or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macaholic_1948

When ethics and law are at cross purposes, one must follow the law. That is good corporate governance. It is a fiduciary responsibility that must be met. It is ethical behavior. And, most importantly, it supports the rule of law. If you don't like that ethics and the law are at odds, change the law to suit your ethical purpose. If you can't do that, accept that others' views of what is ethical are at odds with yours. If that is still unsettling, either change your ethical...
Why? They already have most of the profit.It's possible the Apple sales numbers were released to late for inclusion.No Apple fan calls themselves an "Apple fan boy" unless they aren't and then, if they preferred something else, they wouldn't be. I doubt you were once an Apple fan at all.
A statistician, true to their craft, will attempt to better define a category labelled as "Others" when the category is equal to 30% of the total being analyzed. This is particularly true when the smallest identified category is 3% of the total. Other should never, ever be your 2nd largest data category. After all, there may be a really good manufacturer that Gartner has hidden in the Other category. In another note, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung were looking at that...
Tsk. Tsk. Imagine that. Google not thinking they have to play by the same rules everyone else has to play by.
Just to make it clear, when someone says that Google does not provide your personal information to advertisers, that means they aren't giving out your name, address, etc. to advertisers. But, Google is telling them about your collective behavior and habits and associating with your devices individually and collectively. The fact that an advertiser does not know your name is true. But, they know your device address and can be even more specific in what they target you with...
Not going to doctors... Hmmmm Not everything written is to be believed. There are also valid conflicting opinions on many issues. I'll leave it at that.
You are consistent. Everyone else is wrong if they disagree with you.
Think what you want about why they don't. I am simply stating arguments I have read.
One point those pushing the idea of selling less expensive and even lower PC and smart phones don't think about is the potential for existing low-end product purchasers to migrate toward more expensive products later. This is a function of both the desire for a better quality product and of increasing affluence as consumers age and earn more. Of course, not everyone will do that but enough will so do to enter the Apple product chain. And, when they do, history shows many...
Basically, yes. I am. Google doesn't see Android. They derive no direct income from the sale of Google. There is no income from which to pay damages if Google were to lose a lawsuit for patent infringement.
New Posts  All Forums: