or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by drewys808

+1   +1 (bolded by me)   couldn't have said it any better.
I wouldn't necessarily draw those conclusions about Graxs...I think his point is well taken, though maybe slightly over-reacting.  iWork via cloud is definitely a step in the right direction as with many other iOS 7 and Mavericks improvements bring (like tabbed finder...finally!).  Many of us look forward to these improvements, many of us are still fans of Apple, but many of us also have a bland taste in our mouths in regards to me/mobileme, maps, iwork (esp. Numbers),...
Yes!...and that was JungMark's original point (that Apple was not a DOMINANT buyer). As well, some may say that the word "dominant" is a non-issue, but I beg to differ.
Thanks for correcting.  My apologies for jumping to conclusions.   Back to MFN clause...please read it.  It's related to a "buyer" of intermediate goods.  Apple is the Buyer.    Anyway, I was just clarifying JungMark's original point which was valid.  No sense in beating a dead horse.   Here's the text from FTC: "The most commonly used MFN provisions guarantee a customer that it will receive prices that are at least as favorable as those provided to other buyers of the...
Dear hill60, please do not edit my post and then repost it.
No.  I believe the use of the term, "buyer" is Apple, not the end user: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/08/mfn.shtm
in JungMark's defense, the wording is "dominant buyer" (not "player")...the buyer would be Apple not the group of publishers. And it DOES matter in the court of law how the words "dominant buyer" is defined and is relevant to this case. Collusion is a different matter.  I agree that if Apple colluded with the various publishers that that would be wrong and punishable.
I think you have it wrong, see Maestro's post #49.  There is no (Apple) agreement/contract issue prohibiting the bookstore (i.e. Amazon) from undercutting Apple.  Or am I incorrect?
Wow, you sound angry. It's disappointing when you interject crazy language in there because I'm sure you have a good point somewhere.
At present, I think many would consider the iWatch if/when they are looking to REPLACE their existing watches.  Currently (like the next 2 yrs), I can't see technology of the iWatch (e.g. battery life, display, content, size, etc.) meeting enough of the expected functionality/specs....and so I don't think the majority will go out looking to buy an iWatch right away as they were with the iPod and iPad mini.  2 yrs from now it'll be a totally different story.   Glasses will...
New Posts  All Forums: