So what you're saying is that Android is essentially required to maintain a modern economy - but it can't be Android as it exists, today (that is, AOSP with the bundled Google apps). And you cannot use AOSP as a replacement, either?
Ban them from your country. Refuse to certify any phone that runs their OS. Each country, and the EU as a whole, have their own wireless certification body - use that authority to effectively eliminate access to your market. And it can be done for the cost of - maybe - a dozen clerks who stamp "Approved" on new RF device applications.
So is that why you choose to simply levy fines on all criminals, rather than lock them up? Better to let Google continue to violate your rules and pay you, rather than just cutting them off from your constituents and thereby stopping their ability to "harm" your people?
Because it's not about protecting the consumer (after all, we don't say that extortion is bad only if you extort more than X number of people), but about maximizing revenue to the State.
My Thinkpad P71 is more than capable of doing real work. Xeon processor, 64 GB RAM, 16 GB Quadro graphics card, 1 TB SSD, 4K screen... It's a great CAD platform. Oh, and it's a laptop!
Want to bet that SG&A is still about 20% of gross margin in Q2 2018? SG&A - your own data above - increased by about 0.6%, and gross revenue by about 1.0%. Meaning Tesla needs to sell about 30X the number of cars they sell now to cover just their SG&A costs. And we're not talking about the costs of R&D, or even interest on their debt. That's just to cover the costs of making and selling the cars. It is not a sustainable financial model (which, I guess, explains why it's the darling of Silicon Valley).
Do it per quarter. I did and SG&A for the last 4 quarters has been 20%, 21%, 22%, and 19% of revenue. That's 2018Q1, 2017Q4, 2017Q3, and 2017Q2. It's flat. So show your numbers - because the published financial data says you're wrong. And since you've been told this so many times, it means you're not only wrong but flat out lying.
False. Look at the financials, and you will see you are either making things up or are ignorant. Divide SG&A by revenue or gross margin and you'll see you are 100% wrong. SG&A is actually INCREASING as a percent of revenues. That is the fact - straight from their published GAAP numbers.
You are wrong. Look at the financials. As a percent of of revenue, SG&A for the last 4 quarters has been 20%, 21%, 22%, and 19%. That's pretty consistent. As a share of gross revenue, for the last 3 quarters it has been 150%, 155%, and 145%. Again, very consistent. This is for the quarterly basis.
Look at the last 4 years. SG&A as percent of revenue is 21%, 20%, 23%, and 19%. Again, incredibly constant for revenues. Where it is even WORSE is when you look at the longer term trend as a percent of gross profit: 110%, 88%, 100%, and 68%. It is actually INCREASING, meaning they are spending more on sales and administration as a percent of gross margin as their sales volume increases. It's not going down - it's going up.
SG&A as a percent of revenue has been amazingly consistent; as a percent of gross margin it has been increasing. The fact you can claim otherwise in light of published data making your claim clearly false shows you to be nothing more than a shill.
You are wrong. SG&A is actually increasing as a percent of gross margin. And subtracting SG&A from gross margin leaves Tesla losing money. This is before R&D or interest expenses, even. It's right in their published quarterly financials which I linked to.
Tesla loses money on every vehicle; they only "look good" on gross margin when you completely exclude SG&A - which is sales and general administration costs. This does NOT include things like R&D, capex, or even interest on the debt. Building the car, and the cost of selling and administration already results in a loss on each vehicle, and it's been consistent for several years. Check their financial statement - it's right there, in black and white.
That's the story, but the financials don't support it. They make a small gross margin on COGM, but just factoring in SG&A (which does NOT include capex, R&D, or other expenses - just sales and general administration) and they are already losing ~$400MM per quarter. Then add R&D and Interest expenses and we're at $750MM lost per quarter. This is all without including capex spending.
So you mean in Switzerland, every citizen's input is required for every decision? When there's a question about whether to paint the East-bound lanes or the West-bound lanes, all citizens vote on it? Or do they have a representative whom they elected make that decision for them? In a direct democracy, the people make the decision. In a democratic Representative Government, the people directly elect Representatives (Governors, mayors, Federal levels) to make decisions for them.
And that is why Buffet wins - he knows what his investors (the people who actually created his wealth, via demand for his service and insight) want: profit. They want to give him money and have him turn it into even more money, and let him take a small commission for that action. It's called investing - and he's really good at it. Bezos does the same thing, but with his own company.
UPS, Walmart, Krogers, Home Depot - all pay warehouse workers around $12-$18 per hour. Guess what - that's about what that kind of job is worth. If you do a really menial labor job that is not too physically demanding, and requires no real skills, don't expect to make lots of money. You could always learn to say "you want fries with that?" and try to earn an extra buck - but that's about it.
Have you ever worked - or even been in - a warehouse? UPS, Krogers, Walmart, Home Depot - warehouses are not nice places, and since it takes a 3rd grade education to work in a warehouse, you can find plenty of people to work there for low wages. Amazon is really no different than your local grocery store (living on 2-3% profit); they just store and ship electronics for other people, rather than grapes and eggs. Revenue is higher, but the model is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that Android is essentially required to maintain a modern economy - but it can't be Android as it exists, today (that is, AOSP with the bundled Google apps). And you cannot use AOSP as a replacement, either?
Or how about "discovering" hundreds of ballots, 6 weeks after the election, in an election decided by 261 total votes?
Which interests would Europe be protecting?
Brussel's wallet.
So - if you can't have a tech industry, then NO ONE can have a tech industry?
Ban them from your country. Refuse to certify any phone that runs their OS. Each country, and the EU as a whole, have their own wireless certification body - use that authority to effectively eliminate access to your market. And it can be done for the cost of - maybe - a dozen clerks who stamp "Approved" on new RF device applications.
So is that why you choose to simply levy fines on all criminals, rather than lock them up? Better to let Google continue to violate your rules and pay you, rather than just cutting them off from your constituents and thereby stopping their ability to "harm" your people?
Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.
How does this one work? I mean, I see LineageOS, and even FireOS from Amazon (which is a direct fork from the AOSP code base).
Because it's not about protecting the consumer (after all, we don't say that extortion is bad only if you extort more than X number of people), but about maximizing revenue to the State.
There are other app stores, you know...
If only you could run Android without Google apps...
So, the answer is to put all the fanbois in the freezer?
Using a furnace had already been taken...
My Thinkpad P71 is more than capable of doing real work. Xeon processor, 64 GB RAM, 16 GB Quadro graphics card, 1 TB SSD, 4K screen... It's a great CAD platform. Oh, and it's a laptop!
Want to bet that SG&A is still about 20% of gross margin in Q2 2018? SG&A - your own data above - increased by about 0.6%, and gross revenue by about 1.0%. Meaning Tesla needs to sell about 30X the number of cars they sell now to cover just their SG&A costs. And we're not talking about the costs of R&D, or even interest on their debt. That's just to cover the costs of making and selling the cars. It is not a sustainable financial model (which, I guess, explains why it's the darling of Silicon Valley).
Take your gross margin. Subtract SG&A. Already negative. Sucks, doesn't it?
Do it per quarter. I did and SG&A for the last 4 quarters has been 20%, 21%, 22%, and 19% of revenue. That's 2018Q1, 2017Q4, 2017Q3, and 2017Q2. It's flat. So show your numbers - because the published financial data says you're wrong. And since you've been told this so many times, it means you're not only wrong but flat out lying.
Man once again spoils Pristine Mother Earth in his demonic quest for survival and dominance?
False. Look at the financials, and you will see you are either making things up or are ignorant. Divide SG&A by revenue or gross margin and you'll see you are 100% wrong. SG&A is actually INCREASING as a percent of revenues. That is the fact - straight from their published GAAP numbers.
You are wrong. Look at the financials. As a percent of of revenue, SG&A for the last 4 quarters has been 20%, 21%, 22%, and 19%. That's pretty consistent. As a share of gross revenue, for the last 3 quarters it has been 150%, 155%, and 145%. Again, very consistent. This is for the quarterly basis.
Look at the last 4 years. SG&A as percent of revenue is 21%, 20%, 23%, and 19%. Again, incredibly constant for revenues. Where it is even WORSE is when you look at the longer term trend as a percent of gross profit: 110%, 88%, 100%, and 68%. It is actually INCREASING, meaning they are spending more on sales and administration as a percent of gross margin as their sales volume increases. It's not going down - it's going up.
SG&A as a percent of revenue has been amazingly consistent; as a percent of gross margin it has been increasing. The fact you can claim otherwise in light of published data making your claim clearly false shows you to be nothing more than a shill.
You are wrong. SG&A is actually increasing as a percent of gross margin. And subtracting SG&A from gross margin leaves Tesla losing money. This is before R&D or interest expenses, even. It's right in their published quarterly financials which I linked to.
Tesla loses money on every vehicle; they only "look good" on gross margin when you completely exclude SG&A - which is sales and general administration costs. This does NOT include things like R&D, capex, or even interest on the debt. Building the car, and the cost of selling and administration already results in a loss on each vehicle, and it's been consistent for several years. Check their financial statement - it's right there, in black and white.
That's the story, but the financials don't support it. They make a small gross margin on COGM, but just factoring in SG&A (which does NOT include capex, R&D, or other expenses - just sales and general administration) and they are already losing ~$400MM per quarter. Then add R&D and Interest expenses and we're at $750MM lost per quarter. This is all without including capex spending.
So you mean in Switzerland, every citizen's input is required for every decision? When there's a question about whether to paint the East-bound lanes or the West-bound lanes, all citizens vote on it? Or do they have a representative whom they elected make that decision for them? In a direct democracy, the people make the decision. In a democratic Representative Government, the people directly elect Representatives (Governors, mayors, Federal levels) to make decisions for them.
And that is why Buffet wins - he knows what his investors (the people who actually created his wealth, via demand for his service and insight) want: profit. They want to give him money and have him turn it into even more money, and let him take a small commission for that action. It's called investing - and he's really good at it. Bezos does the same thing, but with his own company.
UPS, Walmart, Krogers, Home Depot - all pay warehouse workers around $12-$18 per hour. Guess what - that's about what that kind of job is worth. If you do a really menial labor job that is not too physically demanding, and requires no real skills, don't expect to make lots of money. You could always learn to say "you want fries with that?" and try to earn an extra buck - but that's about it.
Have you ever worked - or even been in - a warehouse? UPS, Krogers, Walmart, Home Depot - warehouses are not nice places, and since it takes a 3rd grade education to work in a warehouse, you can find plenty of people to work there for low wages. Amazon is really no different than your local grocery store (living on 2-3% profit); they just store and ship electronics for other people, rather than grapes and eggs. Revenue is higher, but the model is the same.