• TheEntity@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t know, it sounds like the definition of a business man. Not one I’d admire, but not unlike lots of other business men.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, businessmen do business. Steve Jobs did business, he figured out markets, created markets based on what his business could provide. That’s actual business.

      A grifter, a con man, is not a business man, they wear the skin of one to fool people like yourself into buying into the con. Looks like it works.

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steve Jobs also conspired with his competitors to underpay their staff. Staff as in the people that helped him do business and make billions

      • Tar_Alcaran
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        created markets based on what his business could provide.

        As much as I loathe musk, this is exactly what Starlink is. It’s a company founded solely to buy the product SpaceX is making, because other people couldn’t buy enough.

        Of course, Starlink is floating almost entirely on venture capital, but that’s how Amazon got started too.

        • echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here’s the rub. Starlink is not and can not be profitable without venture capital and subsidies. It exists to funnel money away from taxpayers. It’s a con built on lies like the rest. At least some people get to benefit from this, unlike people sold overhyped cars and promises of Mars colonies, but that’s changing with price hikes and service degredations too.

          • cole@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            can I get a source on the math for this? I haven’t heard that before

            • echo64@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What math do you want? The cost of launching infinite space ships forever is more than what subscribers pay. The satellites fall down in about a year and new ones need to be launched. The subscribers would have to pay for every single rocket launch. Right now American tax payers do.

              • cole@lemdro.id
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The problem is you say this with certainty but have no numbers or evidence to back it up. How do you know the revenue from subscribers can’t cover rocket launches?

                • echo64@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It got almost a billion dollars in subsidies from America last year. This is whilst being unprofitable.

                  • cole@lemdro.id
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It seems Starlink A) isn’t getting subsidies and SpaceX is B) providing services in exchange for payment rather than just getting free money.

                    On top of this, SpaceX is reportedly still profitable. I just don’t understand your argument here. No sources, no actual hard data just conjecture.

      • Meowoem
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My evil, greedy and manipulative capitalist is better than your evil, greedy and manipulative capitalist!!!

        • echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My point is that one is a greedy, evil businessman. The other is a greedy, evil conman.

          • Meowoem
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But only if you draw a very careful line around definitions, what musk does is very standard capitalist business and what jobs did is very much the behaviour of a classic conman. Apples whole business strategy is straight out the carnival con artist playbook, you’ll find all the same tricks at any market stall