So AAPL, being 68% held by institutions, is considered "widely held by 'enthusiast investors'"? How about MSFT which is 65.3%? I guess that's also an enthusiast stock, and let's see MCD which is 66.3%. I guess enthusiasts love their Big Macs...

I dunno about you, but I would choose AAPL instead of these guys APPL.

This is probably an extreme example of the difference between the wholesale vs the agency model pricing. The retailer sets the price under the wholesale model, while the publisher set the price for the agency model. In this case the publisher wanted to sell at $97 while the retailer, with its deep wholesale discount, chose to sell it at $38.

The above clause doesn't seem to hurt consumers, we all get cheaper prices so why would the DoJ have an issue with it? The issue is whether the agency model of selling books is causing prices to be artificially inflated over the wholesale model.

It's the difference between wholesale and agency models that brings about the curious discrepancy in prices. Print books fall under the wholesale model: they are bought at a discount from the publisher and the retailer gets to set the price they sell at. Whereas for eBooks, sold under the agency model, publishers set the price on the book and the retailer gets a percentage of the sale. Under the wholesale model the retailer can choose to make a particular book a loss-leader or negotiate a deeper volume discount so that they can offer lower prices. The retailer has no control over the pricing for the agency model.

As a shareholder, of course I want Google to innovate. I'm willing to wait a few years to see some of that innovation turn into profit, but look at the trend, GOOG stock has barely moved for the past 5 years. Whereas a company like Apple has grown five-fold. Google neither pays a dividend nor is there much share price appreciation, which makes it a bad investment. As a shareholder I would much rather hold Microsoft, which at least pays a 2.6% dividend each year.

Take a look at the website, it doesn't have a specific name for the new iteration. With all the trademark issues, it's probably best to just keep the name simple and refer to each iteration by the year they were released much like the way it's done with Macs.

By market capitalization.

Given the amount of media exposure Jobs had, anyone else under the same spotlight would appear sociopathic. Media loves to focus on faults and sensationalize even the smallest issues. It's doubtful that any typical slashdotter would look saintly under that amount of scrutiny.

Silly statements that get blown out of proportion like bankrupting his company to avenge a theft, that's buying into the idiocy of mass media... right, because Jobs "bankrupted" Apple all the way to becoming the largest company in the world. Jobs was a fabulous marketer who stretched the truth where it benefited the company. He wasn't a saint nor the devil-incarnate, he was just a guy who sold you shiny toys, just like the rest.

And that is why the altruistic Kodak sued RIM and Apple over patent infringement?

Why the jab against the fanboys? Fanboys will also look at such information with a more critical eye and help dispel the sensationalism in these articles.

Probably because they didn't want to be viewed as just another Android handset; they wanted to have some differentiating factor. Unfortunately they don't have the talent pool to pull-off such an ambitious undertaking.

A politician using a gimmick and the media to get himself more attention? Are you also on the PR department for this guy?

You miss the point. Enterprise isn't interested in coolness factor, they want legacy support. Stunts like discontinuing production of Xservers and shafting existing users of Final Cut Pro are examples why enterprise would be reluctant to make use of Apple's products. If Apple truly wants to see their iOS devices used in enterprise they'll have to start supporting older versions of iOS, and soon they'll be saddled with the same legacy support issues that plague Microsoft.

What's to say that your current favorite site will not be sold to a foreign company in the future along with all your personal data? The only way to ensure your privacy is to never put the information on the internet.