3 ms·
Couldn’t get archive.org to get the content for your article, unfortunately. Anyways, I’m not sure that this is the right metric to criticize a company, at lea
by DiggyJohnson 4y ago
Couldn’t get archive.org to get the content for your article, unfortunately.
Anyways, I’m not sure that this is the right metric to criticize a company, at least not without corroborating metrics. Two main questions I’d be interested before casting judgement are:
What did they do with the excess monies they had from their large profit:compensation ratio?
Were they paying above market rate for their industry?
I do see how my response betrays my assumption that profits do not always need to be shared with the labor pool that generated/oversaw the period of profits. That’s something I’m chewing on, personally.
- Aeolun 4y agoMostly, I believe Nintendo has about 20 years (not sure of the exact amount, a ridiculous number anyway) of operating costs in savings. If they stopped selling anything tomorrow they’d still be good for a few decades.
- kranke155 4y ago20 years in savings is astonishing.
- tobyjsullivan 4y agoA human with 20 years of savings would just be considered financially sound and (barely) safe to retire. Yet a business with over 6,000 employees with the same financial security is exceptional. Perhaps there’s something to learn here.
- Dylan16807 4y agoCompanies don't retire so this whole comparison doesn't make sense.
- jasonshen 4y agoBusinesses are not people who get old, can't keep working, and retire. Businesses can borrow significant sums of money, issue stock, come up with a new product that can transform their revenues overnight, etc. I know what you're trying to say but this isn't a great comparison.
- underyx 4y agoThat a huge company can be more confident in its future cash flow than a single human.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bityard 4y agoThat sounds suspiciously like something a 134 year-old company would do to ensure its survival over the long term.
- transcriptase 4y agoIt’s a shame GE hasn’t managed to follow suit after 130 years.
- red-iron-pine 4y agoJapan believes in lifetime employment and is thinking about what you'll be doing there in 20 years. GE focuses on the quarter and DGAF if you're there in 2 years; ditto for technical initiatives, leadership, legal compliance, you name it.
- j-bos 4y agoIsn't that their normal cycle though? Produce a console that prints money, produce a console that bleeds money, repeat. Seems like their cash reserves keep them nimble enough to experiment and remain independent.
- dastbe 4y agoi don’t think they’ve had a console that bleeds money in the sense that playstations/xboxes have, though they’ve had quite a few flops over the past 20 years
- vikingerik 4y agoTheir only flop in the past 20 years was the Wii U. (The Gamecube is now over 20 years old.)
- rrdharan 4y agoPrevious poster was probably assuming, like I did, that the Virtual Boy was less than 20 years ago…
- deafpolygon 4y agoIt wasn't a flop in my childhood. :'(
- Zircom 4y agoI don't think bleeding money is accurate for Nintendo. They are in the habitat of iterating on their previous consoles instead of just throwing everything out the window each time like some other companies, so even with their consoles that flopped it's not like the R&D money is just down the drain, and I'm sure labor-and-materials-wise they're making some kind of margin on the hardware itself.
- zorked 4y agoGiven the cycles for Nintendo consoles this sounds pretty reasonable particularly now that they have a single line of consoles with the Switch instead of console + handheld. It's not like the Wii U sold a lot. Who knows if the Switch replacement won't be a Wii U. Who knows if there won't be two Wii Us in a row.
- daemoens 4y agohttps://archive.is/5e3Ts https://archive.is/5e3Ts
- 8note 4y agoIt's Nintendo. They're taking advantage that people that like the brand, and want to be able to say that they helped make Mario or Zelda. You can pay disneyland ride designers less because there's status involved with designing Disneyland rides