minisu1980

cnocbui said:

slurpy said:

Expected intellectually dishonest response from our resident Samsung shill. If you weren't such a troll, you'd realize there's a different between manufacturing solar cells, and actually setting up massive solar farms in order to power your company's operations. But why would that matter to you? Your MO is muddying the waters enough to get out some sarcastic quip that shits on Apple, bending the truth as much as you can to do so. It got old a long time ago. 

So with your exquisitely unique take on sheer stupidity, a company that does  basic materials R&D and actually makes the solar panels that make solar power generation possible, deserves less credit than a company like Apple that throws a wad of cash at a contractor with a list of specs who then goes and assembles the other companies products into arrays and connects them with wires for them?

There is a world of difference between the two, but you are too blind to discern it.

Quick question - what powers Apple's operations after the sun goes down?  Without practical energy storage technology, all intermittent renewables are an eco-con done for the sake of green-cred.  Behind every solar/wind farm is a conventional power plant propping it up and making it look good while ironically being cursed by eco-fools.  The only renewable that really works is the good old original - hydro.  Geo-thermal is pretty cool too.

The difference is Apple paid to have those solar farms deployed even though the initial cost was high and the return on investment is low (at least in the short term). Their were vastly more profitable ways for Apple to source their energy needs. Apple deployed these because it helps reduce it's contribution to the planets environmental problems.

Samsung's basic materials R&D and production of the solar panels was done in search of the all mighty dollar. The decision Samsung had to make was to produce panels and earn in the solar market or not be in the solar market. If there was a market for a panel that actively harmed the environment Samsung would be front and center selling that to. Though I have not researched this, it is a safe bet that these panels were not produced from a factory that was powered by solar or renewable energy. If Samsung decided years ago to move all of their power needs to solar or renewable, then they would on par with Apple ... but as I previously mentioned that would be less profitable for them as is cheaper to use dirty power. I wonder why it is that the only thing that they have not tried to copy from Apple are it's environmental initiatives.

I've followed your comments for a long time, you are basically a shill masquerading as a troll. I try to keep an open mind, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... than it probably is one.

Seems like this doom and gloom is going to continue at a minimum until the new iPhone release. I don't think it is a good idea to bet against Apple long term, however this seems like a great opportunity to earn on some put options.