Thread

1. ocd · 1790861971 · focus · HN ↗

   I'm not a business guy, but I think I would be very worried if I created any opening (even on the very long term) for competition to justify itself being built up to meet demand (or national security requirements of other countries) on an industry I mostly control, because I prioritized extremely high prices for a few years that might have the effect of changing the arithmetic for potential competitors that wouldn't have done it before.

   It makes me consider whether there would be retaliation in later years against the US intellectual property system in countries other than China. While RAM is a tangible product, the areas it serves aren't really.

   1. wewewedxfgdf · 1790862827 · focus · HN ↗

      There is 3 companies that make memory - they ALL want to keep memory prices high for as long as possible.

      1. lotsofpulp · 1790862956 · focus · HN ↗

         I also like to keep prices high for as long as possible for the things I sell. I bet most people I ask would answer the same.

         1. Matl · 1790863935 · focus · HN ↗

            If I can sell my things at a higher volume for longer vs higher price and less volume now, I'll go with the first, but not shareholders focused on quarterly numbers.

            1. lotsofpulp · 1790864702 · focus · HN ↗

               Is your claim that businesses that have to spend billions or tens of billions of dollars and years to bring facilities online to make the products they sell are owned (and influenced) by shareholders focused on quarterly numbers?

               This “quarterly, short term” reddit-ism or internet-ism is baffling since the businesses that have earned the most money for shareholders (to the tune of trillions of dollars, eclipsing all other businesses), all have leadership making very expensive, very long term bets.

               1. Matl · 1790871624 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Is your claim that businesses that have to spend billions or tens of billions of dollars and years to bring facilities online to make the products they sell are owned (and influenced) by shareholders focused on quarterly numbers?

                  Yes? That doesn't mean they can't spend billions on R&D. If Apple didn't sell iPods like hotcakes, they wouldn't be able to R&D the iPhone. That doesn't mean nobody at Apple had long-term vision, quite the opposite.

                  1. lotsofpulp · 1790882328 · focus · HN ↗

                     >Yes? That doesn't mean they can't spend billions on R&D

                     How can business leaders and shareholders spend money on long term R&D and still be accused of focusing on the short term and next quarter? If they were focusing on making the next few quarters look good, they would reduce expenses, which include R&D, and make profits higher for the next few quarters.

                     >If Apple didn't sell iPods like hotcakes, they wouldn't be able to R&D the iPhone. That doesn't mean nobody at Apple had long-term vision, quite the opposite.

                     I can’t parse these statements. Are you or are you not claiming businesses like Apple and Micron shareholders are focused on the short term?

                     >If I can sell my things at a higher volume for longer vs higher price and less volume now, I'll go with the first, but not shareholders focused on quarterly numbers.

                     What if a business is maxed out on production capacity? What if a business can sell things for a higher price now, and sell things at a lower price later?

                     1. Matl · 1790951368 · focus · HN ↗

                        > How can business leaders and shareholders spend money on long term R&D and still be accused of focusing on the short term and next quarter?

                        Because these two groups are not the same? My argument is, if a company overperforms to the point that some of the profits can be allocated to longer-term development without upsetting shareholders because the QbyQ profits are great, (like Apple did with the iPod), but if you can either only increase quarterly profits and not do long-term R&D or keep profits the same but do the R&D then no R&D it is.

                        In other words, Apple had to start with the iPod because that didn't require massive long-term R&D and then once that became such a success that Apple could not only satisfy shareholders on a short term basis, but also set money aside for long-term R&D was the iPhone possible.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.