or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

 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.
 There's nothing quite so ironic (or hypocritcal) as someone condemning bias and so blatantly demonstrate their own in the process.
 So? Why does it matter that they had a high market share prior to a serious competitor entering the market? How long can any business sell something below cost?
 How does Amazon "have a monopoly"?
Good grief! I thought this was finally over. Let it go already!
  Hmmm… Can any E-books be purchased through iTunes for any platform other than iBooks? If that's the case, this settlement idea strikes me as … well … odd.
  That is what I'm asking. The article seems to indicate that it's only iBook buyers that would get the proposed settlement.
What about those who had to pay more from other sources because of those agreements?
Yet more attacks directed specifically at Apple on specious grounds. Sounds to me like Apple isn't willing to pay off the right people. "Nice bizness ya got there. Be a shame if sumptin' were ta happen to it."
New Posts  All Forums: