View Single Post
Old 25 June 2017, 03:48   #114
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,927
Originally Posted by matthey View Post
Acorn was a business success. The owners (which changed) and management chose to diversify into more profitable business segments and drop less profitable ones (the PC market is cyclical and they were caught in a downturn in the economy). This is a pattern for a growth company where you grow as fast as possible and sell pieces when there is a good opportunity. They could have kept their divisions, diversified and focused on cash flow thus becoming a conglomerate rewarding their investors with dividends instead (it is still necessary to cull dinosaur divisions). Acorn chose the growth business method which is often less kind to customers and employees but they did a super job of innovating, finding new markets and increasing shareholder value.
Yes, Acorn chose to please their investors. The very same thing could happen to a Commodore which happened to survive to the year 1998, pleasing the stock market by dropping the risky and unprofitable computer market in favour of embedded technology which you said was the way to go.
idrougge is offline  
Page generated in 0.04242 seconds with 11 queries