Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Pixar didn't enjoy iPhone-like profitability.

You can't really compare iPhone and Pixar that way. IPhone was a product by an established company that was already producing the iPod. Pixar on the other hand was a startup (sort of), which Steve Jobs invested $10 million in and sold for $7.4 billion, quite an impressive return on investment.



This completely misses the point (or rather: completely confirms what I'm saying). The question at hand is "What should Apple do with $100e9US". What relevance does an investment of 0.01% of that total have, even if they could get that RoI on demand. With (pinky to mouth) One Hundred Billion Dollars you need to be aiming much, much higher. And they aren't. And even if they could they're just a bunch of Jobs-less yahoos playing with cash that landed in their laps. Be honest: they aren't going to create ten thousand Pixars with that money, they'll be lucky to get five. And they can fund five (or fifty) on existing revenue without the cash reserves.

Give it back.


What's with this idea that they have to pick one and only one thing to do with a hundred billion dollars? What's with this idea that they should spend it all so they don't have any reserves?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: