Yes, it is what you said. No, I'm not making it up; at least that's my interpretation:
So you are interpreting when I say....
No I guess I don't. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a highly subsidized subscriber model that the subsidies ever went away. Can you?
As me actually saying..
A few months ago you were saying SAC would NEVER come down,
I guess we could call that "selective interpretation", but again. Is it what I said? No! So you are making things up, in a interpretation kind of way! Just don't do that with the operational metrics. Just some friendly advise!
A net loss of 156M is meaningless. What matters is subs.
OK! If you say so!
Period. If subs grow (at an alarmingly strong rate, as they have), then profits will follow.
Not when your revenue growth which is limited by the subscription price is offset by CPGA costs that require 4 years of ARPU to recapture you subsidy plus interest.
And sub growth has continued to proceed precisely on target; management has not yet missed a projection, the financing came through
And losses continue to increase at a rate that far exceeds revenues.
I think you may have some limited knowledge of some other subscriber based business and are imputing a similar cost structure on XMSR. There is not another subscriber-based business, at least that I can think of, that has a cost structure that is in any way comparable to XMSR's. Further, the equipment subsidies are continuing to fall, and clearly will continue to do so."
OK! If you say so!
Good Luck,
PCSTEL |
