or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

Please demonstrate how "a long and distinguished history of revolutionising and improving industries for consumers and the general public" equals "can do no wrong."
 Did you read his statement before you jumped all over it? He made that distinction. You ignored it.
 You have demonstrated intense pro-Apple bias in this thread. Your evaluation of the Judges' statement is therefore unreliable because that pro-Apple bias appears to be distorting your judgement.
 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
New Posts  All Forums: