With more than $70B in cash, Apple could buy Nokia, RIM, HTC & Motorola

1910111214

Comments

  • Reply 261 of 290
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 923member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    WINNING POST.



    Do I get any credit for the assist?



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 262 of 290
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    ... A common mistake by the "progressive" is that the "rich" gets "richer" at the expense of the other classes. This logic is fundamentally flawed. The "rich" create their wealth. ...



    A common myth of the right wing. Wealth is accumulated, not created, and it starts very simply by paying workers less for their labor than its value in terms of production. To accept that fact doesn't require any sort of moral judgment, only the recognition of basic economic reality.
  • Reply 263 of 290
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    A common myth of the right wing. Wealth is accumulated, not created, and it starts very simply by paying workers less for their labor than its value in terms of production. To accept that fact doesn't require any sort of moral judgment, only the recognition of basic economic reality.



    Sure they create their wealth. The Rich don't have to pay debts, you see. They hire a fancy lawyer to file "bankruptcy". All while they keep the cars, jets and houses. Rinse and repeat every few years (see Trump, Donald). An ingenious American innovation!
  • Reply 264 of 290
    Now I wonder what their esimated ENTERPRISE VALUE of Apple (mobile) is. Based on this ridiculous logic in the article, my guess is that Samsung may also have enough means to buy the entire industry INCLUDING Apple. A half-baked story, tailor-made for Apple fans, lol.
  • Reply 265 of 290
    radjinradjin Posts: 165member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by techno View Post


    Or they could manufacture their products in the US and create some jobs.



    If you had an atmosphere that supported businesses. Right now all we have is a government that makes companies want to leave.
  • Reply 266 of 290
    radjinradjin Posts: 165member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Apple has created plenty of jobs in the US. Most of them are pretty high-paying, high-tech jobs. This fetish over manufacturing jobs baffles me.



    Because less people are educated, they are getting lazy and think they deserve a job instead of working for one.
  • Reply 267 of 290
    radjinradjin Posts: 165member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Actually, every successful Apple product creates more jobs overseas than it does in the US. Andy Grove wrote about this 1 year ago and challenged American companies to build in America: http://bit.ly/jB6Sbz



    As soon as you get the socialists in government to stop taxiing businesses out of the country I am sure they will.
  • Reply 268 of 290
    radjinradjin Posts: 165member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    In fact one of the biggest reasons for Apple's turnaround was the Tim Cook's decision to get out of manufacturing.



    Apple has indeed created many jobs here in the United States although the majority of the growth in headcount these past few years have been in the retail sales division, not in engineering.



    A job suited ideally to the uneducated or unwilling.
  • Reply 269 of 290
    radjinradjin Posts: 165member
    Right on...
  • Reply 270 of 290
    aknabiaknabi Posts: 211member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Apple has created plenty of jobs in the US. Most of them are pretty high-paying, high-tech jobs. This fetish over manufacturing jobs baffles me.



    Silicon Valley high tech only provides several hundred thousand jobs... manufacturing has a much bigger multiplier...



    But I guess for you all that counts are the digeratti elite... let those with less skills eat cake



    back at you
  • Reply 271 of 290
    djmikeodjmikeo Posts: 180member
    There are many suggestions posted about which companies Apple should buy, but frankly, most of those companies do not bring any "forward" thinking into Apples's camp. Apple is now a mobile company. The iPhone and iPad are the big money makers now, and I'm sure Apple has more magical things in the pipeline that will also be mobile. iCloud is allowing our devices to sync pretty much anywhere in the world. The only problem is that the iDevices need to connect by either wifi or a cellular carrier. Now, if Apple owned or partnered with Hughes, Onstar, or another satellite company, Apple would no longer be tethered to carriers. Imagine using your iPad on a cruise ship, without having to pay pricey wifi fees, or taking your iDevice anywhere in the world without any roaming charges, or expensive data plans. I bet that once the satellite radio technology gets better, cheaper and has lower power consumption, Apple will dump the phone carriers and move in that direction.
  • Reply 272 of 290
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djmikeo View Post


    Now, if Apple owned or partnered with Hughes, Onstar, or another satellite company, Apple would no longer be tethered to carriers. Imagine using your iPad on a cruise ship, without having to pay pricey wifi fees, or taking your iDevice anywhere in the world without any roaming charges, or expensive data plans.





    Erm - no. Satellite bandwidth will is and will remain more expensive than cellular bandwidth, because adding more capacity entails launching expensive kit into the heavens and not just building cheap cellular towers. The reason that cruise ship wifi charges are so high is that they're using satellite!



    Sat phones are a great solution if you have to go out onto the ocean, or into other remote places that have no reliable cellular cover, but they won't be a replacement for cellular until somebody builds a space elevator.
  • Reply 273 of 290
    gary54gary54 Posts: 169member
    Buy Microsoft



    Now wouldn't that be the ultimate last laugh?
  • Reply 274 of 290
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post


    Buy Microsoft



    Now wouldn't that be the ultimate last laugh?



    Last I checked, $200 billion is more than $70 billion. And Apple was never in competition with them.



    The real "last laugh" would be buying Dell, shutting it down, and giving the money back to the shareholders. Because that's well within Apple's funds to do.
  • Reply 275 of 290
    gary54gary54 Posts: 169member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Last I checked, $200 billion is more than $70 billion. And Apple was never in competition with them.



    The real "last laugh" would be buying Dell, shutting it down, and giving the money back to the shareholders. Because that's well within Apple's funds to do.



    200 billion is more than 70 billion. But doesn't mean anything. Buying a company valued at 3 times the amount of cash? Happens all the time.



    The Justice Dept wouldn't allow it in any case on monopoly grounds, no more than they would allow M$ buying Apple times past; but it sure makes for an amusing picture



    Dell would work too
  • Reply 276 of 290
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post


    The Justice Dept wouldn't allow it in any case on monopoly grounds,



    They would if Apple promised to float off the OS division as a different company and only keep the Application division. Oh god if they did that they could rebuild IE to use webkit and practically all internet browsers would become standardidzed on the same open-source core.



    It would be like 1994 all over again!



    Ok - I'll stop dreaming now
  • Reply 277 of 290
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by REC View Post


    Actually the reason why we won't hit the catastrophic scenario is precisely because we are so entangled together. They need us as much as we need them. Globalization of the economy means developed (and developing) nations are far less likely to fight each other. If we go isolationist, as you suggest, it becomes much easier for confrontations to happen.



    You mean like how China has cut off Japan's and the US's supply of rare earth metals which are essential to producing high tech electronics. We used to mine those minerals in the US until we decided to let China supply them for us due to environmental concerns. That is just one of many examples that is already becoming an issue.



    What do you think will happen when China decides to make good on their threat to reclaim Taiwan or knock out one of our satellites with their crazy space ambitions?



    Sure, we have a lot of industrialization but we have lost more than what we have left. It is not about jobs but the ability to defend ourselves. You need high tech electronics, steel, plastics and mining of natural resources and petroleum. All industries that are quite minimized in the US and would take a long time to ramp up to mass production scale. I am not an isolationist but rather a self sufficiency advocate. That is one reason I want to see solar energy technology advanced and also see the US economy return to a more sensible frugal and rational spending model and not based so much on consumerism. Oh, and get all of our troops back on our own soil.
  • Reply 278 of 290
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    What do you think will happen when China decides to make good on their threat to reclaim Taiwan



    Then we go to war, our debt to them is instantly annulled, and we win the war. Simple.



    Quote:

    or knock out one of our satellites with their crazy space ambitions?



    Again, war unless it's an accident.



    None of this has to do with the thread, though.
  • Reply 279 of 290
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Then we go to war, our debt to them is instantly annulled, and we win the war. Simple.



    None of this has to do with the thread, though.





    Of course! What was I thinking? War is always just simple. We can't even win a war against uneducated impoverished tribal fighters with homemade rifles.



    And a thread with 7 pages is always going to go off on a tangent but I don't think it is too far off when discussing Apple's possible investments to consider maybe not being so dependent on China.
  • Reply 280 of 290
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brookst View Post


    it's a noble sentiment, but can you walk me through how that would work? Would apple accept a loss on every product sold where now they have a profit, and burn through their cash reserves that way? Or would they raise prices to some kind of breakeven point and lose sales and market share?



    It seems like you're basically suggesting that they operate as a charity, accepting losses for social good. If that's what you're after, why all the complexity of moving production and losing money (and tanking the share price)? Why not just suggest they give money away outright?



    exactly !
Sign In or Register to comment.