Oh wow! You POSTED A "VLAD IS FAT" REFERENCE! Congratulations!
Posting Vlad memes is literally the most basic, desperate, tragic, hopelessly-void-of-meaning, outrageously obnoxious, troublesome, costly, and downright pointless cry for help that the universe has ever screamed. Wow, you were born as a merely BORDERLINE retarded member of your species. WOW! INCREDIBLE! You managed to open your web browser and go to Slashdot (which in evolutionary terms, willing translates roughly to "fucking desperate for at least a few reasons") managed to somehow visit Trolltalk and post a "LOCKWOOD IS FAT" reference that was stale in 2001! WOW! This has literally only been taking place for ALMOST TWENTY FUCKING YEARS! WOW! Except guess what, nobody even reads Trolltalk anymore... which means you failed at submitting yourself to an act which means absolutely nothing. The only thing left to do now is kill yourself.
Not nearly as obnoxious as your post.
But that's just a guess. Of course that being said, Netflix is cutting back their shipping hubs. Those fuckers axed the one that was next day away from me and I have to use one a state over that takes 2 to 3 days each way.
It's worth noting that outside the US, Netflix doesn't run (and AFAIK has never run) any DVD shipping service. It's been streaming only. So in theory that shut weigh in Netflix US's favour somewhat.
Go shop for a new inkjet printer and tell me how many have USB-C connections on them vs. traditional USB right now.
I think you chose a poor example. Most printers that I'm aware of feature a USB Type-B connector on them, and don't come with any sort of cable.
USB Type-C is just a new USB connector. It's still signal compatible with existing USB devices. As virtually all inkjet printers don't come with a cable, you just ensure you buy a USB Type C to USB Type B cable to go with your printer, the same way you'd need to buy a USB Type C to USB Type A cable.
The problems that have been announced almost invariably revolve around the connectivity provided in the stadium, rather than the tablets themselves. This is an NFL problem.. iPad, Surface, Galaxy Tab, whatever.. not going to be different until the NFL forces teams and stadiums to provide adequate connectivity.
This is the NFL. They aren't exactly poor, so the simple solution would seem to be to use 4G enabled tablets. I can't imagine that cell service is so terrible from within stadiums (indeed, I'd expect cell companies to target stadiums for better reception. Nothing worse for your brand than having a venue that supports 40 000+ people who can't use their devices to tweet pics of themselves wearing a foam finger because your service sucks in a (typically) downtown stadium.
That's an interesting way of looking at it... But keep in mind that GP's argument about destroying shareholder value isn't just about a lower stock price due to a damaged brand, the actual value (assets) of the company may have decreased by a similar amount at the same time. Instead of paying $100 for an $80 item, you're now paying $50 for a $40 item. The price may be lower but it's still a crap buy.
But the numbers don't bear this out. These things are reported publicly, and can be easily looked up.
Like a lot of virtual services, Twitter doesn't have a ton of real value to start with. They don't have significant real estate holdings -- their latest earnings report lists $758 837 of "Property and Equipment, net", which is up from $699 502 YoY, and at an all-time high. So the hypothesis doesn't stand in light of the facts.
Twitter's whole value is in their Monthly Active Users (MAU), and that was up 1% during the last reported quarter. Twitters problem is that they don't have much of any real value (as mentioned above, they only have about 3/4 of a million in property and equipment), there isn't much growth potential, and advertising revenue is stagnant.
Making up stuff about SJWs being the reason why Twitter's valuation is down is just mental masturbation, and an attempt to paint "SJW's" as a societal ill. But Twitter's problems have nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian, or five Conservative (in)Justice Warriors who have had their accounts banned for being abusing dicks. Hell, advertisers generally don't want to be associated with such people anyway -- it devalues their brand. The numbers -- which are publicly available -- bear this out.
The GP was being disingenuous, plain and simple.
$5 and a bag of doughnuts? I think you're overpaying.
Well, it is 5 CANADIAN dollars, if that makes a difference!
I'll pay $10 if they promise to just shut down.
And after having damaged their brand and destroyed billions worth of shareholder value, lo and behold, no one wants to buy them! Gee, turns out that alienating half your user base at the behest of a tiny cadre of radical feminists is a lousy business strategy...
Yeah, except that's not the reality of the situation.
As of Twitter's latest earnings report, its user base grew more than expected, up to 313 million active monthly users. Their problem has been a softening of advertiser demand, which has reduced revenues below expectations.
Indeed, all of the companies interested in buying Twitter have only been interested because of the reduced shareholder value. Twitter isn't a good buy-out candidate when its stock value is worth more than the real value of its assets; it's only when its market value is at or below the value of its assets and expected revenues that it suddenly becomes something everyone could be interested in buying out. As such, the "destroyed billions worth of shareholder value" is actually a good thing for a company looking to buy them out -- you buy low, not high.
So congrats -- you've invented an argument by working backward form a premise, while ignoring basic math and economics. Because if your argument had any real merit, any big company could buy Twitter, fire Ms. Sarkeesian, re-instate five accounts, and suddenly they'd be able to increase the value of the company by billions. But here's a hint -- the advertisers don't care who is visiting Twitter, or what their politics are. The fact that they gained over 3 million monthly visitors in the last reported quarter (to 313 million) is all they are going to care about -- and advertising is virtually all of Twitter's revenue. But advertisers are going elsewhere -- and its certainly not because there are some butt-hurt Conservative Justice Warriors who can't handle people calling them out for being complete douchbags. These companies have looked at Twitter's fundamentals, and it appears they come up wanting. Perhaps after they lose a few hundred million more in value someone will snap them up.
That's cute and everything, but when you buy a company you take on its liabilities. I suspect that's why so companies are looking under the veil and walking away from the altar.
That's what I suspect as well. Their liabilities are probably well beyond their real estate, securities, and physical holdings, such that they aren't even worth buying as a fire sale.
Still, if I were to incorporate and pay myself some crazy amount to dismantle the company, that $5 + bag of doughnuts investment could pay off nicely...
I have a nice crisp clean $5 bill here I'll be happy to pay for them. I'll even throw in a bag of doughnuts.
Anyone want to outbid me? Anyone?
An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"