or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by elroth

It's obvious by your comments that you live in your own fantasy world.
And those are precisely the ones that don't sell. The Samsung (and other Android) phones that sell are the cheap ones, as this site has pointed out (with the numbers to back it up) many times.
That money was from the publishers, who settled with the government and agreed to pay. What I don't understand is how Apple can be sued by the states, and also by consumers, each asking for hundreds of millions of dollars (with triple damages). Something that wasn't mentioned in this story is that Cote accepted the consumers' experts on damages, but rejected Apple's experts. So again from the start Cote is fixing the trial.
Drama queens everywhere.
Google also lost a few billion dollars running Motorola for a few years. When you look at the entire deal, Google immediately sold off one part of Motorola for 2-3 billion (if I remember correctly), lost a few billion running Motorola, sold the rest of the hardware (plus some patents I think), and kept most of the patents. The patents have been worthless so far - they tried to use some of them to sue Apple, but they lost (the patents were standards-essential patents). I...
Yeah, the key word is LEGALLY. Something Google is only vaguely familiar with.
Ummm... Google bought an already totally-developed YouTube, then futzed with it for years without making any money on it (it's still not clear that YouTube makes Google much money). I don't see innovation there by Google - all they did was try to add advertising to it. Of course they innovated in search - they improved it immensely. I don't use it (because of Google's privacy violations), but the vast majority of people do. Other than search, I just don't see it. Most...
Saying Google invented free email was a pretty good sign the post was sarcasm. Since when do people have to declare a post is sarcasm? If you're embarassed by missing it, accept the fact you got fooled. Big deal.
Are you really equating things with people? Refusing to serve somebody and kicking them out of your store is a bit different than not offering a certain product, don't you think? By your "logic", every store would have to offer every product in the world, so that every person could find every item he could possibly want. I'm offended by religious people - would you give me the right to refuse to serve them, and order them to leave my store? Here's something to think about:...
In its filing, Apple quotes a number of courts who concluded the same thing - that having lower prices is not a good measure of competition. Sometimes prices are too low (below cost), and stifle competition by preventing new sellers entering the market. Sound familiar, Amazon?
New Posts  All Forums: