[joshstrange]

> But it is not debt. It combines $821 billion of leases that have not started with $829 billion of purchase and construction commitments. These payments are spread over one to 30 years.

I can't help but have my "weasel words" alarm go off. Perhaps the original article was also misleading, but I find it strange that they call out 1 to 30 years when we all know there's no way most of those commitments are spread over thirty years. I couldn't find anywhere in the article where they show any sort of graph to show commitments one year out, two years out, etc. because it seems that would answer the question better.

They show the commitments vs revenue but I kind of find that misleading because it (sort of) assumes there's no more commitments coming, and there are certainly new commitments coming. So knowing what their revenue is versus when those commitments come due seems like the most useful piece of information which isn't teased out.

I'm not saying the original article or this rebuttal is wrong or right. I just found this confusing and it feels like it would have cleared up things to explain this better.