|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Sprint PCS > November 2007 > Re: GOOGLE - AND/OR Apple Nessy...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: GOOGLE - AND/OR Apple Nessy...
|
|
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 4:33 am |
| "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> As we all know by now - Oxtard is (always) wrong.
>
> Here is the real deal...
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,1...ml?tk=nl_dnxnws
>
> Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in
> an auction be held in the U.S. in January
>
> The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners,
> according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
You are forgetting that Apple and Google are partners in many areas,
Eric even sits on Apple's Board of Directors so what Steve says, Eric
does.
Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
As Todd mentioned the deadline for submitting bids is coming up soon.
Apple would probably use a shell company to protect the use until the
iPhone using this band is ready.
MacWorld is coming up very soon, only 58 days away! So we should know
something by that morning. (the Keynote is on the 15th)
http://www.macworldexpo.com/about
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> You are forgetting that Apple and Google are partners in many areas,
> Eric even sits on Apple's Board of Directors so what Steve says, Eric
> does.
So? They don't need Apple to slow them down anymore.
>
> Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
> experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
> possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
No, Apple cannot outbid google.
And guess what, GOOGLE HAS SALES EXPERIENCE!
| |
| Ness Net 2007-11-18, 4:33 am |
|
"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-BA7A9E.21421217112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
>
Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
Have you actually SEEN Google's market cap?
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-18, 4:33 am |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-BA7A9E.21421217112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote:
> You are forgetting that Apple and Google are partners in many areas,
> Eric even sits on Apple's Board of Directors so what Steve says, Eric
> does.
I do not think your "so" follows.
> Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
> experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
> possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
I think if you check you will find that Google's market cap is currently
larger than Apple's.
Googling, Apple appears to have about 15 billion in cash currently.
Google had about 11 billion back in March; I don't have a current
figure. But either company could borrow more if needed.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 12:33 pm |
| "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
>
> Have you actually SEEN Google's market cap?
Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
"market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
that.
Google is just the flavor of the month search site, they all fall at
some point and the list of giants, then nothing is long. AltaVista,
Lycos, Excite, Yahoo and within a few years Google will be replaced, and
join the "old players" club as well.
Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
So Ness, learn about the world, don't spout stuff you don't understand.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 12:33 pm |
| Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> No, Apple cannot outbid google.
Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.
> And guess what, GOOGLE HAS SALES EXPERIENCE!
Yes, selling little classified Ads on websites, but to sell a phone,
they have no idea. That's why they confirmed they wouldn't try and make
a phone a few weeks ago.
If the technical details can be worked out, Apple will buy a portion of
the spectrum, Apple has far more engineering talent that Google could
ever dream of...
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-0D2F92.10453018112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote:
> Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
> perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
> distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
> that.
yeah, that "worldwide brand identity" that Google is desperately trying
to achieve. Plucky little company, isn't it? that it just keeps trying.
I want some of what you're smoking.
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-66ACCA.10545018112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.
Defined how? It may have a little more cash in hand--I didn't find a
current figure for Google, but Apple was reported with more cash
recently than Google was last spring. But the total value of Google,
what it would cost to buy all its stock at its current price, is higher
than the total value of Apple.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
|
|
Oxford wrote:
> So Ness, learn about the world, don't spout stuff you don't understand.
Hey, big talker/broker, have you shorted the wireless firms (and GOOG) yet?
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-0D2F92.10453018112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote:
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
> "market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
I gather you don't believe in the existence of capital markets.
> Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin.
In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.
....
> Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
> weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| Ness Net 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-0D2F92.10453018112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
> "market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
>
> Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
> perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
> distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
> that.
>
> So Ness, learn about the world, don't spout stuff you don't understand.
>
Holy shit - you really ARE that stupid aren't you??
So blinded you just can't see actual reality.
I don't have the time or inclination to teach you finance. While certainly
Apple's cash position is good, your blanket statements are VERY flawed.
You see (or think you see) only one side of the coin. Actually take a look
at Google's 10-Q(k) before you spout your complete bullshit.
Once you actually look at the SEC filings...... I hope your crow tastes
good.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
> Hey, big talker/broker, have you shorted the wireless firms (and GOOG) yet?
no, but should have, Google has been dropping like a rock as of late.
http://snipurl.com/1ttur
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> no, but should have, Google has been dropping like a rock as of late.
>
Likewise, the AAPL "dot com" has not fallen far from the tree.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> Defined how? It may have a little more cash in hand--I didn't find a
> current figure for Google, but Apple was reported with more cash
> recently than Google was last spring.
yes, Apple has about 4.6 billion in cash more than Google, but what
google doesn't have is any tangible assets. Apple has many billions in
property, equipment, patents, etc. Google has basically nothing but rack
of servers.
> But the total value of Google,
> what it would cost to buy all its stock at its current price, is higher
> than the total value of Apple.
yes, but that is unrealistic, banks don't look at "cashed out value" of
stock since they know the stockin this case would collapse if that was
ever attempted. they look at assets. and Google has basically nothing
but a few spare bills.
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
> Likewise, the AAPL "dot com" has not fallen far from the tree.
apple only has .Mac as the .com portion of their portfolio. and while
all stocks of late have been on a wild ride, google has suffered more
than most anyone.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
> Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.
40% in terms of a football game or baseball score is a wide margin. for
a loan, it's the difference of yes or no.
> ...
>
>
> The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
> capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.
yes, but banks will also look at Yahoo, Excite, pets.com, eToys.com,
etc. there is far more risk with Google than Apple since Google isn't
anything more than a web site, Apple actually builds products, sells
them and has a much more loyal following.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> yeah, that "worldwide brand identity" that Google is desperately trying
> to achieve. Plucky little company, isn't it? that it just keeps trying.
don't get me wrong, i love google, i was one of its first beta users and
still use it every day and it's my default homepage on 4 of my browsers.
but i've been around long enough to know it's just the popular search
site of the month/year... there will be something better to suppliant it
within a decade... it's the natural course of the web.
| |
| pkaytes@DELETECAPSAND THIS@SIGN.att.net 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| ON Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:45:30 -0700, Oxford
< linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> WROTE:
>"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
>"market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
>
>Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
>perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
>distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
>that.
When your company name becomes a verb, you have something intangible
that translates to earnings.
Google isn't too shabby in the intellectual property area, either.
Paul
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-01069E.12510318112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
>
> don't get me wrong, i love google, i was one of its first beta users and
> still use it every day and it's my default homepage on 4 of my browsers.
>
> but i've been around long enough to know it's just the popular search
> site of the month/year... there will be something better to suppliant it
> within a decade... it's the natural course of the web.
no, you said that Google has less "worldwide brand identity" than Apple.
We weren't talking about the idea of "search engine of the month". I
very specifically commented on your saying that Google has less
"worldwide brand identity" than Apple.
Which is bullshit. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. And by
the way, do try to stay IN the conversation instead of trying to drive
it somewhere else when you know you've been outed (again) as an idiot.
We weren't conversing about "search engine of the month". This
conversation is strictly about your assertion that Google has less
"worldwide brand identity" than Apple.
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-18, 3:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-B4F6F8.12475318112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>
> 40% in terms of a football game or baseball score is a wide margin. for
> a loan, it's the difference of yes or no.
Except that both companies have more cash than anyone is likely to pay
for what is going to be up for auction. So the real question isn't how
much they have but how much they are willing to offer.
And that's aside from the fact that they can go out on the capital
market and borrow more. The difference between their cash holdings, as
of the figures I quoted, is something like two percent of the market cap
of either firm, so negligable compared to what they could raise if they
wished.
....
>
> yes, but banks will also look at Yahoo, Excite, pets.com, eToys.com,
> etc. there is far more risk with Google than Apple since Google isn't
> anything more than a web site, Apple actually builds products, sells
> them and has a much more loyal following.
I'm not sure how long you have been following Apple's stock, but
building products and selling them has its own quite substantial risks,
as its history will demonstrate.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 10:33 pm |
| David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> Except that both companies have more cash than anyone is likely to pay
> for what is going to be up for auction. So the real question isn't how
> much they have but how much they are willing to offer.
true...
> And that's aside from the fact that they can go out on the capital
> market and borrow more. The difference between their cash holdings, as
> of the figures I quoted, is something like two percent of the market cap
> of either firm, so negligable compared to what they could raise if they
> wished.
and also true...
> ...
>
>
> I'm not sure how long you have been following Apple's stock, but
> building products and selling them has its own quite substantial risks,
> as its history will demonstrate.
i've followed it since 1980, so the entire time. apple does well with
steve at the helm, not so when he is gone. apple had a couple rough
years in the mid-90's, but that was because of steve being gone and poor
management. nothing relating to apple in general.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.
>
>
> Yes, selling little classified Ads on websites, but to sell a phone,
> they have no idea. That's why they confirmed they wouldn't try and make
> a phone a few weeks ago.
>
> If the technical details can be worked out, Apple will buy a portion of
> the spectrum, Apple has far more engineering talent that Google could
> ever dream of...
You never heard of Google Earth Pro? Google Web Tools (server
management tools)?
You really are stupid
|
|
|
|
|