or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by malax

Oh come on.  I agree that it's lazy to call someone stupid based on one or two stupid statements, but I don't have a problem calling someone stupid if they consistently make idiotic comments.  Using your logic, no one is ever a troll, they just make trollish comments.   In fact, I think it's pretty well understood that calling someone "stupid" is the same as saying "that person says (or does) a lot of stupid things" rather than meaning "that person is literally mentally...
I assume you're not serious.  As a shareholder, I would be quite annoyed if they wasted their money doing that.  There would almost certainly be a shareholder lawsuit since it violates the principle of apportioning benefits proportionate to shares.
But that's Slurpy's thing: saying something that's right on in a really rude way. It's his schtick.
At least you're consistent. If the Apple Watch fizzles out in a few years, you'll have earned years of I told you sos. On the other hand, I expect your comments will be remembered as downright Ballmeresque.How many people had "smart phones" before the iPhone. Fewer people than wear watches today. I'm confident that Apple will have another hit on their hands.
But Amazon isn't the only seller in the eBook market, so I absolutely no worries about that happening--now that Apple has a foothold. The bizarre part is that the Feds went after Apple rather than just sitting this out.
That makes sense but... (quoting the same article I just quoted above)  "Since the 1970s a broad consensus has emerged that the only proper purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers, and low prices are presumed to be the consumer’s highest priority. Under that regimen, gigantic discounters like Amazon seem to be golden."  Basically this legal principle says "the intent of anti-trust is to prevent high prices, so if some idiot wants to lower prices in an effort...
 From another article about this case (and a mainstream statement of current law):  
Predatory pricing is not illegal in the US per se (it is in France).  It's only illegal as a tool to create or maintain a monopoly--and it's basically impossible to prove this in court.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_States  So feel free to run a money-losing business.  It's legal and strategically foolish. I don't think Apple did anything wrong in this case, but I also don't want the Feds coming down on Amazon (or Walmart) for selling goods as...
"Advantage" in how they appear in these industry-insider rankings?  Who cares?
Right.  I expect that actual Gartner report (available for purchase, yeah right) mentions that Nokia==MS, but the press release doesn't (and why should it because who cares about non-smartphone mobiles phones, and there's the only place where Nokia still have a presence).
New Posts  All Forums: