111–120 of 367 posts
So less than 1/5 of a linkedin. Is Yahoo's core business really that bad?
It's search and ads, which may or may not be their "core" as they've got a number of other properties (mail, tumblr, flickr, media). Not to mention that their entire shareprice is basically propped up by the value of their Alibaba investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That really had to be the dumbest moves in computing history. "What does the #2 CPU maker need to become #1? The #2 GPU maker, obviously!"
Well to defend them they needed a solution to fight the incoming intel cpu with integrated gpu. They needed ATI portfolio and knowledges.
Instead they entered both the integrated and discrete GPU markets, when they were already a market underdog that already struggled in the CPU market. They paid way too much for ATI, and then spread themselves way too thin.
I'm not just pointing out the error in hindsight, I was a critic of this deal back when it was first announced as well.
Verizon shouldn't be allowed to own any web properties. They inject a unique subscriber identifier into your HTTP requests unless you turn it off. http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/unique-identifier-hea...
No company that sells Internet access should be allowed to also be in the content business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea was that a CPU + GPU company would be a lot stronger than themselves trying to defend against their respective #1 competitors. Instead, both the CPU and GPU market leaders got stronger and leveraged their massive capital to turn the #2 into a very, very distant #2.
It also changed the decision process from "Pick 1 of Intel and AMD, plus pick 1 of nVidia and ATI" to "Pick Intel/nVidia or AMD/AMD" for companies like Dell/HP etc. so AMD and ATI's weaknesses compounded each other from then on.
Having an APU allows them to play in the low end market which was dominated by Intel with their IGP, the vast majority of laptops do not come with a discrete GPU which meant that AMD could not compete with Intel at all prior to their acquisition of ATI unless they would develop their own GPU or license it from some one (they had plans of licensing PowerVR at some point IIRC).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No company that sells Internet access should be allowed to also be in the content business.
Should Google be allowed to sell fiber? I think the suggestion that carriers shouldn't do this is wrong and naive and here is why: User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. It inescapably results in fundamentally unethical business practices where users are exploited. That is google's business model and they stand uncontested today. Carriers that end up doing any amount of content monetization wil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea was that a CPU + GPU company would be a lot stronger than themselves trying to defend against their respective #1 competitors. Instead, both the CPU and GPU market leaders got stronger and leveraged their massive capital to turn the #2 into a very, very distant #2.
It also changed the decision process from "Pick 1 of Intel and AMD, plus pick 1 of nVidia and ATI" to "Pick Intel/nVidia or AMD/AMD" for companies like Dell/HP etc. so AMD and ATI's weaknesses compounded each other from then on.
Yeah, they have billions to spend on buying companies like Yahoo, but they can't upgrade all their rotting copper to fiber optics. That's Verizon for you.
Verizon shouldn't be allowed to own any web properties. They inject a unique subscriber identifier into your HTTP requests unless you turn it off. http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/unique-identifier-hea...
Yeah, they have billions to spend on buying companies like Yahoo, but they can't upgrade all their rotting copper to fiber optics. That's Verizon for you.
Any place that doesn't already have fiber within Verizon's footprint probably can't accommodate it profitably. The margins on the places that do already have fiber are already thin. No business wants to invest in new infrastructure that isn't going to make it any money. It's not like anybody else is chomping at the bit to build fiber in those places.
Also, they have internal conflict of interests. I.e. their execs are all about wireless, and simply don't care about landline business. Splitting it in two could actually help, since then they'll care about improving.
> It's not like anybody else is chomping at the bit to build fiber in those places.
Verizon stopped building out fiber everywhere. Only when they have a contract, they do it (very reluctantly). Some areas are indeed less profitable because of population density and other such factors. But others are not.
Yeah, they have billions to spend on buying companies like Yahoo, but they can't upgrade all their rotting copper to fiber optics. That's Verizon for you.
Why would they? Until people start dropping them, what is the point?
But there's evidence that Verizon made deals with cable companies to bundle wireless services, so Verizon could keep caring less about rotting infrastructure.