You're not making sense... and you also cherry picked my response.
Microsoft has pissed off everyone for over 20 years... boy does that show... nobody wants to do business with them and their business is almost bankrupt... what? wait...
I would like to know who is "really" pissed off at Apple other than a few fandroids.
Business is business... everyone knows that in the industry. I'd like to know one very successful company that hasn't pissed off a few other companies in their day... and yet they are still around.
Shit happens... nuff said.
In addition, if you become big and successful enough, others have to do business with you.
So lets get this right, you think that Google is more evil than Apple but that Apple should have let them win the patents because Apple has to be better than Google, and if Google wants the patents then owning the patents must be evil - so Apple must not do it?
Or would you like to put it differently?
MacRulez says he's an Apple loyalist but why do I always feel that he's an anti-Apple* troll...
I think those whimsical mathematical constant bids were just about it tweaking Apple's nose a bit, and it never really intended to go all out for the patent package.
Originally, Schmidt wanted to bid in multiples of 666, but Page overruled him.
If Google alone tapped out at 4 billion, why wouldn't Apple just bid for EVERYTHING at $4.5? Drop the consortium like they're hot (do people still use that?) and get everything for their money alone?
After Intel tapped out it then joined Google's side. So the $4 billion probably included Intel.
Just because these companies have billions of cash doesn't mean they can spend whatever they want. Even though Apple has $66- $70 billion in cash, what they spend on these patents will need to be reconciled on the book.
Generally speaking these can either be recorded as one time item or amortized over time. There may be strict rules on which of these two the company must follow.
If recorded as a one time purchase then it will drag down earnings for that quarter significantly. But the up side is that investors generally understand that this is a one time event due to the purchase and it wont affect the stock price... hopefully.
On the other hand, if it is amortized over next 3-5 years then the impact on any individual quarterly earnings report will be quite small... but it would give the perception of lower earnings and growth.
So spending too much on this purchase can have long term financial consequences.
Furthermore with $4 billion, even if one were to put that into a low interest rate instrument with 3% yield, the interest on that would be about $120 million a year.
Furthermore with $4 billion, even if one were to put that into a low interest rate instrument with 3% yield, the interest on that would be about $120 million a year.
Interest rates on Apples investments are extremely low as they seem to prefer short maturity US treasuries. I believe I remember reading somewhere that their yield on their 'cash pile' was around 1%, and significantly lower than Google's. Anyway 3% would be quite high right now, you'd need to get out to the 10year bond to see it.
In this case, there was a very early article that showed a fair amount of code that looked to be copied directly. I don't remember who wrote that, but I believe it was a developer.
Just because these companies have billions of cash doesn't mean they can spend whatever they want. Even though Apple has $66- $70 billion in cash, what they spend on these patents will need to be reconciled on the book.
Generally speaking these can either be recorded as one time item or amortized over time. There may be strict rules on which of these two the company must follow.
If recorded as a one time purchase then it will drag down earnings for that quarter significantly. But the up side is that investors generally understand that this is a one time event due to the purchase and it wont affect the stock price... hopefully.
On the other hand, if it is amortized over next 3-5 years then the impact on any individual quarterly earnings report will be quite small... but it would give the perception of lower earnings and growth.
So spending too much on this purchase can have long term financial consequences.
Furthermore with $4 billion, even if one were to put that into a low interest rate instrument with 3% yield, the interest on that would be about $120 million a year.
That's all very true. But you have to look at a long term perspective, and why the patents may be needed. If it's thought that future devices may be restricted by someone else controlling these patents, then you might be very interested in making sure that doesn't happen.
Apple will be selling about $30 billion in iOS devices this year. As I said earlier, this will amount to hundreds of billions in sales over the life of many of these patents. Even if we just assume that Apple won't increase sales over the years, ten years worth of iOS related sales comes out to $300 billion. If we assume that sales will double over that time, then sales will be $450 billion, and if we make an assumption that sales will quadruple, a not ulikely assumption, then sales will have been $900 billion over the next ten years.
In light of that, whatever Apple had to spend to get control of the patents it needed, would have been trivial. We have to consider that Apple will generate at least $7 billion of free cash this quarter alone.
Interest rates on Apples investments are extremely low as they seem to prefer short maturity US treasuries. I believe I remember reading somewhere that their yield on their 'cash pile' was around 1%, and significantly lower than Google's. Anyway 3% would be quite high right now, you'd need to get out to the 10year bond to see it.
I had read that it was between 1.5% and 2%. but that's still low. But it's also reliable. Even a 3% interest rate those days can result in a less stable investment.
In online poker, every once in a while there would be a player who would always bet in strange amounts. Instead of $100, they'd raise $99.54 and so on. Almost every player that I've run into who has used strange betting amounts turned out to be poor players and losing players.
.
This approach to betting was popularised by a young online player called Tom "Durrrr" Dwan. Look him up...
"It was not clear what strategy Google was employing, whether it wanted to confuse rival bidders, intimidate them, or simply express the irreverence that is part and parcel of its corporate persona," the report noted, while one source suggested the company was either "supremely confident" or just bored.
What about the explanation that the company name is a play on a math term, so by putting math constants in their bids they're kind of identifying them as a Google bid.
Theirs is a strange, privileged and self-referencing corporate culture.
Well they are still arguably the coolest place to work for geeks, it's understandable that they'd be a bit self-regarding. Not that Apple isn't cool of course, Apple is really at the cutting edge of industrial design - but in terms of doing remarkable things with computer science nobody else compares to Google.
What about the explanation that the company name is a play on a math term, so by putting math constants in their bids they're kind of identifying them as a Google bid.
Comments
You're not making sense... and you also cherry picked my response.
Microsoft has pissed off everyone for over 20 years... boy does that show... nobody wants to do business with them and their business is almost bankrupt... what? wait...
I would like to know who is "really" pissed off at Apple other than a few fandroids.
Business is business... everyone knows that in the industry. I'd like to know one very successful company that hasn't pissed off a few other companies in their day... and yet they are still around.
Shit happens... nuff said.
In addition, if you become big and successful enough, others have to do business with you.
So lets get this right, you think that Google is more evil than Apple but that Apple should have let them win the patents because Apple has to be better than Google, and if Google wants the patents then owning the patents must be evil - so Apple must not do it?
Or would you like to put it differently?
MacRulez says he's an Apple loyalist but why do I always feel that he's an anti-Apple* troll...
* on edit
I think those whimsical mathematical constant bids were just about it tweaking Apple's nose a bit, and it never really intended to go all out for the patent package.
Originally, Schmidt wanted to bid in multiples of 666, but Page overruled him.
the "Rockstar" team, who placed a winning bid of $4.5 billion.
Update: I, Cringely reports:
Apple paid $2 billion
RIM and Ericsson paid $1.1 billion together
Microsoft and Sony reportedly each put up $1 billion.
EMC brokered a side deal for about $400 million
Which adds up to $5.5 billion.
Perhaps Microsoft & Sony instead each put in only $500 million.
You suck at math, go back to 1st grade.
Teach us all, genius.
Teach us all, genius.
"RIM and Ericsson paid $1.1 billion together" not "each".
Which adds up to $5.5 billion.
Perhaps Microsoft & Sony instead each put in only $500 million.
You're right, I think it's misquoting by AI. If you look at Cringley's site he doesn't say MS and Sony put in a billion each.
If Google alone tapped out at 4 billion, why wouldn't Apple just bid for EVERYTHING at $4.5? Drop the consortium like they're hot (do people still use that?) and get everything for their money alone?
After Intel tapped out it then joined Google's side. So the $4 billion probably included Intel.
Generally speaking these can either be recorded as one time item or amortized over time. There may be strict rules on which of these two the company must follow.
If recorded as a one time purchase then it will drag down earnings for that quarter significantly. But the up side is that investors generally understand that this is a one time event due to the purchase and it wont affect the stock price... hopefully.
On the other hand, if it is amortized over next 3-5 years then the impact on any individual quarterly earnings report will be quite small... but it would give the perception of lower earnings and growth.
So spending too much on this purchase can have long term financial consequences.
Furthermore with $4 billion, even if one were to put that into a low interest rate instrument with 3% yield, the interest on that would be about $120 million a year.
"RIM and Ericsson paid $1.1 billion together" not "each".
That still $5.5B. Apple $2B + RIM & Ericsson $1.1B TOGETHER + Sony & MS $1B EACH + EMC $400M = (2 + 1.1 + 2 + 0.4) = 5.5 not 4.5
However, it does look like it is a typo. It was probably Sony & MS put $1B together not each.
Furthermore with $4 billion, even if one were to put that into a low interest rate instrument with 3% yield, the interest on that would be about $120 million a year.
Interest rates on Apples investments are extremely low as they seem to prefer short maturity US treasuries. I believe I remember reading somewhere that their yield on their 'cash pile' was around 1%, and significantly lower than Google's. Anyway 3% would be quite high right now, you'd need to get out to the 10year bond to see it.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...spx?data=yield
In this case it seems the wildcards are plentiful:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...01111114933605
Interesting times....
In this case, there was a very early article that showed a fair amount of code that looked to be copied directly. I don't remember who wrote that, but I believe it was a developer.
Just because these companies have billions of cash doesn't mean they can spend whatever they want. Even though Apple has $66- $70 billion in cash, what they spend on these patents will need to be reconciled on the book.
Generally speaking these can either be recorded as one time item or amortized over time. There may be strict rules on which of these two the company must follow.
If recorded as a one time purchase then it will drag down earnings for that quarter significantly. But the up side is that investors generally understand that this is a one time event due to the purchase and it wont affect the stock price... hopefully.
On the other hand, if it is amortized over next 3-5 years then the impact on any individual quarterly earnings report will be quite small... but it would give the perception of lower earnings and growth.
So spending too much on this purchase can have long term financial consequences.
Furthermore with $4 billion, even if one were to put that into a low interest rate instrument with 3% yield, the interest on that would be about $120 million a year.
That's all very true. But you have to look at a long term perspective, and why the patents may be needed. If it's thought that future devices may be restricted by someone else controlling these patents, then you might be very interested in making sure that doesn't happen.
Apple will be selling about $30 billion in iOS devices this year. As I said earlier, this will amount to hundreds of billions in sales over the life of many of these patents. Even if we just assume that Apple won't increase sales over the years, ten years worth of iOS related sales comes out to $300 billion. If we assume that sales will double over that time, then sales will be $450 billion, and if we make an assumption that sales will quadruple, a not ulikely assumption, then sales will have been $900 billion over the next ten years.
In light of that, whatever Apple had to spend to get control of the patents it needed, would have been trivial. We have to consider that Apple will generate at least $7 billion of free cash this quarter alone.
Interest rates on Apples investments are extremely low as they seem to prefer short maturity US treasuries. I believe I remember reading somewhere that their yield on their 'cash pile' was around 1%, and significantly lower than Google's. Anyway 3% would be quite high right now, you'd need to get out to the 10year bond to see it.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...spx?data=yield
I had read that it was between 1.5% and 2%. but that's still low. But it's also reliable. Even a 3% interest rate those days can result in a less stable investment.
Google was just trying to remind everyone how smart they think they are.
Theirs is a strange, privileged and self-referencing corporate culture.
In online poker, every once in a while there would be a player who would always bet in strange amounts. Instead of $100, they'd raise $99.54 and so on. Almost every player that I've run into who has used strange betting amounts turned out to be poor players and losing players.
.
This approach to betting was popularised by a young online player called Tom "Durrrr" Dwan. Look him up...
"It was not clear what strategy Google was employing, whether it wanted to confuse rival bidders, intimidate them, or simply express the irreverence that is part and parcel of its corporate persona," the report noted, while one source suggested the company was either "supremely confident" or just bored.
What about the explanation that the company name is a play on a math term, so by putting math constants in their bids they're kind of identifying them as a Google bid.
Theirs is a strange, privileged and self-referencing corporate culture.
Well they are still arguably the coolest place to work for geeks, it's understandable that they'd be a bit self-regarding. Not that Apple isn't cool of course, Apple is really at the cutting edge of industrial design - but in terms of doing remarkable things with computer science nobody else compares to Google.
What about the explanation that the company name is a play on a math term, so by putting math constants in their bids they're kind of identifying them as a Google bid.
If they'd bid a google they'd have won :0