Pemalite said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
Companies like MS and Google can still get broken up. We just need political change. Edit: That political change is usually brought on by economic failures. The USA broke companies up from the 1930's onward, for example.
|
There is no political desire to break them up.
These Tech behemoths are the stock exchange darlings that provide the rich a very lucrative return on investment.
The EU tends to have the testicular fortitude to make this kind of thing happen, but the USA? Not so much, that country literally does everything for the rich.
The rich can't control the USA forever, unless they turn it into a dictatorship. Eventually, the Pendulum swings back and gaint companies get broken up.
Cerebralbore101 said:
Here's what you don't seem to understand. Sane companies aim for 10% profit margins and hope for the best. You'll learn that in any business class. Sony for example has made anywhere from 0% profit to 13% profit per year from 2012 to now. Recently, Nintendo has had profit margins as high as 35%, but that's a result of the Switch being a revolutionary product that sold like hotcakes. During the Wii U era Iwata cut his own pay to keep from having to fire employees. Nintendo has had multiple times in which their company nearly went under. MS on the other hand mandates 30% profit margins for doing jack-all. And they will take whatever insanely anti-consumer, anti-environmental, anti-employee actions they need to, to get to that number.
|
False.
If you had actually done business class, you would know that companies try to maximize prices and profit margins to the maximum the market will bare.
Intel, AMD, nVidia and other silicon companies aim for a 60% profit margin.
Software platform holders like Valve, Microsoft, Google and Apple try to aim for a 30% profit margin.
If you are a company that is trying to achieve a large market presence, which is the tactic that companies like Netflix and Amazon took when starting out... You throw profit margins out the window, maybe even run at a loss until you get enough of a userbase where you start to optimize your company for making as much profit as possible.
Nintendo has also never been in a position where they were financially unviable.
Even during low-points like the WiiU era, Nintendo has significant cash reserves and still had a moderate success with the 3DS.
Nintendo has maximum profit margins on it's software as they are always high priced, this is putting profits over people.
This is reality.
Nintendo or any other for-profit company doesn't give two shits about you or anyone else, they exist purely to make money and provide a return to shareholders.
To argue and defend otherwise is just having your head buried in the sand.
No, companies will not always try to maximise profit margins to what the market will bear. Why not? Because you can make MORE money, selling MORE products at a lower price and lower profit margins. Companies that routinely price-gouge their consumers eventually get outcompeted. At least in a healthy and fair economy.
Nintendo has an over 100-year history. So, are you sure about your statement?
Nintendo typically doesn't shove microtransactions into its games. Microtransactions have a profit margin of 1000% and higher. They are digital-only items that cost anywhere from 5 mins to two weeks for an $80 per hour employee to make. You can have an artist spend two weeks of work on an asset, throw it on the MTX Store for $10 and then sell only 10,000 units. And guess what? You made 100,000 for under $8,000 of expenses. Since Nintendo typically doesn't do that sort of thing, they are not maximising their profit margins.
Cerebralbore101 said:
Acting as if all publicly traded companies are equally evil and insane is disengenious. No, United Healthcare, General Dynamics, and Microsoft are not the same thing as Nintendo, Costco, and C.D. Project Red. Not every company denies lifesaving medicine, sells bombs to Israel, or develops AI to put everyone out of a job. Not every company expects 30% profit margins for doing nothing.
|
If you had actually bothered to read my prior post, I actually made a DISTINCTION between how companies operate differently.
Sorry, I missed that and still can't find it. Where did you say this?
Cerebralbore101 said:
Edit: You are basically trying to argue that all capitalism is bad and that is a very politically/economically uninformed view. Read American Amnesia to get a better understanding of how capitalism is supposed to operate, when it is healthy.
|
No. That is a lie. Do not put words in my mouth.
I am actually Pro-capitalism... As it's typically the most efficient model to distribute resources efficiently.
I am just not going to defend multi-billion or trillion dollar companies that exist to maximize profits, it's fucking stupid.
It doesn't help or protect consumers, it does the complete opposite.
|
