Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised


EDIT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
funny how you ignored the last part of my post

---

Maybe because that was already replied upon multiple times before by me and others. So, what do I need to do? Repeat everything once again so then you can state something like "All you can do is repeating and making pages of posts"... I think not...

---

FAIL!

---
Anyway, why don't we just ask why it's a private company?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy
Anyway, why don't we just ask why it's a private company?

---

Because it is a small company, doesn't have public shares to trade, less financial risks, not yet enough capital to go public, because it has some advantages over a public company, like a hell of a lot less bureacracy, etc, etc... many perfectly good reasons to choose from...

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/cbr/publicvprivate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy
Anyway, why don't we just ask why it's a private company?

---

Because it is a small company, doesn't have public shares to trade, less financial risks, not yet enough capital to go public, because it has some advantages over a public company, like a hell of a lot less bureacracy, etc, etc... many perfectly good reasons to choose from...

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/cbr/publicvprivate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company

---

Really, it could be because the owner id know to be a scamer or something? Cause really, you don't know for sure cookie do you?

cookie needs to learn when to avoid the trolling

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
cookie needs to learn when to avoid the trolling

---

Just imagine cookie at 4chan trying to argue in /b/ or /v/ ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy
Anyway, why don't we just ask why it's a private company?

---

Because it is a small company, doesn't have public shares to trade, less financial risks, not yet enough capital to go public, because it has some advantages over a public company, like a hell of a lot less bureacracy, etc, etc... many perfectly good reasons to choose from...

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/cbr/publicvprivate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company

---

Really, it could be because the owner id know to be a scamer or something? Cause really, you don't know for sure cookie do you?

---

Why assume the negative when it's perfectly common practice for private companies to exist?

It's nothing unusual, so it's just stupid to speculate that they're staying private for negative reasons.

If you went to Subway and they refused to tell you what was in the sandwich you were buying, then THAT would be a reason to be suspicious.

But a company not telling you all the ins and outs of who owns it and what their [business] interests are.....that's perfectly understandable.

I think all the conspiracy theorists around here need to go back to figuring out 9/11 or something

If you really want to know who owns it, I am sure you can get a very good idea by searching public records and other sources.  It will involve some work and expense, but the names are certain to be on something out there that can be found.

The business information is made publicly on-line

Freedom of information act in canada?

I suppose I should also have pointed out that the definition of a privately held company isn't "a secret company" and that is why the information is surely out there if you were to look in the right places.  We are not talking about the mafia here.  All of you deal with similarly structured business every day; every small, most medium sized and some large companies fall in the same category.  At the "large" end of the spectrum, there are some telephone companies and airlines; that is less common but still not unseen.  The "owners" may not be individuals, but rather venture capital funds.

Given that no loud announcements are being made and taking a guess at the relative value of MsgPlus!, I would speculate that the mystery owners of Yuna Software will remain a mystery even if you manage to track down their names.  They will most likely turn out to be small venture capitalists that you may find a few other references to, throwing money at some things, probably not even computer and software related.  I doubt it will be anything exciting.

P.S. One thing is for certain though -- whenever somebody purchases or invests in a product, they are expecting to make money.  That leads to rather simple math: if Patchou thought it was a good deal, he got more than he would make in a few years, upfront, and whoever they are, they think they can make more off it in the same period.  I can't speculate on what the changes will be, but I expect how the thing is paid for will change in near future.  Perhaps it will be a different "sponsor", perhaps it won't be optional, perhaps there will be a sponsored freeware and registered shareware mode -- whichever it is, I expect a change isn't far away.