Right, right. I forgot, that time. Here you are: "Remember that wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something."
Whichever of us posts the last word to this thread before it is archived, you and I, and anyone who ever reads it, will know that you had to resort to ignoring the question because you could not win the argument.
LOL. I proved my point in the second post. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.
we were getting nowhere with Real and Apple, so I thought I'd try to address the problem at a lower level.
Remember though, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something. If you can't address the topic, maybe you're better off not saying anything.
What I sometimes wonder is what drives you and others like you. --snip, blah blah blah -- Am I just unwittingly playing the role of the Daddy in a bizzare masochistic flagellation exercise? I am truly fascinated.
Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. Now you're blathering on about self-flagellation and some imagined Electra complex.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Real & Apple.
It's always amusing to hear that from the likes of someone whose approach to discourse is to be purely contrary as an end in itself, regardless of whether or not they can logically defend their position.
You must talk to yourself quite often.
Both points are clearly stated in the first reply I made to this thread and my position on them has not changed.
So your "position" is based on your assertion of the supposed position of someone who couldn't defend it themselves. Hilarious.
May I once again suggest you try cutting your claws in real logical rhetoric rather than in empty sophistry?
Once again, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
So go ahead, say something. I know you can't help it. It's obviously your nature.
Link to it, then. Quote it directly, don't just link to a reply which you think implies that someone disputed it.
Ok, I hope you don't soil your panties, but here it is.
"....and you know this (they make a profit) how?"
So now you're arguing about whether or not there was an argument. Pathetic. Remember: Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
"Because, given their reaction to Real, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales"."
Nobody said that Apple wasn't profiting. Show me this "No profit on iTMS" claim. LINK TO IT. QUOTE IT. You can't.
There's no argument left. I've proven my point-- so all you Maclots can do is try to eke some minimal amount of victory by muddying the point of the discussion.
You really should take the advice from your sig: 'Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.'
Unlike almost everything else you've written, this is an actual fact -- you don't see how this could be possible. However, that doesn't mean it isn't. --snip, blah blah blah -- Please correct me if I'm wrong... and try to do it with facts instead of more assumptions.
You're missing the whole point. I've already proven my original assertion--Which is that Apple is profiting from iTMS.
Steve Jobs admitted it in his conference call to shareholders, and it's in the 3Q report. We established that yesterday.
Now, estimating *how much* profit is just a fun little exercise, to see *how big* of a lie the "no profit on iTMS" claim actually is. If you're not interested in that, which you're obviously not, why even post?
I think the reason some of us are getting tired of all the unnecessary anti-MS FUD is because the people spreading it keep on harping on about stuff that's not been true (for us at least) for years.
Windows is fine. I use windows all day, every day. Works great.
MS Office, on the other hand, is total garbage. Office only continues to exist because it's the "standard", regardless of the fact that it's a buggy, half-assed piece of shit.
Because if you are in government, or do work for the government, you're required to use it. It's sad, but true, "Required in Microsoft Word Format" is actually codified into government policy.
I have never seen such ridiculous denial. Halfway through a sentence in which I show you that I have seen and understood caddisfly's point, you cut in to tell me that it doesn't exist. Somebody else has replied to this thread too, telling you you don't get it, so caddisfly and I are not the only ones who think that.
I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said we weren't able to get to it. I kept having to repeat the same important point, because he kept ignoring it, and blathering on about how I needed to buy a glasses factory, or sharpen a razor. He ignored it three times, and then ran off. Pathetic.
But the problem here is your "three times" number is completely arbitrary. Take another look at caddisfly's list of reasons why Apple's costs are probably different (higher) than AllofMP3's:
It's arbitrary, is it? Nice. It's actually not. It comes from Roxio's costs of operating Napster (10-Q filing):
1. R&D: $3.7million
2. Sales & Marketing: $2.5million
3. General & Administrative: $1.5million
4. total employees related to the Napster service: 17, salaries included in figures above
5, 6, 7. LOL. See above.
Total Operating expenses for online music division: $7.7million
I don't see why Apple's expenses would be that much more than Napster. These expenses work out to 11c per track (about 3x AllofMP3). Lets say Apple's costs are DOUBLE what Napster's expenses are. (It's ridiculously high, but any less gets the Maclots screaming the estimate is unfair. Yeah, I've seen that before.) That leaves us at expenses of about 20c per track.
Thanks for playing. Maybe your kindergarten teacher explain the numbers if you have trouble.
You didn't address the removal of the paperclip -- that's the significant factual error you made in your earlier post, and I'm going to assume that you're too chickenshit to admit you are wrong about it.
However, you STILL haven't addressed caddisfly's point, which is that just because
We weren't able to get to it. He was apparently more interested in self-ingratiation and hypocritical witticisms to actually read and comprehend what I was saying, so the conversation didn't progress that far.
AllOfMP3 have operating costs low enough for them to profit at 4 cents a song, doesn't mean to say that Apple can have operating costs low enough to make a considerable profit from 35c revenue.
Which is why I went so far as to say that even if AllofMP3 makes ZERO profit, and Apple's costs are THREE TIMES that of AllofMP3, Apple's still making $16.1 million. Even if Apple's expenses are 20c per track (which is ridiculously high), they're still making $10 million.
...even worse, they made this profit with a sales shortfall of 30 million songs. They were planning on making more money than they made. The whole "no profit on iTMS" has been a crock of shit from the beginning. They know it, too, which is why they lump iTMS sales in with "ipod accessories" in the Q3 SEC filing.
The problem with Apple is that they won't just admit that they're a corporation like all other corporations. No, they're *different*. Their CEO only takes $1 salary. Their online music store is a hair away from being a charity. They just offer it as a service out of the goodness of their hearts, so the people with ipods have something to listen to.
Yeah. Right.
If Jobs didn't compulsively fabricate this smokescreen of total bullshit, he might not drive away 97% of the computing market, and people might actually take Apple seriously as a company.
Please now answer the question, rather than re-attempting to bolster your straw man
My analysis of caddisfly's argument was quite fair. The only strawmen we've seen here are imported from Maclot-sylvania.
LOL. Can you point out the part where I said it crashes? I don't recall saying that.
MS Office is foul. It's not a suite. It's a steaming pile of programs that barely work, much less work together.
Ever try to format a 100+ page scientific document in Word? Yeah, didn't think so.
Ever put together a 183-slide powerpoint file, with embedded video and multi-layer imported vector graphics from Autocad or Illustrator? (Hint: It makes Doom 3's system requirements look like those from a fucking game of solitaire). Yeah, didn't think you'd done that either.
Ever have outlook corrupt your account? It has a wonderfully descriptive error message that really cuts to the heart of the problem: "0x800CCC00 LOAD SICILY FAILED." Right, Right, you've ever seen that, either.
The list goes on and on-- I mean Jesus Christ. Up until Office 2004, there wasn't even proper 24-bit PNG support.
I swear the anti-MS FUD around here is really, really starting to get to me.. ---snip, blah blah, blah--..They did, but you're so busy being a bigot you failed to notice.
... and you're obviously quite busy defending a product you've never used.
With regards to the clippy comment, why don't you fire up Microsoft Dictionary XP 2004 Platinum Edition(c)(tm) and look up sarcasm.
Slashdot Mirror
Compared to the capability of just six GFlops of a typical CPU, Nvidia's chips can reach more than 40 GFlops, according to Cann.
"can reach more than"... "Capable of more than"...
So what's the real-world performance?
This is like those radio commercials where a store sells candy bars for $0.30, and then trumpets "up to 70% off everything in the store!"
Right, right. I forgot, that time. Here you are: "Remember that wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something."
Hey, now you're down to one-word responses. Keep it up and we'll be done!
That's the best you can come up with? Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.
Sheer Hilarity. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.
Whichever of us posts the last word to this thread before it is archived, you and I, and anyone who ever reads it, will know that you had to resort to ignoring the question because you could not win the argument.
LOL. I proved my point in the second post. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.
we were getting nowhere with Real and Apple, so I thought I'd try to address the problem at a lower level.
Remember though, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something. If you can't address the topic, maybe you're better off not saying anything.
What I sometimes wonder is what drives you and others like you. --snip, blah blah blah -- Am I just unwittingly playing the role of the Daddy in a bizzare masochistic flagellation exercise? I am truly fascinated.
Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. Now you're blathering on about self-flagellation and some imagined Electra complex.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Real & Apple.
It's always amusing to hear that from the likes of someone whose approach to discourse is to be purely contrary as an end in itself, regardless of whether or not they can logically defend their position.
You must talk to yourself quite often.
Both points are clearly stated in the first reply I made to this thread and my position on them has not changed.
LOL. He didn't argue that? You sure?
So your "position" is based on your assertion of the supposed position of someone who couldn't defend it themselves. Hilarious.
May I once again suggest you try cutting your claws in real logical rhetoric rather than in empty sophistry?
Once again, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
So go ahead, say something. I know you can't help it. It's obviously your nature.
I just won the argument. There!
won what, exactly? seriously, I want to know, because you've not had a real position on anything this entire time.
LOL. Do you guys actually have anything to say, or are you just going to continue poking around for chinks in a case that's already been proven?
SHOW ME THE CLAIM
LOL. I just did.
That's right. Just ignore the truth. You've been doing it long enough buying Apple products, anyway.
Debaters debate because they are able to win arguments; trolls troll because they are not.
Well, given that I've already won, I'd say you just aptly labeled yourself. You know, admission is the first step to recovery.
Link to it, then. Quote it directly, don't just link to a reply which you think implies that someone disputed it.
Ok, I hope you don't soil your panties, but here it is.
"....and you know this (they make a profit) how?"
So now you're arguing about whether or not there was an argument. Pathetic. Remember: Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
Your "original assertion" is nothing like the whole point.
It's not? How do you manage to fit your foot in your mouth, when your head is so far up your ass?
"Because, given their reaction to Real, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales"."
Nobody said that Apple wasn't profiting. Show me this "No profit on iTMS" claim. LINK TO IT. QUOTE IT. You can't.
LOL. I can't? Nobody challenged my argument?
"....and you know this (they make a profit) how?"
There's no argument left. I've proven my point-- so all you Maclots can do is try to eke some minimal amount of victory by muddying the point of the discussion.
You really should take the advice from your sig: 'Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.'
Yes, Apple is making a profit on the iTMS -- no one disputed that.
LOL. Nobody? Re-read the thread.
Unlike almost everything else you've written, this is an actual fact -- you don't see how this could be possible. However, that doesn't mean it isn't. --snip, blah blah blah -- Please correct me if I'm wrong... and try to do it with facts instead of more assumptions.
You're missing the whole point. I've already proven my original assertion--Which is that Apple is profiting from iTMS.
Steve Jobs admitted it in his conference call to shareholders, and it's in the 3Q report. We established that yesterday.
Now, estimating *how much* profit is just a fun little exercise, to see *how big* of a lie the "no profit on iTMS" claim actually is. If you're not interested in that, which you're obviously not, why even post?
I think the reason some of us are getting tired of all the unnecessary anti-MS FUD is because the people spreading it keep on harping on about stuff that's not been true (for us at least) for years.
Windows is fine. I use windows all day, every day. Works great.
MS Office, on the other hand, is total garbage. Office only continues to exist because it's the "standard", regardless of the fact that it's a buggy, half-assed piece of shit.
Because if you are in government, or do work for the government, you're required to use it. It's sad, but true, "Required in Microsoft Word Format" is actually codified into government policy.
I have never seen such ridiculous denial. Halfway through a sentence in which I show you that I have seen and understood caddisfly's point, you cut in to tell me that it doesn't exist. Somebody else has replied to this thread too, telling you you don't get it, so caddisfly and I are not the only ones who think that.
I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said we weren't able to get to it. I kept having to repeat the same important point, because he kept ignoring it, and blathering on about how I needed to buy a glasses factory, or sharpen a razor. He ignored it three times, and then ran off. Pathetic.
(FYI-- The three times figure is addressed here.)
But the problem here is your "three times" number is completely arbitrary. Take another look at caddisfly's list of reasons why Apple's costs are probably different (higher) than AllofMP3's:
It's arbitrary, is it? Nice. It's actually not. It comes from Roxio's costs of operating Napster (10-Q filing):
1. R&D: $3.7million
2. Sales & Marketing: $2.5million
3. General & Administrative: $1.5million
4. total employees related to the Napster service: 17, salaries included in figures above
5, 6, 7. LOL. See above.
Total Operating expenses for online music division: $7.7million
I don't see why Apple's expenses would be that much more than Napster. These expenses work out to 11c per track (about 3x AllofMP3). Lets say Apple's costs are DOUBLE what Napster's expenses are. (It's ridiculously high, but any less gets the Maclots screaming the estimate is unfair. Yeah, I've seen that before.) That leaves us at expenses of about 20c per track.
Thanks for playing. Maybe your kindergarten teacher explain the numbers if you have trouble.
You didn't address the removal of the paperclip -- that's the significant factual error you made in your earlier post, and I'm going to assume that you're too chickenshit to admit you are wrong about it.
I didn't, did I? Here, let me quote it for you, since you obviously didn't even bother to click the link:
"With regards to the clippy comment, why don't you fire up Microsoft Dictionary XP 2004 Platinum Edition(c)(tm) and look up sarcasm."
Yeah, so, I'm going to assume that you're too chickenshit to admit you are wrong about it.
Thanks for taking the time to read the entire thread before knee-jerking uncontrollably. Everything you just said has already been addressed here, yesterday.
However, you STILL haven't addressed caddisfly's point, which is that just because
...even worse, they made this profit with a sales shortfall of 30 million songs. They were planning on making more money than they made. The whole "no profit on iTMS" has been a crock of shit from the beginning. They know it, too, which is why they lump iTMS sales in with "ipod accessories" in the Q3 SEC filing.
We weren't able to get to it. He was apparently more interested in self-ingratiation and hypocritical witticisms to actually read and comprehend what I was saying, so the conversation didn't progress that far.
AllOfMP3 have operating costs low enough for them to profit at 4 cents a song, doesn't mean to say that Apple can have operating costs low enough to make a considerable profit from 35c revenue. Which is why I went so far as to say that even if AllofMP3 makes ZERO profit, and Apple's costs are THREE TIMES that of AllofMP3, Apple's still making $16.1 million. Even if Apple's expenses are 20c per track (which is ridiculously high), they're still making $10 million.
The problem with Apple is that they won't just admit that they're a corporation like all other corporations. No, they're *different*. Their CEO only takes $1 salary. Their online music store is a hair away from being a charity. They just offer it as a service out of the goodness of their hearts, so the people with ipods have something to listen to.
Yeah. Right.
If Jobs didn't compulsively fabricate this smokescreen of total bullshit, he might not drive away 97% of the computing market, and people might actually take Apple seriously as a company.
Please now answer the question, rather than re-attempting to bolster your straw man
My analysis of caddisfly's argument was quite fair. The only strawmen we've seen here are imported from Maclot-sylvania.
I NEVER have any of these apps crash on me.
..They did, but you're so busy being a bigot you failed to notice.
... and you're obviously quite busy defending a product you've never used.
LOL. Can you point out the part where I said it crashes? I don't recall saying that.
MS Office is foul. It's not a suite. It's a steaming pile of programs that barely work, much less work together.
Ever try to format a 100+ page scientific document in Word? Yeah, didn't think so.
Ever put together a 183-slide powerpoint file, with embedded video and multi-layer imported vector graphics from Autocad or Illustrator? (Hint: It makes Doom 3's system requirements look like those from a fucking game of solitaire). Yeah, didn't think you'd done that either.
Ever have outlook corrupt your account? It has a wonderfully descriptive error message that really cuts to the heart of the problem: "0x800CCC00 LOAD SICILY FAILED." Right, Right, you've ever seen that, either.
The list goes on and on-- I mean Jesus Christ. Up until Office 2004, there wasn't even proper 24-bit PNG support.
I swear the anti-MS FUD around here is really, really starting to get to me.. ---snip, blah blah, blah--
With regards to the clippy comment, why don't you fire up Microsoft Dictionary XP 2004 Platinum Edition(c)(tm) and look up sarcasm.
Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient will be the next revolution in worker productivity
...And they should get rid of that fucking talking paperclip while they're at it.
Aren't they kind of putting the wagon before the horse? Shouldn't they work on making the product just work correctly when you're by yourself?
Trying to work in Microsoft Word is like trying to build a house of cards during a fucking earthquake.
Better products? That thing's "OMG XBOX HUEG", and twice as expensive.