Lets say we have an industry. One that makes products the world over and for the world over. Used daily, sold in great quantites, a necessity in many (if not all) industries, average Janes to presidential Joes, use the product. One could say the world can't run with out it. But its old technology had the worlds running out of the raw material. But because the infrastructure is all in place and price/supply of the product is still constant, despite its antiquated design efficiencies. So no one is quite willing to change.
Lets say we have another industry. One that makes products the world over and for the world over. Used daily, sold in great quantites, a necessity in many (if not all) industries, average Janes to presidential Joes, use the product. One could say the world can't run with out it. But its old technology and the worlds running out of ideas to extend the effectiveness of the raw material. But because the infrastructure is all in place and price/supply of the product is still constant, despite its antiquated design efficiencies, no one is quite willing to change, but billions are spent looking for that change.
Interesting comparable ? Yes but.....
In example two, you have no choice but to change.
If you don't change ? Then multi trillions in investment, jobs, industry on a global basis will face the prospect of disaster. So the pressure, and the race to find the solution is absolute. Same as it will eventually be in example one. Yes change is hard, its difficult to comprehend and accept. But then so is total industry failure. Too much money at stake here. Failure is not an option. So whats........
The answer ? A small Canadian company ?
Why would PC seem so emphatic on the subjects of deals and of a NASDAQ listing ?
Why would AM be speaking of eating lunch ?
