Apple also has banned Pulitzer-prize winning artists from their store as well.
A decision that was reversed on its merits as noted here... and now you know the rest of the story.
I was puzzled by their reference to a study placing the cost of K - 12 education at the second highest at $91,700 per student (that is a cumulative cost, not annual). The study coves ages 6 - 15, but states K - 12, which would typically be 5 - 18. A look at the PDF, suggests that the headline is just the 6 - 15 age group as it reports, "A high school graduate in 2009 had $149,000 spent on his 13 year public school education." It also states that the US pays more for only middle of the road results that have not improved over the years. I'm assuming on a relative basis with the other countries, since there is an overall inflation of test scores over time, As I read it, the study the article cites actually contradicts the conclusions in the article.
As an interesting aside, that cost of public school education is a lower annual rate than we pay for daycare (and our daycare costs are lower than average in our area). Considering that other studies have shown that earlier education opportunies (like good daycare) and supplemental learning over the summer months improve scores, I would suggest that NCLB is a failure precisely because it puts the emphasis on the wrong things. Why not focus on year-round learning (not necessarly more school days, but shorter breaks 3 or 4 times per year? And maybe work on getting more kids in a learning environment before Kindergarten (especially those at risk for underperformance).
Perhaps Apple is overstreching a bit too far here; I for one think the backlash isn't worth that 30% cut.
Some of the biggest expenses in publishing are PPP: paper, printing, and postage. For publications sold at newsstands there is also waste (unsold copies). Apple's 30% cut could easily be less than postage/delivery alone depending on the revenue model. Typically most of the revenue comes from advertising, so 30% (assuming subscription alone) could be seen as a huge bargain.
but as a whole, [Microsoft's] P/E is better than Apple's (even if they do have a lower market cap).
Better is in the eye of the beholder. Apple's earnings growth rate is much higher than Microsoft's. Since Q1 2006, Apple has averaged a nearly 62% earnings growth rate (and last year was almost 155%). Over the same period, Microsoft had an average earnings growth rate a of 23% (55% last year).
Investors give a higher P/E to companies with higher sustained growth (so long as nothing brings doubt about the future prospects of growth). Those earnings could be paid out as dividends, and thus the investor "owns" a stake in those earnings (plus any cash, property, etc less debt) proportional to their stock holdings and thus will pay more in order to make more. If Apple can sustain that average growth rate for another 5+ years, the current P/E will look like a bargain. In a better economy (less perceived uncertainty about future earnings), Microsoft's P/E might look more like Apple's (but then Apple's would be higher than it is now, too).
Really? Ask Wordstar, Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3, dBaseIII, Netscape, and countless other companies what fat lot of good the early lead did for them?
I would argue that most of those companies blew their opportunities by failing to adapt to rapidly changing technologies. Indeed, almost all of them failed at the transition from text-based to graphics-based interfaces. Netscape, however, had an issue with a competitor that could throw enormous money developing a browser that it could then give away. One could say that Microsoft learned that style matters (as punctuated by Apple's reemergence). What it also shows is that disruptive technologies can dethrone the king if the king isn't paying attention.