Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?

> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and 
> was close to being liquidated.

  Usually your "last I heard" means "something like 10 years ago".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2011 01:50 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
>
>> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
>> was close to being liquidated.
>
>    Usually your "last I heard" means "something like 10 years ago".

Generally when a company is liquidated, you don't hear about them again. 
But sure, point taken. I don't make a habit of reviewing corporate 
performance on a regular basis.

Post a reply to this message

>>> OK, so most of these aren't particularly surprising. Microsoft, Google,
>>> Apple, Intel, IBM, and a few oil companies. It's perhaps slightly
>>> surprising that (for example) IBM is more profitable than Apple. But
>>> there's no surprise that these guys are all at the top.
>>
>> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
>
> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
> was close to being liquidated. To go from that to being one of the most
> profitable companies on Earth is a pretty big turn-around.
>

"Last you heard" was in the 80s, and you heard wrong.  Since Lou 
Gerstner took over in 1991, the company has been doing great.  They even 
sailed through the bursting of the dotcom bubble completely unscathed. 
So much in fact, that the Securities and Exchange Commission 
investigated them to see if they were cooking their books like Enron, 
Nortel or MCI/Worldcomm.

>>> The real surprise is... wait, Exxon? For real?! Jesus, I thought they
>>> went bankrupt decades ago... Apparently they're still alive somehow.
>>
>> Not just somehow... They're one of the bigger players in North America.
>
> That's what's so surprising. Not only have they somehow survived, but

Survived what?  The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their 
history.  Don't base your financial knowledge on Kevin Costner movies.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Don't base your financial knowledge on Kevin Costner movies.

  What? You mean Hollywood movies are not always right?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
>>
>> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
>> was close to being liquidated. To go from that to being one of the most
>> profitable companies on Earth is a pretty big turn-around.
>
> "Last you heard" was in the 80s, and you heard wrong.

OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody 
knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not 
surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.

> Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
> history.

One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human 
history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their 
existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?

> Don't base your financial knowledge on Kevin Costner movies.

There's a movie?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2011 01:49 PM, Warp wrote:

>    I didn't mean to say that Microsoft has explicitly complained about
> Linux's market share being too large. On the contrary, they (read: Steve
> Ballmer) always remember to proudly proclaim how Windows is the most
> popular OS by a large margin (iow. argument ad populum).
>
>    It's their actions and FUD campaigns against free software in general and
> Linux in particular that give the clear impression that they are worried
> about Linux's market share, especially in large companies, web servers and
> such. They clearly see Linux (rather than, say, Mac OS X) as their worst
> competitor, especially on those markets, and they seem to be quite eager
> to do whatever is necessary to dissuade companies from switching to Linux.

The Halloween Documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents

(Damnit, you have /no idea/ how long it just took me to remember WTF 
those are called!)

Clearly the official line of "we're not worried about Linux at all" is 
untrue. Or at least, it was. (The documents are quite old now.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody 
> knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not 
> surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.

  A change in domain (from desktop computers to servers and other such
more "hidden" technological services) doesn't mean they are dying. It just
means they are less visible on shop selves and people's desktops.

> > Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
> > history.

> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human 
> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their 
> existence?

  Accidents happen. Why should it end the existence of a multi-billion dollar
company?

> How did they not get sued off the face of creation?

  Suing someone for an accident seldom has any significant effect on
anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2011 02:36 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody
>> knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not
>> surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.
>
>    A change in domain (from desktop computers to servers and other such
> more "hidden" technological services) doesn't mean they are dying. It just
> means they are less visible on shop selves and people's desktops.

OK, that's fair enough. But I also heard a lot of stuff about how they 
weren't doing so well. That combined with a gradual lack of visibility 
certainly doesn't /look/ very healthy. (As evidenced here, it's not 
conclusive though.)

>> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
>> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
>> existence?
>
>    Accidents happen. Why should it end the existence of a multi-billion dollar
> company?

The way I remember it, it wasn't just an accident. There were serious 
questions of negligence involved.

>    Suing someone for an accident seldom has any significant effect on
> anything.

I guess if people thought that, nobody would get sued...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> writes:

>> Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
>> history.
>
> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
> existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?

Because they figured out how not to pay as much in damages as they were
ordered to.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/8/2011 5:49, Warp wrote:
> Linux in particular that give the clear impression that they are worried
> about Linux's market share,

OK, fair enough. Yes, I've seen that. Thanks for clarifying.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message