or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by TBell

 Yes, it would be unreasonable. There is no crazy tax implications for bringing home the money. The tax is reasonable. Companies like Apple benefit tremendously from the vast amounts of money the US spends overseas forcing its trade polices on the rest of the world.  Charity is just that charity. You should not expect something in turn. Apple will get a tax write off from this generous gift, and it will expose people to its products that otherwise might not have access....
 Your last sentence kind of sums it up. Publishers could not quit Amazon as a means to sell traditional books anymore than hardware manufactures could have dumped Windows as an operating system when Microsoft insisted they dump Netscape in favor of Explorer. Amazon did the same thing Microsoft was found guilty of. Namely, using its power in one market (traditional online book sales) to gain dominance in another market (the ebook market). 
 Sure, but Apple did this through negotiating. It convinced the music publishers that letting it sell singles for 99 cents was good business. The publishers could have said no, and maybe tried to do something with somebody else. People like Bill Gates thought it was amazing that Apple convinced the publishers to allow them to sell the music. Apple did not pressure the publishers by threatening the in some way like Amazon did with ebooks. 
Sure that is what happened, but Apple didn't have an established position in the music industry at the time. Amazon controls online book sales, and used that power to force concessions in the eBook market. Different animal entirely.
That is not quite right. For new releases, Apple asked for when it sold a new release book for $y the price nowhere else would be lower than that. That is agency pricing, which is not illegal. So, if a publisher sold a book for $14.99 on Apple, it would also have to sell the book for no less than $14.99 on Amazon. Amazon, however, could avoid the same pricing for new releases by acquiring the exclusive rights to the books. 
No. Apple had no power to force music publishers to agree to 99 cents per song. The price was fairly negotiated without Apple holding monopoly power over the publishers. Amazon on the other hand forced ebook concessions by threatening not to carry publishers other books, which would have killed the publishers. 
 You are over simplifying the matter. Amazon forced publishers to release ebooks at the same time as hardcover releases by threatening to not carry publishers hardcover books. Amazon then significantly undercut the price of the hardcover books, which essentially killed hardcover sales and put stores like Borders out of business. This hurt consumers would don't just want Barnes and Nobles as an option. So it used its online monopoly in traditional online book sales to gain...
 I would look at both candidates qualifications. Somebody being out of work for a while really doesn't mean very much. Both candidates are going to have to be trained in some way for the new position. Moreover, it might be possible the unemployed person is going to be hungry and loyal. 
Yes, the source was from a company that AI has in a previous article pointed out slants the figures against Apple to favor its customers who are generally Android and PC hardware manufacturers. 
 Google made a move it had to make to protect Android. Motorola was losing money and threatened to start suing other Android manufacturers over patents. Google likely bought Motorola to stop that from happening. However, Google paid a premium for the patents. Google paid 12.5 billion for Motorola. Motorola had about 2 billion in the bank and about a billion worth of tax credits. That brought the price down to about 9.5 billion. Then Google sold the set top unit for about 2...
New Posts  All Forums: