• tonyn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      What is this “enough” you speak of? -shareholders, probably

    • Botzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Up over 7% after hours (on near 2x expected EPS). For a business that big, it’s enough. Of course that could change next quarter. The mythical “investor” is capricious in the extreme.

    • disorderly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      We could look at historical values and predictions, but I actually love the “is it enough” question from a philosophical or first principles perspective.

  • Big_Boss_77@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    That’s not that much… they could only give like 109.000 people a million dollars. Be realistic…

    • jnod4@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Costco makes as much in revenue and uses it to pay millions of employees worldwide and it has a profit of less than 3%

        • saltesc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It is when your expenditure is $185B. The 109,000 people will not have $1M, but a sizeable chunk of that will be employee costs. E.g. my last company had just 16,000 headcount but did about $1.2B in employment costs annually.

  • AbsolutelyNotCats
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Core identity” is the kind of phrase Samsung uses when they need to rebrand a decision that was probably made in a board meeting and tested on three people. Vertical camera arrangements worked fine before Samsung decided they needed to be a signature feature. This reads like design instability dressed up as intention.