4 ms·
$862m isn't that huge in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention, it's most likely not going to be $862m, my guess is it'll be less.
by abluecloud 11y ago
$862m isn't that huge in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention, it's most likely not going to be $862m, my guess is it'll be less.
- brownegg 11y agoIf it's $862m, last I checked, it will take them about 30 hours to bring in the necessary revenue--if they want to pay out of profits (I'm totally guessing here, what are real net margins on their hardware? 15-20%?), it'll take a couple days.
- bshimmin 11y agoMan, that's such a humbling stat. Many of us here don't even earn that in a year!
- chucknelson 11y ago$862 million? > Man, that's such a humbling stat. Many of us here don't even earn that in a lifetime! FTFY Unless I missed the /s ;)
- delecti 11y agoEven more exaggerated than that. Many families don't earn that across several generations. That's about 17,000 years at $50,000/year. At 40 years of working life, you'd need over 400 people.
- beeboop 11y agoThe combined income earned by anyone in the entirety of history who is the least bit related to me, adjusted for PPP, probably does not equal $800MM+.
- Dylan16807 11y agoIs this a weird meta-joke where you pretend to miss the joke?
- TwiztidK 11y agoWe're also talking about one of the largest companies in the world, so it's really not that shocking.
- Kristine1975 11y agoAnd Apple saves a lot of money by not paying taxes /s
- SG- 11y agoOh it's just Apple?
- Kristine1975 11y agoNo of course not. There's also Facebook, Amazon etc. etc. etc. But the article is about Apple.
- wang_li 11y agoDon't forget UWisc!
- desireco42 11y agothis is the best! I certainly don't make this much in a year.
- maxerickson 11y agoIt would take ~8 days of net income (they declared $10 billion of net income in the most recently reported quarter).
- arbuge 11y agoGiven that large companies face large numbers of patent suits however, typically litigating several in parallel, spending all this money on just one could indeed be seen as distressing.
- rwmj 11y agoIf it keeps smaller companies out of the market because they are not able to join patent cross-licensing cartels, then it may be a price worth paying.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- simonh 11y agoIt's more than double what Apple paid for P.A. Semi and Intrinsity put together, the fabless semiconductor design firms that are the foundation of Apple's processor engineering capabilities.
- rayiner 11y agoThat's really more an indictment of how little PASemi and Intrinsity sold for (in a world where WhatsApp sells for $20 billion).
- simonh 11y agoI take your point, but if I were to pick any of those valuations as being adrift from reality it wouldn't be those for P.A. Semi or Intrinsity.
- rayiner 11y agoAs you said: P.A. Semi and Intrinsity are "the foundation of Apple's processor engineering capabilities." That might have been their market value, but I think it's fair to say that the value to Apple was far greater (i.e. Apple got a huge purchaser's surplus in the deal).
- simonh 11y agoYup, no argument there. They've converted that talent into a significant advantage for their platforms.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago>$862m isn't that huge in the grand scheme of things. Well, it normalizes large patent payment damages which isn't good and guarantees that non-giant companies will never, ever be able to compete in this space because investors are spooked over random near $1b lawsuits. Big companies seem to not mind the patent status quo for some reason. I suspect it just keeps competition away by raising the barrier to entry. This should be concerning to all. The refrain of "Apple can afford it" is scary as Apple is the world's wealthiest company. Of course they can afford it. That's besides the point.