The objection was because state run shops were selling the same models for 1/5th the price or less. Since those shops would have taken payment in the local currency and had to buy in the sets with USD or Yen it is hard to see how such a high profit margin could be justified.
Sure enough when you look into it you see that this shop was basically fleecing people, only making sales because they couldn't get to the state run shops. People don't like getting ripped off because they have no choice, and their government acted on their behalf to put an end to it.
The same thing happens in the UK from time to time, only less dramatically. Some company starts screwing people a bit too much and the OFT steps in to put an end to it. Most recently there have been crackdowns on short term loan companies, for example.
This is absurd. If you can't get to a state run shop to buy a TV for a fifth of the price then you are not trying hard enough. If the shop was selling TVs about 5 times more expensive than they should be, the you are talking about the difference between paying $300 and $1500. Where I am from, people would go to a different country to buy products that were not that much cheaper.
The truth is that the state run shops probably either didn't have the TVs to sell because they couldn't afford to buy them and sell them at the prices they are allegedly selling them for.
If the state run stores were so good, why didn't Maduro just have an ad telling people to go and buy from the _much_ cheaper state run store instead?
One of the first thing a state that is failing will try to do is to impose price controls on goods whose prices they cannot really control. Ordinary people on the street don't get how the government can't control everything, but if a country imports the good, then the price is out of their hands, in particular if you are Venezuela. They can't control their exchange rate, or the international price of TVs.
It scores Maduro cheap political points, but in the not-so-long term, Venezuelans won't be able to buy TVs at a reasonable price. At least not from shops on the main street that are easier for politicians to control. A black market for electronic goods is the next step for Venezuela.
Which part of "up to a maximum of $500,000" did you not understand?
Winner's curse. The implementation of any public project tends to be awarded to the lowest cost bidder, the one who has underestimated the costs.
Your police forces are militarised because they have to assume any criminal they might be up against is armed. They are not going to turn up waving truncheons at criminals over there. In other parts of the world, the police generally don't carry guns because they generally don't need to.
As long as guns are a right in the USA, you should expect a police force that is militarised.
Greece and Ireland don't control their own currency. The US does.
You could have a switch at the end of the female connector to activate the contacts once the male connector is fully inserted.
(This reads very dirty!)
Apple doesn't ignore good standards.
The original iPod only worked with Firewire. That was because USB was stuck at 12Mbps for transfers. Once USB got to decent speed, Apple switched over to USB _and_ dropped Firewire.
If the USB consortium had come up with a better standard connector, I am sure Apple would adopt it in a heartbeat.
I wouldn't want micro-usb anywhere near my iPhone.
Welcome to the real world, where the tradeoffs are real.
Steve Jobs pushed his employees hard. He knew they could give him more. They also hardly ever left.
It's too easy to sensationalise the pushy side of the man, but the fact was that he was honest enough to tell them when he thought what they were doing wasn't good enough, maybe too forcefully at times, but honest nonetheless.
Maybe Blackberry would be different if they took the same approach. Could Steve Jobs have been nicer? Yes, but sometimes the CEO needs to be the CEO and not your friend.
Why would Apple do a presentation and draw people's attention to the fact that the signal was not good on the day and all the other negatives. Like it or not, Apple was selling the vision of the iPhone. People didn't leave the presentation thinking, "OMG, that first version of the iPhone is bug free". They rather thought the iPhone is a hundred steps ahead of anything they had ever seen, and that the vision was bold, and the product was likely to be really good, which it turned out to be.
But we don't want to see the indies!
What use is content that people don't want to see.?
Consuming content is also an important part of people's cultural participation. Watching the same TV series as my neighbours, colleagues and friends can give us something to talk about, or at least to start conversations. Gives us something in common.
I did not say anything about their stock market value in my post. Gamblers can play on stock markets.
All I know is that Apple has got $150bn in the bank, so they are not going under any time soon. I also know that they are and will remain extremely profitable at least for the next few years, so they will likely add to that cash pile, even if they keep paying dividends/continue with share buyback.
Apple may or may not keep on their current growth trajectory, but their isn't a company in the world that wouldn't want the kind of success Apple is seeing right now. Heck, if Apple shut down tomorrow and returned all of the cash they have to investors, they would have been more successful than all but a handful of companies in history.
So yeah, many companies would give an arm and a leg to be in Apple's position right now.
Unfortunately for you, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Any company in the world right now, Samsung included, would want to be as unfortunate as Apple right now.
Back in the real world, old phones are resold, given away or traded in and do not get placed on the scrapheap once their original owner dispenses with them.