Actually, no. If that was the case, then the memory companies involved would have been passing on the costs of doing business during the time that they were losing money hand over fist (coincidentally, the time that they were also fixing prices, go figure). Memory chips are a commodity - the prices are set by the market and it's up to the manufacturers to figure out how to make them for less than the market price. It's not like a car, where the price is determined by the cost of manufacturing.
So the memory prices are set several times a day - the big purchasers (like Dell, HPQ, etc) make an offer, the manufacturers counter and the price is set. In fact, in Micron's conference call a few quarters ago, they announced a rather revolutionary idea - if the customer's price was too low, they wouldn't sell. Up to that point, the claim was that the customer would call, give a price and the manufacturer would sell. And that's one of the many reasons that memory makers were losing money hand over fist for a while. Even with price fixing.
If you really think that memory prices are high, then take a look at the quarterly reports from Micron, Infineon and Hynix. They're not making tons of money from DRAM. Micron's last quarter earnings were $43 million on sales of $1.26 billion. That's about 3.4%. They're not paving the streets of Boise, Idaho with gold.
What I would like to know is how much money it is estimated they made from price fixing.
It seems easy enough to find out - just check out their earnings reports for the period of the price fixing.
You'll find that, other than Samsung, which does not break out its memory business from everything else, Hynix, Infineon and Micron all had record or near-record losses.
I guess that without the price fixing the losses would have been worse, but they were pretty large amounts of money...enough that Hynix nearly went bankrupt and Micron had to raise money and lay off employees. Dunno about Infineon, but somewhere around that time, they got a new CEO.
Although your question fits the headline and, to a degree, the summary, it doesn't really fit the situation for which Samsung was fined. The whole affair was not over monopolistic practices, but because the top four producers of DRAM conspired to fix prices worldwide. Samsung is just the last of the bunch to be assessed a fine. Infineon paid, Hynix paid. Micron did not because, under US law, by being the first to admit to the deed, they got off without punishment - essentially the same as prosecutors giving a plea deal in exchange for giving testimony against the other guys.
So I guess that the real question is whether or not the industry as a whole will change their practices. Of course, given that even with the price fixing they were still losing money, the fines are really poetic justice.
I don't think that it's a good idea to rely on moderators to make your point, unless it's an observation of the behavior or rabid crackheads - or Wallace and Gromit fans.
Equating "being able to see the source" with "GPL" is a bit of FUD.
Not at all - the GPL requires that they provide the source to anyone who purchases the software. It's one of the key components of the GPL.
Other than improvements to the software, I assume that the other key benefit to making the source code available is for many eyes to see it to provide security and functional updates. But if all that's happening to the source is that competitors are taking it and repackaging it under another name and nobody is actually updating the software (other than the licensor), then why release it under the GPL? I'm as utopian-minded as the next guy - I'd like to see everyone benefit from software, but it seems that in this case everyone except the licensor is benefiting. That doesn't seem so right.
After reading the article, I guess I don't understand how they came to the iPod conclusion. They pointed out two sources of music that work with iPods - iTunes and Rhapsody. That doesn't seem to support the contention that I'm "stuck" with iTunes. In fact, I know that I'm not, because I've got an iPod full of music and I've never used iTunes (the music store or the program). The first thing that I bought for my iPod was Anapod Explorer.
Maybe somebody else can explain why I'm stuck with iTunes...
No part of this program, product, software, or item, including the look or feel of the program, product, software, or item may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without the express written permission of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (or other appropriate corporate entity). This prohibition against unlawful or unauthorized reproduction is intended to include all U.S. domestic use as well as protections afforded under any international forum or law, including, but not limited to G.A.T.T.
So why not ask what it takes to get a license? How hard is that?
The guy gets a C&D because he elected to ignore the above notice (that took me all of about a minute to find) and now it's a ruckus. The notice said to not do what he did, but it also gave him a mechanism to get permission. I'd save the ruckus for if there were some sort of unreasonable terms for getting permission to do what he's done.
The biggest thing that helped me was to listen to my friends until I started hearing some of them talking about how they liked their jobs. I got hired by their company and quit my job.
It took a while, but paying attention to what other people were saying about their work helped me get a nice job that I enjoyed.
The only hitch in the plan is that AAPL, as a non-media company, has revenues of around US$10 billion a year and TWX, a media company, has revenues of over US$40 billion a year. SNE is a 70 billion dollar company. Now, I'm not saying that it can't be done, but AAPL isn't in the media business, ITMS aside. And if you're a relatively small company in comparison to the guys that you might be trying to take out, particularly if you're engaging in a business market with which you have virtually no penetration, it will probably be bloody.
How much of AAPL's revenue are they going to devote to creating a music label? Would it be at the expense of some other product? Would they be willing to commit enough money to the music label to potentially have a few losing quarters? I think that it would just be a big nightmare for AAPL.
Me? I've never used iTunes. I've got Anapod and I rip my own music. But my wife uses iTunes and ITMS, so I suppose that she'd be all upset.
Hey, Zonk, maybe if you spent less time frying your brain on video games, you wouldn't post so many dupes! "Fractured Internet"? How about fractured attention span? Check out the front page, dude!
Slashdot Mirror
Look up John Bruce Thompson. "Jack" is a nickname.
John Bruce Thompson
Member in Good Standing Eligible to practice in Florida
ID Number: - 231665
Firm:
1172 S Dixie Hwy Ste 111
Coral Gables Florida 331462918
Phone: 305.6664366
Fax:
E-Mail: jackpeace@comcast.net
County: Dade
Circuit: 11
Admitted: 05/31/1977
From the Florida Bar Association web site. Don't sue me, Jack!
-h-
"The problem was, and still is, that you can't go to war with a country and remove their government."
There. That is the principle we violated.
Denazification
Actually, no. If that was the case, then the memory companies involved would have been passing on the costs of doing business during the time that they were losing money hand over fist (coincidentally, the time that they were also fixing prices, go figure). Memory chips are a commodity - the prices are set by the market and it's up to the manufacturers to figure out how to make them for less than the market price. It's not like a car, where the price is determined by the cost of manufacturing.
So the memory prices are set several times a day - the big purchasers (like Dell, HPQ, etc) make an offer, the manufacturers counter and the price is set. In fact, in Micron's conference call a few quarters ago, they announced a rather revolutionary idea - if the customer's price was too low, they wouldn't sell. Up to that point, the claim was that the customer would call, give a price and the manufacturer would sell. And that's one of the many reasons that memory makers were losing money hand over fist for a while. Even with price fixing.
If you really think that memory prices are high, then take a look at the quarterly reports from Micron, Infineon and Hynix. They're not making tons of money from DRAM. Micron's last quarter earnings were $43 million on sales of $1.26 billion. That's about 3.4%. They're not paving the streets of Boise, Idaho with gold.
-h-
I think that you missed the joke. Run on down to your video store.
What I would like to know is how much money it is estimated they made from price fixing.
It seems easy enough to find out - just check out their earnings reports for the period of the price fixing.
You'll find that, other than Samsung, which does not break out its memory business from everything else, Hynix, Infineon and Micron all had record or near-record losses.
I guess that without the price fixing the losses would have been worse, but they were pretty large amounts of money...enough that Hynix nearly went bankrupt and Micron had to raise money and lay off employees. Dunno about Infineon, but somewhere around that time, they got a new CEO.
-h-
Although your question fits the headline and, to a degree, the summary, it doesn't really fit the situation for which Samsung was fined. The whole affair was not over monopolistic practices, but because the top four producers of DRAM conspired to fix prices worldwide. Samsung is just the last of the bunch to be assessed a fine. Infineon paid, Hynix paid. Micron did not because, under US law, by being the first to admit to the deed, they got off without punishment - essentially the same as prosecutors giving a plea deal in exchange for giving testimony against the other guys.
So I guess that the real question is whether or not the industry as a whole will change their practices. Of course, given that even with the price fixing they were still losing money, the fines are really poetic justice.
-h-
Mythbusters are authoritative - just like Wikipedia!
I don't know where you copied this article for your trolling...
The Ayn Rand Institute: Columbus Day: A Time to Celebrate
Also it cures baldness.
Thank god! I'm almost out of my hair in a can.
Sure he made sense - Linux is the kernel. GNU/Linux is the operating system. C'mon, if you're going to be pedantic, at least do it right!
-h-
Flamebait? Whew...rough crowd here...
No, just recognizing an asshole when they see one.
I'm in networking to solve complex issues. Not to change some morons battery.
Apostrophes are for morons.
-h-
I don't think that it's a good idea to rely on moderators to make your point, unless it's an observation of the behavior or rabid crackheads - or Wallace and Gromit fans.
-h-
Equating "being able to see the source" with "GPL" is a bit of FUD.
Not at all - the GPL requires that they provide the source to anyone who purchases the software. It's one of the key components of the GPL.
Other than improvements to the software, I assume that the other key benefit to making the source code available is for many eyes to see it to provide security and functional updates. But if all that's happening to the source is that competitors are taking it and repackaging it under another name and nobody is actually updating the software (other than the licensor), then why release it under the GPL? I'm as utopian-minded as the next guy - I'd like to see everyone benefit from software, but it seems that in this case everyone except the licensor is benefiting. That doesn't seem so right.
-h-
...I found this quote from HardCase...
Holy smokes, you mean somebody actually reads this stuff?
-h-
...a Beowulf cluster flock.
After reading the article, I guess I don't understand how they came to the iPod conclusion. They pointed out two sources of music that work with iPods - iTunes and Rhapsody. That doesn't seem to support the contention that I'm "stuck" with iTunes. In fact, I know that I'm not, because I've got an iPod full of music and I've never used iTunes (the music store or the program). The first thing that I bought for my iPod was Anapod Explorer.
Maybe somebody else can explain why I'm stuck with iTunes...
-h-
Wrong Fox.
Youth is wasted on the young.
Then why don't they go after libraries? Libraries have been sharing materials for centuries.
I think that you should not have the word "Intellectual" as part of your name if you are serious...
From the MTA web site:
© Copyright Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
1996-2005. All rights reserved.
No part of this program, product, software, or item, including the look or feel of the program, product, software, or item may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without the express written permission of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (or other appropriate corporate entity). This prohibition against unlawful or unauthorized reproduction is intended to include all U.S. domestic use as well as protections afforded under any international forum or law, including, but not limited to G.A.T.T.
So why not ask what it takes to get a license? How hard is that?
The guy gets a C&D because he elected to ignore the above notice (that took me all of about a minute to find) and now it's a ruckus. The notice said to not do what he did, but it also gave him a mechanism to get permission. I'd save the ruckus for if there were some sort of unreasonable terms for getting permission to do what he's done.
-h-
The biggest thing that helped me was to listen to my friends until I started hearing some of them talking about how they liked their jobs. I got hired by their company and quit my job.
It took a while, but paying attention to what other people were saying about their work helped me get a nice job that I enjoyed.
-h-
Good point, but Sony makes up for that in spades.
The only hitch in the plan is that AAPL, as a non-media company, has revenues of around US$10 billion a year and TWX, a media company, has revenues of over US$40 billion a year. SNE is a 70 billion dollar company. Now, I'm not saying that it can't be done, but AAPL isn't in the media business, ITMS aside. And if you're a relatively small company in comparison to the guys that you might be trying to take out, particularly if you're engaging in a business market with which you have virtually no penetration, it will probably be bloody.
How much of AAPL's revenue are they going to devote to creating a music label? Would it be at the expense of some other product? Would they be willing to commit enough money to the music label to potentially have a few losing quarters? I think that it would just be a big nightmare for AAPL.
Me? I've never used iTunes. I've got Anapod and I rip my own music. But my wife uses iTunes and ITMS, so I suppose that she'd be all upset.
Hey, Zonk, maybe if you spent less time frying your brain on video games, you wouldn't post so many dupes! "Fractured Internet"? How about fractured attention span? Check out the front page, dude!