Ever heard of cash? Checks? PayPal? They're called payment OPTIONS for a reason.
Let's see. My first computer was an Apple IIe. My first Mac was a Mac Plus. I currently have a PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro sitting under my desk, three other Mac notebooks in the house, 5 or 6 iPods in the house, 2 iPhones, and one Windows computer I had to have for work (which never gets turned on anymore 'cause I can now do that work on the Mac Pro). Therefore, I must be an Apple hater.
I'm just irritated by irrational assertions which ignore relevant facts and distinctions. What's your excuse?
Yes you must be an Apple-hater-troll. A basic rule I have yet to see violated is that trolls love to list how much Apple hardware they love by owning it. Then in comes the sledgehammer of doom-hating with the approximate quote ~"See I own all this Apple stuff, no way am I a troll".
See, the non-trolls never say that. They make points and don't try to justify feeling A because they own hardware B. They don't have to, the passion and sense of design is obvious even when they disagree -- looking at you Ireland.
Aside from all that you don't know much about business, nor do you take to correction well. Your math-based examples (using your term even though I disagree that it's validly mathematical at all) are contrived and so artificial as to be irrelevant. Dismantling point by point is not even advised -- throw that baby out with the bathwater. Far better, non-naive, cost breakdowns have been provided in this and/or other related threads, multiple times (sorry, I'm not going looking again and linking them, they are there and I've even contributed to some.)
So until you can actually get both the math and the business right, don't bother.
Amazon I would use more precise numbers if I had them.
Here are Amazon's overall financials. It is impossible to make much of these numbers because Amazon doesn't break out the digital content numbers. So I'll just note that their NET Earnings for 2010 was 3.37% of their revenue.
Note that some people had been citing Netflix's Gross Earnings ($805,270, Revenues minus direct costs) for 2010, which is roughly 37% of their Revenue ($2,162,625, Money received). However, their NET Earnings ($160,853, After all the taxes and operating expenses have been paid) was only 7.44% of their revenue.
Which is greater? 30%? Or 7%?
Name any single entity (person, company, country) which can send out more money than they bring in and remain solvent once their savings and credit runs out.
Ah, yes. The old ad hominemFALLACY. When the facts start getting in the way of your dogma, resort to name calling.
Quote:
See, the non-trolls never say that. They make points and don't try to justify feeling A because they own hardware B.
I didn't bring it up, anonymouse did. I should have known that pointing out more facts to people who are already ignoring facts was a waste of time.
Quote:
Aside from all that you don't know much about business, nor do you take to correction well.
Ah, yes, even more name calling. And by your rules, no response is possible. If I make true statements which show that your assertion is laughably wrong, you call me a troll. If I ignore your assertion, you claim it's true.
Hold on a sec. What was you said?
Quote:
They make points and don't try to justify feeling A because they own hardware B.
The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy (in other words, it is NOT logical) because the name calling or other assaults on a person's character ignore the facts and reasoning and focus on total irrelevancies.
And yet, despite your (correct) call to focus on facts and reason, you don't present any here. There's a term for that, but I'm going to be nice and not use it.
Amazon I would use more precise numbers if I had them.
Here are Amazon's overall financials. It is impossible to make much of these numbers because Amazon doesn't break out the digital content numbers. So I'll just note that their NET Earnings for 2010 was 3.37% of their revenue.
Note that some people had been citing Netflix's Gross Earnings ($805,270, Revenues minus direct costs) for 2010, which is roughly 37% of their Revenue ($2,162,625, Money received). However, their NET Earnings ($160,853, After all the taxes and operating expenses have been paid) was only 7.44% of their revenue.
Which is greater? 30%? Or 7%?
Name any single entity (person, company, country) which can send out more money than they bring in and remain solvent once their savings and credit runs out.
And yet, in neither instance have you shown that to be the case, and seem willfully ignorant of why you haven't. No, I agree with Hiro, you're just an Apple hating troll, who is also totally wrong in his "analysis"
Ah, yes. The old ad hominemFALLACY. When the facts start getting in the way of your dogma, resort to name calling.
I didn't bring it up, anonymouse did. I should have known that pointing out more facts to people who are already ignoring facts was a waste of time.
Ah, yes, even more name calling. And by your rules, no response is possible. If I make true statements which show that your assertion is laughably wrong, you call me a troll. If I ignore your assertion, you claim it's true.
Hold on a sec. What was you said?
The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy (in other words, it is NOT logical) because the name calling or other assaults on a person's character ignore the facts and reasoning and focus on total irrelevancies.
And yet, despite your (correct) call to focus on facts and reason, you don't present any here. There's a term for that, but I'm going to be nice and not use it.
You see, now we've come full circle back to the point where everyone realizes that the only worthwhile response is just to point out that your posts are bullshit.
You see, now we've come full circle back to the point where everyone realizes that the only worthwhile response is just to point out that your posts are bullshit.
Says the guy who refuses to back up his assertions with facts or logic.
Project much?
BTW, what's it like to have such absolute blind unquestioning faith in something?
Says the guy who refuses to back up his assertions with facts or logic. ...
I only bother with facts and logic when the posts I'm responding to contain the same. If you can produce an argument that isn't based on intentional misrepresentations of fact, then there will be something to discuss.
Yeah, I've had to do that with a couple of my Macs too.
Which Acers did you buy?
Not mine, colleagues. They were "cute" little white ones, lasted a few months then kaput. All seemingly in different manners. I wan't making a pure commentary on quality or device longevity though, just opening the eyes to the fact that "owning a computer as a system requirement" applies to computers as well as iPads. Owning, or at least having routine admin access, to just one computer is living dangerously.
I only bother with facts and logic when the posts I'm responding to contain the same. If you can produce an argument that isn't based on intentional misrepresentations of fact, then there will be something to discuss.
Don't bother, he isn't worth the effort, keyboard wear, or network electrons.
Apple has long since relied on Open Source as a resource for building and supporting their very, very closed systems, which they make great profits from.
So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that they're now relying on the world of open source to help them out of this anti-trust pickle.
Comments
Except that netbooks don't list owning a computer as a system requirement.
I dunno. I've seen a lot of dead Acer netbooks that needed another computer and an external drive case to rescue the data.
Ever heard of cash? Checks? PayPal? They're called payment OPTIONS for a reason.
Let's see. My first computer was an Apple IIe. My first Mac was a Mac Plus. I currently have a PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro sitting under my desk, three other Mac notebooks in the house, 5 or 6 iPods in the house, 2 iPhones, and one Windows computer I had to have for work (which never gets turned on anymore 'cause I can now do that work on the Mac Pro). Therefore, I must be an Apple hater.
I'm just irritated by irrational assertions which ignore relevant facts and distinctions. What's your excuse?
Yes you must be an Apple-hater-troll. A basic rule I have yet to see violated is that trolls love to list how much Apple hardware they love by owning it. Then in comes the sledgehammer of doom-hating with the approximate quote ~"See I own all this Apple stuff, no way am I a troll".
See, the non-trolls never say that. They make points and don't try to justify feeling A because they own hardware B. They don't have to, the passion and sense of design is obvious even when they disagree -- looking at you Ireland
Aside from all that you don't know much about business, nor do you take to correction well. Your math-based examples (using your term even though I disagree that it's validly mathematical at all) are contrived and so artificial as to be irrelevant. Dismantling point by point is not even advised -- throw that baby out with the bathwater. Far better, non-naive, cost breakdowns have been provided in this and/or other related threads, multiple times (sorry, I'm not going looking again and linking them, they are there and I've even contributed to some.)
So until you can actually get both the math and the business right, don't bother.
That's called making up numbers.
Simplified? Yes.
Made up? No.
Here are my sources:
Amazon I would use more precise numbers if I had them.
Here are Amazon's overall financials. It is impossible to make much of these numbers because Amazon doesn't break out the digital content numbers. So I'll just note that their NET Earnings for 2010 was 3.37% of their revenue.
Netflix
Note that some people had been citing Netflix's Gross Earnings ($805,270, Revenues minus direct costs) for 2010, which is roughly 37% of their Revenue ($2,162,625, Money received). However, their NET Earnings ($160,853, After all the taxes and operating expenses have been paid) was only 7.44% of their revenue.
Which is greater? 30%? Or 7%?
Name any single entity (person, company, country) which can send out more money than they bring in and remain solvent once their savings and credit runs out.
Yes you must be an Apple-hater-troll.
Ah, yes. The old ad hominem FALLACY. When the facts start getting in the way of your dogma, resort to name calling.
See, the non-trolls never say that. They make points and don't try to justify feeling A because they own hardware B.
I didn't bring it up, anonymouse did. I should have known that pointing out more facts to people who are already ignoring facts was a waste of time.
Aside from all that you don't know much about business, nor do you take to correction well.
Ah, yes, even more name calling. And by your rules, no response is possible. If I make true statements which show that your assertion is laughably wrong, you call me a troll. If I ignore your assertion, you claim it's true.
Hold on a sec. What was you said?
They make points and don't try to justify feeling A because they own hardware B.
The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy (in other words, it is NOT logical) because the name calling or other assaults on a person's character ignore the facts and reasoning and focus on total irrelevancies.
And yet, despite your (correct) call to focus on facts and reason, you don't present any here. There's a term for that, but I'm going to be nice and not use it.
Simplified? Yes.
Made up? No.
Here are my sources:
Amazon I would use more precise numbers if I had them.
Here are Amazon's overall financials. It is impossible to make much of these numbers because Amazon doesn't break out the digital content numbers. So I'll just note that their NET Earnings for 2010 was 3.37% of their revenue.
Netflix
Note that some people had been citing Netflix's Gross Earnings ($805,270, Revenues minus direct costs) for 2010, which is roughly 37% of their Revenue ($2,162,625, Money received). However, their NET Earnings ($160,853, After all the taxes and operating expenses have been paid) was only 7.44% of their revenue.
Which is greater? 30%? Or 7%?
Name any single entity (person, company, country) which can send out more money than they bring in and remain solvent once their savings and credit runs out.
And yet, in neither instance have you shown that to be the case, and seem willfully ignorant of why you haven't. No, I agree with Hiro, you're just an Apple hating troll, who is also totally wrong in his "analysis"
Ah, yes. The old ad hominem FALLACY. When the facts start getting in the way of your dogma, resort to name calling.
I didn't bring it up, anonymouse did. I should have known that pointing out more facts to people who are already ignoring facts was a waste of time.
Ah, yes, even more name calling. And by your rules, no response is possible. If I make true statements which show that your assertion is laughably wrong, you call me a troll. If I ignore your assertion, you claim it's true.
Hold on a sec. What was you said?
The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy (in other words, it is NOT logical) because the name calling or other assaults on a person's character ignore the facts and reasoning and focus on total irrelevancies.
And yet, despite your (correct) call to focus on facts and reason, you don't present any here. There's a term for that, but I'm going to be nice and not use it.
You see, now we've come full circle back to the point where everyone realizes that the only worthwhile response is just to point out that your posts are bullshit.
You see, now we've come full circle back to the point where everyone realizes that the only worthwhile response is just to point out that your posts are bullshit.
Says the guy who refuses to back up his assertions with facts or logic.
Project much?
BTW, what's it like to have such absolute blind unquestioning faith in something?
Says the guy who refuses to back up his assertions with facts or logic. ...
I only bother with facts and logic when the posts I'm responding to contain the same. If you can produce an argument that isn't based on intentional misrepresentations of fact, then there will be something to discuss.
Yeah, I've had to do that with a couple of my Macs too.
Which Acers did you buy?
Not mine, colleagues. They were "cute" little white ones, lasted a few months then kaput. All seemingly in different manners. I wan't making a pure commentary on quality or device longevity though, just opening the eyes to the fact that "owning a computer as a system requirement" applies to computers as well as iPads. Owning, or at least having routine admin access, to just one computer is living dangerously.
I only bother with facts and logic when the posts I'm responding to contain the same. If you can produce an argument that isn't based on intentional misrepresentations of fact, then there will be something to discuss.
Don't bother, he isn't worth the effort, keyboard wear, or network electrons.
So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that they're now relying on the world of open source to help them out of this anti-trust pickle.