Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
No, but that does indicate that there's something wrong.
All the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market often quote how it is a better thing for consumers than lots of regulation. It's true, when lots of competition exists. Ever questioned why that is? Hint: it's not because companies get a high profit margin. On the contrary, it's because prices approach marginal cost
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market, but due to government protecting Apple's market in the form of enforcing EULAs in court. If you buy Mac OS X, they should have no say what you do with it.
I find it odd that to prove wrong "the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market" (and to whine about Apple's profits) you pull out an theoretical construct of theirs which is completely pie in the sky because it requires things like
Infinite Buyers/Infinite Sellers
Zero Entry/Exit Barriers
Homogeneous Products
Not to forget that "Firms Aim to Maximize Profits" is also needed - which you came in to slam in the first place.
Bullshit. Apple sell software. If they were really wanted it installed on Crapple devices only, the first thing it would do is ask for your machine's serial number.
So Apple is evil for not asking for the serial number of your Mac.
And again you don't call the companies a fool who couldn't be bothered with trying to sell their wares to anyone but some computer geeks. Instead it's the people who didn't dig through the last pages of Computer Shopper to find an add advertising something that could play "MP3s" (whatever that is).
I think he is talking about the "FairPlay" iTunes DRM encryption ensuring you could only playback the music files using Apple hardware products.
Let's assume that you weren't implying that PCs running Windows are "Apple hardware products". So what, if you can only play songs with FairPlay on iPods - Apple never promised anything else. But before the iTMS, you could only buy music online from site that sold obscure indy music, from Russian sites of dubious legality, and about a dozen stores with a rather small catalogue selling songs in WMA with a much worse DRM than FairPlay that most MP3 players couldn't play.
My impression and limited experience of Mac users has been folks who genuinely think Apple is innovative. I believe they are not. They take existing technology and perhaps make it more mature by adding a good interface to it. I give them credit for making things like mp3 players more mainstream but they did it by trying to pushing their own format.
Oh? And what would that format be? MP3? Later AAC? Or did the introduction of the iTunes (Music) Store with DRM make the iPod "more mainstream"? Are you telling us they should have used the "open" WMA with DRM on the iPods?
but I do point out when a company continuously acts like a fool. The bigger fools of course are the users who overpay and support it because they like having a more closed system as long as the interface is shinier.
I notice you don't call Psystar fools for selling overpriced PCs and Software that is nothing but slightly changed Open Source for quite some money (and of course don't make available source code).
It's not personal information. It's anonymous stats.
Just like an image from a CCTV camera is anonymous data - but wait, that's the evil government, not a benevolent corporation that can pull together endless amounts of "anonymous" information and create a exact profile of you.
Well, you see it, but you don't actually recognize it, it's his insistence to see the "real, hidden data" that doesn't exist, instead of the freely available data that doesn't prove his point. He can not be satisfied.
So? They grow grapes in Schotland today. How can it be colder now than 200 or 2000 years ago? Are you even trying to make sense? What was the reason it was so warm then. and what is it now? Can you even answer question or just repeat what your overlords from the denier sites tell you to say?
I remember that on a trip to Saudi Arabia (for those who don't know much about geography, it's the largest country in the middle east and it has a quarter of the world's oil) they were just burning up excess gas on a top of a tower. Even if the west reduced its emissions, it's things like this that we have to worry about.
Actually, we would have a bigger problem if they just released the Methane into the air instead of turning it into CO2 by burning it.
You know, if many of the graphs made by AGW deniers didn't have much more convenient cut-off points or even outright mislabeling, I would actually give a damn about their damnations.
People are eager to believe global warming skeptics for several reasons. One is that all the supposedly evil coal and petroleum we are burning, that supposedly will make life on Earth unbearable, consists of remains of dead plant and animal matter. Which means the biosphere actually had that carbon in it at a point and life didn't end as a result. So how come it will end now?
Have they factored in Global Dimming though? As the pollution increases, the extra particulate matter in the atmosphere relects sunlight away from the earth. This process is one of the few negative feedback loops that occurs when we increase pollution.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but if we increased the amount of particulate matter in our pollution, we could reverse the warming trend.
Apart from direct health implications, this would lead to disrupting the role of photosynthesis as a carbon sink. Not to mention a source of food.
Prove it. Since CO2 levels have been higher in the past, it stands to reason that sealife is already adapted to higher levels of dissolved CO2 in seawater.
Prove it. Since CO2 levels have been lower in the recent past, it stands to reason that sealife that was adapted to higher levels of dissolved CO2 in seawater has vanished.
Slashdot Mirror
data from 10 trees is extrpolated into a 'trend' and finds its way into a number of papers
AGW deniers: data from their own thermometer is extrapolated into the trend "that it isn't getting any warmer".
What crack have you been smoking? I've routinely exceeded 4-600mbit on my WindowsXP hosts.
On your LAN, or over the Internet? The kicker is the Bandwidth-delay product - and the delay on a LAN is small enough not to matter much.
Too bad for Psystar that what they did isn't covered by the first sale doctrine.
If I were a betting man I would bet on Steve Jobs owning a large piece of Pystar.
So Steve is the John Doe Apple sued along with Psystar? Is he also Worker Bee?
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
No, but that does indicate that there's something wrong.
All the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market often quote how it is a better thing for consumers than lots of regulation. It's true, when lots of competition exists. Ever questioned why that is? Hint: it's not because companies get a high profit margin. On the contrary, it's because prices approach marginal cost
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market, but due to government protecting Apple's market in the form of enforcing EULAs in court. If you buy Mac OS X, they should have no say what you do with it.
I find it odd that to prove wrong "the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market" (and to whine about Apple's profits) you pull out an theoretical construct of theirs which is completely pie in the sky because it requires things like
Not to forget that "Firms Aim to Maximize Profits" is also needed - which you came in to slam in the first place.
Bullshit. Apple sell software. If they were really wanted it installed on Crapple devices only, the first thing it would do is ask for your machine's serial number.
So Apple is evil for not asking for the serial number of your Mac.
And again you don't call the companies a fool who couldn't be bothered with trying to sell their wares to anyone but some computer geeks. Instead it's the people who didn't dig through the last pages of Computer Shopper to find an add advertising something that could play "MP3s" (whatever that is).
I think he is talking about the "FairPlay" iTunes DRM encryption ensuring you could only playback the music files using Apple hardware products.
Let's assume that you weren't implying that PCs running Windows are "Apple hardware products". So what, if you can only play songs with FairPlay on iPods - Apple never promised anything else. But before the iTMS, you could only buy music online from site that sold obscure indy music, from Russian sites of dubious legality, and about a dozen stores with a rather small catalogue selling songs in WMA with a much worse DRM than FairPlay that most MP3 players couldn't play.
My impression and limited experience of Mac users has been folks who genuinely think Apple is innovative. I believe they are not. They take existing technology and perhaps make it more mature by adding a good interface to it. I give them credit for making things like mp3 players more mainstream but they did it by trying to pushing their own format.
Oh? And what would that format be? MP3? Later AAC? Or did the introduction of the iTunes (Music) Store with DRM make the iPod "more mainstream"? Are you telling us they should have used the "open" WMA with DRM on the iPods?
but I do point out when a company continuously acts like a fool. The bigger fools of course are the users who overpay and support it because they like having a more closed system as long as the interface is shinier.
I notice you don't call Psystar fools for selling overpriced PCs and Software that is nothing but slightly changed Open Source for quite some money (and of course don't make available source code).
It's not personal information. It's anonymous stats.
Just like an image from a CCTV camera is anonymous data - but wait, that's the evil government, not a benevolent corporation that can pull together endless amounts of "anonymous" information and create a exact profile of you.
What history books were you smoking?
The German police certainly sound more threatening.
That's because the American police makes no sound before tasing you.
The most recent thing I heard about was that German politicians banned paintball
See, you must live in a country with free speech, because you can claim completely untrue things about another country.
Einstein was an Eastern European.
Errm, what?
Well, you see it, but you don't actually recognize it, it's his insistence to see the "real, hidden data" that doesn't exist, instead of the freely available data that doesn't prove his point. He can not be satisfied.
So? They grow grapes in Schotland today. How can it be colder now than 200 or 2000 years ago? Are you even trying to make sense? What was the reason it was so warm then. and what is it now? Can you even answer question or just repeat what your overlords from the denier sites tell you to say?
I remember that on a trip to Saudi Arabia (for those who don't know much about geography, it's the largest country in the middle east and it has a quarter of the world's oil) they were just burning up excess gas on a top of a tower. Even if the west reduced its emissions, it's things like this that we have to worry about.
Actually, we would have a bigger problem if they just released the Methane into the air instead of turning it into CO2 by burning it.
Nice try, but "the AGW crowd" actually keeps pointing at the whole picture, it's you guys cherry picking small time periods.
You know, if many of the graphs made by AGW deniers didn't have much more convenient cut-off points or even outright mislabeling, I would actually give a damn about their damnations.
People are eager to believe global warming skeptics for several reasons. One is that all the supposedly evil coal and petroleum we are burning, that supposedly will make life on Earth unbearable, consists of remains of dead plant and animal matter. Which means the biosphere actually had that carbon in it at a point and life didn't end as a result. So how come it will end now?
It's life Jim, but not as we know it.
Not to mention that you are burning a strawman.
Have they factored in Global Dimming though? As the pollution increases, the extra particulate matter in the atmosphere relects sunlight away from the earth. This process is one of the few negative feedback loops that occurs when we increase pollution. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but if we increased the amount of particulate matter in our pollution, we could reverse the warming trend.
Apart from direct health implications, this would lead to disrupting the role of photosynthesis as a carbon sink. Not to mention a source of food.
If Earth is at its coldest point in the last 500 million years, why was it colder 200 years ago?
Prove it. Since CO2 levels have been higher in the past, it stands to reason that sealife is already adapted to higher levels of dissolved CO2 in seawater.
Prove it. Since CO2 levels have been lower in the recent past, it stands to reason that sealife that was adapted to higher levels of dissolved CO2 in seawater has vanished.
It's nice to see a big name admit that 1 pirated copy != 1 lost sale.
So all we need now is one no name admit that 1 pirated copy != 0 lost sale.