or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Crowley

I'm sure the SEC must have rules prohibiting that.
So you can only advertise your unique selling points?  Well the iPhone 5C certainly wasn't the first colourful phone or smartphone, so where was your criticism of their incessant promotion of colour in the "for the colorful" advertising campaign?  Not unique, so tone deaf, right? There's no irony.  MicroNokia are advertising colour as a feature of their device, and a part of that will also be allegory towards being different with a different kind of phone from everyone...
 I didn't say there was, but the article is clearly setting up a rivalry for who copied who with the different posited ads and the history of the iPod.  There's no real need for that argument, Nokia are allowed to be colourful and to use it in their advertising without it descending into a VS spitting match.
Nokia have been doing colour on their smartphones well for a number of years now and Windows Phone uses colour from a system perspective a lot more coherently than iOS.  There's no scope for "Apple invented colour" here.   I quite like the ad, reminds me of Pleasantville, the weird ad is pretty cool too.     P.S. the iPhone 5 wasn't sold in a Space Grey version, it was Black and Slate IIRC.
Nope.  Squeeze outs are legal in most jurisdictions, including most Western economies and most (maybe all, I don't know every state law) US states.  They depend on a high ownership of the majority shareholder, 90% normally, and sometimes have other conditions too, but are an established and entirely legal part of company ownership, so a lawsuit would go precisely nowhere.
Yes. http://www.investorwords.com/6930/squeeze_out.html
Since the original letter from Steve isn't being hosted on the Apple website any more, here's  the transcript in full:  From http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/steve-jobs-posts-open-letter-to-iphone-customers-re-price-drop-offers-100-credit/  It's not a direct admission that the iPhone was priced too high, though I can't think of many products that get their price slashed by 33% after two months that you wouldn't say that about.
 Nothing quite so dramatic, but sure.  A company is a legal construct and needs to have an owner (or owners).  No owner, no company. Pretty much yeah.  If you own 20% of something and someone else owns 80% you pretty much have to go along with what they want; they can even force you to sell to them if they want.  Not my rules.
 You implied there was some reason for Apple buying back share that I wasn't aware of.  I was just being clear about what I was saying. When did I suggest Apple doesn't own anything?  I suggested that Apple the legal entity cannot own itself as a legal entity, it has to have shareholders (public or private), and they cannot themselves be a shareholder (except for in the temporary instance of retaining shares for award to staff as bonuses and incentives).  Sure Apple the...
New Posts  All Forums: