or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by diddy

A settlement does not mean that a suit has merit unless the party settling admits to wrongdoing.
I wasn't talking about the complaint (which I have read). I was merely pointing out that a settlement with one party doesn't necessarily imply guilt on other parties or guilt on the parties that settled unless the terms of said said settlement involve admission of guilt. The person that will determine guilt is the judge and jury unless settlement terms dictate otherwise.I don't really care what the complaint says - it's not proof and it has no bearing on guilt until a...
I agree. It sounds worse for the publishers since there are more than them involved. From the loop:Such meetings by the way (according to the linked article at the Loop) was that Apple was not at said meetings. Apple really doesn't need to collude with the publishers at all - liability wise it wouldn't be. They just have to say that they want to use the agency model - a model that is in your best interests because of X. That really isn't collusion per se.
Not really. Just because you settle with somebody doesn't always mean that you admit any guilt or that any wrongdoing has occurred. There are lots of cases where they settle because the costs of fighting it are too high for them compared to the settlement. We would need to see the exact settlement terms to know anything.
Your links don't necessarily disprove his point (which I don't necessarily agree with but for other reasons). The prices may not be 12.99-14.99 (they may be if he is not in the US of course) but that doesn't prove or disprove any sort of allegations of price fixings. Of course there is a reason we don't judge cases purely on what one side says. Any case looks damning if you go solely based on what the government says.
That same mentality doesn’t work too well in the TV market - the demand for a range of products of different sizes is very much against what Apple does. Forget the idea of Apple doing a TV - it just makes more sense to do an Add-on box that they have more control over and is easier for consumers to invest in versus a massively large TV that they keep for 10 years until it breaks. The purchasing decisions behind TV’s and the Apple TV is very different. Too different.
I doubt it. Twitter has not demonstrated a willingness to be bought out by a big company. They are a bigger company and are making money (unlike Instagram). Right now it’s valued at over 8 billion and they are getting funding quite regularly. From what I have read of the owners is that they aren’t interested in a buyout - they have had big offers before. Anyhow, Twitter had no reason to acquire Instagram - they have their own service and Instagram already directly...
It could refer to anything - there is nothing specific about the "cracked it" statement that specifically identifies anything. People are projecting a TV, but there is no evidence that is what Jobs is talking about. Plus, what if Jobs was wrong and he didn't know it and others do? What if the "solution" is something that doesn't end up practical? It may never even see the light of day. I suggest we shouldn't look into the meaning of what is essentially a tease statement.
Adobe is simply not going to cede 30% of it's profits to Apple when they already have their own dedicated sales (and distribution) channels that they need to have to sell their Windows Apps. And thats assuming it's even possible to sell their apps in the MAS (which I doubt is possible given Apple's rules). There is also volume purchasing for business to consider. Simply put, the MAS is incompatible with Adobe's business models.Second - Last I heard the default is not...
Doubtful - this is an internal policy that is not consumer based at all. There is no trust in this system since employees aren't actually barred from owning Apple devices - a rukle that MS would have several legitimate basis to enforce from.
New Posts  All Forums: