or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by MJ1970

  Not just yet. See posts 13 and 15 above. This article is only speaking of revenues, not profits.
Is there a similarly broken out profit table?
  I would guess it's the full amount. And the fees paid to the record companies or app developers or book publishers is considered COGS (cost of goods sold). In other words, when you buy a track from iTunes, Apple records that as 99 cents of revenue. Then they pay the record company about 70 cents and call that COGS (there are other costs in there too...storage...bandwidth, etc.)
Give it up jazz. You can't compete with the fictional, Utopian world that tonton is demanding we all compare reality to. It typical leftist delusions and wishful thinking. They claim to be realists while blatantly denying reality. They claim to support individual liberty while systematically destroying it. They claim to value diversity and individuality so long s everyone individually conforms to their wishes and ideals. It's a lost cause. Move on to someone else. The...
  I'm not sure it is a catch-22. A catch-22 usually refers to a problematic situation that one cannot get out of easily due to inherent contradictory constraints.   I'm not sure Apple has a problem here.   The truth is it's just more subtle than simply declaring they are a hardware (or software) company.   Actually, I don't know why this distinction is even necessary. Perhaps a more apt description that gets away from the black-and-white hardware vs. software...
So this will bring up the inevitable debate of whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company.   The answer is both, though I'd argue more of a software company that packages their software in amazing hardware. But the hardware itself becomes commodity. Short term not so much, but long term definitely. I think Apple knows this and gets this.   Additionally, Apple has pushed itself to the ironic position that the hard (visual) design is less and less...
  Well, yes and no.   Let me try to explain:   1. If the violence is with some other weapon than a gun...well that's "not as bad." 2. If the violence is something like killing children with drones...well, that's not worth getting to worked up about either. 3. If the violence is done to the women and children of some "whackos" (Waco)...that's just enforcing the law (or something). 4. If the violence is done to collect your taxes or prevent you from selling unsanctioned...
  TMI       Huh?
  Arguably, it is not constitutional.       Perhaps in theory. But, again, this is all irrelevant. That's not a justification for infringing on people's rights.
  Wow...so filled with fallacy, I don't even know where to start.   And you will never agree with libertarianism, so it's like talking to a brick wall with you. Your simplistic characterizations of my views shows an inability -- or an unwillingness -- to look deep into them and not just what your caricature allows you to see.
New Posts  All Forums: