What would you do if you (or better, your comany) had $100 billion? What would be your dream?

I was a little disappointed, but not really surprised, that they decided to buy back some stock and give dividents. Why not start a filantropic or reasearch project?

Personally I would like to move some of the industry infrastructure back in the US. Also, I think renewable energy sources would be an interesting objective. I am just dreaming of course.

8 minutes ago, SteveRichter wrote

What if Apple offers Anders $50 million to jump ship and work for them? ( or does he already make that much at MSFT? ) The logical thing for Apple to do is build its own .NET like framework.

 

Mmm'okay.  Why though?

4 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

 

Mmm'okay.  Why though?

 

How does Apple continuously improve their products if not with better software? How to write better software without an increasingly comprehensive framework and first class programming language? Granted, this paradigm does not explain their tremendous success to date ...

2 minutes ago, SteveRichter wrote

 Granted, this paradigm does not explain their tremendous success to date ...

Exactly.

I think ObjectiveC is the most obnoxious language in popular use, and that doesn't stop thousands of developers picking it up. It's pretty hot in the jobs market too.

It could be that they're using the language to make sure they only get the best and most dedicated.

Image from wikipedia

There is no way the shareholders would let them get away with anything philanthropic -- they either had to spend it on assets, or give it to the shareholders.

Herbie

I would not even buy a castle.

I would just show up at work in a Bugatti Veyron.

Oh and buy my own Thorium reactor,.

They can't really say they don't know the well business well enough because they do with iTunes. True they would have a steep learning curve on the production side. Google would probably have the easiest time buying Hollywood as 50% of their programmers seem to double as film producers for some odd reason.

Then you have the whole standard oil thing if they started buying studios.

Ultimately, Hollywood is going to be fragmented and sold to the big 3 as more actors investing tech appear in games and muddy the waters between film and software entertainment.

Microsoft won't be a player as usual, as they sit up in Redmond annexed, and their SoCal office is pretty much annexed as well. Microsoft can "do it better themselves" which means they try it privately, realize how lame they are compared to real professionals, then scrap the project before the public sees it. Halo movie anyone?

Look at Laura before and after G4. You can't just lift people out of the environment and manufacture super teams. Microsoft doesn't get it. The result is not the sum of the parts in media.

I think Google has the best shot at film and TV.

It would have been nice to see Apple try with 100B

But personally, if I had a billion dollars, I'd

• pay off the house ($150k)
• buy a nice new car ($50k)
• set up an investment of a few million that I could live off of ($3M)
• travel around the world ($500k)
• donate the rest

Herbie

What would I do?

I would set up a new website similar to crowdfunder.com except that would set my team up as the only source of accredited funding so we wouldn't have to change the law.

I would then have a small team approve every single software startup from the entire state of California no matter how insane or young the team at a 51% stake for $100,000 on condition the founders have to stay full time for 2 years. I would then set up a bulletin board for them and make them pay penalties for not helping each other.

In a few short years I would have a patent portfolio and software licensing business superior to any other. What is now will fade. What is come will conquer.

Eventually one of those dudes will figure out how to federate Hollywood any damn way.

Buy a whole country!

I hear Greece is up for sale,..

Programmers in CA make 100k+ and this would be a way to stop them from having an excuse to fund their friends' new sports cars

Build a death star.

4 hours ago, Ray7 wrote

@giovanni: I really don't see the point in giving a dividend. It's not as if they need to attract stock buyers.

 

 

Me neither

This is what Warren Buffet did-- buy enough shares in a company and then demand that the company hands out the funds that they're sitting on to the shareholders who own it.

Herbie

I think a company can also donate to charity: investors might not like it and the board would have to approve it, but I think that is an option.

More realistically: I seriousely thing they should invest in their own manufacturing. Outsourching to Asia has been the current development model for some times, but is it the future?

As far as Asia is concerned, why would you pay a CS major in CA or WA or get foreign nationals here with a h1b vs setting up shop in China?

the market is here. the marketing is here.

the work? doesn't matter where.

There are plenty of CS students at South China Normal University who will write code in a Walmart style international pipeline.

shipping code is free and the IP is worthless in China and India anyway so who cares if they steal it.

Almost every programmer i worked with in CA immediately blows their huge money on a fancy car. What kind of improvement for society is that anyway?

7 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I would just show up at work my last job in a Bugatti Veyron.

FTFY

17 minutes ago, Bass wrote

Paying dividends might backfire, because it is an act of a "mature company". Does Apple want that image? It seems like Tim Cook was getting somewhat defensive about the idea.

It's a generally perceived that a company that pays dividends and buys back stock is a company that has run out of ideas. At least that's how many people perceived Microsoft when it started issuing a dividend and implemented a stock buy-back program.

It will bring more problems that it will solve.

@MasterPie: I'm still looking for a Darth!

@ZippyV: Thank you, but I prefer it my way

Had a project manager at my desk once yelling at me about some deadline he agreed on, told him that I have a couple of million dollars in the bank of some idea I sold to Microsoft, and that I didnt need to put up with his crap, so if he was not happy with me, just replace me I dont care, I'm rich!

Took him two hours of googlingwithbingsearch to figure out I was flatout lying, it actually was a couple of billions, j/k, meanwhile I fixed the issue.

It would be so cool to still show up at your pathetic job, but with whole different attitude.

13 hours ago, MasterPie wrote

@Maddus Mattus:Why buy a country?

Build a death star.

From what I've read, it would be £541,261 trillion just for the raw materials.

-Josh

13 hours ago, 01001011 wrote

@giovanni:

As far as Asia is concerned, why would you pay a CS major in CA or WA or get foreign nationals here with a h1b vs setting up shop in China?

the market is here. the marketing is here.

the work? doesn't matter where.

There are plenty of CS students at South China Normal University who will write code in a Walmart style international pipeline.

shipping code is free and the IP is worthless in China and India anyway so who cares if they steal it.

Almost every programmer i worked with in CA immediately blows their huge money on a fancy car. What kind of improvement for society is that anyway?

Where the work is does matter a lot actually. I wasn't thinking about CS majors, I was thinkging about the actual manufacturing of stuff.

Besides it is very interesting to be closer to manufacturing.

I think most of the necessary materials are still sleeping in the crust and waiting to be extracted.

The dark side is so much more fun!

10 hours ago, Bass wrote

Paying dividends might backfire, because it is an act of a "mature company". Does Apple want that image? It seems like Tim Cook was getting somewhat defensive about the idea.

Agreed. I can't see a reason for it when your share price is heading for $800.

20 hours ago, giovanni wrote

@Dr Herbie: Well, they could invest in other technologies or brands.

I think a company can also donate to charity: investors might not like it and the board would have to approve it, but I think that is an option.

The board are legally obliged to keep the company in good faith for the benefit of the shareholders. They are therefore not allowed to give money to charity without either

A) Explicit approval from the majority of shareholders via a shareholder vote.

B) Demonstrate to the shareholders how such a donation is in the best interests of the company.

If the board perform actions that are not in good faith for the benefit of shareholders, they are committing a federal offence. If they do so in good faith, but it is to the detriment of the shareholders, then the shareholders can still remove their bonus, pay or fire them via a general shareholder vote - and getting kicked out of a company for mismanagement by the shareholders will end that executive's career forever.

1 day ago, giovanni wrote

More realistically: I seriousely thing they should invest in their own manufacturing. Outsourching to Asia has been the current development model for some times, but is it the future?

 If they did their own manufacturing, people would rightfully point out that Apple has employees in sweatshop conditions. If they pay people high wages and low hours, the cost of manufacturing will go up.

The condition they have set up right now works best for them, they still get the benefit of cheap labor (the margins Foxxconn ends up making are razor thin), while partially washing their hands of it ("it's our suppliers, not us").

The only thing that could bring manufacturing back home is better industrial automation. I've read an article (I believe it was in Time?) about how industrial automation is stagnate because there isn't enough factories domestically to do the kind of research and development needed to advance. It's a bit of a chicken and the egg.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Bass: iPad would cost more then $20.000 if it was produced domestically. Read it somewhere, I'll dig up link later.

Sounds a bit high. I would have said about $2000

The argument that, if someone working for me treats his employees badly is better than if I treat my own employees badly is simply hypocrite and should not be accepted by any society (and indeed it hasn't in many other cases).

I remember an article on the NY Times where Obama invited the gurus of the tech industry who were allowed to ask him a question. At the end, Obama asked a question to Steve Jobs: "what would it take to take these jobs back home [US]?" The answer was not primarily economical but that Asia has developed an incredibly flexible network of suppliers that can react very quickly to problems.

Apple was one of the last US tech companies to subcontract its assembly outside of the US and while its products have always been more expensive than average, they have never been so out priced.

If a large company like Apple tried to move some of its manufacturing back in the US I am convinced that it could fuel not only a stronger recovery but also the creation of a more solid network of industries and suppliers which would make the US competitive again on a global market.

What better opportunity than a $100 billion to try?

44 minutes ago, giovanni wrote

@evildictaitor: I thought that the board has to act in the interest of the company, not so much of the shareholders and that would give it a little more freedom, but I am probably wrong. But in any case it is unrealistic to imagine that any company would give that amount of money to charity or to a foundation.

The board has to act in the interests of the shareholders because the shareholders own the company. By looking out for the company they are looking out for the shareholders, but looking out for the shareholders is wider than that. A case in point being the handing out of dividends - this is strictly a bad thing for the company because it is giving away cash. But it is looking after the shareholder's interests by giving them back some of the money that they have.

Normally, the interest of the shareholders is - rightfully - to earn as much money as possible in the short and/or long term (though different shareholders might have different and conflicting goals such as personal satisfaction or political aims).

The interest of the company is to exist and continue to do so in the long run. For this it needs to satisfy its shareholders but also obey the law and contribute to a healthy economy.

15 minutes ago, giovanni wrote

@evildictaitor: I would argue that acting in the interest of the company is not always the same as the interest of the shareholders.

Normally, the interest of the shareholders is - rightfully - to earn as much money as possible in the short and/or long term (though different shareholders might have different and conflicting goals such as personal satisfaction or political aims).

The interest of the company is to exist and continue to do so in the long run. For this it needs to satisfy its shareholders but also obey the law and contribute to a healthy economy.

* Obeying the law sort of goes without saying.
* Managing the economy is the job of the government, not the job of the companies and workers that constitute it, and hence of no real concern to companies (that doesn't mean they can't lobby the government for changes that would benefit the company). In fact this is one of the reasons why so many big companies use tax-avoidance schemes to pay less tax. Tax avoidance damages the wider economy, but reduces the tax-burden on the company and hence improves profits.

The long term profitability of a company is a special case of ensuring the long term profitability of the shareholders. If the long term profitability of the shareholders can be served at the expense of the long term profitability of the company. the board may also take that action (for example selling company assets to pay a dividend).

44 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

* Obeying the law sort of goes without saying.
* Managing the economy is the job of the government, not the job of the companies and workers that constitute it, and hence of no real concern to companies (that doesn't mean they can't lobby the government for changes that would benefit the company). In fact this is one of the reasons why so many big companies use tax-avoidance schemes to pay less tax. Tax avoidance damages the wider economy, but reduces the tax-burden on the company and hence improves profits.

The long term profitability of a company is a special case of ensuring the long term profitability of the shareholders. If the long term profitability of the shareholders can be served at the expense of the long term profitability of the company. the board may also take that action (for example selling company assets to pay a dividend).

Unfortunately not all companies obey the law, I only mentioned as an example of the requirements for a company to operate.

The question of who should manage the economy is very complex, but relying exclusively on governments I think is naive and, in my opinion, is in large part the cause of the current economic downturn. I strongly believe that it is the responsibility of every individual (physical or moral) to contribute at some degree to a healthier economy. The government is not an abstract and foreign concept, at least in most modern democracies.

To quote a person I admire a lot: "there is no business to be done on a dead planet." Acting responsibly and beyond the minimum government requirements is an act of self-preservation: if Apple (or other companies for that matter) contributed to the health of the North American economy, it would for sure contribute to maintain its most valuable costumers (I believe that was one of the principles of the Fordism, but I could be wrong).

15 minutes ago, giovanni wrote

Unfortunately not all companies obey the law, I only mentioned as an example of the requirements for a company to operate.

My statement was that companies are legally required to operate in the good faith best interests of the shareholders. "Not killing someone is a legal obligation on the public" is a true statement, whether or not some people choose to break the law and commit murder.

The question of who should manage the economy is very complex, but relying exclusively on governments I think is naive and, in my opinion, is in large part the cause of the current economic downturn. I strongly believe that it is the responsibility of every individual (physical or moral) to contribute at some degree to a healthier economy. The government is not an abstract and foreign concept, at least in most modern democracies.

Again, my statement wasn't what ought to be the case, just simply what is the case. There is no legal obligation on a company to act in the best interests of the wider economy, and so when companies chooses for example to engage in tax-avoidance schemes, that company has done nothing wrong.

To quote a person I admire a lot: "there is no business to be done on a dead planet."  

Markets don't look that far into the future. Keynes, one of the most influential people behind the design of the entire 20th centuary western economics model famously argued that waiting for market forces to do stuff in the long run doesn't work, because, "in the long run, we are all dead.". His argument was that companies don't and won't act in their own long term interests - and it's the responsibility of the state to impose restrictions on corporate activities that hurt society in the longer term.

Time and again we've shown that American consumers care more about the price of goods than about the origin of the product. If that trend was reversed then jobs would flow back from China to America. The sad fact is that an iPad made in the US would be more expensive, and then US consumers would buy Japanese, European or Asian cheaper equivalents because American consumers care more about their wallet than about other people's jobs.

I understand what you are saying and unfortunately I agree with your conclusion. I am only speculating what else would be interesting and possible to do with that much cash  More specifically, I was wondering what effects could have moving some of the manufacturing in NA even though this might not plase shareholders as much.

I was looking for the name of Keynes for some time, this is a famous quote and is very true. It has also been argued that the short run can have effects on the long run, and sometimes it feels that the long run is actually closer than we expect it.

I only used the bold to emphasize that my point of view isn't absolute, I hope I didn't convey another meaning.

3 hours ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

The board has to act in the interests of the shareholders because the shareholders own the company. By looking out for the company they are looking out for the shareholders, but looking out for the shareholders is wider than that. A case in point being the handing out of dividends - this is strictly a bad thing for the company because it is giving away cash. But it is looking after the shareholder's interests by giving them back some of the money that they have.

I think they should pay more money to their shareholders. Why would I invest £10.000 in a company if I did not expect any return on that investment?

I think they should pay considerably more in dividends to their shareholders, there is nothing wrong with that. If they run into problems in the future, then shareholders won't hesitate in giving them money, as it is, if things do slow down, I would not give them any more cash if I was an investor.

Paying dividends is not the only way to create value for a company. There are companies out there Berkshire Hathaway being notable who never pay dividends as a policy. Any profit they make is immediately reinvested in the company. This allowed them to grow from a textile company to a huge conglomerate. The shareholders benefit greatly because that share you had of a small textile company is now a share of a huge conglomerate - it's inherently worth more because it covers more assets.

I personally think this a better way of doing business. Consider the HUGE overhead of paying dividends. I personally have some stocks in various companies that pay dividends, and I swear I get like 50 cent checks every now and then. Now why the hell do I need that? All that overhead in mailing the check (postage, printing etc.) is more than the value of the check. And now I have to go to the bank and possibly waste more than $1 in gas to cash this check? They have to do this for millions of shareholders!

Plus the taxation systems in many countries disincentive dividends. I guess dividends can make sense for companies with a small number of shareholders but I don't think they make sense for big publicly traded companies. Just reinvest the money in the company and help my stock value grow and I'll be happy.

The board has to act in the interests of the shareholders because the shareholders own the company

tell that to Jerry Yang.

Weak willed people are much more popular with investors.  it's all about controlling interest, not trust or belief in leadership. board members are supposed to be eye candy and disposable, making only predictable decisions. in reality a 10 year old would make the ultimate modern tech board member as children are easily influenced.

the modern day board member should be well connected and push deals on friendship basis rather than any merit. that's where we are today in 2012.

on a small scale you can see how mini-boss VCs try to distort business owners at early stages on a show like Shark Tank. then multiply that by 10000 and you get the situation on wall street.

jerry yang will forever be hated because he put his company before the investors. he didn't let the investors cash out on MSFT's dime before the market collapse. nobody really honestly cares about the company. it's all about flipping bills.

as far as dividends most people will take a short sale over that any day.

the biggest business is keeping the public from the reality of it all.

1 hour ago, 01001011 wrote

the biggest business is keeping the public from the reality of it all.

Sounds like you need to put your tin foil hat back on.

because public board of director proxy fights with Steve Ballmer and Carl Icahn always help things and they're so cheap.

The consumer is exposed to it all because it's so transparent.

Companies spend no money and effort trying to hide aspects of business deals and projects.