or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Bsginc

Bull. That is simply not true. Apple never set a price. Apple does not appear to be guilty of price setting. Publishers. Yes. Apple. No. Apple cannot tell anyone what price to charge. They are large enough to demand best pricing from a publisher but the publisher is still free to set that price.
As I understand it, Apple told the publishers that they would pay the publisher of a book 70% of the proceeds from sale of the book, based on the price each publisher set for a book. Apple does not set the actual price. Publishers do. The only pricing requirement was that the price in iBookstore be equal to the lowest price that publishers set for other outlets. Hardly monopolistic practices. As for your assertion that Amazon was denied the ability to sell at a lower...
Comment made to wrong poster
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...l-information/ And, in case you have a knee jerk reaction, the article is written be Associated Press.
The reason they are not safe is because Google deliberately subverts protections to block access to your browsing habits that providers such as Apple provide in their browsers. And, not to split hairs but, there is little constructive difference between selling your name directly to an advertiser and selling the information needed to target you you via device IDs. It all still points to you. And, with access to the information trails, it is apparently not very difficult to...
They can sell a lot of units at the $199 price point. Good for them. But, if as reported, Amazon sells their Kindle at a loss, does Google really expect to sell theirs at a profit? Volume unit sales mean nothing if they sell every unit at a loss. And, if their goal is to drive customers from the iPad, well, there are anti-trust laws about such predatory pricing strategies. Good luck with that Larry. Your business strategies are increasingly under fire. Question: I...
Larry Page out does Steve Jobs in one thing: arrogance. And, at least Jobs had the chops to back it up while, at the same time, not being dishonest with his customers.
This is the equivalent of (take your pick): the whiny kid taking his ball and going home because he could not control the game or Lucy telling Charlie Brown to kick the football and then pulling it back as he tries to kick the ball. I suspect that Nokia's actions will come under review for being anti-competitive. They had better be right about their technical objections because FRAND agreements don't provide for licensing to everyone but those you don't like. They are...
Grobler has one problem. Just one. Prior art. It's so obvious that I'm surprised mo one has noted it yet. There is prior art. He claims Apple (and Sony) are making money off of his work yet there is very likely to be prior existing art. Apple's iTunes was released 3 weeks before he filed for his patent. And, even though there was no iPod at the time iTunes did allow for purchase and storage of music on electronic devices called computers.
Amazed that no one commented on the fact that the don't-bother-me-with-the facts-my-mind-is-made-up crowd is undeterred by truth. By ignoring facts, they weaken their position beyond the damage done by Daisey's falsehoods. I wonder, does the NYT qualify as an other with their weak modification to their original story? That's probably OK to keep on since Daisey seems to cling to the lies when he says his translator doesn't remember what he does. I guess calling her a liar...
New Posts  All Forums: