Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Naive, because most investors (especially VCs). (Score 2) 438

You presume that case where the lady sued McDonalds because the coffee was hot was a frivolous case.

You have to be able to try to sue anyone for anything. It's up to the system to decide which cases are frivolous and which cases are not. Otherwise you may never be able to hold accountable those that should be because on the surface what they did doesn't seem like a big deal.

Comment Re:Prevention cheaper (Score 1) 234

I think they monitor any e-mail the employee sends; not just personal e-mails. I.e. e-mails that go from Bob the programmer to Jenny the accounts-receivable lady explaining how to use the new version of the "Just Pay Me" software would be analysed to see if Bob is getting sick of working at AAA Dodads.

Comment Re:woohoo (Score 1) 301

A lot of people treat it that way and that's where value investors make their money.

Take a listen to Roger Montgomery's latest ASX podcast/talk


His philosophy gels well with nerds like us. He likes to treat his investing as if he were buying a whole business instead of little numbers on a screen.

Comment Re:woohoo (Score 1) 301

I sort of share your view but keep in mind that most investors will want a company to keep all of its profits and NOT pay dividends while the company is still able to make a larger return on that retained profit.

Apple has so much retained profit that it can't use it fast enough to stimulate growth. So the best thing to do is to pay some of that profit off as a dividend.

To put it another way: retaining profit and not paying dividends is the thing a company should do while it can still grow. If a company can make 30% return on equity (number out of thin air) then you want them to keep the equity they create so they can make another 30% next year. When that return on equity drops to below what you can get investing in another company or a bank account then give the investors the profits and let them put in other shares or just in a bank account.

Think of investing as a higher interest earning bank account that requires you to do a shit-tonne of analysis to make sure your money is always invested in the right place.

Comment Re:SHOULD "Apps" Cost Something? (Score 2) 523

But wouldn't the developer discount their app if they don't get the sales numbers they were after? If I were selling an app at $5 and no one bought it I'd try to price it down to $2.50 or something and see how it went. Isn't that the process you're talking about?

Isn't that the same as your $10M house example? If my house were on the market for $10M and no one bought it, then it'd be on the market for a year (or month, whatever) before I finally cracked and reduced the price to something that would sell.

Sure the app store doesn't have that direct price negotiation but neither does a website with an app for purchase. I can't just negotiate a cheaper price with Adobe for Photoshop! But Adobe can reduce the price of the software if they feel the lower price will yield more sales.

Comment Re:SHOULD "Apps" Cost Something? (Score 2) 523

The 30% that Apple takes is a bargain! Let them handle distribution, credit card payment and to some degree marketing & exposure.

You're not helping the developer by not buying their app just because you don't want Apple taking the developer's money. The fact is that the developer can focus on coding rather than all the messy human stuff thanks to Apple.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is now pitch dark. If you proceed, you will likely fall into a pit.