If I'm at one event, I like to follow along with another event to see how it's going. Hilights & scores work for me then. In a close game, that might lead to lots of tweets.
In the last quarter, Samsung started marking down the GS3 significantly.
Also, where are you getting your numbers? Samsung doesn't release quarterly phone shipments. If you're using estimates, what factor do profits play if smart is over estimated by 10% and features underestimated by 10%?
I was asking how anyone can determine if Samsung is making any money off of the GS3.
Sure, they're making lots of money, but is the GS3 a loss leader? Are the feature phones actually making the bulk of the money and it might make sense for Samsung to drop the high end phones for more profits?
Show me *where* Samsung Electronics made those profits.
Was it in their high end phones that have lower sales*, but (possibly) higher margins? Was it in their low end phones that have higher sales*, and (possibly) lower margins?
Current chip price: $17.50/phone After increase: $21.00/phone
$3.50 increase per phone adds up to about $87M cost increase per quarter (assuming 25M iphone5/ipad4 per quarter)
That's like half a day of free cash flow from Apple's operations. For the whole quarter.
It's more of a piss Apple off than actually affect their business/profits. Which doesn't seem like a great business move from Samsung, seeing as Apple is their biggest chip customer.
Do you actually believe that Republicans want to free money - whatever you mean by that?
This is what both parties actually do: R - tax cuts, spend more on military D - tax increases, spend more on people
Tax and spend is a much better fiscal policy than tax cut and spend. The excess spending on both sides is completely ridiculous. If I had to choose one though, I'd prefer the spending be done on the American people rather than the policing of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the converse.
Imagine the pressure it puts on the Asians. Can't have a childhood, gotta study and be better than those other colors.
Which leads to the board of HP is by far the worst board of the entire existence of the planet.
In your opinion.
For some people, yes.
If I'm at one event, I like to follow along with another event to see how it's going. Hilights & scores work for me then.
In a close game, that might lead to lots of tweets.
Well, by retweeting it, they would have brought it into the country where it was an arrestable tweet.
So, time for a hanging!
Everyone else agrees that you're both a shill AND a troll.
Happy now?
No, but he did sleep with Jill Kelley's twin sister.
Also, their answer to ARM-based tablets is a dead end. Which is the market deciding.
They're still 3rd party estimates.
Some people love Tomi Ahonen. Some people hate him. Usually depending on their bias towards Nokia.
But he does have lots of experience in the mobile phone area.
To throw a wrench in your calculations:
In the last quarter, Samsung started marking down the GS3 significantly.
Also, where are you getting your numbers? Samsung doesn't release quarterly phone shipments. If you're using estimates, what factor do profits play if smart is over estimated by 10% and features underestimated by 10%?
A $3.50 increase is telling them to fuck off?
Why can't people follow a thread.
I was asking how anyone can determine if Samsung is making any money off of the GS3.
Sure, they're making lots of money, but is the GS3 a loss leader? Are the feature phones actually making the bulk of the money and it might make sense for Samsung to drop the high end phones for more profits?
No one knows.
If 25M iphones can't be made/sold, thats' 25M SIII's that can be sold
That's not true; it's not an either or.
Also, were talking about jacking up prices $3.50. They're not stopping them from being made or sold.
Someone's probably run the numbers and figured out that it's now worth telling Apple to bog off.
Or more likely, they finally recognized that Apple is going to leave sooner or later, and they better make money off of them before they're gone.
Show me *where* Samsung Electronics made those profits.
Was it in their high end phones that have lower sales*, but (possibly) higher margins?
Was it in their low end phones that have higher sales*, and (possibly) lower margins?
No one outside of Samsung has any idea.
*relative to other Samsung phone sales.
More missing info.
Current chip price: $17.50/phone
After increase: $21.00/phone
$3.50 increase per phone adds up to about $87M cost increase per quarter (assuming 25M iphone5/ipad4 per quarter)
That's like half a day of free cash flow from Apple's operations. For the whole quarter.
It's more of a piss Apple off than actually affect their business/profits. Which doesn't seem like a great business move from Samsung, seeing as Apple is their biggest chip customer.
Well, I'm saying I disagree with you.
How can the Republican party 'stand for' those things when they don't do it, at all, ever in the last 40 years?
It's a sales point, not an actual platform. Hence, they don't actually stand for it.
But yes, the Democrats are now becoming militarized too. I think they're getting addicted to the kickbacks, too.
Ideologically, Republicans are for lower taxes, thus, less control of government over an individuals money.
Not any Republicans in my life time. And I remember Reagan getting elected. And tripling the national debt with military spending.
I think you're thinking of fiscally conservative Republicans. But those don't exist any more. Literally, they've all died off it was so long ago.
You do realize you're still an order of magnitude off in power usage, right?
Do you actually believe that Republicans want to free money - whatever you mean by that?
This is what both parties actually do:
R - tax cuts, spend more on military
D - tax increases, spend more on people
Tax and spend is a much better fiscal policy than tax cut and spend. The excess spending on both sides is completely ridiculous. If I had to choose one though, I'd prefer the spending be done on the American people rather than the policing of the world.
Yet they want to force others to live on their principles - gays, abortion, drugs, etc.
You can't have it both ways.
And being forced to help someone isn't nearly as bad as forcing someone else to not choose their own lifestyle.
Yet they want the government to regulate how other people (gays/women) should live?
Can't have it both ways.
You might want to go look up the last time the Republican president wanted a smaller government.
Hint. It was Nixon.
Which is why tax and spend(D) is much more fiscally sound than lower-tax and spend(R).
Why is it the majority of 'Christians' vote for the guy who promises NOT to help those in need?
Just doesn't make sense.
Just yours.
Top ten states by % of college graduates - all democrats
Bottom ten states by % of college graduates - 9 were republican
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/266758023177981952/photo/1
Pretty sure they will be, since the are now and have been since ... forever?