China's LeEco backs out of Silicon Valley HQ less than a year after being hailed as "takin...



  • Reply 21 of 27
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    It's fine a company is attempting to compete with Apple but to label some small company just starting as "a threat to Apple" is just pure stupidity. What is the problem of these news media people?
    The problem is trusting a journalist named Benny Evangelista.
  • Reply 22 of 27
    frantisekfrantisek Posts: 556member
    The main problem of those Apple toppling companies and individuals is that they focus on "toppling" Apple by picking up few areas where they try to shine but not by offering best overall service and customer experience. And even they would make success, maintaining it may be much more difficult than gain it.
  • Reply 23 of 27
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 425member
    Couldn't have happened to a nicer company or a nicer CEO.
  • Reply 24 of 27
    adm1 said:
    chasm said:
    I hate to be contrarian, but the claim that BBK "toppled" Apple in China is accurate -- if all you count are unit sales (which DED doesn't mention for China, oddly using a global figure when the claim was clearly for "in China"). Samsung "topples" Apple in lots of countries (by the same measure), because profitability is almost never factored in to such reports. When you look at profitability, the "smartphone war" is over: Apple won. It's funny how most "business" writing on smartphones consistently overlooks this, or for that matter a company's "burn" rate when they're not Apple ...
    I too noticed the  "global sales" comparison, it detracts from the point and any article legitimacy when the author skews things to suit an apple-bias to counter any anti-apple FUD. We're not idiots, most of us can tell BS from truth when presented with all the facts rather than just what suits a certain view or side.
    The numbers Strategy Analytics gave were global. But if you read the article, it compares Apple's profits from China against the total profits of those companies that primarily do business in China. 

    Read it again. 
  • Reply 25 of 27
    LeEco? More like LeFacePlant.
  • Reply 26 of 27
    ".:. an 80,000-square-foot facility on 49 acres of land where it planned to house 12,000 employees."

    The LeEco headquarters allocated 6.7 square feet per (average) employee. On a larger scale, that is 4.18 million people per square mile. Dense!
  • Reply 27 of 27
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,490member

    edited March 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.