.
There is a wide range of classifications for people who do not like unions.
Nah, there's just two:
1. Business owners 2. Frikkin Morons
The problem isn't unions, the problems is people. As proven by Enron, Worldcom, and the credit swap bubble that collapsed last year. But funny enough, you don't find these same Frikkin Morons ranting on how all business is bad because some businesses are bad.
The new PHB doesn't realize it. He's cut our staff by 15%, insulted us with the raises offered, put ridiculous demands on a smaller work force, and generally annoyed the hell out of us.
That's why IT people need to get over conservative propaganda and their own egos and get a damned union already. There is nothing about unions that limits your earning potential (see athletes, actors) or shelters the lazy (as if union workers want to do someone else's work any more than you do) that isn't at least as prevalent at non-union shops.
Methinks not, Captain Opposite Man. If the officer has to fill a quota each month, he's going to have to write tickets "beyond that which is needed". So this is, by definition, greed.
Effort and risk. You risk nothing by joining a class action lawsuit, while the lawyers risk working months or years for free. Don't like it, get off your lazy ass and hire your own damn lawyer and file your own damn lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Market cap by itself is indeed "wishful thinking" - see the AOL merger with Time Warner. AOL had a much larger market cap from investors running up the share price, but Time Warner had far more assets and made far more actual money.
But market cap is much more relevant when it comes to hostile takeovers if the hostile party has enough cash to buy out much or most of said market cap.
Because Nokia licenses their patents under RAND terms (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory, iirc). Charging or demanding more from Apple than other phone manufacturers would possibly violate those terms.
Offer $5 more than the going share price and watch sellers line up. And you don't necessarily have to buy a majority of the shares to be in a dominant position within the company, since not all shareholders vote. And if they did buy Nokia, their international litigation over this would go away.
Nokia is the one of the largest cell phone makers in the world, a profitable company, and has large marketshare where Apple has little to no presence - and you think buying them would be a bad move?
So do you keep your head up your ass because it's a comfortable position for you, or is it for the warmth, or what?
In the unionized environment, we are forbidden from the union contract from doing a layoff except in strict seniority order.
Right, because "first hired, first fired" only applies to unions. Right.
You BS.
Just keep telling yourself it's as simple as that.
Because it is that simple. Americans have been snookered by corporatist propaganda that appeals to their own greed and egos.
I question their lingering legacy.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you're from some other planet where workers are paid what they are worth and are not abused or put in dangerous situations needlessly. But here on planet Earth, Wal-Mart gets busted for forcing employees to work off the clock and airline pilots are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps or have to take a second job.
The obvious point, fuckwit, is that a group that makes up 80% of the country can't whine about being suppressed or oppressed.
Obviously.
But there's always the downer: a crushed pelvis.
Only a third? That's even less than I was thinking. They certainly have no way of justifying the purchase of a wireless phone manufacturer.
"Only" a third? When they make one kind of phone and it's only been out a couple of years?
Thanks for enhancing my point for me.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were a total moron.
Nokia's market cap is $47 billion. Apple has $34 billion in liquid assets. I didn't know the Kool Aid drinking Apple haters were this bad at math.
I saw this at the university level once. I knew a student living in the dorms who applied to get a static ip address for his computer (default was DHCP) and he registered a domain name to that ip address. The admin in charge of the campus network sent him a very terse email telling the student that this was against school policy, and that he had to take it down NOW.
The student immediately complied with the request, but then made the mistake of actually reading the school's network policies to try and see where this was prohibited. Unable to find any such policy, he wrote back to the head administrator and asked where registering a domain name to a campus ip address was forbidden.
The admins response? Tried to get the student kicked out of the computer science program AND suspended for the rest of the year.
Other than the part where Nokia wanted more money and more patents from Apple than from other manufacturers, of course. Somebody might be acting childish, but it sure isn't Apple.
That's why Nokia is the 800LB Gorilla.
Not when your "Zibby the Chimp" has enough cash on hand to buy a controlling interest Nokia and fire the gorilla.
Nokia might have more employees and sell more phones, but Apple makes more money - in fact they could buy a controlling interest in Nokia with their cash-on-hand and fire Durrant's ass on the spot.
It's worth noting that if Apple were a smaller company, this sort of behavior would (or should, you can always find more shills) get doors slammed in its face at media outlets pretty fast.
You must not read Glenn Greenwald. Our media doesn't give a shit about proper journalism, it cares about "access" so it can get the scoop and be a part of the "Kool Kids Club". If any reporter did what you suggest upon being offered an Apple exclusive, their editor would fire them on the spot.
Apple's market cap is more than three times the size of Nokia's, and Apple could buy a controlling interest in Nokia using their liquid assets alone.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Bitch.
Seriously, pull your head out. Process changes in private businesses also require retraining, but of course you knew that already.
Yes, because private businesses never suffer from waste or bad employees that manage to avoid being fired. The problems you describe aren't due to unions, but due to human beings.
It is basically impossible to fire the old IBM mainframer who refuses to learn anything new because he is retiring in 5-10 years and pines for the old days.
And I worked a shop that made Wal-Mart look pro-union, yet they never managed to fire a Navy vet who would spend more time telling management how to run the place than doing his job, when he wasn't sexually harassing female employees.
Therefore, private businesses are bad and should be banned.
So in these difficult budget times, we have to lay off the young, productive staff and are stuck with the useless ones.
There is nothing about unions that prevents bad employees from being fired anymore than at private businesses. And you haven't worked at many non-union shops if you've never had to do the work of another employee that wasn't pulling his own weight. What makes you think union workers are any more happy to do that than you are?
The problems with Unions is not that they exist, but that they forgot what their job was.
Hardly.
The problems with unions is that they forgot that and started focusing on pay and benefits.
I can't believe someone would type something that stupid and have enough brain power to keep their lungs functioning. First of all, on what planet are workers not concerned about pay and benefits? And where do you think pay (overtime) and benefits (a weekend) come from? That's right, unions.
And in the process hurting the employer by creating pay structures and job restrictions that are not sustainable.
Nonsense. Unions want businesses to be sustainable and profitable, just like management, for the same reasons: more take home pay. Unions have taken enormous cuts in pay and benefits to keep jobs, but for some reason they get pissed when workers are expected to make the sacrifices while the executives continue to get their golden parachutes and 15% annual increases in compensation.
There is a wide range of classifications for people who do not like unions.
Nah, there's just two:
1. Business owners
2. Frikkin Morons
The problem isn't unions, the problems is people. As proven by Enron, Worldcom, and the credit swap bubble that collapsed last year. But funny enough, you don't find these same Frikkin Morons ranting on how all business is bad because some businesses are bad.
The new PHB doesn't realize it. He's cut our staff by 15%, insulted us with the raises offered, put ridiculous demands on a smaller work force, and generally annoyed the hell out of us.
That's why man invented unions.
That's why IT people need to get over conservative propaganda and their own egos and get a damned union already. There is nothing about unions that limits your earning potential (see athletes, actors) or shelters the lazy (as if union workers want to do someone else's work any more than you do) that isn't at least as prevalent at non-union shops.
Wow, just because creationists are wrong doesn't mean you have to be so blatant about suppressing them.
Ah, yes, the Christan Persecution Complex. A bunch of WATB's who need to STFU.
Methinks not, Captain Opposite Man. If the officer has to fill a quota each month, he's going to have to write tickets "beyond that which is needed". So this is, by definition, greed.
Oh, so it's about effort?
Effort and risk. You risk nothing by joining a class action lawsuit, while the lawyers risk working months or years for free. Don't like it, get off your lazy ass and hire your own damn lawyer and file your own damn lawsuit.