> > Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
> >
>
> Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
>
> Have you actually SEEN Google's market cap?
Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
"market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
that.
Google is just the flavor of the month search site, they all fall at
some point and the list of giants, then nothing is long. AltaVista,
Lycos, Excite, Yahoo and within a few years Google will be replaced, and
join the "old players" club as well.
Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
So Ness, learn about the world, don't spout stuff you don't understand.
> > Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
> > experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
> > possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
> No, Apple cannot outbid google.
Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.
> And guess what, GOOGLE HAS SALES EXPERIENCE!
Yes, selling little classified Ads on websites, but to sell a phone,
they have no idea. That's why they confirmed they wouldn't try and make
a phone a few weeks ago.
If the technical details can be worked out, Apple will buy a portion of
the spectrum, Apple has far more engineering talent that Google could
ever dream of...
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-26E008.10232718112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
> have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
> didn't. deal with it.
Idiot.... you have ZERO credibility! Less than zero actually...
Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone supporting
you?
(Other than your quite obvious and obnoxious sock puppets)
"lazy" isn't the word - fanatic fanboy fantasy is more like it.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-734FEC.10312218112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>
If you "deeply understand" the shit you post, you are in REAL trouble.
Delusional is the word mental professionals use to describe this.
Or, if voices in your head make you post your fiction, then schizophrenia
is the likely culprit.
Bottom line - if you "deeply understand" fanatical fantasy - seek help -
NOW!
> Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone supporting
> you?
> (Other than your quite obvious and obnoxious sock puppets)
>
> "lazy" isn't the word - fanatic fanboy fantasy is more like it.
you're just another groupie. that wants what i have...
give it up, you've been officially...
PLONKED!
sorry! you should have added value to USENET, like i do.
In article
<linuxlovesosx-66ACCA.10545018112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
> > > Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
> > > experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
> > > possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
> > No, Apple cannot outbid google.
>
> Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.
Defined how? It may have a little more cash in hand--I didn't find a
current figure for Google, but Apple was reported with more cash
recently than Google was last spring. But the total value of Google,
what it would cost to buy all its stock at its current price, is higher
than the total value of Apple.
In article
<linuxlovesosx-0D2F92.10453018112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
> > >
> >
> > Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
> >
> > Have you actually SEEN Google's market cap?
>
> Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
> "market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
I gather you don't believe in the existence of capital markets.
> Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin.
In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.
....
> Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
> weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-0D2F92.10453018112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
> "market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
>
> Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
> perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
> distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
> that.
>
> So Ness, learn about the world, don't spout stuff you don't understand.
>
Holy shit - you really ARE that stupid aren't you??
So blinded you just can't see actual reality.
I don't have the time or inclination to teach you finance. While certainly
Apple's cash position is good, your blanket statements are VERY flawed.
You see (or think you see) only one side of the coin. Actually take a look
at Google's 10-Q(k) before you spout your complete bullshit.
Once you actually look at the SEC filings...... I hope your crow tastes
good.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-F6E845.11351518112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone supporting
>> you?
>> (Other than your quite obvious and obnoxious sock puppets)
>>
>> "lazy" isn't the word - fanatic fanboy fantasy is more like it.
>
> you're just another groupie. that wants what i have...
>
> give it up, you've been officially...
>
> PLONKED!
>
> sorry! you should have added value to USENET, like i do.
OOOOOOOOOOH!!!!! The great poobah Oxford has spoken!!
All bow down to the great Oxford.
It is very typical for little snot nose troll boys to run like this.
You get your ass kicked and then run like hell.
Oh - I seriously do NOT want the mental illness YOU have.
>
> "Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
> news:linuxlovesosx-F6E845.11351518112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
>> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone
>>> supporting
>>> you?
>>> (Other than your quite obvious and obnoxious sock puppets)
>>>
>>> "lazy" isn't the word - fanatic fanboy fantasy is more like it.
>>
>>
>> you're just another groupie. that wants what i have...
>>
>> give it up, you've been officially...
>>
>> PLONKED!
>>
>> sorry! you should have added value to USENET, like i do.
>
>
>
> OOOOOOOOOOH!!!!! The great poobah Oxford has spoken!!
> All bow down to the great Oxford.
>
> It is very typical for little snot nose troll boys to run like this.
> You get your ass kicked and then run like hell.
>
> Oh - I seriously do NOT want the mental illness YOU have.
>
Please remember to crosspost replies to the Oxturd to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
since that is where his primary audience lies (literally and otherwise).
> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hey, big talker/broker, have you shorted the wireless firms (and GOOG) yet?
>
>
> no, but should have, Google has been dropping like a rock as of late.
>
Likewise, the AAPL "dot com" has not fallen far from the tree.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-4D2CA6.11255118112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> > why are you so obsessed with me?
>>
>> Why are YOU so "obsessed" with trolling groups with fanboy crap?
>
> i haven't trolled a post in my life. fanboy? that's not my style.
>
>> Why are YOU post complete crap where it doesn't belong.
>
> i'm just posting info about the iphone to groups/people that are, "or
> will be" interested in the biggest cell revolution of our time.
>
> nothing wrong with that.
>
>> Why do YOU try so hard to be a complete ass?
>
> how do you mean? i'm just educating... so it sounds like you have issues
> against people being fully informed... how sad.
>
>> Answer those - and you will have answered your question.
>
> okay, they have been answered.
>
> do you have any other questions i can help you with?
>
> -
Wrong #1 - EVERY post I have seen is a troll - strike ONE
Wrong #2 - cross posting your shit where it doesn't belong is STRIKE 2
You have been told - numerous times by many it isn't wanted.
Yet you persist posting your complete horseshit.
Wrong #3 - "Educating" - when you post fiction, conjecture, outright lies
and
fanatical fanboy fantasy - that is NOT education - it is TROLLING (see #1
above)
And, it is certainly being an asshole
"David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-282A94.10451518112007@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <ULOdnfuG198uo93anZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I can't speak for him but your whole purpose for posting is obviously to
>> troll and annoy people who know more than you.
>
> I think that's pretty clearly wrong, reading his posts. He really
> believes he is an expert on this stuff, whether or not he has any reason
> to.
>
David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.
>
> Defined how? It may have a little more cash in hand--I didn't find a
> current figure for Google, but Apple was reported with more cash
> recently than Google was last spring.
yes, Apple has about 4.6 billion in cash more than Google, but what
google doesn't have is any tangible assets. Apple has many billions in
property, equipment, patents, etc. Google has basically nothing but rack
of servers.
> But the total value of Google,
> what it would cost to buy all its stock at its current price, is higher
> than the total value of Apple.
yes, but that is unrealistic, banks don't look at "cashed out value" of
stock since they know the stockin this case would collapse if that was
ever attempted. they look at assets. and Google has basically nothing
but a few spare bills.
> > no, but should have, Google has been dropping like a rock as of late.
> >
>
> Likewise, the AAPL "dot com" has not fallen far from the tree.
apple only has .Mac as the .com portion of their portfolio. and while
all stocks of late have been on a wild ride, google has suffered more
than most anyone.
David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin.
>
> In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
> Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.
40% in terms of a football game or baseball score is a wide margin. for
a loan, it's the difference of yes or no.
> ...
>
> > Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
> > weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
>
> The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
> capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.
yes, but banks will also look at Yahoo, Excite, pets.com, eToys.com,
etc. there is far more risk with Google than Apple since Google isn't
anything more than a web site, Apple actually builds products, sells
them and has a much more loyal following.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
> > perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
> > distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
> > that.
>
> yeah, that "worldwide brand identity" that Google is desperately trying
> to achieve. Plucky little company, isn't it? that it just keeps trying.
don't get me wrong, i love google, i was one of its first beta users and
still use it every day and it's my default homepage on 4 of my browsers.
but i've been around long enough to know it's just the popular search
site of the month/year... there will be something better to suppliant it
within a decade... it's the natural course of the web.
ON Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:45:30 -0700, Oxford
<linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> WROTE:
>"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> > Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
>> >
>>
>> Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
>>
>> Have you actually SEEN Google's market cap?
>
>Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
>"market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
>
>Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
>perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
>distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
>that.
When your company name becomes a verb, you have something intangible
that translates to earnings.
Google isn't too shabby in the intellectual property area, either.
Oxford wrote:
> do you have any other questions i can help you with?
And another one...If I use a log periodic array antenna cut for 2.4 GHz
which would by LPDA nature be adequate for 5.8 GHz, would my range be
any less at 5.8 GHz?
In article
<linuxlovesosx-B4F6F8.12475318112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:
> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin.
> >
> > In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
> > Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.
>
> 40% in terms of a football game or baseball score is a wide margin. for
> a loan, it's the difference of yes or no.
Except that both companies have more cash than anyone is likely to pay
for what is going to be up for auction. So the real question isn't how
much they have but how much they are willing to offer.
And that's aside from the fact that they can go out on the capital
market and borrow more. The difference between their cash holdings, as
of the figures I quoted, is something like two percent of the market cap
of either firm, so negligable compared to what they could raise if they
wished.
....
> > > Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
> > > weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
> >
> > The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
> > capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.
>
> yes, but banks will also look at Yahoo, Excite, pets.com, eToys.com,
> etc. there is far more risk with Google than Apple since Google isn't
> anything more than a web site, Apple actually builds products, sells
> them and has a much more loyal following.
I'm not sure how long you have been following Apple's stock, but
building products and selling them has its own quite substantial risks,
as its history will demonstrate.
David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > > In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
> > > Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.
> >
> > 40% in terms of a football game or baseball score is a wide margin. for
> > a loan, it's the difference of yes or no.
>
> Except that both companies have more cash than anyone is likely to pay
> for what is going to be up for auction. So the real question isn't how
> much they have but how much they are willing to offer.
true...
> And that's aside from the fact that they can go out on the capital
> market and borrow more. The difference between their cash holdings, as
> of the figures I quoted, is something like two percent of the market cap
> of either firm, so negligable compared to what they could raise if they
> wished.
and also true...
> ...
>
> > > > Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
> > > > weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
> > >
> > > The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
> > > capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.
> >
> > yes, but banks will also look at Yahoo, Excite, pets.com, eToys.com,
> > etc. there is far more risk with Google than Apple since Google isn't
> > anything more than a web site, Apple actually builds products, sells
> > them and has a much more loyal following.
>
> I'm not sure how long you have been following Apple's stock, but
> building products and selling them has its own quite substantial risks,
> as its history will demonstrate.
i've followed it since 1980, so the entire time. apple does well with
steve at the helm, not so when he is gone. apple had a couple rough
years in the mid-90's, but that was because of steve being gone and poor
management. nothing relating to apple in general.
Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
>>> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.
>> Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
>> you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.
>
> i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
> have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
> didn't. deal with it.
No, you totally lost all credibility because you posted fanboi bait
marketing speak without even understanding what you posted.
Nothing to deal with here because I still have my credibility but
whomever "oxford" is doesn't.
Re: GOOGLE - AND/OR Apple Nessy... 
Linear Mode
