Rage HD, Oregon Trail, the Louvre app, are all apps I bought that approach 1gb. The question really is how does he manage to download those over 3G when the phone doesn't let any apps over 20mb go over 3G.
Regardless, all you need to do is watch a couple of Netflix movies or use YouTube or Pandora somewhat regularly, basically use the phone the way AT&T advertises and you're already at risk of hitting the cap.
Has anyone else noticed that this "less than 5%" number keeps changing? Previously they were using as little as under 2gb, now it's over 3gb. Given all their other misinformation, I wouldn't be surprised if they are making it up completely. AT&T needs a class-action lawsuit filed against them, otherwise they are going to keep pulling this nonsense and keep lying through their teeth about it. The current situation where unlimited means "limited to 3gb/mo" is still unacceptable. Why don't they just cancel those plans if they don't want to honor their terms?
There may be no benefit to the company but there's no detriment either. So it's not exactly leeching f you aren't extracting value *from* the company, as a leech literally does. That value comes from the next guy playing the hot potato game.
As for the value of offering dividends as part of the IPO, how do you square that with the fact that IPOs don't launch with dividends?
> If a company doesn't pay dividends, the stock is essentially worthless.
In case you haven't noticed, casinos also always make money overall, but this doesn't stop people from gambling. This is just a fact of how Wall Street works, and it doesn't deter anybody from gambling/investing.
Warren Buffett has gone on record saying his company will never pay a dividend, but that hasn't stopped it's stock market price from increasing.
Excuse me? I'm not sure where you got all that but if you're going to accuse people of failures of reading comprehension you shouldn't make such errors yourself. What you failed to comprehend is I never said anything about nominal wages or US standards. Your defensiveness, as well as your audacious liberties with well-established facts makes you just sound like a paid Foxconn flak.
As for applying US standards, I'm not the amoral asshole going around justifying having a suicide rate by saying it's higher in some parts of American life.
> If Apple's management were such geniuses, then why don't they take that cash and start another business line that will make them even more successful?
Maybe because that's an incredibly stupid thing to do?
If they were such geniuses, why don't they focus on their own company until it has a bigger market cap than anyone else in the world? Oh, wait.
I think they know a lot more about how to run their own company than you do, and are a hell of a lot smarter than you. Certainly they are smart enough to figure out what company they are in charge of running. But you may have meant that sarcastically.
> Sitting on a load of cash is a sure sign that management doesn't have any good ideas in the pipeline to keep the business growing and the company is headed towards stagnation.
No, it's a sure sign that management has some great ideas for making tons and tons of money, and not pissing it away on stupid, irresponsible things. What makes you think they haven't spent tons more money on things that are already in the pipeline?
Stock does not entitle one to a cut of the profits, nor has it ever.
> It's not a matter of whether the employees deserve anything. When has that ever been an issue in corporate governance and finance?
Every time someone is offered a salary, a wage, or a bonus. Since we're talking about bonuses, bonuses are generally handed out when the company is doing very well. They are given as a reward for the hard work and creativity that contributed to the company's success. It motivates the employees to continue working hard and continue making the company succeed. This is hardly "pissing away" the money.
People who expect entitlements might have a hard time understanding this concept.
>What do you think will happen to the value of Apple stock if the investors are told that they will never see a profit on their investment unless they sell it?
Apple hasn't given out dividends for 15 years, and that hasn't stopped its stock from performing incredibly well in that time. I think it will continue to perform incredibly well as Apple continues to make enormous profits.
> If the investors don't get their share of the profits, there's a risk that management will just piss it away and they'll never get paid.
Handing out dividends *is* pissing it away. It does nothing to improve the company, it is only a handout and removes assets, for no benefit to the company. It's the corporate equivalent of taxation, only without the government services that taxes pay for. And as you just said, there are several other things that management can do with that money to improve the company instead of handing out free money.
> If they really tried to do what you're suggesting and give it to employees, then what do you think would happen to the value of stock? You'd lose the value of all the trust that investors put in management to run the company efficiently and for their benefit.
No, they wouldn't lose that trust, nor would they lose stock value. I'll refer again to the history of Apple's stock price over the last 15 years with no dividends. Apple's stock didn't go up because shareholders are expecting an eventual handout, that stock went up because Apple continues to be incredibly productive and continues to have a bright future ahead of it. Stock does not entitle the owner to a cut of the profits, nor has it ever. The stock market is not driven by companies' ability to pay out dividends, it is driven entirely by expectations of future stock performance. Dividends have only ever been gravy for shareholders.
Management has handled the company and its assets very, very well in the last 15 years and it's a good thing that the shareholders, by-and-large, trust them to continue to do so and aren't demanding their pound of flesh.
If anybody deserves a reward or a bonus from Apple's massive stockpile of cash, it is the people who created such incredible value for the company, the people whose hard work and creativity earned it that massive stockpile of cash. Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work?) Those people are its employees and its contractors, not its shareholders.
Shareholders contribute nothing to the company outside a sale of stock by the company. They do not shoulder any risk or liability beyond the money they "invest" when they buy stock. They cannot be held responsible for corporate malfeasance nor sued by the company's creditors. And unless they buy stock from company directly, their "investment" is never seen by the company. It is only that sale of stock by the company that the company ever benefits from. They are not true owners nor true investors. Shareholders are already rewarded for their investment when the company succeeds by the increased value of their stock. They can sell it for a profit if they like, or hold on to it and hope the stock price continues to increase. That's why they bought it, and that's how the stock market works, that's how it's always worked.
If shareholders were responsible for their company, as true owners are, I might think they deserve a cut of the profits. But since they are not responsible, Apple is absolutely right to withhold dividends, and I hope more companies do the same.
So your point is they don't deserve to make any more money than they already make? Perhaps they are already overpaid? That suicide rate does look pretty low when you put it that way.
Doesn't it seem silly to slaughter the goose that killed the golden egg? Doesn't it seem just as silly to just bleed it a little?
If shareholders want to get paid, they can sell their stock. But relying on dividends is nothing more than letting casino players leech off a company's hard work, welfare for capitalists. If you were an employee and had the temerity to ask for a raise because the company was doing do well, the same capitalists (ironically enough, though it shouldn't be ironic at all) would be so far up your ass for being a leech. If you were a taxpayer who wanted your taxes to go to services for the less well-to-do citizens, the same people would (and do) scream to the rafters about what a leech you are. How are dividends any different? Shareholders don't contribute in any way to the success of the company, and they definitely don't deserve to leech profits out of it just because it does well. If it does well when they happened to own a piece of it, they can sell some pf their share for a profit. But this idea that they deserve a regular income stream only drains value from the company and is leeching as certainly as if they were Cadillac-driving welfare queens.
No, it isn't. Apple's board in particular works for Apple as evidenced by their steadfast refusal to allow dividends, and various anecdotes from the Steve Jobs bio about how he replaced the board with one that would be his (the CEO's) rubber stamp. And at the shareholder meeting just a few days ago the shareholders just voted to keep all the directors.
The shareholders are quite clearly happy with the way the company is being run. There's no chance of a revolt as long as the stock price keeps soaring.
These articles are just being pushed by a few leeches who think they deserve something for nothing. I personally hope they never see a cent. Why should they get that money and not the employees and contractors who are responsible for Apple's success?
Talk about a double standard. When the RIAA or MPAA sues their customers, huge - HUGE - punitive damages are involved. But when a customer sues a big corporation like AT&T, there's no punitive damages, and the required award is even disregarded in favor of something resembling actual damages? Where's the disincentive that's supposed to keep AT&T honest?
You mean billions. We've only spent about about half a trillion dollars on NASA since 1958. People like to exaggerate the cost and size of the program and blame NASA for our budget problems when it only represents less than 1% of discretionary spending.
Slashdot Mirror
Why was this modded up? It doesn't offer anything to refute the parent, only baseless and cynical speculation.
Not necessarily. Germany and Britain are both still AAA and carry heavier debts. Debt isn't the only factor.
It should be pointed out that the people who downgraded US debt are the same who rated those subprime securitized bonds AAA.
Rage HD, Oregon Trail, the Louvre app, are all apps I bought that approach 1gb. The question really is how does he manage to download those over 3G when the phone doesn't let any apps over 20mb go over 3G.
Regardless, all you need to do is watch a couple of Netflix movies or use YouTube or Pandora somewhat regularly, basically use the phone the way AT&T advertises and you're already at risk of hitting the cap.
Has anyone else noticed that this "less than 5%" number keeps changing? Previously they were using as little as under 2gb, now it's over 3gb. Given all their other misinformation, I wouldn't be surprised if they are making it up completely. AT&T needs a class-action lawsuit filed against them, otherwise they are going to keep pulling this nonsense and keep lying through their teeth about it. The current situation where unlimited means "limited to 3gb/mo" is still unacceptable. Why don't they just cancel those plans if they don't want to honor their terms?
This is what the deflector array is for. Like, the original purpose, not the solution-of-the-week it usually gets jury-rigged for.
Michael Dell?
There may be no benefit to the company but there's no detriment either. So it's not exactly leeching f you aren't extracting value *from* the company, as a leech literally does. That value comes from the next guy playing the hot potato game.
As for the value of offering dividends as part of the IPO, how do you square that with the fact that IPOs don't launch with dividends?
> If a company doesn't pay dividends, the stock is essentially worthless.
In case you haven't noticed, casinos also always make money overall, but this doesn't stop people from gambling. This is just a fact of how Wall Street works, and it doesn't deter anybody from gambling/investing.
Warren Buffett has gone on record saying his company will never pay a dividend, but that hasn't stopped it's stock market price from increasing.
Dividends are not why people buy stock.
Excuse me? I'm not sure where you got all that but if you're going to accuse people of failures of reading comprehension you shouldn't make such errors yourself. What you failed to comprehend is I never said anything about nominal wages or US standards. Your defensiveness, as well as your audacious liberties with well-established facts makes you just sound like a paid Foxconn flak.
As for applying US standards, I'm not the amoral asshole going around justifying having a suicide rate by saying it's higher in some parts of American life.
So sell your stock now before it tanks.
> If Apple's management were such geniuses, then why don't they take that cash and start another business line that will make them even more successful?
Maybe because that's an incredibly stupid thing to do?
If they were such geniuses, why don't they focus on their own company until it has a bigger market cap than anyone else in the world? Oh, wait.
I think they know a lot more about how to run their own company than you do, and are a hell of a lot smarter than you. Certainly they are smart enough to figure out what company they are in charge of running. But you may have meant that sarcastically.
> Sitting on a load of cash is a sure sign that management doesn't have any good ideas in the pipeline to keep the business growing and the company is headed towards stagnation.
No, it's a sure sign that management has some great ideas for making tons and tons of money, and not pissing it away on stupid, irresponsible things. What makes you think they haven't spent tons more money on things that are already in the pipeline?
Why they hell did anyone mod you up?
The point is that Foxconn has a problem of employees trying to kill themselves. Why is that?
Stock does not entitle one to a cut of the profits, nor has it ever.
> It's not a matter of whether the employees deserve anything. When has that ever been an issue in corporate governance and finance?
Every time someone is offered a salary, a wage, or a bonus. Since we're talking about bonuses, bonuses are generally handed out when the company is doing very well. They are given as a reward for the hard work and creativity that contributed to the company's success. It motivates the employees to continue working hard and continue making the company succeed. This is hardly "pissing away" the money.
People who expect entitlements might have a hard time understanding this concept.
>What do you think will happen to the value of Apple stock if the investors are told that they will never see a profit on their investment unless they sell it?
Apple hasn't given out dividends for 15 years, and that hasn't stopped its stock from performing incredibly well in that time. I think it will continue to perform incredibly well as Apple continues to make enormous profits.
> If the investors don't get their share of the profits, there's a risk that management will just piss it away and they'll never get paid.
Handing out dividends *is* pissing it away. It does nothing to improve the company, it is only a handout and removes assets, for no benefit to the company. It's the corporate equivalent of taxation, only without the government services that taxes pay for. And as you just said, there are several other things that management can do with that money to improve the company instead of handing out free money.
> If they really tried to do what you're suggesting and give it to employees, then what do you think would happen to the value of stock? You'd lose the value of all the trust that investors put in management to run the company efficiently and for their benefit.
No, they wouldn't lose that trust, nor would they lose stock value. I'll refer again to the history of Apple's stock price over the last 15 years with no dividends. Apple's stock didn't go up because shareholders are expecting an eventual handout, that stock went up because Apple continues to be incredibly productive and continues to have a bright future ahead of it. Stock does not entitle the owner to a cut of the profits, nor has it ever. The stock market is not driven by companies' ability to pay out dividends, it is driven entirely by expectations of future stock performance. Dividends have only ever been gravy for shareholders.
Management has handled the company and its assets very, very well in the last 15 years and it's a good thing that the shareholders, by-and-large, trust them to continue to do so and aren't demanding their pound of flesh.
If anybody deserves a reward or a bonus from Apple's massive stockpile of cash, it is the people who created such incredible value for the company, the people whose hard work and creativity earned it that massive stockpile of cash. Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work?) Those people are its employees and its contractors, not its shareholders.
Shareholders contribute nothing to the company outside a sale of stock by the company. They do not shoulder any risk or liability beyond the money they "invest" when they buy stock. They cannot be held responsible for corporate malfeasance nor sued by the company's creditors. And unless they buy stock from company directly, their "investment" is never seen by the company. It is only that sale of stock by the company that the company ever benefits from. They are not true owners nor true investors. Shareholders are already rewarded for their investment when the company succeeds by the increased value of their stock. They can sell it for a profit if they like, or hold on to it and hope the stock price continues to increase. That's why they bought it, and that's how the stock market works, that's how it's always worked.
If shareholders were responsible for their company, as true owners are, I might think they deserve a cut of the profits. But since they are not responsible, Apple is absolutely right to withhold dividends, and I hope more companies do the same.
So your point is they don't deserve to make any more money than they already make? Perhaps they are already overpaid? That suicide rate does look pretty low when you put it that way.
And yet they have to build nets to keep their employees from trying to kill themselves.
...All of which are socialism!
Doesn't it seem silly to slaughter the goose that killed the golden egg? Doesn't it seem just as silly to just bleed it a little?
If shareholders want to get paid, they can sell their stock. But relying on dividends is nothing more than letting casino players leech off a company's hard work, welfare for capitalists. If you were an employee and had the temerity to ask for a raise because the company was doing do well, the same capitalists (ironically enough, though it shouldn't be ironic at all) would be so far up your ass for being a leech. If you were a taxpayer who wanted your taxes to go to services for the less well-to-do citizens, the same people would (and do) scream to the rafters about what a leech you are. How are dividends any different? Shareholders don't contribute in any way to the success of the company, and they definitely don't deserve to leech profits out of it just because it does well. If it does well when they happened to own a piece of it, they can sell some pf their share for a profit. But this idea that they deserve a regular income stream only drains value from the company and is leeching as certainly as if they were Cadillac-driving welfare queens.
No, it isn't. Apple's board in particular works for Apple as evidenced by their steadfast refusal to allow dividends, and various anecdotes from the Steve Jobs bio about how he replaced the board with one that would be his (the CEO's) rubber stamp. And at the shareholder meeting just a few days ago the shareholders just voted to keep all the directors.
The shareholders are quite clearly happy with the way the company is being run. There's no chance of a revolt as long as the stock price keeps soaring.
These articles are just being pushed by a few leeches who think they deserve something for nothing. I personally hope they never see a cent. Why should they get that money and not the employees and contractors who are responsible for Apple's success?
Talk about a double standard. When the RIAA or MPAA sues their customers, huge - HUGE - punitive damages are involved. But when a customer sues a big corporation like AT&T, there's no punitive damages, and the required award is even disregarded in favor of something resembling actual damages? Where's the disincentive that's supposed to keep AT&T honest?
As far as I can tell this idea is neither disruptive nor in any way similar to Wikileaks. Am I missing something?
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying the ads were a personal attack?
That's why I'm a Packers fan.
Man, whatever Monsanto is paying you, it isn't enough. Spoken like a true flak.
You mean billions. We've only spent about about half a trillion dollars on NASA since 1958. People like to exaggerate the cost and size of the program and blame NASA for our budget problems when it only represents less than 1% of discretionary spending.