Thank you, I accept. ..... May I offer a word of advice for future use? If and when you find yourself on the "wrong" side of a debate .... recognize it early and get out because the longer one tries to debate a losing opinion ... the greater the possibility they're going to say something silly or illogical in the search to find a point to validate their opinion.
Would you have a use if the 'Pad had some more functionality?
Not me. It isn't a real computer. For that kind of money, I could get a 15.6 Toshiba. Gee, I'd also get a separate 10 key pad. To be specific, a real computer for $20 less.
tekstud is a well know troll so anything he reads on here he'll troll about
just add him to your ignore list and be done with it...
Wierd, he was on my ignore list, the only person I've ever had to "ignore" on any forum. But now his crap is showing up again.
In response to a later post that said banning him was censorship... No, banning him is like not inviting an asshole to a dinner party at your house. Censorship would be the government banning him from all dinner parties at all houses.
The AI boards are significantly hurt by his presence, as evidenced by this thread.
On a different topic: Much thanks to the author of this article. The title is perfectly crafted in an attempt to accurately communicate that isuppli's numbers are only _component_ costs. In the past, articles seemed to make the same error as seen in some of the comments, and attributed the difference between list price and component costs as profit. Thankyou for the accurate title!
May I offer a word of advice for future use? If and when you find yourself on the "wrong" side of a debate .... recognize it early and get out because the longer one tries to debate a losing opinion ... the greater the possibility they're going to say something silly or illogical in the search to find a point to validate their opinion.
You have no idea of what I was saying, and you have no idea of why your point was foolish.
When you use a "business term" that doesn't exist in any other world but yours .... nobody has any idea what you're saying. "net expense"?
Here's what I was responding to:
"How many HP, Acer, Lenovo etc. stores are there? AFAIK .... none .. zero ... nada.
Apple is one of the few computer/tech companies that are dedicated to selling their own brand only via a brick and mortar type operation. Do you not see an expense factor here that the rest of the industry largely avoids by just wholesaling their product to many retailers?"
Your claim seems to be that Apple has an "expense factor" that reduces their take compared to other companies that do not have stores, but instead wholesale their products to retailers .
I pointed out that the store operations are profitable. So far from being an "expense factor", the stores instead provide a profit. The stores do not represent an extra expense, they represent extra profit.
If you still don't understand, then so be it. If you want to claim victory and post more proof that this simple point eludes you, go ahead.
I pointed out that the store operations are profitable. So far from being an "expense factor", the stores instead provide a profit. The stores do not represent an extra expense, they represent extra profit.
If you still don't understand, then so be it. If you want to claim victory and post more proof that this simple point eludes you, go ahead.
What you fail to understand is that ALL EXPENSES have to be shared by all items in the store.
Just because the store, as a whole, turns a profit does not dictate that new items that come into the store should be sold at a lesser profit margin just because Apple doesn't need the $$$. Would you turn down a raise for doing more work .... just because you don't need the money?
In any business model I ever studied you don't spend resources to develop new products so you can give them away .... how silly.
What you fail to understand is that ALL EXPENSES have to be shared by all items in the store.
Just because the store, as a whole, turns a profit does not dictate that new items that come into the store should be sold at a lesser profit margin just because Apple doesn't need the $$$. Would you turn down a raise for doing more work .... just because you don't need the money?
In any business model I ever studied you don't spend resources to develop new products so you can give them away .... how silly.
I have no idea of what your comment has to do with this conversation. Bye.
I recently found a cool site called Trackle where you can track the reviews for iPhone/iPad App.They are giving away free ipad now for answering a trivia question.check it out here. http://www.trackle.com/about/promo
Comments
I have no desire to define words with you.
Consider yourself to have won the point.
Thank you, I accept. ..... May I offer a word of advice for future use? If and when you find yourself on the "wrong" side of a debate .... recognize it early and get out because the longer one tries to debate a losing opinion ... the greater the possibility they're going to say something silly or illogical in the search to find a point to validate their opinion.
Would you have a use if the 'Pad had some more functionality?
Not me. It isn't a real computer. For that kind of money, I could get a 15.6 Toshiba. Gee, I'd also get a separate 10 key pad. To be specific, a real computer for $20 less.
tekstud is a well know troll so anything he reads on here he'll troll about
just add him to your ignore list and be done with it...
Wierd, he was on my ignore list, the only person I've ever had to "ignore" on any forum. But now his crap is showing up again.
In response to a later post that said banning him was censorship... No, banning him is like not inviting an asshole to a dinner party at your house. Censorship would be the government banning him from all dinner parties at all houses.
The AI boards are significantly hurt by his presence, as evidenced by this thread.
On a different topic: Much thanks to the author of this article. The title is perfectly crafted in an attempt to accurately communicate that isuppli's numbers are only _component_ costs. In the past, articles seemed to make the same error as seen in some of the comments, and attributed the difference between list price and component costs as profit. Thankyou for the accurate title!
May I offer a word of advice for future use? If and when you find yourself on the "wrong" side of a debate .... recognize it early and get out because the longer one tries to debate a losing opinion ... the greater the possibility they're going to say something silly or illogical in the search to find a point to validate their opinion.
You have no idea of what I was saying, and you have no idea of why your point was foolish.
You have no idea of what I was saying, and you have no idea of why your point was foolish.
When you use a "business term" that doesn't exist in any other world but yours .... nobody has any idea what you're saying. "net expense"?
When you use a "business term" that doesn't exist in any other world but yours .... nobody has any idea what you're saying. "net expense"?
Here's what I was responding to:
"How many HP, Acer, Lenovo etc. stores are there? AFAIK .... none .. zero ... nada.
Apple is one of the few computer/tech companies that are dedicated to selling their own brand only via a brick and mortar type operation. Do you not see an expense factor here that the rest of the industry largely avoids by just wholesaling their product to many retailers?"
Your claim seems to be that Apple has an "expense factor" that reduces their take compared to other companies that do not have stores, but instead wholesale their products to retailers .
I pointed out that the store operations are profitable. So far from being an "expense factor", the stores instead provide a profit. The stores do not represent an extra expense, they represent extra profit.
If you still don't understand, then so be it. If you want to claim victory and post more proof that this simple point eludes you, go ahead.
I pointed out that the store operations are profitable. So far from being an "expense factor", the stores instead provide a profit. The stores do not represent an extra expense, they represent extra profit.
If you still don't understand, then so be it. If you want to claim victory and post more proof that this simple point eludes you, go ahead.
What you fail to understand is that ALL EXPENSES have to be shared by all items in the store.
Just because the store, as a whole, turns a profit does not dictate that new items that come into the store should be sold at a lesser profit margin just because Apple doesn't need the $$$. Would you turn down a raise for doing more work .... just because you don't need the money?
In any business model I ever studied you don't spend resources to develop new products so you can give them away .... how silly.
What you fail to understand is that ALL EXPENSES have to be shared by all items in the store.
Just because the store, as a whole, turns a profit does not dictate that new items that come into the store should be sold at a lesser profit margin just because Apple doesn't need the $$$. Would you turn down a raise for doing more work .... just because you don't need the money?
In any business model I ever studied you don't spend resources to develop new products so you can give them away .... how silly.
I have no idea of what your comment has to do with this conversation. Bye.