In western Canada I defy anyone to try and find an iPhone for sale. They are never on display. They are never advertised. The admail is always about Android phones. The ad posters in the retail shops are always Android.
Apple had better kick some ass and/or offer better spiffs.
There's less people in Canada than California, not a huge market. However I see Apple phones all the time in Canada.
There's less people in Canada than California, not a huge market. However I see Apple phones all the time in Canada.
????
Not a huge market? Canada may only have 11% of the combined total of the two countries but, to the best of my knowledge Canada adds a few percentage points to that in Apple popularity. Try losing 13% of your base and then tell me that Canada isn't a huge market.
Anyway... the point is... it's hard to find anyone pushing the iPhone. Sure, I know a lot people who have them but when you ask them when they bought their phone I'm sure more than 50% will say they bought them within the first 3 months of availability.
It must be that Android manufacturers offer much better spiffs.
If ever there was a clearer case of a troll who has joined the forum simply to post garbage and generally make trouble, here it is.
Please consider removing the right to post for "Youarewrong."
Thank you
I've generally found it pretty effective to just click the red exclamation point and briefly make your case directly to the mods. Half a dozen trolls either banned or nuked in the last few months. Of course, the mods don't always agree that a given poster is a troll, but I think if enough people report on the same person it's taken into consideration.
That's a pretty healthy jump for Android. Apple will definitely need to open up their phone to all major carriers if they hope to compete against Google for market share.
HP's market share was so good that they are now getting out of that business. Apple is too smart to chase market share.
0% market share means no products are sold, thus no profits. You simply have to look at the MP3 player industry to see, yes, Apple does indeed compete for market share. If Apple did not care about market share, they would not have wasted their time on Safari for Microsoft Windows. Unfortunately, Google Chrome came along and took the lead as the WebKit-based web browser.
If Apple did not care about market share, they would not be litigation happy to block other competing hardware from being sold. There is synergy between market share and profits.
You're missing the whole idea of Apple .... of course they're aware of market share but that doesn't mean that they compete for it. To say that they compete for market share would imply that they focus their energy and resources on it, and believe me, if you knew anything about Apple you would know that, while they may be aware of their mark share, the importance of it is way down on the list of things they focus on.
I've generally found it pretty effective to just click the red exclamation point and briefly make your case directly to the mods. Half a dozen trolls either banned or nuked in the last few months. Of course, the mods don't always agree that a given poster is a troll, but I think if enough people report on the same person it's taken into consideration.
what do you consider a troll to be? would I be considered a troll?
I think I missed that case. URL to the conviction of Google for willfully aiding and abetting these crimes?
They weren't "convicted" as there was no trial. But yes, the US government in their wisdom has tried to prevent it's citizen's from buying the identical meds from Canadian pharmacies, at a much lower cost in most instances, than what their US counterparts can (or will) sell for. Purely a political move to assist our pharmaceutical industries.
But several of them bought advertising placement from Google. And according to the US, they knew, or should have known, that US citizen's buying from the Canadians was illegal. Google agreed to pay a $500 million fine, roughly equal to the profit they were alleged to have made from placing those ads.
Fair enough. Perhaps they'll go on to explain why the law is really in place to begin with, and begin the process of doing away with it.
They weren't "convicted" as there was no trial. But yes, the US government in their wisdom has tried to prevent it's citizen's from buying the identical meds from Canadian pharmacies, at a much lower cost in most instances, than what their US counterparts can (or will) sell for. Purely a political move to assist our pharmaceutical industries.
But several of them bought advertising placement from Google. And according to the US, they knew, or should have known, that US citizen's buying from the Canadians was illegal. Google agreed to pay a $500 million fine, roughly equal to the profit they were alleged to have made from placing those ads.
Fair enough. Perhaps they'll go on to explain why the law is really in place to begin with, and begin the process of doing away with it.
shhhhhhh. Google is evil and drug trafficking and illegal always all the time.
hell, illegal or not, in the court of public opinion Google should be seen in a very positive light over this.
They weren't "convicted" as there was no trial. But yes, the US government in their wisdom has tried to prevent it's citizen's from buying the identical meds from Canadian pharmacies, at a much lower cost in most instances, than what their US counterparts can (or will) sell for. Purely a political move to assist our pharmaceutical industries.
But several of them bought advertising placement from Google. And according to the US, they knew, or should have known, that US citizen's buying from the Canadians was illegal. Google agreed to pay a $500 million fine, roughly equal to the profit they were alleged to have made from placing those ads.
Fair enough. Perhaps they'll go on to explain why the law is really in place to begin with, and begin the process of doing away with it.
As I had stated previously, I don't necessarily agree with that particular law but the stated reasons (which I don't agree with) are:
1) uncertain quality control
2) in most cases verification of an actual prescription is not needed
3) the price difference is due to the difference in health care policies (universal vs. private)
As I had stated previously, I don't necessarily agree with that particular law but the stated reasons (which I don't agree with) are:
1) uncertain quality control
2) in most cases verification of an actual prescription is not needed
3) the price difference is due to the difference in health care policies (universal vs. private)
I'm aware of the public reasons given. At the end of the day it's a lie. My wife's Canadian provider requires an original prescription, and it's been delayed while verified by fax/phone with the doctor who wrote the prescription in some cases. As for the meds themselves, some actually ship from US pharmacies, yet at a lower cost than trying to deal with them directly.
I'm aware of the public reasons given. At the end of the day it's a lie. My wife's Canadian provider requires an original prescription, and it's been delayed while verified by fax/phone with the doctor who wrote the prescription in some cases. As for the meds themselves, some actually ship from US pharmacies, yet at a lower cost than trying to deal with them directly.
It's all about the drug company lobbyists.
No disagreement from me but you did ask what the reasons were. Also, right or wrong, it doesn't give Google the right to break the law.
as are the the talking points claimed as the reason for the laws existence in the first place.
Well since we have ventured into health care reform, don't forget to rail against that silly damn doughnut hole. What sense does it make to help the elderly at the beginning of their care, then drop them and then pick them up again?
Well since we have ventured into health care reform, don't forget to rail against that silly damn doughnut hole. What sense does it make to help the elderly at the beginning of their care, then drop them and then pick them up again?
Or requiring all US citizen's carry health insurance, but not putting health cost controls in place at the same time to help keep those insurance policies affordable.
what do you consider a troll to be? would I be considered a troll?
No, I consider someone to be a troll if they troll. As in making most or all of their posts "LOL poor iSheep all butthurt because their beloved etc." or "I love to see you guys panicking as Android crushes your pathetic iOS and leaves it bleeding in the gutter just like Microsoft did to the Mac" and the like.
It's not about a cranky "fanboy" post now and then, although I find those personally distasteful, it's about a posting history that brings nothing to the conversation outside of aggressive belittling of Apple, its products or its customers. We actually do get a pretty steady stream of such posters showing up, and that's why I hit the report button-- because you get enough of that going and every thread turns into "Fuck you, no fuck you." Which of course is the entire raison d'être of trolling.
I think it's important to just report (including whatever impressions one has about the general behavior of the poster in question) rather than respond in thread, because often the mods are not necessarily seeing a pattern like one does if one is actively participating in the thread. More times than not they seem to agree with me.
There are, of course, quite a few folks on this board that reliably speak to any real or perceived Apple failing while acting as a cheerleader for Samsung or Android or Google etc. As long as they rhetoric doesn't get too ridiculous I don't consider that to be trolling per se (although as always I question the psychological status of anyone that feels compelled to go find people with differing tastes so they can endlessly, and strenuously, disagree), but some of those lay low for a while and then gradually crank it up till they're pretty much full out trolling -- at which some of them have also been banned.
They weren't "convicted" as there was no trial. But yes, the US government in their wisdom has tried to prevent it's citizen's from buying the identical meds from Canadian pharmacies, at a much lower cost in most instances, than what their US counterparts can (or will) sell for. Purely a political move to assist our pharmaceutical industries.
But several of them bought advertising placement from Google. And according to the US, they knew, or should have known, that US citizen's buying from the Canadians was illegal. Google agreed to pay a $500 million fine, roughly equal to the profit they were alleged to have made from placing those ads.
Fair enough. Perhaps they'll go on to explain why the law is really in place to begin with, and begin the process of doing away with it.
What part of Google FINED $500 million for aiding in the sale of ILLEGAL drugs, do you not understand?
Comments
In western Canada I defy anyone to try and find an iPhone for sale. They are never on display. They are never advertised. The admail is always about Android phones. The ad posters in the retail shops are always Android.
Apple had better kick some ass and/or offer better spiffs.
There's less people in Canada than California, not a huge market. However I see Apple phones all the time in Canada.
There's less people in Canada than California, not a huge market. However I see Apple phones all the time in Canada.
????
Not a huge market? Canada may only have 11% of the combined total of the two countries but, to the best of my knowledge Canada adds a few percentage points to that in Apple popularity. Try losing 13% of your base and then tell me that Canada isn't a huge market.
Anyway... the point is... it's hard to find anyone pushing the iPhone. Sure, I know a lot people who have them but when you ask them when they bought their phone I'm sure more than 50% will say they bought them within the first 3 months of availability.
It must be that Android manufacturers offer much better spiffs.
Dear Mods,
If ever there was a clearer case of a troll who has joined the forum simply to post garbage and generally make trouble, here it is.
Please consider removing the right to post for "Youarewrong."
Thank you
I've generally found it pretty effective to just click the red exclamation point and briefly make your case directly to the mods. Half a dozen trolls either banned or nuked in the last few months. Of course, the mods don't always agree that a given poster is a troll, but I think if enough people report on the same person it's taken into consideration.
That's a pretty healthy jump for Android. Apple will definitely need to open up their phone to all major carriers if they hope to compete against Google for market share.
HP's market share was so good that they are now getting out of that business. Apple is too smart to chase market share.
0% market share means no products are sold, thus no profits. You simply have to look at the MP3 player industry to see, yes, Apple does indeed compete for market share. If Apple did not care about market share, they would not have wasted their time on Safari for Microsoft Windows. Unfortunately, Google Chrome came along and took the lead as the WebKit-based web browser.
If Apple did not care about market share, they would not be litigation happy to block other competing hardware from being sold. There is synergy between market share and profits.
You're missing the whole idea of Apple .... of course they're aware of market share but that doesn't mean that they compete for it. To say that they compete for market share would imply that they focus their energy and resources on it, and believe me, if you knew anything about Apple you would know that, while they may be aware of their mark share, the importance of it is way down on the list of things they focus on.
This is a battle that has already taken place and iOS has won... Worldwide and platform to platform, iOS already "won" a long time ago.
I've generally found it pretty effective to just click the red exclamation point and briefly make your case directly to the mods. Half a dozen trolls either banned or nuked in the last few months. Of course, the mods don't always agree that a given poster is a troll, but I think if enough people report on the same person it's taken into consideration.
what do you consider a troll to be? would I be considered a troll?
I think I missed that case. URL to the conviction of Google for willfully aiding and abetting these crimes?
They weren't "convicted" as there was no trial. But yes, the US government in their wisdom has tried to prevent it's citizen's from buying the identical meds from Canadian pharmacies, at a much lower cost in most instances, than what their US counterparts can (or will) sell for. Purely a political move to assist our pharmaceutical industries.
But several of them bought advertising placement from Google. And according to the US, they knew, or should have known, that US citizen's buying from the Canadians was illegal. Google agreed to pay a $500 million fine, roughly equal to the profit they were alleged to have made from placing those ads.
Fair enough. Perhaps they'll go on to explain why the law is really in place to begin with, and begin the process of doing away with it.
They weren't "convicted" as there was no trial. But yes, the US government in their wisdom has tried to prevent it's citizen's from buying the identical meds from Canadian pharmacies, at a much lower cost in most instances, than what their US counterparts can (or will) sell for. Purely a political move to assist our pharmaceutical industries.
But several of them bought advertising placement from Google. And according to the US, they knew, or should have known, that US citizen's buying from the Canadians was illegal. Google agreed to pay a $500 million fine, roughly equal to the profit they were alleged to have made from placing those ads.
Fair enough. Perhaps they'll go on to explain why the law is really in place to begin with, and begin the process of doing away with it.
shhhhhhh. Google is evil and drug trafficking and illegal always all the time.
hell, illegal or not, in the court of public opinion Google should be seen in a very positive light over this.
But not to fundamental iPhanboys
I think I missed that case. URL to the conviction of Google for willfully aiding and abetting these crimes?
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011...ansactions.ars
They weren't "convicted" as there was no trial. But yes, the US government in their wisdom has tried to prevent it's citizen's from buying the identical meds from Canadian pharmacies, at a much lower cost in most instances, than what their US counterparts can (or will) sell for. Purely a political move to assist our pharmaceutical industries.
But several of them bought advertising placement from Google. And according to the US, they knew, or should have known, that US citizen's buying from the Canadians was illegal. Google agreed to pay a $500 million fine, roughly equal to the profit they were alleged to have made from placing those ads.
Fair enough. Perhaps they'll go on to explain why the law is really in place to begin with, and begin the process of doing away with it.
As I had stated previously, I don't necessarily agree with that particular law but the stated reasons (which I don't agree with) are:
1) uncertain quality control
2) in most cases verification of an actual prescription is not needed
3) the price difference is due to the difference in health care policies (universal vs. private)
As I had stated previously, I don't necessarily agree with that particular law but the stated reasons (which I don't agree with) are:
1) uncertain quality control
2) in most cases verification of an actual prescription is not needed
3) the price difference is due to the difference in health care policies (universal vs. private)
I'm aware of the public reasons given. At the end of the day it's a lie. My wife's Canadian provider requires an original prescription, and it's been delayed while verified by fax/phone with the doctor who wrote the prescription in some cases. As for the meds themselves, some actually ship from US pharmacies, yet at a lower cost than trying to deal with them directly.
It's all about the drug company lobbyists.
I'm aware of the public reasons given. At the end of the day it's a lie. My wife's Canadian provider requires an original prescription, and it's been delayed while verified by fax/phone with the doctor who wrote the prescription in some cases. As for the meds themselves, some actually ship from US pharmacies, yet at a lower cost than trying to deal with them directly.
It's all about the drug company lobbyists.
No disagreement from me but you did ask what the reasons were. Also, right or wrong, it doesn't give Google the right to break the law.
No disagreement from me but you did ask what the reasons were. Also, right or wrong, it doesn't give Google the right to break the law.
Correct. Google was absolutely in the wrong. . .
as are the the talking points claimed as the reason for the laws existence in the first place.
Correct. Google was absolutely in the wrong. . .
as are the the talking points claimed as the reason for the laws existence in the first place.
Well since we have ventured into health care reform, don't forget to rail against that silly damn doughnut hole. What sense does it make to help the elderly at the beginning of their care, then drop them and then pick them up again?
Well since we have ventured into health care reform, don't forget to rail against that silly damn doughnut hole. What sense does it make to help the elderly at the beginning of their care, then drop them and then pick them up again?
Or requiring all US citizen's carry health insurance, but not putting health cost controls in place at the same time to help keep those insurance policies affordable.
what do you consider a troll to be? would I be considered a troll?
No, I consider someone to be a troll if they troll. As in making most or all of their posts "LOL poor iSheep all butthurt because their beloved etc." or "I love to see you guys panicking as Android crushes your pathetic iOS and leaves it bleeding in the gutter just like Microsoft did to the Mac" and the like.
It's not about a cranky "fanboy" post now and then, although I find those personally distasteful, it's about a posting history that brings nothing to the conversation outside of aggressive belittling of Apple, its products or its customers. We actually do get a pretty steady stream of such posters showing up, and that's why I hit the report button-- because you get enough of that going and every thread turns into "Fuck you, no fuck you." Which of course is the entire raison d'être of trolling.
I think it's important to just report (including whatever impressions one has about the general behavior of the poster in question) rather than respond in thread, because often the mods are not necessarily seeing a pattern like one does if one is actively participating in the thread. More times than not they seem to agree with me.
There are, of course, quite a few folks on this board that reliably speak to any real or perceived Apple failing while acting as a cheerleader for Samsung or Android or Google etc. As long as they rhetoric doesn't get too ridiculous I don't consider that to be trolling per se (although as always I question the psychological status of anyone that feels compelled to go find people with differing tastes so they can endlessly, and strenuously, disagree), but some of those lay low for a while and then gradually crank it up till they're pretty much full out trolling -- at which some of them have also been banned.
Beleaguered Apple is doomed.
Android rules.
Short AAPL now.
Yes, short AAPL @ 380+ now and pick it up @320 in Nov. when the nasdaq tanks 10% in the next 2 months.
They weren't "convicted" as there was no trial. But yes, the US government in their wisdom has tried to prevent it's citizen's from buying the identical meds from Canadian pharmacies, at a much lower cost in most instances, than what their US counterparts can (or will) sell for. Purely a political move to assist our pharmaceutical industries.
But several of them bought advertising placement from Google. And according to the US, they knew, or should have known, that US citizen's buying from the Canadians was illegal. Google agreed to pay a $500 million fine, roughly equal to the profit they were alleged to have made from placing those ads.
Fair enough. Perhaps they'll go on to explain why the law is really in place to begin with, and begin the process of doing away with it.
What part of Google FINED $500 million for aiding in the sale of ILLEGAL drugs, do you not understand?
The law is quite clear.