Senior Member
Steam:
76561197979925166 Steam join date: Dec 24, 2005
Steam Level: 44
Profile Status:
Public
It's sad when people think they have an upper hand because somebody failed to debunk a strawman attack.
Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent ownership of value that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset).
It's almost as if I don't need to define it in the context of financial accounting.
Originally Posted by
sirus
Also why are you going of FY assets? I am talking whole market value. Are you trying to compare assets of the shares or assets of the companies profit/sales in comparison with it's expenditures?
I am not doing anything of the sort, and gave no indication that i was doing so. I was comparing the net worth of the given subjects and using said Fiscal Years as a time frame for which these figures were valid, seeing as public financials aren't updated anywhere in real time.
I didn't address this sooner because none of these things are reasonable assumptions and you would have to be intentionally stretching the bounds of what I was saying beyond logic to come up with these things. Hence the term strawman.
I'll try and state things more simply in the future.
Originally Posted by
sirus
Jobs made Gates his teabagging whore ever since the ipod came out.
This is the scope of the argument as I know it. I was simply stating that this was false due to the fact that Bill Gates was far more successful in life than Steve Jobs, and in the context of everything BUT the stock market so is microsoft, and seeing how the stock market isn't a reliable scale of the overall success of a company it wasn't interesting to me that you kept arguing that point ad nauseum.
Tne fact that you personally made money on a company has no bearring on their degree of success, either.
I want to also clarify that I don't dispute apple computer's success within its own means, and Jobs did turn the company around. But to go as far as to say that they are somehow more successful in the long run than Microsoft (who still has a practical monopoly on the desktop and mobile PC OS market) is stretching it.
If you want to talk long term I think microsoft has really lost their niche in the computing market. Most of the tasks handled by the averge computer consumer are being done more and more by mobile devices, which I can give credit to Apple for turning the smartphone into a consumer product and not just a business machine. If apple had been able to hold onto the mobile market I would be singing a different tune today, but Google played their cards perfectly (in the context of supporting the lack of DRM and creating an open-source platform that any company could pick up) to dismount iOS as the king of the web-phone.
The only functional thing microsoft still holds over other deskop OS's is the Direct3D system, everything but video games can be done just as well if not better by other desktop OS's, and now with things like the Nvidia Tegra the mobile OS is even taking a jab at that now.
In fact if they start to lose that familiarity with the market and companies like Google can continue to break people out of that old shell of "I'm using it because I always have and I don't know anything else" then they stand to lose everything.
Reply With Quote