 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 11:40 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> > Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
> > whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
> > the industry.
>
> And, curiously, they *don't* seem to be complaining about Apple, which
> looks like a waaaay bigger threat from where I'm sitting...
Apple is more like a commercial partner or a branch of their business focusing
on niche markets. They share the very same monopolistic and individual freedoms
suppression of one another.
I heard recently that Apple now wants your iTunes music to be in the "cloud",
which is just a poetic euphemism for their server. So, you see, not only you
don't have anymore any physical property over music, books and movies you buy --
you only have a license to consume it from some devices for god-only knows how
long -- as you also will quickly run out of batteries from all network streaming
to your mobile device. Pretty dumb move, I'd say. And yet, cattle people are
gladly running for it, sharing the LSD vision of scumbag Jobs...
> > The only rational response to that is STFU.
>
> Uh, yeah.
>
> Also, FWIW, there /are/ companies trying to make money out of Linux. I
> don't see any of them in this list. (I might have expected Novell to
> make an appearence, but since they got rid of Jim I guess they're not
> doing so well...)
Novell has been bought by some dummy division of M$, which is what usually
happens with companies shaking hands with the devil. A nice stab in the back.
But, hey, at least Novell clients are protected from all M$ IP and patents in
Linux, right?
This post brought to you by bile industries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2011 01:08 PM, nemesis wrote:
> This post brought to you by bile industries.
Well, that explains the name then. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Check it out:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/452w2fu
>
> 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?
Apple's customer base is individuals whereas IBM, since it got rid of
its PC division, caters almost exclusively to the corporate crowd. The
profit margins are much bigger on big juicy corporate contracts than
they are on cheap electronic gadgets.
>
> 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.
In fact, there's a famous picture of their CEO
(http://www.goingfaster.com/darkthoughts/ceo.jpg) that has been going
around the Internet for the last few years, usually in conjunction with
complaints about high gas prices and the ludicrous explanations the
industry comes up to justify them.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>> 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
they're profitable. And not just a bit profitable. /Very/ profitable. In
fact /the most/ profitable that it is physically possible to be. That's
really unexpected.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2011 3:40, Warp wrote:
> Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
> whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
> the industry.
You know, I've never actually seen MS complain about Linux market share.
They FUD about GNU licensing and such, and dis the OS and all, but I've
never heard them "complain". Can you post a link next time you run across
what you're talking about here?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 6/7/2011 3:40, Warp wrote:
> > Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
> > whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
> > the industry.
> You know, I've never actually seen MS complain about Linux market share.
> They FUD about GNU licensing and such, and dis the OS and all, but I've
> never heard them "complain". Can you post a link next time you run across
> what you're talking about here?
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
