tenly

This article talks about which companies consume the most bandwidth in North America.  It's obvious that iTunes, YouTube and NetFlix provide different services and they are not in direct competition with each other.  The article doesn't try to imply that it is.  Those of you that are complaining about the comparison - and how it is wrong - are the ones that are trying to read more into the article than what it is.  You're assuming the article is about who's winning the streaming race - but it's not.  It's just about who's using the most bandwidth.

tonester said:

Net neutrality is all good and well in theory but when one company sucks up that kind of Internet bandwidth we have a problem Houatom.  

That's because you can't comprehend how much bandwidth is available on the backbone.  The Netflix traffic hardly makes a blip.

cali said:

slprescott said:

There will be an emerging body of law / precedent in IP-rights-after-death in the years ahead.

If my will explicitly transfers ownership of any digital content I own to someone (wife), and I provide that person with my User ID and password to any such content providers (e.g., iTunes), will the courts and publishers honor that -- acknowledging that actual ownership of the content has transfered to the new person?

This situation has crossed my mind for years.

Problem is the wife didn't purchase the content so it's not hers. If you could transfer licenses after death it would create a never ending chain of inhereted music/movies/games passed on to children/grandchildren forever for free.

Do you mean like buying a CD or a record album?
We used to buy our media and we could leave our collection to someone when we passed on.  

One night when we were sleeping, the entire industry changed the model without telling us and now we only license it.  The license expires when we pass and if our heirs want to enjoy it - they have to purchase their own licenses.

SpamSandwich said:

Political correctness and pandering to special interests will be the downfall of Apple.

Agree completely.  Sad, but probably true.

As an Apple shareholder, I would like visibility into their diversity program - not to ensure that targets are being met - but to ensure that for every single position that gets filled across the entire company, the most qualified candidate is awarded the job.

The intent of diversity programs should be to stamp out racism and ensure that no applicant is given an advantage over any other applicant because of their reparative skin colors.  If the most qualified candidate is always given the job - but the targets are not being met - the targets are wrong!  The targets should be revised to reflect the realities of the potential pool of qualified applicants - or ignored completely when there is proof that hiring and promotions are based solely on merit.  

People compare diversity targets to workforce composition of a company and when the numbers don't match - they complain that a company is "not doing enough" to meet the targets.  I would love to see Tim Cook stand up and say to these people "It's because we don't care about the targets or frankly even look at them!  We maintain a diverse workplace and we hire the most qualified candidate for every single job opening that we fill.  We're happy to see that our hiring policies have resulted in a workforce composition that is close to your 'targets', but your targets seem to be inaccurate based on our extensive experience evaluating qualified applicants for our industry.  If there are enough qualified applicants within your demographics to fill the percentages of positions that you call targets - it appears that they don't want to work for Apple because we haven't come across them during our recruitment activities.  Perhaps you could use our data to update your targets to a percentage that is accurate, reasonable and most importantly achievable without giving preferential treatment to a less qualified applicant because of their skin color."