A company mainly goes public to enable them to grow using "other people's money". With their cash reserves, I wonder what the benefit is for them to remain a public company.
"Ford has said it has enough cash on hand to survive the current economic downturn but requested a line of credit to hedge against further deterioration and the potential collapse of its supply base should either GM or Chrysler fail." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp..._4Nv6tWFE2o0bg
And from the Huffington Post dated DECEMBER 17, 2008, "?Ford wants to set up a $9 billion long-term line of credit from the government but would use it only if the U.S. auto market worsens or fails to recover. The company has said it has enough borrowed money to make it through 2009 without government help."
At least Ford alone recognizes the negatives of handing their company reigns over to the government to be micro-managed and scrutinized over every decision. It would be smarter for both GM and Chrysler to restructure since they face inevitable bankruptcy. Bailouts only prolong the pain.
But our dipsh-t president says he will get them the money.
If the Fed ends up lending to the auto industry, they are getting involved in very dangerous territory. The Treasury has already frittered billions away with little or no accountability and the Fed is going to either cause a complete dollar collapse and/or hyperinflation.
I'm very, very nervous about what these idiots in charge are going to do next.
...Why in the world they couldn't wait until AFTER Macworld to make the announcement that it's their last show... I'd love to throttle Apple's PR department.
That's a very good point.
Does Apple make money from the expo? Attendance went up almost 20% in 2007, that's well over 40,000 attendees!! they must be making a butt-load of money from that expo.
Does Apple make money from the expo? Attendance went up almost 20% in 2007, that's well over 40,000 attendees!! they must be making a butt-load of money from that expo.
Apple doesn't run the expo, I don't think they get any money from that. IDG runs the expo, under the name of their Macworld magazine. I don't know if Apple gets a kickback or reduced rates. It could be that IDG got a little aggressive in demanding higher rates or something like that. I would think they would want to cooperate with Apple given that Apple being there is what brings everyone else in.
...It could be that IDG got a little aggressive in demanding higher rates or something like that. I would think they would want to cooperate with Apple given that Apple being there is what brings everyone else in.
Yeah.. I remember when the organizer for the NY Macworld Expo wanted to sue Apple for ending the event. Gosh... how ungrateful was that guy!
Maybe yours doesn't, but in general private companies are much more profitable than public ones.
As long as they are held by less than 128 shareholders (all US citizens), they can incorporate as a subchapter S corporation, and they would be way more profitable. Subchapter S corps pay no taxes, all earnings are taxed on shareholders returns only a single time. C corps pay corporate taxes, and then those earnings are taxed a second time as dividends on the shareholders returns.
Private companies have much less overhead cost - no annual report, no sarbanes-oxley, etc.
Also, as a private corporation it is much easier to hide intellectual property, and to make investments that pay off in the long term. Look at how much trouble Buffet is having with his paper losses that will eventually turn into huge gains 20 years down the road, he wouldn't have that problem if Berkshire was private.
The downsides of going private are lack of liquidity and lack of good protections for minority shareholders, but profit is better if you go private.
That said, I think that the chance of Apple going private is 0%. Nobody is lending money, for one thing.
Absolutely, bring on the iLife and iWork 09! Things that I'll be able to take advantage of, rather than a mystical Mac tablet or a mystical Mac netbook
"According to new reports"? Isn't that basically a paraphrase of Apple's press release?
"Apple is reaching more people in more ways than ever before, so like many companies, trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers."
I am not sure I agree with most of these comments.
I am not sure it is such a bad thing to be forced to work to someone else's deadline. Even for a company like Apple.
These events might be expensive but they generated a huge amount of publicity, both before and after. The rumour mongering about new products begins months before and builds up a level of anticipation that is almost priceless and I cant think of a single other company in the industry that is able to do this. Why they would want to walk away from that, I have no idea.
If Apple was really trying to dampen the perception of SJ being at the epicentre of the company, this is a really strange course of action. Now we will never forget.
Finally, although it pains me to say this I haven't seen a single example of real innovation or creativity from Apple in almost two years. The announcement of the iPhone was Apple's zenith in January 2007 but everything since then has been a disappointment in one way or another. For a company that had done nothing but innovate for 10 years previously I find this really hard to understand.
Lately, everything seems to be about locking products down or locking people out or making some of the most amazing products in the world far less amazing than they could be. I waited 6 months for the new macbooks after my last computer died. But when they arrived I was so disappointed I bought a Dell instead (at less than half the price but with 80% of the functionality).
I love Apple and always have but I cant help thinking they dont care so much about their customers anymore.
For some reason, in the last year I have become more and more disappointed with Apple and this keynote cancellation is just another example of that.
These events might be expensive but they generated a huge amount of publicity, both before and after. The rumour mongering about new products begins months before and builds up a level of anticipation that is almost priceless and I cant think of a single other company in the industry that is able to do this. Why they would want to walk away from that, I have no idea.
Because Apple can generate the same publicity, the same buzz, the same rumor mongering at a fraction of the cost of attending a trade show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by london.adrian
Finally, although it pains me to say this I haven't seen a single example of real innovation or creativity from Apple in almost two years. The announcement of the iPhone was Apple's zenith in January 2007 but everything since then has been a disappointment in one way or another. For a company that had done nothing but innovate for 10 years previously I find this really hard to understand.
I disagree a bit here.
1. The iPhone has been a huge success here but the star of the show is the conduit.....
2. The app store. If it's generating enough money to make some Mac developers go iPhone only (Pangea Software) then it's clearly the one two punch Apple needed to make people forget about the deleterious effects to Apple's stock because of the iPods slowing down
Quote:
Originally Posted by london.adrian
Lately, everything seems to be about locking products down or locking people out or making some of the most amazing products in the world far less amazing than they could be. I waited 6 months for the new macbooks after my last computer died. But when they arrived I was so disappointed I bought a Dell instead (at less than half the price but with 80% of the functionality).
I love Apple and always have but I cant help thinking they dont care so much about their customers anymore.
Part of this is Intel. I knew hardware would become boring once we had Intel because it's such a commodity. Look at Netbooks......same ole boring Atom processor and 1GB of RAM. In order to see some exciting new stuff we're going to have to wait to see what P.A Semiconductor can whip up.
or.... <gasp> maybe Apple has hit the innovation stratosphere limit!!!! They've sucked all the innovation juice out of the universe. I mean, omgosh, Apple has out innovated everything....This is gonna really peev Ballmer when he hears there's no more innovation to squirt into his Zune or the next un-announced <fill_in_the_pasted_copy_here> oooooo, so close!!!!!!
I've been to a bunch of Macworlds. I lived in northern California for ~10 years and always looked forward the the annual Mac geekfest. I still have an OS 8 T-shirt and a gum-drop iMac poster (Yum.) hanging in my home office. I bought my B&W G3/350 at Macworld. One of the Bungie guys gave me a hat one year when he saw me wearing my "Myth: The Fallen Lords" T-shirt. I participated in one of the gaming competitions they had. I have a bag of buttons I collected at Macworld and a few give-away T-shirts. I even got interviewed by a reporter and was quoted in the Press Democrat one year. For a few years, my whole family made the pilgrimage.
Fond, fond memories.
It was always a great time to gorge on all things Mac. A great orgy of Mac products. While Apple was the anchor, there was lots more going on. Training classes. Demo/classes at vendor booths. Meet ups at local bars & hotels. Parties. Small vendors of innovative software.
Macworld went far beyond just being a place for Apple to announce new products. It was a venue for the Mac faithful to come together and celebrate the platform, make new friends, and learn from each other.
It's too bad Apple has decided to stop participating. The value of Macworld goes far beyond whatever product announcements Apple made there.
Maybe yours doesn't, but in general private companies are much more profitable than public ones.
As long as they are held by less than 128 shareholders (all US citizens), they can incorporate as a subchapter S corporation, and they would be way more profitable. Subchapter S corps pay no taxes, all earnings are taxed on shareholders returns only a single time. C corps pay corporate taxes, and then those earnings are taxed a second time as dividends on the shareholders returns.
Private companies have much less overhead cost - no annual report, no sarbanes-oxley, etc.
Also, as a private corporation it is much easier to hide intellectual property, and to make investments that pay off in the long term. Look at how much trouble Buffet is having with his paper losses that will eventually turn into huge gains 20 years down the road, he wouldn't have that problem if Berkshire was private.
The downsides of going private are lack of liquidity and lack of good protections for minority shareholders, but profit is better if you go private.
That said, I think that the chance of Apple going private is 0%. Nobody is lending money, for one thing.
If that is the case, then why is it such a big deal when people offer an IPO. I work for 2 privately owned companies, while true, they are profitable, they also have a very, very low growth percentage, or potential.
Sarbanes-Oaxley certainly does pertain to ANY company doing ANY business with ANYONE, I know this for a fact because I spent almost 2 years making sure one of the two private companies I work for was in compliance.
Profitability alone does not equal growth, without the capital, it is very hard to grow.
The problem is that the situation seems to change daily. At the start, they wanted in, but later I think they backed out, that might have changed yet again.
Ford initially was only looking for a line of credit to fall back on if necessary, from the beginning they already had plans to weather the storm, and they have enough cash to get through, they have not been part of the discussion since the house made the first offer.
Also, the problem with Macworld was that the new products were rarely available. Jobs always said, we hope to have this product shipping by March (but we were forced to announce it now in January because of Macworld).
Since the rumor is only an updated Mac Mini (a complete waste), then Jobs did the right thing. People would have complained and said the keynote sucked because there was nothing new. Better not to do it at all.
You hit the nail on the head. Why mess up sales of your current product line only to have people wait 4-5 months to by a new device. This makes Apple far more nimble and lets them have more control of their back stock. If you want to see the latest Apple hardware just walk or drive to your local Apple Store. I think it's a smart move.
Comments
Private companies don't make as much money.
A company mainly goes public to enable them to grow using "other people's money". With their cash reserves, I wonder what the benefit is for them to remain a public company.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/18/mul...maker.bailout/
They are hedging their bets:
"Ford has said it has enough cash on hand to survive the current economic downturn but requested a line of credit to hedge against further deterioration and the potential collapse of its supply base should either GM or Chrysler fail." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp..._4Nv6tWFE2o0bg
Ford Bailout Money Unnecessary, Company Says http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_149824.html
And from the Huffington Post dated DECEMBER 17, 2008, "?Ford wants to set up a $9 billion long-term line of credit from the government but would use it only if the U.S. auto market worsens or fails to recover. The company has said it has enough borrowed money to make it through 2009 without government help."
At least Ford alone recognizes the negatives of handing their company reigns over to the government to be micro-managed and scrutinized over every decision. It would be smarter for both GM and Chrysler to restructure since they face inevitable bankruptcy. Bailouts only prolong the pain.
All three wanted the money but the senate said no rightfully so.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/11/aut...out/index.html
But our dipsh-t president says he will get them the money.
If the Fed ends up lending to the auto industry, they are getting involved in very dangerous territory. The Treasury has already frittered billions away with little or no accountability and the Fed is going to either cause a complete dollar collapse and/or hyperinflation.
I'm very, very nervous about what these idiots in charge are going to do next.
...Why in the world they couldn't wait until AFTER Macworld to make the announcement that it's their last show... I'd love to throttle Apple's PR department.
That's a very good point.
Does Apple make money from the expo? Attendance went up almost 20% in 2007, that's well over 40,000 attendees!! they must be making a butt-load of money from that expo.
That's a very good point.
Does Apple make money from the expo? Attendance went up almost 20% in 2007, that's well over 40,000 attendees!! they must be making a butt-load of money from that expo.
Apple doesn't run the expo, I don't think they get any money from that. IDG runs the expo, under the name of their Macworld magazine. I don't know if Apple gets a kickback or reduced rates. It could be that IDG got a little aggressive in demanding higher rates or something like that. I would think they would want to cooperate with Apple given that Apple being there is what brings everyone else in.
...It could be that IDG got a little aggressive in demanding higher rates or something like that. I would think they would want to cooperate with Apple given that Apple being there is what brings everyone else in.
Yeah.. I remember when the organizer for the NY Macworld Expo wanted to sue Apple for ending the event. Gosh... how ungrateful was that guy!
Private companies don't make as much money.
Maybe yours doesn't, but in general private companies are much more profitable than public ones.
As long as they are held by less than 128 shareholders (all US citizens), they can incorporate as a subchapter S corporation, and they would be way more profitable. Subchapter S corps pay no taxes, all earnings are taxed on shareholders returns only a single time. C corps pay corporate taxes, and then those earnings are taxed a second time as dividends on the shareholders returns.
Private companies have much less overhead cost - no annual report, no sarbanes-oxley, etc.
Also, as a private corporation it is much easier to hide intellectual property, and to make investments that pay off in the long term. Look at how much trouble Buffet is having with his paper losses that will eventually turn into huge gains 20 years down the road, he wouldn't have that problem if Berkshire was private.
The downsides of going private are lack of liquidity and lack of good protections for minority shareholders, but profit is better if you go private.
That said, I think that the chance of Apple going private is 0%. Nobody is lending money, for one thing.
what about iLife 09, iWork 09 and .mac?!
nothing to announce?!
what about iLife 09, iWork 09 and .mac?!
Therin lies one of the problems with Expos. People expect paradigm changing
products to be announced. If they aren't gobsmacked they feel like they didn't
get the full show.
Frankly I'd be pleased as punch to see revamped Mac mini and iLife and iWork 09
along with full iDisk featuers for Mobile Me and Safari 4.
Sometimes it's the little things that make significant change in our computing lives.
"Apple is reaching more people in more ways than ever before, so like many companies, trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers."
I am not sure it is such a bad thing to be forced to work to someone else's deadline. Even for a company like Apple.
These events might be expensive but they generated a huge amount of publicity, both before and after. The rumour mongering about new products begins months before and builds up a level of anticipation that is almost priceless and I cant think of a single other company in the industry that is able to do this. Why they would want to walk away from that, I have no idea.
If Apple was really trying to dampen the perception of SJ being at the epicentre of the company, this is a really strange course of action. Now we will never forget.
Finally, although it pains me to say this I haven't seen a single example of real innovation or creativity from Apple in almost two years. The announcement of the iPhone was Apple's zenith in January 2007 but everything since then has been a disappointment in one way or another. For a company that had done nothing but innovate for 10 years previously I find this really hard to understand.
Lately, everything seems to be about locking products down or locking people out or making some of the most amazing products in the world far less amazing than they could be. I waited 6 months for the new macbooks after my last computer died. But when they arrived I was so disappointed I bought a Dell instead (at less than half the price but with 80% of the functionality).
I love Apple and always have but I cant help thinking they dont care so much about their customers anymore.
For some reason, in the last year I have become more and more disappointed with Apple and this keynote cancellation is just another example of that.
Didn't you guys hear that Steve's just going back to his home planet so he can come back and enslave us all?
....and you can stop repeating your same post in every forum here
These events might be expensive but they generated a huge amount of publicity, both before and after. The rumour mongering about new products begins months before and builds up a level of anticipation that is almost priceless and I cant think of a single other company in the industry that is able to do this. Why they would want to walk away from that, I have no idea.
Because Apple can generate the same publicity, the same buzz, the same rumor mongering at a fraction of the cost of attending a trade show.
Finally, although it pains me to say this I haven't seen a single example of real innovation or creativity from Apple in almost two years. The announcement of the iPhone was Apple's zenith in January 2007 but everything since then has been a disappointment in one way or another. For a company that had done nothing but innovate for 10 years previously I find this really hard to understand.
I disagree a bit here.
1. The iPhone has been a huge success here but the star of the show is the conduit.....
2. The app store. If it's generating enough money to make some Mac developers go iPhone only (Pangea Software) then it's clearly the one two punch Apple needed to make people forget about the deleterious effects to Apple's stock because of the iPods slowing down
Lately, everything seems to be about locking products down or locking people out or making some of the most amazing products in the world far less amazing than they could be. I waited 6 months for the new macbooks after my last computer died. But when they arrived I was so disappointed I bought a Dell instead (at less than half the price but with 80% of the functionality).
I love Apple and always have but I cant help thinking they dont care so much about their customers anymore.
Part of this is Intel. I knew hardware would become boring once we had Intel because it's such a commodity. Look at Netbooks......same ole boring Atom processor and 1GB of RAM. In order to see some exciting new stuff we're going to have to wait to see what P.A Semiconductor can whip up.
Fond, fond memories.
It was always a great time to gorge on all things Mac. A great orgy of Mac products. While Apple was the anchor, there was lots more going on. Training classes. Demo/classes at vendor booths. Meet ups at local bars & hotels. Parties. Small vendors of innovative software.
Macworld went far beyond just being a place for Apple to announce new products. It was a venue for the Mac faithful to come together and celebrate the platform, make new friends, and learn from each other.
It's too bad Apple has decided to stop participating. The value of Macworld goes far beyond whatever product announcements Apple made there.
It will be missed.
- Jasen.
Maybe yours doesn't, but in general private companies are much more profitable than public ones.
As long as they are held by less than 128 shareholders (all US citizens), they can incorporate as a subchapter S corporation, and they would be way more profitable. Subchapter S corps pay no taxes, all earnings are taxed on shareholders returns only a single time. C corps pay corporate taxes, and then those earnings are taxed a second time as dividends on the shareholders returns.
Private companies have much less overhead cost - no annual report, no sarbanes-oxley, etc.
Also, as a private corporation it is much easier to hide intellectual property, and to make investments that pay off in the long term. Look at how much trouble Buffet is having with his paper losses that will eventually turn into huge gains 20 years down the road, he wouldn't have that problem if Berkshire was private.
The downsides of going private are lack of liquidity and lack of good protections for minority shareholders, but profit is better if you go private.
That said, I think that the chance of Apple going private is 0%. Nobody is lending money, for one thing.
If that is the case, then why is it such a big deal when people offer an IPO. I work for 2 privately owned companies, while true, they are profitable, they also have a very, very low growth percentage, or potential.
Sarbanes-Oaxley certainly does pertain to ANY company doing ANY business with ANYONE, I know this for a fact because I spent almost 2 years making sure one of the two private companies I work for was in compliance.
Profitability alone does not equal growth, without the capital, it is very hard to grow.
One word..... "Google"
The link is broken.
The problem is that the situation seems to change daily. At the start, they wanted in, but later I think they backed out, that might have changed yet again.
Ford initially was only looking for a line of credit to fall back on if necessary, from the beginning they already had plans to weather the storm, and they have enough cash to get through, they have not been part of the discussion since the house made the first offer.
Also, the problem with Macworld was that the new products were rarely available. Jobs always said, we hope to have this product shipping by March (but we were forced to announce it now in January because of Macworld).
Since the rumor is only an updated Mac Mini (a complete waste), then Jobs did the right thing. People would have complained and said the keynote sucked because there was nothing new. Better not to do it at all.
You hit the nail on the head. Why mess up sales of your current product line only to have people wait 4-5 months to by a new device. This makes Apple far more nimble and lets them have more control of their back stock. If you want to see the latest Apple hardware just walk or drive to your local Apple Store. I think it's a smart move.