or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by applecider

Lovely apple reposted from a previous discussion on this topic Your factual problem is that at the time apple set up iBooks there was amazon and ....amazon. Amazon was selling ebooks at below cost. I repeat amazon was selling ebooks at below cost. From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss." Apple broke that...
Cowards. The right target is to go to china and project their images onto the walls of the forbidden city.   That might be worthy of a little respect and they could get in a good ten to twenty years of meditation, while living an aesthetic life style with no worries about using too much electricity or plumbing!!
By the way this story is poorly sourced, it is according to Proview  They have been known to lie in their press releases before, I tried following the links back to china times and it got lost in  chinese characters.  It would be a bit more believable if it originated in Cupertino.   I would take it with a grain of salt that apple is willing to settle for 16 million, that is enough to set a bad precedent.
Agreed, but if american companies start to pay "hostage" fees to chinese politicians there can be no end to it.  I think wal-mart or some other american company was recently accused of paying bribes to mexican local officials and is being prosecuted in US courts [here for those interested- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-mexico-a-bribe-inquiry-silenced.html?pagewanted=all ]   If it is a political thing then the politicians need to be involved....
Amazon was selling ebooks at below cost. I repeat amazon was selling ebooks at below cost. From original article at AI "Under Amazon's method, publishers would sell their books at wholesale and let the bookseller set its own prices. Amazon repeatedly upset publishers by selling titles at a loss." Apple broke that monopoly, thank you very much. DOJ is going after apple instead of amazon for one reason, they have the largest cash horde.
Shipping rates around the holidays are more stable because the shippers build their infrastructure-hire more temp employees etc., this is a different situation than a mid year bump, plus outfitting the planes to carry wheat back to china is difficult. Rub your funny bones.
, Have you read the papers? Proview is a dead company (whose prior product probably infringed on the teardrop iMac BTW), at the time they sold the rights they were desperate for the cash. Read the papers to see how often their representative asked for the cash to be sent, they needed the cash then. Now they are a ghost company with rats chewing the electrical cords for the glue in the paper insulation. Their case is an extortion where they are not honoring their...
For me a kick ass feature would be the ability to connect directly to a dslr (canon for me) and control the camera directly from the iPad. The same over wifi would be even better. The ability to use the iPad as a screen would be the thing. Opening up the connector to real usb functionality, or at least to add some usb peripherals would be great as well. For instance how about being able to import compact flash cards directly? No one seems to focus on these potential...
The times thinks that capitalism in it's pure form is evil, and that they, the nyt are the watchdogs for social abuse. They think that all those who make money should have a responsibility to take care of the evils of society and that any company that is successful must be abusing the masses and child abuse (child labor) is the poster boy for this attitude. Since they are the watchdogs and they have the mission to prevent abuse it is ok if they over report a story...
I believe the reality at the time was that apple was solvent, but needed to settle with msft vis a vis patents and keeping office on the mac, msft's investment kept apple alive as a viable competitor which at the time the monopoly msft needed to keep DOJ off their back, a win win situation. This may have been the beginning of the cross-licensing patent agreement which is often referred to as well. That has, I believe run it's course, hard to find information on that though.
New Posts  All Forums: