or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tundraboy

That's just sensationalism that the media indulges in to grab eyeballs. Their chances of ultimately collecting that amount lie somewhere between zilch and squat.
Whether that turns out to be illegal is up in the air. A condition that says 'you can't be in another ebook retailer if you want to be in iBooks' is clearly illegal, but a condition that essentially says 'you can't offer better terms to a competing ebook retailer' --well that's not as cut and dried. Most favored nation clauses are standard in a lot of supplier-contractor contracts. I don't see why Apple would suddenly be prohibited from having them. And remember these...
Also, it bears pointing out that Amazon wasn't selling ebooks below cost because they wanted to perform a public service. Selling ebooks below cost is an unsustainable proposition. The only reason Amazon was doing this was they wanted to kill the competition and establish a monopoly on ebook retailing. Once that monopoly is cemented, guess which way ebook prices would have headed?
Eventually word will get out about what exactly the Fire is good for. Then people who expect to get an iPad on the cheap will no longer buy the product and people who buy exactly for what it's good for will post sterling reviews. So the Fire's average reviews will creep upwards. Any parent though who thinks little Katie will be perfectly happy with the Fire thus freeing up mom's iPad will have to deal with a very disappointed child. It's ironic that the cheaper device...
Obviously, Apple can do weather but not plate tectonics.
Ha! You think that this whole happy confluence of events was not engineered in Cupertino? How deluded you are.
The appropriate term, I believe, is "death spiral".
Not attacking you, but just pointing out to the innumerate who have been frothing at the mouth: The 50% tax rate deduction given to Apple is meaningless. The meaningful numbers are: The full tax rate applied to $0.00 without the datacenter vs Half Rate on a helluva lot more than zero dollars with the datacenter. (Assuming the full tax rate is a positive number.)
I don't think you're that stupid, you just misunderstandd things. The tax breaks were granted to residents because they were getting a lot of new revenue from Apple. And if they dropped taxes on residents to the point that social services and benefits suffered, that is not Apple's fault. Apple does not set the tax rates for the town's residents.i am probably on the same side of the political divide as you, but jeez shed the tired old knee-jerk reaction because you only...
That's just stupid. So because they don't hire much you'd rather have no Apple data center and no tax revenues rather than have the data center and some revenues. On top of that, you'd rather not get your foot in the door in an industry that is the wave of the future. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
New Posts  All Forums: