Ninsect said:
S.Peelman said:
Uhm, maybe I'm overlooking something and being stupid, but...
I don't think it says that.
It said revenue and cost of revenue increased by an amount, not what amount it increased to. Wouldn't we need to know from what number both increased to come to any sort of conclusion?
EDIT: Yeah, Ka-Pi sort of Ninja'd this observation.
|
Well, that would be easy since we have the 72% number.
It was 2.9B but is now 5B
|
Ninsect said:
Eh, but we do have the absolute numbers.
Cost of revenue was 5B while revenue was 6.7B (1.7B + 1.7B/0.34). Yep, they didn't lose money lol
|
Yes, of course, thank you. It's nothing to panic about.