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

1246715

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 290
    frankiefrankie Posts: 381member
    Because not every job can be 'upper class'. We need manufacturing jobs. There's a reason 10% of the country is unemployed...
  • Reply 62 of 290
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    Interesting aside...ARM is essentially nothing more than what our favorite "open" fanbois like to call a "patent troll"



    Not really fair - ARM don't primarily license individual patents, they license entire CPU cores. A troll patents something extremely broad and then goes hunting for people who are unknowingly 'infringing', you couldn't accidentally copy ARM's core.
  • Reply 63 of 290
    frankiefrankie Posts: 381member
    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?



    So sick of hearing this...



    Maybe the CEOs, Wall Street, and Bankers could only make 10 million a year instead of 30 million. This is the same excuse that rich people always use against the unions. And it ridiculous.



    You can;t blame regular middle class people for wanting to raise a family and be regular middle class people. I know unions have their owns issues so I'm not discounting them, but do we really need people making 30 or 40 million a year every year?



    How many jobs does $30 million create?
  • Reply 64 of 290
    patranuspatranus Posts: 366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrstep View Post


    And our government has pushed to move higher skilled jobs overseas where possible too.



    That is the thing. The *government* is the one who is pushing these jobs overseas because they are forcing these companies hands. Companies have to not only stay competitive in the US markets but the world markets.



    Mandates by the federal government essentially make this impossible.
  • Reply 65 of 290
    brookstbrookst Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diddy View Post


    That's about the only thing that can change the mentality - the government has to create an environment where it is much more financially viable for companies to produce locally than it is to import. That is very difficult thing to do and I wager almost impossible given the influence that large multi-national corporations have with our politicians. They can just buy their success.



    So let's imagine a scenario where something is done -- say 10,000% import tariffs -- to force companies to move manufacturing back to the U.S.



    What do you think that would do to exports, now that costs go through the roof?



    Now that exports are gone and U.S. companies are addressing a much smaller part of the global market, what happens to economies of scale?



    The abstract goal of more jobs in the U.S. is desirable. But since there's no way for the government to lower costs here (unless you want to outlaw unions and get rid of the minimum wage), you're left with artificially raising the cost of manufacturing elsewhere. Think that through and it's pretty clear it's worse than doing nothing.
  • Reply 66 of 290
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,186member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    The report does say could buy out, not should, or will.



    At the risk of repeating myself, Apple could not buy them all out, because government(s) would not permit it. I'm sorry you felt compelled to restate the obvious, as well, but hype does get to people.
  • Reply 67 of 290
    frankiefrankie Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    If you really want more manufacturing in the US, then lobby for more employment deregulation, including any special legal privileges granted to unions.



    But, in the end, this is the dynamic that happens. There are a wide array of jobs in the US that don't fall into the categories of "flipping burgers" (which are entry level jobs for teenagers) and high-tech doctorate jobs in hi-tech and bio-tech. Most of the people I work with are all pretty middle class. We all earn middle class wage and live in middle class homes. None of us manufacture anything. There are also tons of people working in manufacturing in the US, they are just manufacturing much higher value things than the stuff we outsource to places like China and Malaysia.



    What we need is for the government to get out of the way of business and the economy will grow and create tons of jobs. But most of these will not be the jobs from yesteryear...and that's probably going to be okay.



    Seriously dude? This is the same thinking that has getting us into the mess we are in.



    "We need gov't to get out of business way..."



    How's about screw big business, Wall Street, and the bankers. They are the source of most of the world's problems. Rich getting richer and screwing over the rest of the planet.



    This argument is so tired it's beyond me. Shouldn't you be watching Fox news or something?
  • Reply 68 of 290
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    That is the thing. The *government* is the one who is pushing these jobs overseas because they are forcing these companies hands. Companies have to not only stay competitive in the US markets but the world markets.



    Mandates by the federal government essentially make this impossible.



    Not true - the main reason to go to China is cheap labour not taxes, or whatever regulation you think is causing the problem. I doubt if most of Apple's tax is paid in the US, anyway.
  • Reply 69 of 290
    patranuspatranus Posts: 366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankie View Post


    So sick of hearing this...



    Maybe the CEOs, Wall Street, and Bankers could only make 10 million a year instead of 30 million. This is the same excuse that rich people always use against the unions. And it ridiculous.



    You can;t blame regular middle class people for wanting to raise a family and be regular middle class people. I know unions have their owns issues so I'm not discounting them, but do we really need people making 30 or 40 million a year every year?



    How many jobs does $30 million create?



    The middle class actually control more wealth now then they did 30 years ago when adjusted for inflation.



    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.



    Think of it this way.

    Originally you were getting 50% of a 12oz soda. Now you are getting 25% of a 2-litter soda.

    Sure your "share" of the soda appears less but you certainly get a lot more soda.



    I am so sick of hearing people bitching a moan about someone else getting "rich". Guess what, that person getting "rich" doesn't prevent you from doing the same.
  • Reply 70 of 290
    brookstbrookst Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankie View Post


    How many jobs does $30 million create?



    About 300, factoring in benefits and other overhead.



    Of course, if spending $30m creating those jobs created more than $30m in profit, companies would do it right now, regardless of CEO pay. And if the return is less than the cost, the companies will just bank it or return it to shareholders, regardless of CEO pay.



    The fundamental misapprehension here is that companies say "we've got $30m to spend, should we hire people or give it to the CEO." The actual question is, "should we give it to the CEO or keep it in the bank?" The issue of hiring is a totally separate question driven by ROI analysis of specific product lines and projects. If you make more money by hiring people, you hire. If not, you don't.
  • Reply 71 of 290
    shompashompa Posts: 343member
    People seems to believe that Apple have huge margins on their products.

    The truth is that many other tech companies have higher margins, for example Intel.



    Apple have about 22% margins on their product. The problem is that Apples cash gives apple a huge profit too. Together with the cash profit, they get an average margin over 32% on their products.



    People should talk to all fAndroids. Apple at least creates loads of jobs in the USA. Supporting Samsung,HTC and other non US companies only creates more non US jobs. I am not saying that all should buy Apple products, I just don't understand the blind hatred against everything Apple do.



    Most Mac people I know uses windows/google everyday without hating them.
  • Reply 72 of 290
    frankiefrankie Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BrooksT View Post


    Seriously?



    Apple contracts 400,000 people... at one single factory in China. Total employment is around 1,000,000 people. Where in the U.S. do you propose to put that? What do you think wages will be when you try to hire that many people in a metro area? And do you really think you'll avoid unionization?



    However "nice" it would be, we're talking about the difference between paying $2/hour and paying $50/hour for labor, even if you could find 400,000 workers in one place (unless you want to get rid of economies of scale, too, and just plunk a few thousand here, a few thousand there).



    Your heart is in the right place. But you don't understand the sheer scale of the operation. This isn't about whether a new car factory employs 2,000 people in Alabama or Seoul.



    Manufacturing on this scale doesn't work in any highly developed economy. It would be "nice" if it did. But you might as well wish for magic unicorns.



    I agree they will never do it, but wouldn't it be nice if Apple moved to Detroit and did build factories there?



    In terms of the unions, maybe they could make a deal, pay people a reasonable wage that doesn't completely devalue their life (like we do all over the rest of the planet) and maybe Apple's profits could be 10 billion instead of 70 billion, and the top executives could only make 10 million a year each instead of who knows what they're making now.
  • Reply 73 of 290
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post


    At the risk of repeating myself, Apple could not buy them all out, because government(s) would not permit it. I'm sorry you felt compelled to restate the obvious, as well, but hype does get to people.



    I am sorry that you can't understand hypothetical situations. The report is dealing with Apple's cash - it points out that Apple could, with cash alone, buy a number of companies.



    Since this is a hypothetical situation, as reasonably understood by anybody of average IQ, the report does not deal with the regulatory authorities because it is not saying that Apple will or should buy these companies. It is merely a way to comparing Apple's cash to the rest of the industry.



    This the the 3rd time this has been pointed out to you.
  • Reply 74 of 290
    patranuspatranus Posts: 366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    Not true - the main reason to go to China is cheap labour not taxes, or whatever regulation you think is causing the problem. I doubt if most of Apple's tax is paid in the US, anyway.



    And.....why is labor cheaper?



    During the great depression FDR instituted wage controls. This left many owners of buildings with elevators with 2 options, upgrade to automated elevators or continue to employ the elevator operators. In the end it was more expensive to employ the elevator operators so they simple fired them all and upgraded their elevators. Now these elevator operators wanted to continue to work. They *wanted* their original wage but FDR said they couldn't. So their jobs just vanished in favor of the cheaper alternative.



    So you end up with people who want to work and employees who want to hire people but FDRs mandate simple outsourced (to automation) those jobs.



    We have 10% unemployment. I would gladly hire people in America but sadly there is no incentive to work nor are the wages that I would pay them be "acceptable" so I will continue to hire people in India.



    Then there is the entire work ethic issue but that is another discussion entirely.
  • Reply 75 of 290
    frankiefrankie Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    The middle class actually control more wealth now then they did 30 years ago when adjusted for inflation.



    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.



    Think of it this way.

    Originally you were getting 50% of a 12oz soda. Now you are getting 25% of a 2-litter soda.

    Sure your "share" of the soda appears less but you certainly get a lot more soda.



    I am so sick of hearing people bitching a moan about someone else getting "rich". Guess what, that person getting "rich" doesn't prevent you from doing the same.



    Dude? What?!



    Anyone on the planet, and I mean anyone, who is rich, has become richer at the expense of someone or something else. Period.



    You're logic sounds a little nuts. Could you explain more?



    Here's a little chart to show how the middle and lower class are consistently getting poorer.



    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...-to-record-low



    ... and we all know the rich are definitely getting richer and using that money to buy influence in government to again, get even richer.



    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...itical_economy
  • Reply 76 of 290
    patranuspatranus Posts: 366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankie View Post


    Dude? What?!



    Anyone on the planet, and I mean anyone, who is rich, has become richer at the expense of someone or something else. Period. You're logic sounds a little nuts. Could you explain more?



    Its pretty simple - the "rich" create wealth.



    While it may appear that the "poor" control less wealth in terms of the overall percentage they control, the entire pie is a lot larger than it was 30 years ago.



    The GDP in 1970 was ~1 trillion.

    The GDP in 2010 was ~15 trillion.



    ~1 trillion in 1970 is ~5 trillion in 2010.



    So as you see adjusted for inflation the GDP grew significantly.
  • Reply 77 of 290
    shompashompa Posts: 343member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    FoxConn is just an assembly plant. The LCD plants are all in Asia, as are all the other components. Are you saying they replace FoxCNN as an assembly plant in the US - not really skilled - or that they replace the entire channel with their own factories all the way back.



    not going to happen. I think that if American jobs are to come "home' Governments in the West have to force the issue with protectionist measures. Even that would collapse the economy for while. It is a problem, but there are no solutions.



    Apple needs to stop outsourcing parts and assembly. It is not good when competition knows exactly what you do and copy your stuff. Just look at Samsung. They use the same parts in their Tablets and phones. Let Apple design an A5 chip and make copies of it.



    The same with FoxConn. The pirated apple products are manufactured at the same plant. Even Apples competitors manufacture in the same plant.

    In the morning: Apple stuff. Afternoon HP copies of Apple stuff. Evening: Pirated copies of Apple stuff.



    One reason why Nokia did make such huge profits with cheap phones are because they have their own manufacturing plants. This is the reason why Apple should buy Nokia.
  • Reply 78 of 290
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    The middle class actually control more wealth now then they did 30 years ago when adjusted for inflation.



    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.



    Think of it this way.

    Originally you were getting 50% of a 12oz soda. Now you are getting 25% of a 2-litter soda.

    Sure your "share" of the soda appears less but you certainly get a lot more soda.



    I am so sick of hearing people bitching a moan about someone else getting "rich". Guess what, that person getting "rich" doesn't prevent you from doing the same.



    Maybe, however it is not true that all people who get rich to benefit other people. Some are mere profit seekers and rentiers.



    I doubt that, even if middle income groups were richer than 30 years ago ( per capita) that the growth has been all that spectacular. Compare it to any other 30 year period in the last 120.
  • Reply 79 of 290
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    Its pretty simple - the "rich" create wealth.



    Bernie Madoff, for instance.
  • Reply 80 of 290
    brookstbrookst Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    The middle class actually control more wealth now then they did 30 years ago when adjusted for inflation.



    At first I was going to accuse you of blatant falsehood, but then I caught the cute distortion. You're absolutely right -- in real dollar terms, the middle class does control more wealth than 30 years ago. It just happens that as a percentage of total wealth, the middle class is in freefall.



    See http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026 and http://okpolicy.org/blog/economy/ine...cal-community/



    Given the very careful wording you used, I'll assume you understand that the economy itself has grown considerably in the past 30 years, and the real issue is that the bulk of the growth has gone to the rich and super rich. And that you're just being clever but intentionally misleading in talking about absolute dollar amounts rather than percentages or the Gini coefficient.
Sign In or Register to comment.