Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Not that supprising (Score 1) 44

by getNewNickName (#45572355) Attached to: 270 Million Android Users In China

The link you provided doesn't give exact sales numbers, but it is a fairly common tactic to limit the supply of expensive items artificially to keep them expensive and exclusive. iPhones are aspirational purchases, if they were cheap and plentiful it would take the shine off.

Sure, many companies play the "limit the supply" game, but given that the WSJ says that they've increased production of the iPhone 5s, I don't think that Apple is playing this game.

Comment: Re:Why is iPad so much better than iPhone? (Score 2) 471

by getNewNickName (#45205047) Attached to: Apple Announces iPad Air
If you're comparing size and weight you need to take into account the important pieces that contribute to those stats: the display and the battery. The iPad Air has a 2048x1536 display vs 1920x1200 on the Xperia. According to the product page, the iPad Air has approx 10 hour battery life, while the Xperia doesn't specify battery life on its product page (some reviews are quoting 8 hours). I don't see Xperia as having "about the same" specs at all.

Comment: Re:Time for Apple to go for the jugular (Score 1) 284

by getNewNickName (#41885409) Attached to: Sharp Warns That It Might Collapse

You are speaking rationally... perception is what matters in stock valuations, especially a stock as widely held by "enthusiast investors" as AAPL. Part of the valuation perception in AAPL is the unusually high profit margin, merge them with a nice profitable entity like Archer Daniels Midland and it will muck up that crystal clear picture of what makes AAPL such a desirable stock to hold.

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...

Comment: Re:I just bought a test prep book at Amazon (Score 4, Informative) 235

by getNewNickName (#39645913) Attached to: DoJ Files Suit Against Apple, Ebook Publishers

The paperback was $38 shipped and the downloadable version was $97. Excuse me but that's insane.

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.

Comment: Re:I hope they get raked over the coals for this (Score 1) 235

by getNewNickName (#39645751) Attached to: DoJ Files Suit Against Apple, Ebook Publishers

One of the things that might bury Apple is the "you cant have your ebook priced cheaper anywhere else" requirement - with the price including Apples cut.

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.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 3, Informative) 235

by getNewNickName (#39645687) Attached to: DoJ Files Suit Against Apple, Ebook Publishers
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.

Comment: Re:Shareholders want to buy... (Score 1) 408

by getNewNickName (#39341825) Attached to: Google 'Wasting' $16 Billion On Projects Headed Nowhere
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.

Comment: Re:"twist the truth and distort reality" (Score 1) 337

by getNewNickName (#38985485) Attached to: FBI File Notes Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field
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.

<< WAIT >>

Working...