Re: Majority of profit from expensive service contracts
Take it from me...service and maintenance is a small part of the revenue, large part of the profits!
23 posts • joined 7 Aug 2018
Forgive me, can someone with more knowledge than myself explain how Verizon could have violated these Huawei patents?
Verizon essentially doesn't make Telecom equipment, and are actively shifting to outsourced management and architecture of network infrastructure to REITs like American Tower and Crown Castle.
Since Verizon is essentially a spectrum license holder and billing company, how could they have possibly violated these patents, which are primarily focused on network efficiency and performance?
So why is the US a more favorable EU Ally than China? WWII and the Cold War were a long time ago. It seems the US primary interest is selling overpriced, outdated Telco gear and military hardware. Let's be completely candid, their military performance, apart from their questionable ethics, from 2003-2013 wasn't exactly impressive. Their electorate is also loathe to exert global influence.
My personal opinion: HP has been a zombie company since the Fiorina days, whose focus has not been on creating relevant technology for its customers, but finding novel methods to expoit them.
I'm prepared for many thumbs down: However, If you are talented and hardworking, and you come to realize your firm's raison d'etre is build legal and technogical hurdles so people can't replace their printer ink with any ink other than your own, then it is time to reflect on whether that is the purpose you wish to devote your life's work.
I imagine Huawei will experience a temporary increase in revenue as firms in the China "sphere of influence" refresh their Western gear to Huawei.
We will see how sustainable it will be to have a Chinese-dominated ecosystem and a separate US-dominated ecosystem. This will present the opportunity for a brilliant startup to develop products and services that are compatible with both ecosystems!
The long term damage to US firms has already been done. China will now work to extricate the US from their supply chain. Temporarily allowing US firms to supply Chinese firms simply means Huawei and others can finance the transition through ongoing operations.
If anyone previously had any doubt, they now know the IEEE is a US gov't lapdog. Why should Huawei or anyone else contribute? Ironically, now China has valid concern that the IEEE will be used to invalidate their IP rights, since the US seems to have rejected operating through multilateral organizations, such as the WTO.
Maybe coincidental, but I cannot find news stories of Tesla employees demonstrating recklessly high levels of confidence in their autopilot software.
By showing such disregard for life, I support an investigation of the incident. It might seem like innocent fun, but the fact remains that 40k Americans died on the road last year, and the rest of us have to bear rising insurance premiums due to others irresponsibility.
So, if you were to purchase Telco gear based on the host country government's likelihood to have compromised the software, where would you theoretically purchase it from?
Somalia, because the government is ostensibly too weak, and lacks the expertise, to be able to compel equipment manufacturers to build backdoors and monitor the data that comes through?
Singapore, Brazil, or Iceland, since they are theoretically unaligned to the major military powers?
Cyprus, since even they themselves don't know who they are aligned with?
What's wrong with the assumption that BGP can be compromised BY ANYONE, so any traffic anywhere, could be monitored by any party at my time? Would we then simply go back to a free-market calculation, where we look for a combination of quality and price?
Interest accrued in debt is tax-deductible, so it can be a relatively cheap form of capital, especially during times such as these when interest rates are historically low.
What is crucial is the ability to erase that debt when advantageous to do so! Predictable, capital intensive firms typically find debt a cheaper form of capital than issuing of equities. Plus, Michael Dell won't dilute himself by issuing shares.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021