or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by physguy

I didn't say there were only two sides - apparently you did. I didn't refer to Soros - you did - why? If you want 'articles of faith' then we could start with climate change - a wonderful example of bias directed research and conclusions. I would suggest, if you have any technical ability, to go to the final IPCC-2007 report and look at the section which concludes that there will be a 1.6C temp increase (number may be wrong due to memory). I believe it was section 4...
You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??
Have to agree. This seals my purchase when iPad 2 is released (2 of them for the household)
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...
New Posts  All Forums: