or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by physguy

You are, of course correct, but off point. The issue in the original point was unit count vs revenue, not high vs low risk. Given a the choice between a company with A) low unit sale but high ROI or B) high unit sale but low ROI the investor will always choose A. Unit count is irrelevant UNLESS it impact profits, which is clearly NOT the case with Apple. It could impact profits if it was so low as to discourage development for the platform - again not the case here.
Did you forget you sarcasm quotes?????? The only thing that matters to investors is how much money a company is making - its why then invest. Small unit count with high ROI is much much much (put as many as you like) more interesting to investors than high unit count with low ROI. Investors that put money into 'eyeballs' or 'clicks' only do so because they believe the business model will eventually turn those into large ROIs. If it doesn't say bye-bye to your money.
But they (MS) do us the generic (without MS) and they protect it. That is why i brought up Lindows. This was a case where one of (I forget which one) the early Linux UI's tried to use the name Lindows because Window was a generic term and they were NOT MS Windows (or or MS Lindows). The courts upheld MS position and disallowed the use of Lindows as 'too confusing to the user' even though Window is generic in the language and arguably generic in the UI realm going back...
I would strongly disagree as I'm not aware of App Store being in use before Apple opened The App Store. You use it now, only because they created it and have NOT YET enforced their trademark in the current derivative situations. I think the precedences of Windows, Word and Office being upheld is previous challenges (remember Lindows) bode very well for Apple in this case. I think there is Zero chance of a summary judgement or even a restraining order.
So motive is irrelevant?
All I can say is I hope you don't actually produce products. If you value design as worthless - which is what your comments imply- you represent the archetype of why we get crappy products, like Google TV. For 99% of the use of most of today's electronics tech-specs are trivially important compared to design of the product - UI, UX, form, etc. Design adds more value than specs and Apple proves this over and over with their profit margins.
Let's see - I have a product I want to sell. - A third party comes along and provides a huge marketing boost so I can sell A LOT of my product - I have a capacity problem therefore... - I charge the third party for helping me out?????? This is the strangest business model I've ever seen. There are sooo many better solutions the easiest of which is tiered usage. If it really costs so much then charge more!!!! I can see NO VALID argument against tiered usage if...
Why do people care about market share?? As long as the platform attracts developers it big enough. After that profit maximization is the goal. To do that you have to provide value. The market has spoken and Apple's dollar share show they've satisfied the market, well. On the developer side the re-entry of Autodesk on the platform show they can attract developers as well. Market share far less important to a business than profits. Its only really important when the...
And what significantly higher value they provide.
Why can't you move the history to Gmail?? I personally can't stand gmail. The web interface is very very klunky. I had it be unavailable about 1 every 2 weeks for a period of time (10-15 minutes). I can't get its sent mail to sync properly across devices and I still don't have a standard push service on the iPhone. I've had zero problems with mm mail. it just works, for me and other family members. and the syncing of everything else just works as well. Well worth <...
New Posts  All Forums: