or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by DESuserIGN

 Agree with you, but the problem isn't so much defending customers (historically people have always gotten short shrift from the government.) It seems to me that in the past they have always tilted toward publishers (as they are corporate and big business.) Problem is the courts are following their traditional instinct and favoring Amazon as the biggest business with the greatest influence over Apple, Publishers, and last of all, the lowly citizens. 
Although I seem to be on the same side as you, just not as virulently:"Someone who does" what?And what's a "which-hunt?"[OK I'm Knit picking you. But maybe take a second or two to read your post before you submit?  ;-)  ]
I frankly *still* don't get why Apple's approach was found to be in violation in the first place. If anyone can point me to a clear and cogent interpretation of why Apple's original approach was a violation and Amazon's is OK, please post a link. Thanks.
 An idea that Apple has never pursued before, I'm sure.
 Nice!  : )Similar situation with me and my nieces.Change does take time.Like you (I imagine,) I just don't see any reason sensible change should take a whole generation or more to occur.
Apple is pretty darn diverse. It's been part of the organizational DNA from way back. Board members are not as influential at a company as most people think. They're selected mostly for their ability to wield external influence. This is why they tend to be similar to other bigwigs (but Apple has often had women on the board or in high positions.)   On the other hand, some of the comments here are shockingly out of touch. Also the tech world, in general, is dominantly...
Yes we are.Your observation is "impactful!"
 Isn't it magical how in all but the most ineptly written sentences, the pretentious, redundant, business speak phrase, "going forward," can be removed—resulting in a far more direct and clear communication?I guess because eliminating it is so magical, nobody believes they can do it . . . going forward.
And BTW, buying back stock is in the interest of shareholders as increase the value of all remaining shares. But it has to be part of an overall company strategy—as I'm sure it has been all along. Such a buyback effects outstanding employee options, taxes liability, dividends, stock price, liquid funds, etc. etc.
New Posts  All Forums: