The only reason why Facebook needs this because it has no real mobile monetization plan in place. What this is supposed to do is bring mobile share across to Facebook so they can sell ad space, however, the struggles are numerous and to just touch on a few we only have to look at what other companies have had to fair over the past 5 years.
So consider this how much money are they going to spend in tandem with the likelihood that a dwindling Chinese manufacturer such as HTC is even going to make a dent in to the likes of Apple and Samsung?
Rather than say "oh Google should be scared" how about HTF (How the fuck) is HTC and FB going to fair the smartphone shit fight?
I'd say it's a fly by nighter, once off, grab an expiring marketshare that wont lead anyway into the future, Like i've always said, FB should of made a camera not a phone.
With those those electric fields, are they fields of wind, sun or coal electricity? or doesn't it matter? Bees can communicate with all types of fields which contain electricity?
Mobile gaming has made classic games relevant again. Lets look at what's popular these days.
- Angry Birds - Swampy Where's my water? - That zombie in the veggie patch game - Runner games - Bubble shooters.
Look at classic games
- Tetris - Mario/Sonic - Space invaders - Pac man
The new games, though based on different mathematical concepts are still very similar to what was out 15-20 years ago. The only resounding difference is anything running a 3D engine of some sort but then we can always go back to the evolution of Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, and Half life then anything beyond that is just refinement of the old, yet again.
If anything, I'd say we're about to see the rebirth of the old labels come back, let's just hope they don't butcher the classics like they do with movies.
Is this like the 2 factor authentication which now that I do my banking on my Smartphone has become 1 factor authentication?
I.E
1. Login to netbank, issue payment on phone 2. Receive SMS authentication code (on the same device) 3. Key in the SMS authentication code in to the phone. 4. Bill paid?
Beat me too it! but it's a a little more than that, China working with local providers set up a JV or partnership which then sell their own custom inverters which come close to the European "top quality" products. They might not be as good but only by a little.
To reinforce the buy they couple it with a 10 - 15 year replacement guarantee, so at the end of it all you've got a good product which is not only a fraction of the price but also pretty much "as good" anything that comes out of Europe.
I was in the market for a solar system and the price for inverters plus cells looked it like...
3kw cells, 1.5kw inverter, European solution = 8k-10k (Bosch of similar) Same solution, same quality cells, slightly less quality inverter with a 15 year replaceable warranty = 2.5k
So even if the company that gave me the inverter goes broke in say 5 years time and I'm left without my warranty, 1k later with a similar company I'm back on line again for another 5 or so years.
a) Bosch which I've never found to be particularly that much better than anyone else, their hot water systems and dishwashers suck. They should just stick to powertools IMHO. b) Treat inverters as disposable items with a 5 year shelf life. c) Yes you get slightly better performance from a top quality inverter, so what? get a bigger inverter, at those prices you really gonna care? plus if you balance it correctly, the less stress you put ANY inverter under the longer it will last. d) I feel sorry for all the poor old ladies out there thinking they need to re-mortgage their house to get solar and then find out after the fact of pouring 10k down the toilet they save NOTHING on their electricity bill because they gave it solar companies.
I think D is very important to realise for a lot of people in the market to buy because if you cant make it render a cost advantage then why the heck would you do it in the first place?! and companies like Bosch need to realise that.
Charlie: Okay, the reason why men say hot girl at, like, 12 o'clock or 3 o'clock, is to specify a location using the clock face as a kind of a map. Jake: What if you have a digital watch? Charlie: First of all, you're not gonna meet any women if you wear a digital watch. Second of all, it doesn't matter; the clock face is imaginary. Jake: Then how do you know what time you saw the girl? Charlie: Oh, my God!
I would like to state that this is right as I also believe feminists in general should mind their own business.
As an example my mom who is a hard working, highly driven person has her priorities in life.
She is from back in the day when the man brought home the wage and the woman stayed at home and looked after the home / kids. Her beliefs are that as a wife and woman she had a very important role to play within the family unit which served to keep the family strong and functioning.
She dreaded the day men were paid in line with women / vice versa because that in turn complemented a lack of drive for a man to go out in the world and prove himself and become something to be proud of.
She has no problems working a job and has done so for the last 20 or so years but ideally she believes that feminists are diluting a perfectly acceptable way of life that should not be looked upon poorly and if anything these "strong women" though wish to make a point have done so at the detriment of others who were happy with the way things were.
Statistics or not, it's bullshit because even today many women do not want to be driven by the same things feminists have waged for, further, neither should be considered the norm and neither should need representation any longer. It is only put forward now as a means to "milk" a left wing ideal to serve a right wing goal.
In summary, feminists do what you want, us guys don't care either way but when you do raise the point its a "what the fuck" type sentiment for us because there are many powerful women out there, the Prime Minister of both Australia and New Zealand being perfect examples and excuse the blunt nature of this but it's fucking hard to become a leader of any country because out of the millions of possible candidates only the best of the best should be chosen, so in retrospect the opportunity IS there, wake up and practice what you preach.
Case and point with the US, we have a black man in the top job, the party to run with a female leader in the next election race will be the one who gets the job, in some ways you could say having a woman run for president would give that party an "unfair" advantage (that's my prediction anyway).
I have to be honest with you though Sandberg hits those categories with flying colours. Not that I can gauge what type of person she really is but she is a:
- Greedy "CFO" (one of the biggest insiders that Facebook has); - Sociopath (works for Facebook?); and - Loves to bullshit shareholders (Facebook is not worth $60B).
Yes, well here is my opinions on the matter. Glass project, Facebook, etc is not really the elements of technology, rather the use and lack of governance of people's rights which corporations are not acting responsibly by.
Facebook has a pretty nasty agenda which is almost like a set of technological "miranda rights" I.E anything you say or do WILL be used against you for OUR gain and MONETARY growth!
Google Glasses could end up the same. The camera is an important feature like Kinect which needs a camera to help with its key function. It's the _use_ of the camera (same with Kinect) and what Pandora's boxes get opened which really do require governance.
Did you know MS is pushing a head count DRM feature with Kinect? so say you're watching a movie and 4 people are in the room then they charge extra for the rental based on the number of viewers?
Glass is the way of the future, if not a set of glasses an implant one way or another. I guess we can feel somewhat comforted by the fact that it's not a company like MS or FaceBook in the forefront of such gizmos.
You're missing the point. That is not what the rule says. A warning would be worded as "Caution: wearing Google glasses may offend the Neanderthals that dwell in this urine soaked dump and they might want to bash you up" not "Hey, if you see someone with Google glasses you can smash them, we support you".
Management has "encouraged" violence, if an establishment has said "it is okay" to hit someone then they are legally wrong by condoning actions which violate a persons' rights (nothing to do with civil actions this happens after you win in the criminal courts because that then puts weight on the civil damages incurred, i.e grounds for a civil claim)
It is not legal to hit anyone, anywhere, even police need a reason to hit you and Google glasses is not a reason to be violent to a person. As a post said above "I have the right to take my business elsewhere". Glass owner or not, I wouldn't spend a dime with the morons who own that place, it is a reflection on the type of people _they_ are.
Not a good "rule" to promote, just because its "your" establishment, doesn't give the you the power to take away a person's rights.
All that will serve is if someone does get their ass kicked in the pub wearing Google glass, the pub will be seen as encouraging the assault and will become liable.
It's like me writing in class rules for a martial art "you will get beaten up". Sure you got to a martial arts class to be beaten up but as soon as that "beat up" is not consented then the martial art becomes labial. That is, students only hit each other during sparing sessions, not outside of set consented times of combat.
Same thing here, the rule writer can be put up for assault and sued now and the courts wont go easy on him because the rule will be seen as premeditated I.E his intent was to cause this upset. Very dumb.
Aren't they supposed to be trying to mobilise their systems so they can knock Google in to irrelevance to gratify their stockholders delusions?
No wait, that's never gonna happen. Might as well fish out some crappy POC from SecurityFocus code it up and and see if their dumb ass hipster engineers will accidentally click on it while thinking it was supposed to be a link to a cute kitty pix. I reckon for their next trick they should start filming their own version of Jackass in the HQ office... Mark Zuckkerballs taking a blowtorch to his scrotum, who wouldn't pay to see that?
FaceBook doesn't really need to do this, their are dozens of security firms out there that can show them how to hold a secure infrastructure. This seems like just a total waste of time for some reason as to pretend to be a "l33t hax0r" or something. I can't figure what's the method to the madness here....
No no, it was a highly complex set of sql queries devised by a highly complex set of mathematical algorithms which took a team of washed up college drop outs to devise. I was able to speak to Mark Zuckkerberg on this matter and he divulged to key areas of the system's source to me.
$searchquery = 'people who are hipster losers';
$sqlquery = 'select * from pages p inner join friends f on p.userid=f.friendid where 1'
Always has been buster. Just because you don't see the bit in Law and Order where the defendant hands over his house to the defence lawyer to keep him out of jail doesn't mean that is not the "norm".
Sad to say "innocent until proven guilty" does not exist, with the way our media works compounded by our legal system and how "that" works, no, the accused is fucked and he/she has to spend their life savings (if they're not rich) getting themselves unfucked.
Corporations have a right to run their businesses however they want.
Corporations don't have the right to run whatever however they want. As an executive or director you MUST always act accordingly and responsibly and you MUST maintain an ethical stature and operate within the confines within the law *.
As a rule of thumb any new policies and procedures a company institutes which later affect another business' income, then for the suffering business suing for loss of business is quite possible and quite winnable regardless of any clauses in contracts that say things like "we can disconnect you for any reason".
They weigh these new rules knowing that the risks of such things are low and they also know that a big and nasty enough legal defence can make those take down notices not worth the paper they are printed on. This is just an ass covering process for the ISP, nothing more.
* Though seeing this is in practice is a rarity, it is actually supposed to be the norm.
A better analogy is that Apple's parents paid for them to to grow up and go to fancy college... Now the parents want Apple's spare money to set up another kid to do cool things. Apple is as PRODUCTIVE as they are ever going to get... Time for them to pay off mom n dad so some little sibs get a chance.
I like this explanation but to insinuate investors being responsible parents is my qualm. We are talking about the same types of people that pit their hopes and dreams on FaceBook being the next big thing right?
As AAPL though because AAPL has to look out for AAPL (not anybody else) they need to deflate without causing a bubble burst that loses investor confidence because if you have that it creates a bad situation for the tech industry in general.
If I were AAPL I would do what you propose but I wouldn't do it by allowing investors do it, I'd do it myself and do it the way GOOG handles their acquisitions, you know small innovative businesses that can be commoditized into larger money making machines, an example is Urchin which is now Google Analytics, YouTube is another, perhaps the best is Android.
I feel if they took that route they'd make plenty of friends their perception would be "I'm not evil" and they stick it to the parents and show them that they are wrong without losing their confidence in the same stroke. The problem is as you say, it's not Apple's way.
If they did this and sooner rather than later, the sooner that band aid comes off and sooner these products can be "assimilated" into AAPL because it may pose as a bumpy ride (any acquisition does) but at least you'd have a company with a good track record looking toward the future.
Back to FaceBook, they bought Instagram, which is total crap. Say AAPL bought Whereis or a decent Mapping company, AAPL bought a camera company and stuck iOS on it, there literally so many good ideas out there for AAPL which if they took to it would totally disrupt the tech industry in a way we'd have the birth of phone wars all over again.
Small dispersions of money to shareholders shouldn't be an issue, though I'm sure AAPL does the dividend thing, more so it's the buy back of the shares which is what they are pitching and if your key asset is money you might have a problem. I.E you have $175bn in assets and $130bn of that is greenback. Lets look at loose figures here... (no means perfect mind you)
You have an annual revenue of $150bn and an asset base of $175bn the market cap is supposed to define the companies total worth stock volume x stock value = marketcap. Apple has a marketcap of $420 billion and $150+$175 is off by about $100bn, so lets consider the $100bn difference being calculated as expected growth, I.E what analysts say.
So say you take their key asset "their cash" and you buy back shares, you do that expecting to drive the share value up right? Unfortunately with AAPL it may not be the case because you could get stuck over inflating the share price with nothing under it, causing the value of the shares to do quite the opposite. The concept of future trading (P/E ratio, etc) is based on 12 months of projected annual growth, AAPL is only growing the money, not the physical assets which are supposed to yield a higher ROI than what money would, I.E money generating assets.
If Apple had an asset base that was of similar size or greater than it's cash, then no issues it only makes sense to buy back the shares, but it seems the market is hell bent on killing them so they can do it all over again.
So if Apple loses to Einhorn it could establish a catastrophic legal precedent that could screw the AAPL stock.
If AAPL holds on to the money without creating assets that could also screw AAPL stock but again to my bulls hatred, the market wants to control how the mountain is pushed over, that way the ones in the right place and right time can jump ship or short sell when the going is good.
Maybe its my own personal feelings saying this but I think AAPL holding on to the cash is their way of showing who's got the upperhand.
Yes and no (maybe?), yes Apple doesn't give a shit but it most certainly does not walk away from Wall St unscathed. The problem with AAPL (if you can call it a problem) is the amount of money it has...
AAPL has $130bn in the bank but it also has 1billion outstanding shares. So you do the math, if AAPL was to "buy" back it's shares the company could only afford $130 for each share (which are currently valued at $442).
So, you have shit like this going on at the moment with AAPL
Which is a PERFECT example of how bulls screw the market. Instead of "investing" in a business and hoping that the rewards of that investment come from the fruits of the company's labour. The market is instead trying to manipulate and seize the financial and operational objectives of the companies they invest in and make them do what "they" want. Obviously they hold some sort of sense of entitlement here, I personally believe it's not fair but that's pretty much what's at play.
What I think this is with Einhorn vs AAPL's is case of hungry eyes at play and sheer "want now, forget tomorrow" greed.
Its in nobody's interest to destroy a thriving business, or at least one that is worth more alive than dead
You've just explained where bubbles come from and the parent just explained what happens when a business' growth stabilizes and how those bubbles burst. It's a recipe for disaster either way you look at it.
As I've always said "you cant push hot molasses up hill" though the market wishes it can and on the flip side you then have the short sells who profit from that so it's kobayashi maru for the company caught in the rift.
Public companies are getting abused on the stock market so bad being private means they can actually run the business properly without having to worry about squeezing to make every Q more profitable according to analyst projections and "expected" profits.
Apple should do the same but having 1bn outstanding shares at $400 a piece means even their whopping $130bn in the bank wont even save them from the onslaught.
Slashdot Mirror
Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.
Seems like the excess traffic from /. broke their website
I wouldn't be too worried if I were Google.
The only reason why Facebook needs this because it has no real mobile monetization plan in place. What this is supposed to do is bring mobile share across to Facebook so they can sell ad space, however, the struggles are numerous and to just touch on a few we only have to look at what other companies have had to fair over the past 5 years.
So consider this how much money are they going to spend in tandem with the likelihood that a dwindling Chinese manufacturer such as HTC is even going to make a dent in to the likes of Apple and Samsung?
Rather than say "oh Google should be scared" how about HTF (How the fuck) is HTC and FB going to fair the smartphone shit fight?
I'd say it's a fly by nighter, once off, grab an expiring marketshare that wont lead anyway into the future, Like i've always said, FB should of made a camera not a phone.
With those those electric fields, are they fields of wind, sun or coal electricity? or doesn't it matter? Bees can communicate with all types of fields which contain electricity?
Examples of the fields I'm talking about
http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/DM-Resize/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/36/14/dv887019.jpg?w=600&h=600&keep_ratio=1
http://www.screwpile.com.au/app_images/249Solar%20Farm%201.jpg
So you're shocked by the fact that Bees use electricity to communicate?
Is that like being puzzled to learn that Mice can find cheese in a maze?
Mobile gaming has made classic games relevant again. Lets look at what's popular these days.
- Angry Birds
- Swampy Where's my water?
- That zombie in the veggie patch game
- Runner games
- Bubble shooters.
Look at classic games
- Tetris
- Mario/Sonic
- Space invaders
- Pac man
The new games, though based on different mathematical concepts are still very similar to what was out 15-20 years ago. The only resounding difference is anything running a 3D engine of some sort but then we can always go back to the evolution of Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, and Half life then anything beyond that is just refinement of the old, yet again.
If anything, I'd say we're about to see the rebirth of the old labels come back, let's just hope they don't butcher the classics like they do with movies.
Is this like the 2 factor authentication which now that I do my banking on my Smartphone has become 1 factor authentication?
I.E
1. Login to netbank, issue payment on phone
2. Receive SMS authentication code (on the same device)
3. Key in the SMS authentication code in to the phone.
4. Bill paid?
BTW it's not the cells, Europe or Asia, the cells are the cheap bit, its the inverter which is costly.
Beat me too it! but it's a a little more than that, China working with local providers set up a JV or partnership which then sell their own custom inverters which come close to the European "top quality" products. They might not be as good but only by a little.
To reinforce the buy they couple it with a 10 - 15 year replacement guarantee, so at the end of it all you've got a good product which is not only a fraction of the price but also pretty much "as good" anything that comes out of Europe.
I was in the market for a solar system and the price for inverters plus cells looked it like ...
3kw cells, 1.5kw inverter, European solution = 8k-10k (Bosch of similar)
Same solution, same quality cells, slightly less quality inverter with a 15 year replaceable warranty = 2.5k
So even if the company that gave me the inverter goes broke in say 5 years time and I'm left without my warranty, 1k later with a similar company I'm back on line again for another 5 or so years.
a) Bosch which I've never found to be particularly that much better than anyone else, their hot water systems and dishwashers suck. They should just stick to powertools IMHO.
b) Treat inverters as disposable items with a 5 year shelf life.
c) Yes you get slightly better performance from a top quality inverter, so what? get a bigger inverter, at those prices you really gonna care? plus if you balance it correctly, the less stress you put ANY inverter under the longer it will last.
d) I feel sorry for all the poor old ladies out there thinking they need to re-mortgage their house to get solar and then find out after the fact of pouring 10k down the toilet they save NOTHING on their electricity bill because they gave it solar companies.
I think D is very important to realise for a lot of people in the market to buy because if you cant make it render a cost advantage then why the heck would you do it in the first place?! and companies like Bosch need to realise that.
As a wise man once said ...
Charlie: Okay, the reason why men say hot girl at, like, 12 o'clock or 3 o'clock, is to specify a location using the clock face as a kind of a map.
Jake: What if you have a digital watch?
Charlie: First of all, you're not gonna meet any women if you wear a digital watch. Second of all, it doesn't matter; the clock face is imaginary.
Jake: Then how do you know what time you saw the girl?
Charlie: Oh, my God!
I would like to state that this is right as I also believe feminists in general should mind their own business.
As an example my mom who is a hard working, highly driven person has her priorities in life.
She is from back in the day when the man brought home the wage and the woman stayed at home and looked after the home / kids. Her beliefs are that as a wife and woman she had a very important role to play within the family unit which served to keep the family strong and functioning.
She dreaded the day men were paid in line with women / vice versa because that in turn complemented a lack of drive for a man to go out in the world and prove himself and become something to be proud of.
She has no problems working a job and has done so for the last 20 or so years but ideally she believes that feminists are diluting a perfectly acceptable way of life that should not be looked upon poorly and if anything these "strong women" though wish to make a point have done so at the detriment of others who were happy with the way things were.
Statistics or not, it's bullshit because even today many women do not want to be driven by the same things feminists have waged for, further, neither should be considered the norm and neither should need representation any longer. It is only put forward now as a means to "milk" a left wing ideal to serve a right wing goal.
In summary, feminists do what you want, us guys don't care either way but when you do raise the point its a "what the fuck" type sentiment for us because there are many powerful women out there, the Prime Minister of both Australia and New Zealand being perfect examples and excuse the blunt nature of this but it's fucking hard to become a leader of any country because out of the millions of possible candidates only the best of the best should be chosen, so in retrospect the opportunity IS there, wake up and practice what you preach.
Case and point with the US, we have a black man in the top job, the party to run with a female leader in the next election race will be the one who gets the job, in some ways you could say having a woman run for president would give that party an "unfair" advantage (that's my prediction anyway).
I have to be honest with you though Sandberg hits those categories with flying colours. Not that I can gauge what type of person she really is but she is a:
- Greedy "CFO" (one of the biggest insiders that Facebook has);
- Sociopath (works for Facebook?); and
- Loves to bullshit shareholders (Facebook is not worth $60B).
So she ticks all the boxes in my book!
Yes, well here is my opinions on the matter. Glass project, Facebook, etc is not really the elements of technology, rather the use and lack of governance of people's rights which corporations are not acting responsibly by.
Facebook has a pretty nasty agenda which is almost like a set of technological "miranda rights" I.E anything you say or do WILL be used against you for OUR gain and MONETARY growth!
Google Glasses could end up the same. The camera is an important feature like Kinect which needs a camera to help with its key function. It's the _use_ of the camera (same with Kinect) and what Pandora's boxes get opened which really do require governance.
Did you know MS is pushing a head count DRM feature with Kinect? so say you're watching a movie and 4 people are in the room then they charge extra for the rental based on the number of viewers?
Glass is the way of the future, if not a set of glasses an implant one way or another. I guess we can feel somewhat comforted by the fact that it's not a company like MS or FaceBook in the forefront of such gizmos.
You're missing the point. That is not what the rule says. A warning would be worded as "Caution: wearing Google glasses may offend the Neanderthals that dwell in this urine soaked dump and they might want to bash you up" not "Hey, if you see someone with Google glasses you can smash them, we support you".
Management has "encouraged" violence, if an establishment has said "it is okay" to hit someone then they are legally wrong by condoning actions which violate a persons' rights (nothing to do with civil actions this happens after you win in the criminal courts because that then puts weight on the civil damages incurred, i.e grounds for a civil claim)
It is not legal to hit anyone, anywhere, even police need a reason to hit you and Google glasses is not a reason to be violent to a person. As a post said above "I have the right to take my business elsewhere". Glass owner or not, I wouldn't spend a dime with the morons who own that place, it is a reflection on the type of people _they_ are.
Not a good "rule" to promote, just because its "your" establishment, doesn't give the you the power to take away a person's rights.
All that will serve is if someone does get their ass kicked in the pub wearing Google glass, the pub will be seen as encouraging the assault and will become liable.
It's like me writing in class rules for a martial art "you will get beaten up". Sure you got to a martial arts class to be beaten up but as soon as that "beat up" is not consented then the martial art becomes labial. That is, students only hit each other during sparing sessions, not outside of set consented times of combat.
Same thing here, the rule writer can be put up for assault and sued now and the courts wont go easy on him because the rule will be seen as premeditated I.E his intent was to cause this upset. Very dumb.
In what world is Facebook competing with Google?
Advertising revenue genius.
Aren't they supposed to be trying to mobilise their systems so they can knock Google in to irrelevance to gratify their stockholders delusions?
No wait, that's never gonna happen. Might as well fish out some crappy POC from SecurityFocus code it up and and see if their dumb ass hipster engineers will accidentally click on it while thinking it was supposed to be a link to a cute kitty pix. I reckon for their next trick they should start filming their own version of Jackass in the HQ office ... Mark Zuckkerballs taking a blowtorch to his scrotum, who wouldn't pay to see that?
FaceBook doesn't really need to do this, their are dozens of security firms out there that can show them how to hold a secure infrastructure. This seems like just a total waste of time for some reason as to pretend to be a "l33t hax0r" or something. I can't figure what's the method to the madness here ....
In your example, the money was stolen. The data, however, was not.
When was the last time you visited the bank and asked them to actually show you your money?
Last time I checked my bank balance it was via a NetBank screen, so I suppose that amount is nothing more than a database variable right?
Wait, did I just make bank robbery legal? Hold on ...
No no, it was a highly complex set of sql queries devised by a highly complex set of mathematical algorithms which took a team of washed up college drop outs to devise. I was able to speak to Mark Zuckkerberg on this matter and he divulged to key areas of the system's source to me.
$searchquery = 'people who are hipster losers';
$sqlquery = 'select * from pages p inner join friends f on p.userid=f.friendid where 1'
mysql_connect("localhost", "leet", "hax0r");
mysql_select_db("facebook_db");
$page = mysql_fetch_array($sqlquery);
if($page['like']>0) {
if(strpos($page['content'], $searchquery) === true) {
echo $page['content'];
}
}
Always has been buster. Just because you don't see the bit in Law and Order where the defendant hands over his house to the defence lawyer to keep him out of jail doesn't mean that is not the "norm".
Sad to say "innocent until proven guilty" does not exist, with the way our media works compounded by our legal system and how "that" works, no, the accused is fucked and he/she has to spend their life savings (if they're not rich) getting themselves unfucked.
Welcome to democracy.
Corporations have a right to run their businesses however they want.
Corporations don't have the right to run whatever however they want. As an executive or director you MUST always act accordingly and responsibly and you MUST maintain an ethical stature and operate within the confines within the law *.
As a rule of thumb any new policies and procedures a company institutes which later affect another business' income, then for the suffering business suing for loss of business is quite possible and quite winnable regardless of any clauses in contracts that say things like "we can disconnect you for any reason".
They weigh these new rules knowing that the risks of such things are low and they also know that a big and nasty enough legal defence can make those take down notices not worth the paper they are printed on. This is just an ass covering process for the ISP, nothing more.
* Though seeing this is in practice is a rarity, it is actually supposed to be the norm.
A better analogy is that Apple's parents paid for them to to grow up and go to fancy college... Now the parents want Apple's spare money to set up another kid to do cool things. Apple is as PRODUCTIVE as they are ever going to get... Time for them to pay off mom n dad so some little sibs get a chance.
I like this explanation but to insinuate investors being responsible parents is my qualm. We are talking about the same types of people that pit their hopes and dreams on FaceBook being the next big thing right?
As AAPL though because AAPL has to look out for AAPL (not anybody else) they need to deflate without causing a bubble burst that loses investor confidence because if you have that it creates a bad situation for the tech industry in general.
If I were AAPL I would do what you propose but I wouldn't do it by allowing investors do it, I'd do it myself and do it the way GOOG handles their acquisitions, you know small innovative businesses that can be commoditized into larger money making machines, an example is Urchin which is now Google Analytics, YouTube is another, perhaps the best is Android.
I feel if they took that route they'd make plenty of friends their perception would be "I'm not evil" and they stick it to the parents and show them that they are wrong without losing their confidence in the same stroke. The problem is as you say, it's not Apple's way.
If they did this and sooner rather than later, the sooner that band aid comes off and sooner these products can be "assimilated" into AAPL because it may pose as a bumpy ride (any acquisition does) but at least you'd have a company with a good track record looking toward the future.
Back to FaceBook, they bought Instagram, which is total crap. Say AAPL bought Whereis or a decent Mapping company, AAPL bought a camera company and stuck iOS on it, there literally so many good ideas out there for AAPL which if they took to it would totally disrupt the tech industry in a way we'd have the birth of phone wars all over again.
Small dispersions of money to shareholders shouldn't be an issue, though I'm sure AAPL does the dividend thing, more so it's the buy back of the shares which is what they are pitching and if your key asset is money you might have a problem. I.E you have $175bn in assets and $130bn of that is greenback. Lets look at loose figures here ... (no means perfect mind you)
You have an annual revenue of $150bn and an asset base of $175bn the market cap is supposed to define the companies total worth stock volume x stock value = marketcap. Apple has a marketcap of $420 billion and $150+$175 is off by about $100bn, so lets consider the $100bn difference being calculated as expected growth, I.E what analysts say.
So say you take their key asset "their cash" and you buy back shares, you do that expecting to drive the share value up right? Unfortunately with AAPL it may not be the case because you could get stuck over inflating the share price with nothing under it, causing the value of the shares to do quite the opposite. The concept of future trading (P/E ratio, etc) is based on 12 months of projected annual growth, AAPL is only growing the money, not the physical assets which are supposed to yield a higher ROI than what money would, I.E money generating assets.
If Apple had an asset base that was of similar size or greater than it's cash, then no issues it only makes sense to buy back the shares, but it seems the market is hell bent on killing them so they can do it all over again.
So if Apple loses to Einhorn it could establish a catastrophic legal precedent that could screw the AAPL stock.
If AAPL holds on to the money without creating assets that could also screw AAPL stock but again to my bulls hatred, the market wants to control how the mountain is pushed over, that way the ones in the right place and right time can jump ship or short sell when the going is good.
Maybe its my own personal feelings saying this but I think AAPL holding on to the cash is their way of showing who's got the upperhand.
Yes and no (maybe?), yes Apple doesn't give a shit but it most certainly does not walk away from Wall St unscathed. The problem with AAPL (if you can call it a problem) is the amount of money it has ...
AAPL has $130bn in the bank but it also has 1billion outstanding shares. So you do the math, if AAPL was to "buy" back it's shares the company could only afford $130 for each share (which are currently valued at $442).
So, you have shit like this going on at the moment with AAPL
http://www.technologyspectator.com.au/einhorn-scores-legal-victory-over-apple-cash-debate
Which is a PERFECT example of how bulls screw the market. Instead of "investing" in a business and hoping that the rewards of that investment come from the fruits of the company's labour. The market is instead trying to manipulate and seize the financial and operational objectives of the companies they invest in and make them do what "they" want. Obviously they hold some sort of sense of entitlement here, I personally believe it's not fair but that's pretty much what's at play.
What I think this is with Einhorn vs AAPL's is case of hungry eyes at play and sheer "want now, forget tomorrow" greed.
Its in nobody's interest to destroy a thriving business, or at least one that is worth more alive than dead
You've just explained where bubbles come from and the parent just explained what happens when a business' growth stabilizes and how those bubbles burst. It's a recipe for disaster either way you look at it.
As I've always said "you cant push hot molasses up hill" though the market wishes it can and on the flip side you then have the short sells who profit from that so it's kobayashi maru for the company caught in the rift.
Public companies are getting abused on the stock market so bad being private means they can actually run the business properly without having to worry about squeezing to make every Q more profitable according to analyst projections and "expected" profits.
Apple should do the same but having 1bn outstanding shares at $400 a piece means even their whopping $130bn in the bank wont even save them from the onslaught.