or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

 I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but voluntarily choosing not to appeal is not the same thing as not being allowed to appeal.
 Don't consumers have a right to shop around for a better deal if they think prices are unfair? Price fixing destroys that ability. That's why it's illegal.  A) Dumping (selling below cost to drive competitors out of the market) is illegal. If Amazon is actually guilty of dumping, they should be prosecuted for it. (You know, I could have sworn I've said this already.) B) Consistently selling below cost is not a sustainable business model. C) Publishers are being paid at...
 By causing prices to go up everywhere. (Or more accurately, participating in raised prices.)  No, that's not what I said. Distorting the market so you don't have to compete is wrong. It's the distortion that's wrong. If someone wants to enter a market without distorting it and being competitive, it's not illegal, just stupid.
 Lowering prices is how the Free Market works. Company A offers a product at a price. If Company B wants to compete, they either find a way to lower the price or offer more value at the same price. If they offer the same value at a higher price, then that's not competitive, and Company B should not be expected to gain market share. Selling a loss leader for below or at cost is a legitimate strategy. Grocery stores do this all the time. So do many other retailers. That's...
 Your reading comprehension aren't not so goot, are it? Reread what I wrote (and you quoted): 
 Perhaps you should pay attention.  That's right. I didn't pay Apple anything. Yes, I did pay the vendor.  Wrong. Pay attention. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. They didn't use Apple's ecosystem in any way to sell that content. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. Nor should they, since they didn't use Apple's ecosystem. That is the POINT! Apple superfanboys think Apple should be able to take a cut even when they have nothing to do with the transaction other...
They tried.Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases
 What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real! I have no problem with Apple receiving 30% when they actually add value to a transaction. Purchase an app via the store? Apple did the credit card processing, stored and served the app, and handles updates. They deserve a portion for providing those services. Purchase something via iTunes? Again, they...
 That's a load of horse hockey. I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid? Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.
 In asserting that Apple somehow deserves a 30% cut of everything, even when they don't add any value.
New Posts  All Forums: