Slashdot Mirror
NBC Chief Slamming Apple
On the heels of the beta of NBC's and News Corp.'s less-than-killer Hulu music store, NBC's chief Jeff Zucker is speaking out and saying the darnedest things. First, news.com reports, with derision, that Zucker demanded a cut of Apple's iPod revenue. That'll sure happen. Next, AppleInsider caught Zucker urging colleagues to take a stand against Apple's iTunes, charging that the digital download service was undermining the ability of traditional media companies to set profitable rates for their content online.
You didn't say ANYTHING interesting or insightful, so I'd better not see those mods on your post.
P.S. Your grammar is terrible.
What's with all these mac faggots pretending they're close personal friends with their god-king by referring to him as Steve?
When you're in your bedroom, humping your iPhone while listening to your iPod and buying gay music via iTunes on your iMac, you may moan "Steve, oh Steve".
Otherwise, it's Jobs. Unless you want us to think you have a bone for Ballmer.
Zucker has the right to say what he wants. After all Zucker is in charge of creating content.
I think Apple has a nice scam running. They overcharge for their devices because it is "cool." And then they stick it to the content providers so that their overpriced devices have cheap content.
The difference with DVD's is that the content providers can charge what they want. They can charge according to their and the market's needs. I am sure that the content providers have a nice and neat formula that allows them to maximize profits. Whereas the Apple formula is geared towards the maximization of Apple's profits and not the content providers. A clear conflict!
I am not saying that Zucker is an angel because the content providers have not been. What I am saying is that Apple should start creating their own content!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Insightful?? WTF is this? Digg?
Go home carpet bagger!
This message brought to you by the Automated Slashdot System.
Then you thought wrong.
Wealth is created "out of thin air" from every instance of trade. Trade only occurs when that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. This is irrefutable economic fact. So even though the goods which exist before the trade exist after the trade, net subjective wealth in society is higher after the trade than before the trade.
FDR, by forcefully taxing and mandating where wealth would be put to use (ala the welfare social security system), actually destroyed the wealth which would have been created from free market voluntary trade. If somebody isn't voluntarily willing to trade something, that means they are better off wealthier *not* trading. Forcing transfer by taxation is creating *POVERTY*. To argue otherwise would be to argue rape victims are better off wealthier for having been raped.
This is why the US is losing relative ground to better competing international competition, international low flat tax rates, etc.
War destroys wealth. All that production which was blown up in the form of shot down planes, sunk ships, blown up bombs, and killed and wounded human beings, was "wasted" production (though of course the world was better off not being ruled by Nazi socialists). True, the US wasn't economically destroyed like Europe and Japan, and suddenly had less manufacturing competition after the war. But the US itself was worse off too, because less supply reaching the US shores through trade, meant higher prices for lower quality, meant the US consumer was worse off than she would have been in the absence of WWII. There was less net world wide wealth after the destructive war, period.
Don't believe the false tripe masquerading as economic scientific knowledge you will find in most history books.