4 ms·

Approximately 24.67 minutes for what it's worth. Marriott made > $12 billion last year and was fined $600k. I'm curious how much revenue the wifi fees bring i

Approximately 24.67 minutes for what it's worth. Marriott made > $12 billion last year and was fined $600k. I'm curious how much revenue the wifi fees bring in and whether that fine even makes a dent in income from that alone.

facetube 11y ago
The article says they were charging meetings up to $30,000 for internet access alone. I'd guess it was probably profitable.
saurik 11y ago
... revenue is absolutely meaningless in this conversation. You should be looking at profit. It doesn't matter what Marriott charges, it matters what they make, and saying they "made > $12 billion" is totally false: they made at the high end something like $2 billion (which is still high enough that you could have used those numbers as an honest ratio instead of distorting the discussion by looking at revenue).
- wpietri 11y ago
  I'd say revenue's probably the better number. Profit varies by quite a number of factors, but revenue is a reasonably reliable yardstick for the size of the business. For example, consider Amazon, who didn't turn a profit for decades: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2013/10/25/amazon_earnings_jeff_bezos_is_like_king_midas_in_reverse_chart/1382736441.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/20... Also, maybe you could tone down the drama? Even if you were right, which you aren't, the comment you're replying to was clearly well meant.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Nobody uses profit when determining the appropriate fines for an individual. A court doesn't look at an offender making $100,000/year and say, well, they're only saving $5/month, so we'll only fine them $60. If we're talking about the discrepancy between punishments for individuals and punishments for companies, then we should absolutely be looking at revenues, not profits. Or alternately, punishments for individuals should look at savings, not income.

facetube 11y ago

The article says they were charging meetings up to $30,000 for internet access alone. I'd guess it was probably profitable.

saurik 11y ago

... revenue is absolutely meaningless in this conversation. You should be looking at profit. It doesn't matter what Marriott charges, it matters what they make, and saying they "made > $12 billion" is totally false: they made at the high end something like $2 billion (which is still high enough that you could have used those numbers as an honest ratio instead of distorting the discussion by looking at revenue).

wpietri 11y ago
I'd say revenue's probably the better number. Profit varies by quite a number of factors, but revenue is a reasonably reliable yardstick for the size of the business. For example, consider Amazon, who didn't turn a profit for decades: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2013/10/25/amazon_earnings_jeff_bezos_is_like_king_midas_in_reverse_chart/1382736441.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/20... Also, maybe you could tone down the drama? Even if you were right, which you aren't, the comment you're replying to was clearly well meant.
mikeash 11y ago
Nobody uses profit when determining the appropriate fines for an individual. A court doesn't look at an offender making $100,000/year and say, well, they're only saving $5/month, so we'll only fine them $60. If we're talking about the discrepancy between punishments for individuals and punishments for companies, then we should absolutely be looking at revenues, not profits. Or alternately, punishments for individuals should look at savings, not income.