TechMark

Yeah.. it was a logical conclusion because Samsung is the only one going after Apple. Who would have thought RIM would have set its sights so high! They should start low, like going after Nokia or something.

Yeah.. it was a logical conclusion because Samsung is the only one going after Apple. Who would have thought RIM would have set its sights so high! They should start low, like going after Nokia or something.But you were right in saying Samsung wouldn’t be behind such a lame publicity stunt!

You were indeed right! I am floored.

Oddly enough the very Christian Republic right loves her and bases economic policies on what she wrote. But you’re right, my comments were more toward the Ayn Rand movement, rather then Ayn Rand herself. I do appreciate you calling me out on that, because you’re right.

It makes for fascinating reading, but I really dislike people applying the theories to today’s world. And I do find that moronic.

Ayn Rand is a moron. These were valid theories for the forties up to the late seventies when the tax rate for the rich was 90%, but it went down significantly under Reagan… and even he raised taxes during his two terms because he felt he initially lowered them too much.

Applying these theories as a ‘catch all’ is dumb. Going by this logic, 0% taxes would be key to the success of any country and that’s clearly not true. Bush’s economic policies lead to the worst economic numbers since the great depression…

On the topic of Apple, it’s stupid to blame Apple for paying the lowest taxes they possibly can. This is another one of those dumb ‘hit job’ pieces where the article would appear boring, but because Apple’s name is in it, people take notice. If you want to look at companies taking (legal) advantage of the system, look at companies like GE that are true extremes of the US economy.

I’m sure he donates all his profits. I’m sure. /s

Yup, exactly, this.

There’s no such thing as ‘other then the foxconn saga.’ A few facts to consider. Yes, Apple was picked on foxconn working conditions. Microsoft, Sony, and pretty much everyone else in the tech industry uses those same foxconn facilities and out of all of them, Apple has better labour requirements (though still crappy). Yet, the news was all about Apple and how they abuse Chinese workers.

How often were the Xbox working conditions mentioned? Only in passing.

I really don’t get this argument. I thought both characters were fun.

To put differently, if you were at a party you’d probably hang out with both them. Neither portrayed PC or portrayed Mac were particularly cool, and they were both quirky.

I might just be saying that because I have a friend that’s similar to the PC guy, and I also happen to like John Hodgman, but I really don’t see it.

Humanity generally tends to experience criticism far more negatively then equal parts of compliments. We tend to focus on the negative.

I agree that Microsoft is generally picked on, but so is Apple. So is Google. You have a personal bias and so you either agree with the criticisms of Apple and other companies, or don’t read them, and note the ones about Microsoft more strongly. They register more emotionally for you.

This is normal. It’s part of being human. But it is important to recognize that you personally experience the news in a biased matter. We all do. And that’s okay.

Acknowledging these personal biases can, however, be very fulfilling. It might allow you to achieve greater clarity.

iPod has been going down for years, and it is largely accepted by everyone that this is a declining business. This isn’t news.

Xbox being down and losing money for the first time in a few years is… wait for it… news.

I’m sure you have tons of other ‘brilliant’ and ‘insightful’ examples of bias on the verge.

Yeah…. you try getting a job without a computer.

Facts are often inconvenient to some.

Denial stage.

It’s been a while since I’ve read about the antitrust case about Microsoft. Beyond the terrible business practises it had (there were many) and the original judgment to break-up the company, the final appeal and agreed upon settlement was lighter. It was the Bush era, and Bush didn’t want to appear tough on business.

According to wikipedia: “However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.”

There were oversight provisions that ended in 2007, but were extended to 2009. The antitrust case had literally no actual affect on Microsoft’s products. Did it slow down Microsoft’s tactics of bullying the competition by its strong vendor relationships? Sure. Definitely. Did it actually do anything to their product? Nope.

Anyway, I call BS on this article. It also argues that all these recent innovations were only now made possible, but the reality is Microsoft tried a plethora of features that it abandoned only to return to again.

Is that actually true? Microsoft was made to create ways to change default applications like the mail, browser, etc.. they still built those products in. They weren’t told not to ship them.

They were also held back in forcing through deals that purposefully kicked out the competition from sold installations.

This argument that the anti-trust case ruined the ‘middleware’ category is ridiculous. Office is their big profit making program.

Anyway, by the time the compromise was reached, much of what the government wanted was implemented and it had little or no affect on the company.

Dude… time to let go of your acid washed jeans and get over it.

Even if Macs ran x86 processor computers, they had a few percentage points market share. They were a rounding error. It wouldn’t have mattered.

However, it was a good judgment because Microsoft was manipulating the x86 processor market.. with uncompetitive practices. Facts always get in the way, don’t they?

Read about it.

That’s a great argument for 2009. Apple does allow 3rd party media players and browsers these days.

Apple would need a near monopoly in an industry to have that same level of scrutiny.

Apple doesn’t have that in Mac, nor in phones, and while iPad is growing hugely the market share isn’t at the 90% level that Microsoft had with Windows.

So if the world was fair, Apple would have to have 90% of the phone market, table market, and/or PC market for the same thing to happen. Do you think they’re getting that? I don’t.

I gather you don’t actually care about the reality, but Mac’s growth still topped the industry in a period of time where their products need updating. As with iPhones, Mac products experience a slowdown closer to the new release date. iMac, MBPs and MBAs are all likely to get updated soon and consumers generally avoid buying the product this closer to a switch.

If you read a ‘tiny’ bit more about Gatekeeper you’d know you were wrong. But hey, better to comment without knowing about a topic, right?

So people that use Windows are business people, and make lots of money.

People that use super-expensive Apple products write blog posts, and hang around coffee shops, and have no day jobs.

Got it. You r smrt

It’s not the same thing, but you can continue on in your superiority high-horse. I’m sure you feel good about yourself!

Keep on hoping buddy. I bet you’ve been saying the same thing for the last 15 years, and you finally get to be right… one time…