or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Some interesting data on the context of the debate: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/
Great news if it happens, but there seem to have been lots of false alarms on this one.
Yes - OK - but you claimed direct causation, and then reiterated it as a fact. And if, by "self-interested connection", you still mean that his employment influenced his opinion, then not even a smattering of Latin is going to win the argument. If that also reflects your broader view of how everyone else forms opinions - narrow-minded self-interest - then I would have to suggest that you are actually just projecting.
Actually it isn't. It is only your assertion (and a pretty stupid one) that his disagreement arises from his employment by the U.S. Government.
I can't tell whether you are just being argumentative or you really don't understand the overriding goals of a publicly traded company, but I'll make one last observation. Maximizing long-term performance does not preclude trying to make the best possible products, within certain constraints, but it obviously does not include reducing profits just because one can afford to. You are taking Cook and Ive way too literally in those statements. I think you know that, though.
Fair enough - but now you just appear to be saying that you and Gruber know better than Apple management how to make their business work. On the face of it, that would appear to be an extraordinarily arrogant assumption in a market where Apple has, to put it mildly, demonstrated substantial success. And, to be clear, I'm sure that their goal is not to stop at "making more money than any publicly traded company in the world", but rather to continue to make as much as they can.
Whatever the reason for not charging for software, it will not have been simply because they had lots of cash. Most likely they'd estimated that it would attract more users and thus increase both revenue and profits. Obviously they did not conclude that, on this occasion, with regard to iPhone memory.The issue of component pricing is also completely unrelated to your original comment, which was, to paraphrase, that they should give more for the same price because they have...
Try something a little more comprehensive and up to date, and then perhaps rethink your comments.http://wallethub.com/edu/2013-corporate-tax-report/6768/
Indeed. They are crooks for doing everything better. It's just not cricket¡
The point is that the product configuration should not be determined by cash reserves, or even past profitability. Apple is not a charity, and has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its profits, not subsidize its customers.
New Posts  All Forums: