or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › France may not see iPhone this year - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

France may not see iPhone this year - report - Page 2

post #41 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

It time to retalliate! If France is going to essentially outlaw a United States product to protect a market, then they can drink their wine-all of it.

LOL! I'd take the French wine over the closed iPhone, thank you very much.
post #42 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

LOL! I'd take the French wine over the closed iPhone, thank you very much.

AND if everyone in France adopts that position, this is a non-issue.
post #43 of 99
One thing that no one seems to have mentioned is the issue of the EU Single Market. Apple is already in trouble about different pricing for the iTunes store in different EU countries, well not that so much but the fact that you cannot buy from say the German iTunes store if you are not in Germany- can yo imagine a situation where a resident of New Jersey couldn't buy stuff off an iTunes store in New York? I'm not talking about having to pay a different rate of sales tax, just being blocked from making the transaction at all. And yet that is the situation that Apple and the Music Labels are trying to perpetrate in the Single Market. A few years ago VW was fined several hundred million Euros for this sort of practice so the legislation is not aimed just at Americans or 'foreigners'. It applies to everyone. The point I am getting at is that if Apple wants to do any iPhone business in Europe they will have to worry about the whole market because for a long time now it has not been possible to dice up the EU and create barriers to trade in the internal market of the EU. In the case of iTunes, Apple has a reasonable defence that it wasn't them but the Music Labels that forced this business model on them- they have the copyright on the product. But on the iPhone? It won't be so easy when it is clearly Apple that is driving the bizarre business model they are trying to foist on all of us.
Regards Isidore
Reply
Regards Isidore
Reply
post #44 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isidore View Post

One thing that no one seems to have mentioned is the issue of the EU Single Market.

I don't think that applies because the EU doesn't have a single communications network. If Apple licenses it's device to a particular carrier, it's not obligated to license it's products to all carriers, surely.

These aren't agreements made between Apple and individual customers - they're agreements between Apple and individual carriers. B2B type stuff.
Quote:
The EU isn't a single telecom market yet: it's actually 27 separate markets, with their own separate national telecom authorities. This is supposed to change after this summer, but the iPhone will most likely still need 27 approvals.
...
Just think about the iTunes store. I'm not sure if everyone knows, but 12 of the EU's 27 member states still have no access to the store. (It's a different 12 from the countries without a Vodafone affiliate, so no, it's not a pattern.) Establishing a single European market is a great endeavor, and the EU has come a long way, but there's still a lot of distance to cover.

http://macthoughtcrime.blogspot.com/...or-iphone.html
post #45 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

This news is not good for Apple to meet their own sales projections, and it is not good for revenue... on the other hand, I have no idea why AAPL is up almost 4 points this morning...

Because Apple stock traditionally drops after good news, so I guess this makes sense, right?
post #46 of 99
In order to crack much of the European market, Apple will have to sell an unlocked iPhone. Doing so has a drawback for Apple -- it loses its revenue stream from the carriers. But so what?

Unlocking European iPhones probably doesn't violate the AT&T contract. Apple needed AT&T in order to get established and keep its price where it wanted it, but now that it has the AT&T insurance, I think it ought to go after marketshare.

Sell an unlocked iPhone in certain European countries (apparently the more enlightened ones), don't worry about who buys the iPhone, as long as it's Apple-controlled, and lose revenue in probably all of Europe from the carriers. I doubt Apple will have to worry about the US-based AT&T because the only other possible carrier in the US is T-Mobile, which is not anywhere near as widespread as AT&T.

I worry that Apple will hurt itself in the long run if it doesn't sell a viable iPhone everywhere in the world.
post #47 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regis View Post

In order to crack much of the European market, Apple will have to sell an unlocked iPhone. Doing so has a drawback for Apple -- it loses its revenue stream from the carriers. But so what?.

I wonder if AT&T made Apple agree not to sell any unlocked iPhones anywhere. After all, if they're sold in Europe unlocked, many will show up in the US that way too.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #48 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Because macFanDave believes the size of the potential customer base should dictate the decisions a company makes.

No, I didn't. The size of the potential customer base should dictate how seriously you pursue negotiations. You think that at the first sign of adversity, Apple should take its ball and go home. That would be idiotic. Good for the French whose government regulations look out for the interests of the consumer! I think that the current situation in the US is not only anti-consumer, it is also anti-Apple. It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.

Quote:
With that defining the parameters around a decision, Apple should abandon OS X for it's hardware products because the customer base for Windows is much larger.

You can always use Boot Camp to make your Mac run as a Windows box. Sure, it costs more, but in the normal world, customers who sign long-term contracts for cell phones get more favorable terms than non-contract users. Similarly, Apple could agree to a structure where French iPhone customers who sign contracts get better terms than those who don't.
post #49 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I don't think that applies because the EU doesn't have a single communications network. If Apple licenses it's device to a particular carrier, it's not obligated to license it's products to all carriers, surely.

These aren't agreements made between Apple and individual customers - they're agreements between Apple and individual carriers. B2B type stuff.

http://macthoughtcrime.blogspot.com/...or-iphone.html

You're right on this.

And, given that it's an Apple product with Apple IP, the bottom line is that it's Apple's call whether it wants to be in a particular country with the product, and if so, on what terms.

I can understand some people in France being p***ed off by that, and this may put a dent on Apple's performance forecasts -- altho, the $4+ stock price runup today does not seem to suggest the market is too worried about this issue -- but I see no reason why Apple should do anything different in France compared to what it has been doing in the US, Germany, and the UK.

And, as an Apple shareholder, I totally welcome Apple's attempt to squeeze some additional cash flows out of these (retarded) carriers. Stay tough, Apple!
post #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project2501 View Post

So? Network building and maintenance costs something, and people transfer bits over that network. From that you can count what is the price for one bit. Very simple. That bit costs the same regardless of the phone set it was consumed on, does it not? Now, building a phone costs something, and those costs are the same, regardless of operator who will provide the service for that phone? No one is saying that operators aren't allowed to set the price for the bit, but why should they be allowed to set the price for the phone, or dictate to what network that phone can connect to? Apparently it takes government to draw the lines for greed. On markets where huge initial investments are needed and/or existing players actually are monetizing government built architecture, new players just can't enter to market and free market just can sort things out.

I agree 100%. Which is why I've always viewed the role of government in a capitalist society to be an entity which balances the interests of the population at large with the interests of the those who invest and only look at the bottom line.

Call it greed, call it self-interest, call it whatever names you like, it's what forms the economic basis of society. I'm sure you put your money somewhere (the bank, retirement, stocks, bonds), and you want to get the best interest rate for that money. Where do you think that interest comes from? So you are a silent participator in the process.

However, there are times where economic interest may not be what's best for society/humanity (eg. in relation to environmental concerns, poor labour conditions, etc). However, no single company will step up and take responsibility because it will put them at a disadvantage when competing with others. There's just no incentive there. So it's the role of the government to step in and say that everyone has to take responsibility and play by the same rules. Unfortunately, with globalization, this is much tougher to enforce (no single government can do it).

This is relevant to the iPhone issue because, while certainly not as important as the environment, the government of France is regulating the cellular industry in a way that it feels is best for the population of France at large (which I agree with). So I applaud them for taking a stance on it. However, as with legislating poor environmental and poor labour conditions, corporations will just take their business to other countries to avoid those laws.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #51 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.

Huh?

How can you make a bland assertion like this unless you know more about it all than Apple does? Surely, you don't think that a $130 billion company hasn't thought this through more deeply and carefully than you?
post #52 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

No, I didn't. The size of the potential customer base should dictate how seriously you pursue negotiations. You think that at the first sign of adversity, Apple should take its ball and go home. That would be idiotic. Good for the French whose government regulations look out for the interests of the consumer! I think that the current situation in the US is not only anti-consumer, it is also anti-Apple. It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.

You have to realize two things:

1. You said whatever Taskiss says you said, and you have to defend his version of what you said or you're "dancing around" the issue.

2. Taskiss can point to online pages listing the great variety of cellphones available, and to the recent $200 price drop of the iPhone, thus proving (apparently!) beyond a shadow of a doubt that the consumer is absolutely and totally in control of the cellphone market.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #53 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

How can you make a bland assertion like this unless you know more about it all than Apple does? Surely, you don't think that a $130 billion company hasn't thought this through more deeply and carefully than you?

Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #54 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

France has 53 million mobile cellular customers, the EU (without France) has 413 million, the USA has 233 million. Not having France as a market doesn't really matter, as I see it.

Isn't that a really really long and drawn out to say what I think we're all thinking...

F--K THE FRENCH!

Kidding!!! Kidding!!

Really!


D
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #55 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by lantzn View Post

Because Apple stock traditionally drops after good news, so I guess this makes sense, right?

Actually, I guess today's gains have more to do with the job report (no relation to Steve) today.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #56 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.

Yes, you are right. If I ever need to hire a spokesperson, I will keep your name in consideration
post #57 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.

I see you your point, but I thought that was obvious in real life. The greatest deal you can't get is always worth less than the best deal that you can get.
post #58 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Yes, you are right. If I ever need to hire a spokesperson, I will keep your name in consideration

OK.... I see.... ignore my comment above!
post #59 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isidore View Post

In the case of iTunes, Apple has a reasonable defence that it wasn't them but the Music Labels that forced this business model on them- they have the copyright on the product. But on the iPhone? It won't be so easy when it is clearly Apple that is driving the bizarre business model they are trying to foist on all of us.

No, that's not relevant. You're allowed to price goods differently in each member country in the EU. Nothing wrong with that. The problem Apple has with it's iTunes store is selling the same goods from Luxembourg to different member states at different prices - that is illegal.

The second problem is not selling some songs to consumers if not in the country that a music label operates in due to restrictive distribution agreements.

The iPhone carrier restrictions are totally different.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And, as an Apple shareholder, I totally welcome Apple's attempt to squeeze some additional cash flows out of these (retarded) carriers. Stay tough, Apple!

Just a pity they're flouting consumer protection laws in the process and making consumers pay way over the odds for their half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone ?
post #60 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Just a pity they're flouting consumer protection laws in the process and making consumers pay way over the odds for their half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone ?

You keep saying things like this, without a shred of evidence, but rather, just based on surmise!

1) Apple has not been convicted of flouting any consumer protection laws, as far as I know.

2) You can keep calling the iPhone "....half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone..." etc etc all you want. I have actually used it every day since June 29 and I can only speak from my personal experience: it is an outstanding product, and quite unlike anything else I have used to enhance my digital life. Have you used it at all, or again, is it just surmise?
post #61 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) Apple has not been convicted of flouting any consumer protection laws, as far as I know.

I don't know that I'd state Apple's position on the iPhone as harshly as aegisdesign did (I have some issues with the iPhone, but I'm still pretty impressed and happy with mine), but the above comment of yours is hardly a counterpoint. The iPhone has only been available a few months in the US, and isn't even available in Europe yet. It would take many months after the introduction of the iPhone for anyone to get around to pressing any such charges -- fair or not -- and God know how many more months or years after than to get a conviction or a settlement.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #62 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Just a pity they're flouting consumer protection laws in the process and making consumers pay way over the odds for their half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone ?

They are not making consumers do anything. They are offering a product for sale,
which consumers have the option to buy or not buy.
post #63 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

I'm looking forward to the day where a cell phone is as open as a computer (ie. you can choose any service provider, it works on any network, choose any add-ons, sync with it in a standard way, etc).

I think the word you are looking for is Europe
post #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And, as an Apple shareholder, I totally welcome Apple's attempt to squeeze some additional cash flows out of these (retarded) carriers. Stay tough, Apple!

You are not too bright. The combined population of France, Italy and Belgium is 131,412,817.

Do you really think it makes a lot of sense to decide to not sell your product in those countries, with such a large combined population, because you want to screw carriers, and their customers for the call and data charges? Do you think that what Apple makes from those charges in the European countries that it does end up selling the iPhone in could ever make up for what it doesn't make in a market of that size.

I know what is retarded around here and it isn't France.
post #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

You are not too bright. The combined population of France, Italy and Belgium is 131,412,817.

Do you really think it makes a lot of sense to decide to not sell your product in those countries, with such a large combined population, because you want to screw carriers, and their customers for the call and data charges? Do you think that what Apple makes from those charges in the European countries that it does end up selling the iPhone in could ever make up for what it doesn't make in a market of that size.

I know what is retarded around here and it isn't France.

You're funny.

Or rather, I'll do you a favor and assume that, given the inanity of your comments. There are so many incredibly inane things you said above in just two sentences in your second para (I'll ignore paras one and three) that I can't attribute it to anything else.

I'll give you that benefit of doubt, and not assume you are either retarded or not too bright.

And, no need to get so angry, man......
post #66 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I don't know that I'd state Apple's position on the iPhone as harshly as aegisdesign did (I have some issues with the iPhone, but I'm still pretty impressed and happy with mine), but the above comment of yours is hardly a counterpoint. The iPhone has only been available a few months in the US, and isn't even available in Europe yet. It would take many months after the introduction of the iPhone for anyone to get around to pressing any such charges -- fair or not -- and God know how many more months or years after than to get a conviction or a settlement.

Hmmm... let me get this: The fact that..... someone can make assertions based on pure speculation about a product that -- paraphrasing you -- has been available a few months, and isn't even available in Europe yet, may/may not ("God know" [sic]) result in charges, let alone a conviction....... is, according to you, a point?
post #67 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Hmmm... let me get this: The fact that..... someone can make assertions based on pure speculation about a product that -- paraphrasing you -- has been available a few months, and isn't even available in Europe yet, may/may not ("God know" [sic]) result in charges, let alone a conviction....... is, according to you, a point?

The point is that that your point -- Apple not having been convicted of anything -- is not very relevant here, at least not when said as if this fact you present outright counters any speculation. Yes, it is speculation -- and I think the poster doing the speculation is well aware of that -- but what you said is sort of like saying "Ah hah! Your speculation is just speculation!" Which leads to, "Uh, yeah... so?"

We're not a court of law. We're a discussion forum. It's okay, and expected, for people to speculate and bounce ideas around. The criteria for judging the value of a speculative idea is somewhat different than the standards for conviction or liability in a court of law. We're not going to reach many, if any, definitive conclusions here. The only possible clear "knock outs" are when someone's speculation has obvious logical flaws or is based on erroneous facts you can point out.

It's as if we were having an argument about the Kennedy assassination and you piped in with, "No one other than Oswald was ever arrested for killing Kennedy, and no one at all was ever convicted!" as if that would or should end all possible discussion of the matter.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

The criteria for judging the value of a speculative idea is ... when someone's speculation has obvious logical flaws or is based on erroneous facts you can point out.

It's as if we were having an argument about the Kennedy assassination......

I really don't know much about the Kennedy assassination.

I was pointing out exactly the flaw and the lack of facts in aegisdesign's original assertion that Apple is <quote>"flouting consumer protection laws...."<unquote>.

What "consumer protection laws"? How was Apple "flouting" them?

Note he did not say "Apple may be.." or "Apple could be..." nor did he attempt to back up the bald assertion by a modicum of facts. Now, if you think that's a "valuable speculative idea," then good for you!

I happen to think that the original speculation wasn't worth the paper it was written on for precisely the reasons you bring up above. If you think that's not a valid counterpoint, then I am completely confused by what it is you are trying to say.
post #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Your bizarre arguments don't even make sense. Kind of like those mathematical proofs where half the steps are missing. While we're at that, I might as well suggest that you want a system where Apple will only sell you a computer if you sign up for two years of AOL.

If Apple can somehow profit by exclusiely teaming with AOL I say "go for it". I think Verizon FiOS would be a better idea.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #70 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What "consumer protection laws"? How was Apple "flouting" them?

Those are good, valid questions. If you had actually asked those questions, I wouldn't have commented. You didn't. You simply bluntly said that Apple hadn't been convicted of any such thing yet, as if that settled the matter, which is not only beside the point, but a ridiculously impossible standard, as no such action regarding the iPhone could possible have concluded by now, much less even get started.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #71 of 99
I think Apple is making some serious errors of judgment lately. They seem to think trying to squeeze every drop of profit out of the market and alienating many users and market segments is a better strategy than just making good products that people want to buy.

Their entry into the European market seems to be like a man trying to cross a stream who picks only some rocks to step on while ignoring other obvious choices, and risks hurting himself in the process.

Bricking modded iPhones is not a good way to inspire market confidence or customer satisfaction and loyalty. This ludicrous song and dance over it's approach to Europe is another.

This era of bad decisions reminds me of the nonsense they engaged in with allowing Mac clones and resellers then disallowing them a short while later.
post #72 of 99
Since 6 or 8 years orange is the more expensive and the worst service provider.
It is clear that Apple made a mistake when signing with orange.
No way I buy iPhone if orange sells it.
And anyway, look at the new "unlimited but limitted" internet access that orange just found : it is a new way to promise all, but to restrict all, and take the maximum of our money.
Look at that if you understand french, it is not a joke :
http://www.journaldugeek.com/?2007/1...llimite-limite
Now who will buy an iPhone ?
post #73 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

I admit, that's a bit strange deciding how much companies can charge for their products. I'd think that a bit of healthy competition from the OpenMoko phone when it comes out should solve any price gouging issues (the market will take care of itself in that case).

But I do support the law which forces phones to be unlocked. I think that it's a step in the right direction for consumers.

The fact is the French Telecom companies play around that law by giving their customers reward points when they sign for a one-year or 2-year contract. So before the expiry date, they said one has such an amount of point and if one re-signs with us, you can have a discount on a new phone. So it allows them to keep customers and to charge less for a phone.

Also I want to say that I have read in French newspapers that Orange had found a way to work around that law (selling a phone unlocked) but I have the feeling that Orange is putting some pressure on Apple to get a better a share on the sales. It is just a fight between companies trying to get the better out of the other.
I think Orange is pretty aware of the success of the iphone in the USA and the demand is high. By what I have heard in Paris, is that they are a lot of unlocked iPhone already on the market! Selling more than 500,000 units is seen as a success for a phone company so Orange knows that they have to sell it to be able to increase their market share in France.

And a last point, the European market is big but they are a lot of countries because of size and/or because of the economy level (the expected price of the iphone in Hungary is equivalent to an average monthly wage) will not represent a big share of the sales. So focusing on those countries where there are lots of consumers who can afford it like The UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy, is very important for
Apple especially if they want to reach the 1% of the world mobile phone market.
post #74 of 99
If Apple gets 30% of call fees doesn't that mean that call fees are almost 1.5 times dearer than they should be?

If that's the deal when it comes to Ireland they can suck my balls if they think I'm going to get one.
post #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

You have to realize two things:

1. You said whatever Taskiss says you said, and you have to defend his version of what you said or you're "dancing around" the issue.

2. Taskiss can point to online pages listing the great variety of cellphones available, and to the recent $200 price drop of the iPhone, thus proving (apparently!) beyond a shadow of a doubt that the consumer is absolutely and totally in control of the cellphone market.

First, you should pick your battles more carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I wrote

"Because macFanDave believes the size of the potential customer base should dictate the decisions a company makes."

Quote:
Originally Posted by he wrote

"No, I didn't. The size of the potential customer base should dictate how seriously you pursue negotiations. "

Now, "how seriously you pursue negotiations" is a business decision, one he feels is necessary because of the size of the potential customer base...which is what I wrote.

Second, you should stick with "appeals to authority" like you did in the other thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?

Learn to debate and you won't (and won't have to) commit so many logical fallacies.

http://faculty.rivier.edu/dburgess/w.../fallicies.htm
post #76 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

.... not a good way to inspire market confidence or customer satisfaction and loyalty.

LOL.

The only slight problem is, the market, which sent AAPL up $5.20099 yesterday, seems to vehemently disagree with you!
post #77 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

LOL.

The only slight problem is, the market, which sent AAPL up $5.20099 yesterday, seems to vehemently disagree with you!

Rule #1 in business:

Never argue with success. It makes you look ... well, silly really, although I could use less complementary adjectives.

It's a rule in life too, but not quite #1.
post #78 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Second, you should stick with "appeals to authority" like you did in the other thread:
Learn to debate and you won't (and won't have to) commit so many logical fallacies.

Appeals to authority are not automatically wrong, they simply aren't necessarily conclusive. Besides, you're not even citing the correct alleged fallacy. What I did was an appeal to popular opinion, not an appeal to authority.

As long as we're on the subject of logical fallacies, here's a popular fallacy for you to contemplate: The excluded middle.

That fallacy seems to be one of your favorites.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #79 of 99
Well, being that France is the fashion capital of the world, and that people there like to spend money on fashionable products, I suspect Apple disagrees with you. Apple wants the market. Can it make it happen, well that is another story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

France has 53 million mobile cellular customers, the EU (without France) has 413 million, the USA has 233 million. Not having France as a market doesn't really matter, as I see it.
post #80 of 99
Quote:
But they DID send some troops to the US to fight of the colonial Brits and sold you Louisiana....

Cute...

Your right, but who else in the world would build a city below sea level in the past 300 years? But then again, they thought they could squeeze the Brits by controlling the main river artery in the country....till they got their ass kicked. Actually, France only owned the damn place for about a year prior to selling it.

New Orleans National Land Fill - has a nice ring....
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › France may not see iPhone this year - report