or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tribalogical

 Therein lies one of the inherent problems with "corporations are people, my friend".  A corporation enjoys all the rights of an individual, but almost none of the direct accountability. You won't hear of a corporation "going to prison" for a crime that any individual would do 10 years for... Drilling down and plucking individuals out for prosecution leads to the inevitable "fall guy" or even "patsy" taking responsibility for the corporate-person.  That's a law/definition...
 You clearly don't understand patent law and the trials related to intellectual property. At all. Why are you commenting as if you do? If it was as simple as "lost sales due to infringement", it'd be a matter of scouring some accounting ledgers, estimating losses, doing a little math and we're done..... But it's not only that or remotely that simple. It's about how markets are created, what the measurable potential is, how much momentum is lost, how much licensable income...
 I suppose that could be a compelling argument. However... this data is from the early stages of a nascent market, which has continued beyond the 2011/12 data points (as a growth market) for another two years. Samsung has surely sold enough across that time period to warrant a large-loss claim. Second, I had a background suspicion before that the 2012 "smoking gun" doc (and now this one) showing how "absolutely awful" Samsung's "actual sales" were, could very well be...
 More math... If it's true that "27% of all Chinese smartphone users buy >$500 phones", AND that "Apple owns 80% of that market", then it means that Apple owns roughly 22% of the entire Chinese smartphone market. If the numbers are right, it's pretty impressive. And they're only just getting started with China Mobile.  Another important number I'd like to know:  What percent of all Chinese mobile phone users are Smartphone Users? How big is that market today in real terms,...
DigiTimes reports..... blah blah blah.... *yawn*  wha...?   Click bait....................................
The simple psychological impact of raising the base price for a track from .99 cents to $1.29 and higher (and full albums from $9.99 to $12 or higher) is a direct contributor to the slow down. That psychological difference affected me for sure. I went from buying a few albums and a few dozen songs a month (at prices I felt were both fair and a good value), to maybe an album and a few songs every few months... I know a lot of people who slowed purchasing after the...
 I think it could be as simple as forcing the troll to pay the defense costs / legal expenses if their suit is shown to be without merit. They brought the suit, they should bear the brunt of the costs. Simple. I suggest this in part because on the other hand, if they win a case, the legal cost of their bringing suit is usually reimbursed by the defendant, and factored into the settlement. Why is the opposite not true? Why should the defendant bear any cost if they are...
Hooray! More "race to the bottom" policies. Still don't see how it's possible for manufacturers to make any money at those levels...
 ah haha! Yes, I certainly did. 
 Nope. Not even close. The "I'm a mac/I'm a pc" campaign wasn't about snarky, petty and stupid "direct comparisons". It was putting a relationship on display, and highlighting various strengths and weaknesses through the acting out of that relationship.   I'm Steve... and I'm Bill.  (Bill has a cold and sneezes), Steve: What's wrong Bill?   Bill: Be careful there's a nasty virus going around.  Steve: Oh don't worry, I'm pretty much not affected by those...  Bill...
New Posts  All Forums: