or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tundraboy

 Sure, if you think the shoe fits.  Why you would jump to the conclusion that my original statement is a defense of Apple is beyond me. Although what you mean by a 'monopolist in smartphone profits' makes no economic sense at all.  Figuratively, yes they 'monopolize' the profits but that is not a technically accurate or meaningful use of the term.  Because certainly, Apple does not monopolize the smartphone market.  The fact that they get most of the industry's profits...
It's going to be Swatch kicked a notch or two upmarket.  There will be several models and new ones will be released more frequently than once a year generating a constant buzz.  Older ones will also be phased out to create some scarcity value.  They can be configured to sync automatically with each other so that people can own several and not lose any data when they switch off from one iWatch to another.   The design, marketing, and tech will be geared towards encouraging...
Beware of any monopolist or would-be monopolist that says their actions are guided by their customers' best interests.
I sure hope they keep an updated 4" iPhone in their lineup, not just for the next product cycle but permanently. Don't really want anything bigger.
 Really?  Which parts are fiction?  Tellingly, you're not laying them out.  Because the account is mostly true. There are two companies, Google and Facebook, who are consciously, willfully trying to change societal norms with respect to privacy.  They are working day and night to make people value their own privacy less and less.  This might arguably be a commendable goal if it is motivated by some lofty purpose like greater community, brotherhood, etc.  But it is driven...
This article is quite anomalous because as everyone knows, Apple is doomed. /s
 Google is a company that seems to be run by extremely smart, social misfits with very very short attention spans.  Compare that with Facebook which seems to be run by extremely smart sociopaths who have zero ability to distinguish right from wrong.  Either way, both companies pose a danger to society.
Good thing the appeals court reversed the lower court's judgement that short phrases are not copyrightable.  That would have spelled the end of my budding career writing haiku.   So the legal skirmish will now be over fair use.  Google uses Oracle's copyrighted material to build a business with annual combined smart phone, mobile app and ad sales of X billions.  It wan't used for instruction, scholarship, criticism, comment, artistic expression, reporting or anything...
 What you say doesn't matter at all.  Being an Apple faithful still doesn't make you better at running Apple than the people running Apple.
Anybody hear seen the financials of Apple's and Beats' music business? How about Beats' headphones business?  No?  Then STFU!  You have no basis for judging whether $3.2B is too much.  I thought it felt like it was too much but you root around the internet and you find indications from pretty credible sources that 3.2 isn't an outrageous amount.   Once the white-person's-subconscious-panic over Dr. Dre's black face subsides we'll hear the more sober assessments.
New Posts  All Forums: