What happened to the Messenger Plus! forums on msghelp.net?
Shoutbox » MsgHelp Archive » Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger » WLM Plus! General » [split] Private company - bad or not?

Pages: (4): « First « 1 2 3 [ 4 ] Last »
[split] Private company - bad or not?
Author: Message:
Chrissy
Senior Member
****

Avatar

Posts: 850
Reputation: 5
29 / Male / Flag
Joined: Nov 2009
RE: Community Liaison - clarification
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
:rolleyes:

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?
04-07-2010 10:32 PM
Profile E-Mail PM Web Find Quote Report
CookieRevised
Elite Member
*****

Avatar

Posts: 15519
Reputation: 173
– / Male / Flag
Joined: Jul 2003
Status: Away
O.P. RE: Community Liaison - clarification
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

This post was edited on 04-07-2010 at 10:48 PM by CookieRevised.
.-= A 'frrrrrrrituurrr' for Wacky =-.
04-07-2010 10:39 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
Chrissy
Senior Member
****

Avatar

Posts: 850
Reputation: 5
29 / Male / Flag
Joined: Nov 2009
RE: Community Liaison - clarification
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?
04-07-2010 11:49 PM
Profile E-Mail PM Web Find Quote Report
Chrono
forum admin
*******

Avatar
;o

Posts: 6022
Reputation: 116
39 / Male / Flag
Joined: Apr 2002
Status: Away
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not?
cookie needs to learn when to avoid the trolling :P
[Image: wdz_discrate.png]
04-07-2010 11:55 PM
Profile PM Web Find Quote Report
Kafman
Full Member
***

Avatar

Posts: 376
Reputation: 24
36 / Male / Flag
Joined: Feb 2004
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not?
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/ :P...
[Image: sig.png]
04-08-2010 12:22 AM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
djdannyp
Elite Member
*****

Avatar
Danny <3 Sarah

Posts: 3546
Reputation: 31
37 / Male / Flag
Joined: Mar 2006
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not?
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 ;)

This post was edited on 04-08-2010 at 01:03 AM by djdannyp.
[Image: 1ftt0hpk-signature.png]
AutoStatus Script || Facebook Status Script
5236 days, 3 hours, 12 minutes, 44 seconds ago
04-08-2010 01:03 AM
Profile E-Mail PM Find Quote Report
Adeptus
Senior Member
****


Posts: 732
Reputation: 40
Joined: Oct 2005
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not?
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.
04-08-2010 01:11 AM
Profile E-Mail PM Find Quote Report
Chrissy
Senior Member
****

Avatar

Posts: 850
Reputation: 5
29 / Male / Flag
Joined: Nov 2009
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not?
(I) The business information is made publicly on-line :P

Freedom of information act in canada?
04-08-2010 01:59 AM
Profile E-Mail PM Web Find Quote Report
Adeptus
Senior Member
****


Posts: 732
Reputation: 40
Joined: Oct 2005
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not?
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.

This post was edited on 04-08-2010 at 03:04 AM by Adeptus.
04-08-2010 02:47 AM
Profile E-Mail PM Find Quote Report
Pages: (4): « First « 1 2 3 [ 4 ] Last »
« Next Oldest Return to Top Next Newest »


Threaded Mode | Linear Mode
View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump:

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new threads
You cannot post replies
You cannot post attachments
You can edit your posts
HTML is Off
myCode is On
Smilies are On
[img] Code is On