[lozenge]

Transfer to who? All the people who know how to put the assets to good use... are already employed by TomTom.

As long as the company provides value to shareholders and customers, why wind it down? Not everything had to be about growth, growth, growth.

[wjnc]

Let me be the first to say that hardcore capitalism isn't my usual purview. And that exactly the diversity of stakeholders is why I like this question.

TomTom obviously offers no value to shareholders (no dividend policy, history of losses, perhaps except those searching for volatily). It's 49% owned by the directors with a 51% float. It clearly offers some value to customers since it has revenues. However, the revenues have been falling for a decade and most auto manufacturers seem able to procure these materials in-house.

It has value to 4500 employees who retain gainful employment at TomTom! But the financial metric to measure value added for those employees is lacking: TomTom is worth nearly nothing. Society would be better of 'cancelling' TomTom and letting all employees go to companies with higher added value to society. They could be teachers, nurses and researchers at companies that further the technical boundary. Instead, they are working for no value at all except their salaries. It's sad. (: Hyperbole.)

[usrusr]

Plenty of people working for negative value except for their salaries and whatever wins they provide company owners in the negative sum games they engage in.

[sokoloff]

> most auto manufacturers seem able to procure these materials in-house

Most auto manufacturers go outside for nav/infotainment units from suppliers like Here, MVI, Telenav, etc.

I don’t see any impenetrable barrier that TomTom couldn’t try to compete in that market (or as a data supplier to that market).

[alFReD-NSH]

They are in that market actually with major manufactures like BMW.