| Zod95 said: No, 100M$ would be the marginal difference of their investments. Assuming said company had 2B$ revenue and 1.9B$ cost in Q1 and 1.5B$ revenue and 1.6B$ cost in Q2, it had actually 100M$ loss in Q2 but the investments on that quarter were 1.6B$, not only 0.1B$. And of course that the 0.1B$ profit of the Q1 were subject to taxes and eventually income to shareholders, so they couldn't all be equalized to the 0.1B$ loss of the Q2. |
So you mean to tell me that if a company spends more than it makes, that is better than a company that spends less than it makes?
What if thye didn't intend to spend the overages? Say the first company actually projected profits but that ultimately became losses (exactly what has happened to Sony for this fiscal year)? That's a good thing to you?
And what exactly is a reinvestment in the industry to you? Is spending more than you make reinvesting into the industry? What makes that any better than direct investment while retaining some of the profits?
And of those profits, how do you know they were not reinvested into the industry? Have you not seen the massive increase in R&D spending from Nintendo in just over the past few years? It is now 20 times what it was 10 years ago. Did you come across any of that in your 'research'? Did you conveniontly miss that "fact"?
The rEVOLution is not being televised
