KVR Audio

Fair Pear · Post by **Fair Pear** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:19 am

YEah, Sure they make good software and some of their employees are probably Barefoot Weed Smoking Coder Geniuses.
But they are a Billion Dollar company,with that money comes Power, with power comes influence on government.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:20 am

So you're saying that no multinational company can ever make large amounts of money without being corrupt(*). Ummm, okay. What was it a parallel to, though. I think Im kinda missing part of the argument here or something.

(*) Assuming you subscribe the the theory that making a profit, in itself, is not inherently corrupt. Some people dont, y'know.

Fair Pear · Post by **Fair Pear** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:25 am

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

I believe in success, but maybe I'm being too judgemental and cynical, maybe you need to read www.schnews.co.uk (http://www.schnews.co.uk)

nocompromise · Post by **nocompromise** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:29 am

whyterabbyt wrote:So you're saying that no multinational company can ever make large amounts of money without being corrupt(*). Ummm, okay. What was it a parallel to, though. I think Im kinda missing part of the argument here or something.

(*) Assuming you subscribe the the theory that making a profit, in itself, is not inherently corrupt. Some people dont, y'know.

No i'm not saying that.
Its not wrong to make a profit. Its what you do with it thats important.
The parallel is endemic. It effects you and me everyday of our lives.
While Adobe buy Macromedia, we're still occupying Iraq and there are still people dying all over the world.......

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:33 am

nocompromise wrote:
While Adobe buy Macromedia, we're still occupying Iraq and there are still people dying all over the world.......

So are you suggesting that Adobe should wait until there is world peace... and then buy Macromedia

nocompromise · Post by **nocompromise** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:41 am

No I'm not saying that either.
But is it fair that people get paid $1,000,000 a year while the world need sorting out?
How about giving us all $50,000 a year to live and taking away everything else to make the world a better place.
I'm not saying Adobe shouldn't buy Macromedia if they happen to have $3.4 billion lying about.
What I'm saying is that they shouldn't have $3.4 billion in the first place!

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:49 am

Well, firstly they probably don't have 3.4 billion lying around... I would imagine they are using finance, etc.

Secondly, if they do have 3.4 billion lying around, then there is no specific link between that and world poverty. It would simply mean that they have been very successful at selling their excellent line of software.

It could be argued that they might invest more into development of new products, b ut in a sense that's what they ARE doing by acquiring Macromedia. One might also consider whether their staff are being paid fairly, etc. And lastly, are they donating money to good causes (most large companies do) and supporting, for example, young artists and musicians with sponsorship, etc.

But I think that the points you are making at this stage are too simplistic, and need some practical padding out!

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:51 am

nocompromise quoth What I'm saying is that they shouldn't have $3.4 billion in the first place!

But they dont have 3.4bn. The entire thing is shares-based. Not real money at all.

Under the terms of the deal, Macromedia's shareholders will receive 0.69 share of Adobe stock for each share of Macromedia stock. Based on Adobe's closing price of $60.66 on Friday, each Macromedia share will be worth $41.86. The deal represents a 25 percent improvement for Macromedia shareholders, based on the $33.45 closing price of the multimedia company's stock Friday.

nocompromise · Post by **nocompromise** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:54 am

whyterabbyt wrote:nocompromise quoth What I'm saying is that they shouldn't have $3.4 billion in the first place!

But they dont have 3.4bn. The entire thing is shares-based. Not real money at all.

Under the terms of the deal, Macromedia's shareholders will receive 0.69 share of Adobe stock for each share of Macromedia stock. Based on Adobe's closing price of $60.66 on Friday, each Macromedia share will be worth $41.86. The deal represents a 25 percent improvement for Macromedia shareholders, based on the $33.45 closing price of the multimedia company's stock Friday.

Yeah I know...... thats not what I meant

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:02 am

In that case I have no idea what you actually really do mean, apart from the fact that 'big companies are bad because there are poor people' which is a bit simplistic, really.

nocompromise · Post by **nocompromise** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:02 am

headquest wrote: ......then there is no specific link between that and world poverty. It would simply mean that they have been very successful at selling their excellent line of software...........

Are you crazy! I hope you're not serious.

headquest wrote: But I think that the points you are making at this stage are too simplistic, and need some practical padding out!

I'm sorry but it is all simple.
The world is in this state because human beings have made it this way. In recent times corporate multinationals have made it worse but it started a long time ago.

In general, as a species we have got it wrong.

Are you suggesting that this happened all by itself?
Or don't you want to enter the real world, admit things are wrong and try to make the world better?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:08 am

And you achieve this by what means? Saying 'oooh innit terrible?' on a music website?

nocompromise · Post by **nocompromise** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:30 am

well why not? how better to influence people than through music. politics doesn't seem to work.
what are you trying to defend? or is this cos i dissed one of ur m8s

sc_a · Post by **sc_a** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:51 am

Freehand versus Illustrator?
More logical breakdown would be to keep MM's web content suite (Fireworks-Dreamweaver-Flash) and extend it to cover mobile authoring too.

Corporate content preparation (not explicitely mobile) could as well more likely fall under the spell of Director, authorware and the one first mentioned (plus the Contribute).

Nokia, f.e. has it's developer extensions written for GoLive ... there'll be some math involved in decision making for sure.

If Adobe are smart they'll kill off some of their own products and keep macromedia's big guns - Flash, Dreamweaver, Freehand.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:56 am

nocompromise quoth well why not?

Because of how ineffectual it actually is?

how better to influence people than through music.

Lots of ways.

politics doesn't seem to work.

YOu've been a politician then?

what are you trying to defend?

Who says Im defending anything? You made some quite illogical statements, and I tried to decipher them.

or is this cos i dissed one of ur m8s

What the f**k are you on about? Sorry I didnt give you a round of applause for your amazing 'insight' sunshine, but generally, you have to do a bit better than "big companies are bad m'kay".
Not exactly a major communicator, are you. Well, seems like your managing to rely on not just one but two of the standard copouts; you cant make a coherent argument, so (a) Im biased because I'm'defending' somthing, and (b) I'm biased because of something personal.

Advice: Grow the f**k up.

Adobe to buy Macromedia for $3.4 billion