Microsoft hopes to take on Apple with dual mobile platforms

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Companies usually maintain "live" shares for the purpose of compensation, options etc. So dilution isn't always happening, even so, it depends on the number of shares out there. Apple has a bit over 900 million in public hands, MS has over 9 billion.



    Some stats that might interest you. When Microsoft went public in 1985, the declared ownership of the shares was:



    Bill Gates: 11,222,000 (49%)

    Paul Allen: 6,390,000 (28%)

    Steve Ballmer: 1,710,000 (7%)



    ... and a bunch of other insiders with under 1 million shares each. The plan for the public offering was to make only about 12% of the outstanding shares available for public trade. Anyone investing in Microsoft at that point was really investing in those three people. The stock has split NINE times since then, most of them 2:1. Gates didn't start parting with his shares in a really big way until he created the foundation, so at one time he probably held somewhere in the neighborhood of four billion shares of MSFT. Now those are some truly big numbers.
  • Reply 102 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Some stats that might interest you. When Microsoft went public in 1985, the declared ownership of the shares was:



    Bill Gates: 11,222,000 (49%)

    Paul Allen: 6,390,000 (28%)

    Steve Ballmer: 1,710,000 (7%)



    ... and a bunch of other insiders with under 1 million shares each. The plan for the public offering was to make only about 12% of the outstanding shares available for public trade. Anyone investing in Microsoft at that point was really investing in those three people. The stock has split NINE times since then, most of them 2:1. Gates didn't start parting with his shares in a really big way until he created the foundation, so at one time he probably held somewhere in the neighborhood of four billion shares of MSFT. Now those are some truly big numbers.



    It's why they have so much money now, even though Gates and Allen (Allen in particular) sold off a good part of it. Ballmer still has most of his.



    I've never looked, but I wonder how many share of Apple Wozniak still has. The last time his wealth was mentioned was years ago, when it was said to be about $500 million. I never read that part of the filings when I get them. He's not done too well in business.
  • Reply 103 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It's why they have so much money now, even though Gates and Allen (Allen in particular) sold off a good part of it. Ballmer still has most of his.



    I've never looked, but I wonder how many share of Apple Wozniak still has. The last time his wealth was mentioned was years ago, when it was said to be about $500 million. I never read that part of the filings when I get them. He's not done too well in business.



    It's also funny that somehow the RIAA, MPAA and the carriers got to be viewed as the evil empire when in reality they are just trying to survive against silicon valley billionaires whose toy collections of $400 million super-yacht and gulfstream airplanes are enough money to buy their whole company.



    AAPL market cap = $150 billion vs. Warner Music Group market cap = $750 million



    Do you really believe that this is a fair fight between Steve Jobs and the music studios on itunes?



    Google market cap = $150 billion vs. Verizon market cap = $85 billion



    Do you really think it's fair for Google to fool the FCC into making the 700 Mhz auction rules and Google had zero intention to actually bid to win the auction itself?
  • Reply 104 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It's why they have so much money now, even though Gates and Allen (Allen in particular) sold off a good part of it. Ballmer still has most of his.



    I've never looked, but I wonder how many share of Apple Wozniak still has. The last time his wealth was mentioned was years ago, when it was said to be about $500 million. I never read that part of the filings when I get them. He's not done too well in business.



    I don't think he cared to. The first thing he did after leaving Apple was spend a bunch of it on things he cared about, like buying computers for schools and those concert events.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    It's also funny that somehow the RIAA, MPAA and the carriers got to be viewed as the evil empire when in reality they are just trying to survive against silicon valley billionaires whose toy collections of $400 million super-yacht and gulfstream airplanes are enough money to buy their whole company.



    AAPL market cap = $150 billion vs. Warner Music Group market cap = $750 million



    Do you really believe that this is a fair fight between Steve Jobs and the music studios on itunes?



    Google market cap = $150 billion vs. Verizon market cap = $85 billion



    Do you really think it's fair for Google to fool the FCC into making the 700 Mhz auction rules and Google had zero intention to actually bid to win the auction itself?



    You're making too much of market cap. You can't spend market cap, unless you're merging with another company. A large market cap does not automatically make a company more powerful.
  • Reply 105 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    It's also funny that somehow the RIAA, MPAA and the carriers got to be viewed as the evil empire when in reality they are just trying to survive against silicon valley billionaires whose toy collections of $400 million super-yacht and gulfstream airplanes are enough money to buy their whole company.



    AAPL market cap = $150 billion vs. Warner Music Group market cap = $750 million



    Do you really believe that this is a fair fight between Steve Jobs and the music studios on itunes



    Consumer electronics industries have been larger than the content industries for quite some time, has nothing to do with Silicon Valley. The music studios could have set up a music playback platform and done the sales & distribution system for themselves, but they were so myopic that they had to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming instead because they wanted their own terms, only their own terms, and didn't want to try to meet the consumer half way, and as such, anything they did was doomed to failure. They only view the consumer with high distrust, why should the consumer do anything but return the distrust?



    This was the same with home videos back in the early tape days. Jack Valenti called the VCR a "Boston Strangler" to the movie industry when it turned out to be a market opportunity that they were myopic enough to have fought against. They were dragged kicking and screaming towards new and more bountiful income sources, for a good while, they made more money from home video sales than they did at the theaters, just as well too, because a movie is at a theater for only a few weeks if it's any good, a movie is available for sale at stores for years if it's a seller.



    Quote:

    Google market cap = $150 billion vs. Verizon market cap = $85 billion



    Do you really think it's fair for Google to fool the FCC into making the 700 Mhz auction rules and Google had zero intention to actually bid to win the auction itself?



    That's an interesting perspective. The rule changes added more openess to the system and Verizon is the most closed wireless carrier in the US, in one of the more closed and oligopolist markets in the US. Why should anyone shed a tear for Verizon again? The internet is so much more open than the cellular market, any company of any size can start up and provide services and any one can choose which services to use without being at the whim of just a handful of companies, companies can rack their computers just about anywhere, and users can enter whatever URL they want in the address bar.
  • Reply 106 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    That's an interesting perspective. The rule changes added more openess to the system and Verizon is the most closed wireless carrier in the US, in one of the more closed and oligopolist markets in the US. Why should anyone shed a tear for Verizon again?



    In terms of monopoly --- Google is actually a lot more monopolistic than the carriers.



    Verizon Wireless owns about 31% of the US market. AT&T owns about 29% of the US market. Japan's NTT DoCoMo owns over 50% of the Japanese market. France Telecom owns about 45% of the French market. T-Mobile owns about 40% of the German market.



    The US cell phone market is nowhere near closed and oligopolistic.



    I don't believe helping a much larger company to bash a much smaller company is the right thing to do.
  • Reply 107 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    You're making too much of market cap. You can't spend market cap, unless you're merging with another company. A large market cap does not automatically make a company more powerful.



    But the difference between those companies is truly staggering --- plus the fact that most high tech companies are headed by silicon valley billionaires whose toy collection is enough to buy some of these supposedly evil companies.



    It's pocket change for Paul Allen to bankroll Steven Speilberg's Dreamworks studio.
  • Reply 108 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    In terms of monopoly --- Google is actually a lot more monopolistic than the carriers.



    Verizon Wireless owns about 31% of the US market. AT&T owns about 29% of the US market. Japan's NTT DoCoMo owns over 50% of the Japanese market. France Telecom owns about 45% of the French market. T-Mobile owns about 40% of the German market.



    The US cell phone market is nowhere near closed and oligopolistic.



    I don't think so. I think you're just being contrarian or simply not trying to understand why people don't like certain companies. The size of the company, the size of their money pile doesn't necessarily correlate with how evil a company is. Just having a bigger market share doesn't mean that they abuse the market share more than a company that has less market share.



    If you don't like Google, you can always use another company's services at any time at no cost for switching. Try that with Verizon. Or any other major cell carrier. Even with the no-contract devices from any service, you generally can't easily use the hardware with other services. People don't have to put up with that garbage with computers, you don't have to dump your computer to switch between ISPs. How readily will Verizon unlock a device for use on Sprint? Vice versa? How much did it cost to enable Bluetooth functionality in recent years? Verizon has had a habit of disabling features on the devices it sells, features that should have been paid for when the customer bought it, but they demand even more money to allow the customer to use it.
  • Reply 109 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't think so.



    If you don't like Google, you can use another company's services at any time at no cost for switching. Try that with Verizon. Or any other major cell carrier. Even with the no-contract devices from any service, you generally can't easily use the hardware with other services. People don't have to put up with that garbage with computers, you don't have to dump your computer to switch between ISPs. How readily will Verizon unlock a device for use on Sprint? Vice versa? How much did it cost to enable Bluetooth functionality?



    Plenty of free laptops with mobile contracts in Europe and we are moving towards that with the netbook in the US.



    Your new carrier is going to give you a brand new zero dollar phone, so there is no point of bringing in your old phone. I support national rules on ETF, deposit returns, detailed billing (and not calling service fees as government charges), not automatically giving their customers a 2 year renewal when they change a minor detail in their plans.



    I care about all the mundane stuff that will help 300 million Americans --- like uniform national ETF rules. What I don't care is gadget geek's stuff like simlocking --- which are proven ineffective in a zillion countries where they sell the iphone.
  • Reply 110 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Plenty of free laptops with mobile contracts in Europe and we are moving towards that with the netbook in the US.



    Your new carrier is going to give you a brand new zero dollar phone, so there is no point of bringing in your old phone. I support national rules on ETF, deposit returns, detailed billing (and not calling service fees as government charges), not automatically giving their customers a 2 year renewal when they change a minor detail in their plans.



    I care about all the mundane stuff that will help 300 million Americans --- like uniform national ETF rules.



    How is pretending that the US cellular industry isn't an oligopoly help with this? The rise in fee prices and increase in contract lengths interlocked too nicely with major mergers in the industry to be a simple coincidence. I recall that cheap phones could be had with a one year contract, $100 subsidy for one year, $200 for two, I'm not sure one year contracts are available anymore, everyone is now two years. The unsubsidized price on low end phones seems to have gone up too, I hadn't seen a contract-capable phone as having less than a $200 list price in a few years.
  • Reply 111 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    But the difference between those companies is truly staggering --- plus the fact that most high tech companies are headed by silicon valley billionaires whose toy collection is enough to buy some of these supposedly evil companies.



    It's pocket change for Paul Allen to bankroll Steven Speilberg's Dreamworks studio.



    Are you talking about corporations or individuals now?
  • Reply 112 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    How is pretending that the US cellular industry isn't an oligopoly help with this? The rise in fee prices and increase in contract lengths interlocked too nicely with major mergers in the industry to be a simple coincidence.



    I am not pretending at all --- the numbers speak for themselves.



    I don't pretend that we live in a perfect world --- economics (and the laws of physics) will dictate that we have 4-6 carriers. And in our imperfect world, the US are pretty much better than everyone else with a very competitive cell phone service market.



    I am a realist --- we only have limited amount of political capital. I want to use the political capital on the mundane stuff that help most people.



    The FCC (under the Bush administration) spent all their time and energy on Janet Jackson's nipple, on idiotic discussion about "free" wireless spectrum without porn, on helping Google to bash Verizon --- and turned a blind eye on telecom mergers. They could have helped the average American a lot more with my list of mundane stuff.



    The US would have been a lot more better if they still have 6 national carriers, but the reality is that even with 4 national carriers --- the US cell phone service market is still a lot more competitive than the rest of the world.
  • Reply 113 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Are you talking about corporations or individuals now?



    A little bit of both because these internet giants' most visible face is their billionaire founders.
  • Reply 114 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Just having a bigger market share doesn't mean that they abuse the market share more than a company that has less market share.



    Of course, you are right that just having a bigger market share doesn't automatically mean that they abuse the market.



    But the opposite is also right --- with Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless having the lowest market concentration in basically the whole industrial world --- guarantees that they are not abusing the US market. They can't abuse their market position even if they want to do it.
  • Reply 115 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    I am not pretending at all --- the numbers speak for themselves.



    I don't pretend that we live in a perfect world --- economics will dictate that we have 4-5 carriers. And in our imperfect world, the US are pretty much better than everyone else with a very competitive cell phone service market.



    I am a realist --- we only have limited amount of political capital. I want to use the political capital on the mundane stuff that help most people.



    The FCC (under the Bush administration) spent all their time and energy on Janet Jackson's nipple, on idiotic discussion about "free" wireless spectrum without porn, on helping Google to bash Verizon --- and turned a blind eye on telecom mergers. They could have helped the average American a lot more with my list of mundane stuff.



    I still don't get this Google bashing Verizon mantra that you have. It's not stacking up quite right. That doesn't fit when Verizon was a major RNC donor (ergo, Bush). Why would the FCC go along with Google, when Google isn't a major donor, in some alleged jihad against Verizon, the #3 corporate RNC donor at that time? How were the rules specifically anti-Verizon?
  • Reply 116 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Your new carrier is going to give you a brand new zero dollar phone, so there is no point of bringing in your old phone.



    Something I forgot to mention, to say it's a zero dollar phone is a false economy, you still pay for it in the contract. So, yes, sometimes there is a point in trying to bring in the old phone but the current subsidy system and unnecessary hodge podge of wireless standards artificially discourages this practice. That same subsidy system of the new required phone is then used to justify the contract, it's kind of a trap. If you really are genuinely concerned about the ETFs, I would think you would realize all this and not have tried to say what I quoted above, I don't see how your arguments add up to something that make sense.
  • Reply 117 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    A little bit of both because these internet giants' most visible face is their billionaire founders.



    I think you are combining two essentially unrelated factoids to generate a specious conclusion. The market cap of a company does not say anything about their power; it is only a statement of the aggregate value of all publicly-traded shares. The personal wealth of the company founders is also unrelated in any way to company power; this wealth is in the hands of individuals. I am puzzled by the point you are trying to make here.
  • Reply 118 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I still don't get this Google bashing Verizon mantra that you have. It's not stacking up quite right. That doesn't fit when Verizon was a major RNC donor (ergo, Bush). Why would the FCC go along with Google, when Google isn't a major donor, in some alleged jihad against Verizon, the #3 corporate RNC donor at that time? How were the rules specifically anti-Verizon?



    It is a fact that senior Google executives have stated after the auction that they never intended to bid to win the 700 MHz auction. It is a fact that the FCC got fooled into making those rules for the open 700 Mhz spectrum. It is a fact that Google is twice as big as Verizon in market cap.



    You can spin it off topic into republican donorship stuff. For me, it is what it is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Something I forgot to mention, to say it's a zero dollar phone is a false economy, you still pay for it in the contract. So, yes, sometimes there is a point in trying to bring in the old phone but the current subsidy system and unnecessary hodge podge of wireless standards artificially discourages this practice. That same subsidy system of the new required phone is then used to justify the contract, it's kind of a trap. If you really are genuinely concerned about the ETFs, I would think you would realize all this and not have tried to say what I quoted above, I don't see how your arguments add up to something that make sense.



    Europe has embraced this unnecessary hodge podge of wireless standards --- because all their spectrum auctions in the past 3-4 years have been technology neutral.



    You can't stop the subsidy system --- even if you want to. Countries that made handset subsidies illegal found that carriers just give out a free tv or a free mp3 player instead. For the average consumer --- this is an even worse alternative, because now they can't make direct comparisions when one carrier give out a free tv and the other carrier give out a free mp3 player.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I think you are combining two essentially unrelated factoids to generate a specious conclusion. The market cap of a company does not say anything about their power; it is only a statement of the aggregate value of all publicly-traded shares. The personal wealth of the company founders is also unrelated in any way to company power; this wealth is in the hands of individuals. I am puzzled by the point you are trying to make here.



    While the massive market cap of a company doesn't necessary say anything about their power. But a company with a tiny market cap can't do much either --- even if they want to.
  • Reply 119 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    It is a fact that senior Google executives have stated after the auction that they never intended to bid to win the 700 MHz auction. It is a fact that the FCC got fooled into making those rules for the open 700 Mhz spectrum. It is a fact that Google is twice as big as Verizon in market cap.



    You can spin it off topic into republican donorship stuff. For me, it is what it is.



    I'm just trying to figure out what your agenda is, because what you say doesn't add up either.



    You're the one that was focusing it as Google vs. Verizon and you've done nothing to refine that so I understand why you think it was a jack against Verizon specifically. It would make sense if you said against the entire cellular industry, but no, you did not say that, you say Verizon and only Verizon.



    You brought up the politics. You're the one that said that under the Bush administration, the FCC was siding for Google against Verizon. I don't understand how that fits. Really? Why would the administration side against one of its biggest donors and with a non-donor?



    The market cap has nothing to do with any of this.
  • Reply 120 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I'm just trying to figure out what your agenda is, because what you say doesn't add up either.



    You're the one that was focusing it as Google vs. Verizon and you've done nothing to refine that so I understand why you think it was a jack against Verizon specifically. It would make sense if you said against the entire cellular industry, but no, you did not say that, you say Verizon and only Verizon.



    You brought up the politics. You're the one that said that under the Bush administration, the FCC was siding for Google against Verizon. I don't understand how that fits. Really? Why would the administration side against one of its biggest donors and with a non-donor?



    The market cap has nothing to do with any of this.



    You can say that a company with a massive market cap may or may not use their money and power to do bad things.



    But without any sizeable market cap --- you can't do a single bad thing, even if you want to.
Sign In or Register to comment.