or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

 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.
 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?
New Posts  All Forums: