No, I didn't say that - just that the pricing tends to stabilize over time:
In general, over time, prices tend to stabilize. Otherwise the constant price wars would ruin the economy of the system.
His supposition was that a price increase from one player is followed by all. I argued otherwise. But Itunes is different. They are currently unrivaled so a price increase is not easily challenged.
No. But I've never heard of that being done anywhere else in business, so it's not really a valid argument - pricing tends to equalize throughout ecosystems. For example, for movies: Amazon Unbox, iTunes Movies & TV Shows, and Vudu. Everybody gets a cut one way or another!
I think people don't understand that Google is in the Advertising business which means they'd probably sell your data for a profit.
How much of that 30% is profit though?
How much markup do you think retailers put on Software?
You look at the MSRP of Windows 7 professional retail, its $299 while Amazon has it for $259. There is a 15% markup right there and Amazon is still making money. So you have to think that Microsoft is selling Windows 7 to retailers at ~30% less than the MSRP.
Its just "evil" because its "cool" to hate on Apple.
No, I didn't say that - just that the pricing tends to stabilize over time:
In general, over time, prices tend to stabilize. Otherwise the constant price wars would ruin the economy of the system.
Everything happens over time. The sun rises in the east and settles in the west. People are born, live and die. And ..... you'll love this one..... in general, over time, prices go up and down.
Yup that ecosystem equalizing thing - sure is amazing - especially when the dominant player raises prices and there is no real competition on the same scale.
Finally, constant price wars do NOT ruin the economy of the system. Ever hear of WalMart? They thrive on war and driving everyone in the same segment out of business. So to compete, others specialize like Whole Foods catering to upscale, etc. Nothing was ruined. Things just changed.
Companies are neither good or evil.
His supposition was that a price increase from one player is followed by all. I argued otherwise. But Itunes is different. They are currently unrivaled so a price increase is not easily challenged.
$26 billion in cash you already have inst enough, Apple? :|NEW YORK/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - U.S. and European regulators are keeping tabs on Apple Inc's plans to take a cut of the revenue generated by the sale of online subscriptions through its App Store following concerns voiced by publishers.
Some app makers are unhappy with Apple's new plan to take a 30 percent cut on all revenue from online subscriptions.
Regulators at the Department of Justice have kicked off an early stage inquiry into Apple's change of policy and are in the process of contacting publishers and also Apple, according to a person familiar with the plans.
In Europe, a European Commission spokeswoman said, "We are monitoring market developments carefully." But an official investigation appears unlikely, however, as commissioners believe rivalry in the field is increasing.
EU Commissioner Andris Piebalgs -- in comments to the European Parliament on the issue -- said it requires, "that Apple holds a dominant position in the relevant market."
"The boundaries of such relevant market(s) are not clear, as the sector is relatively new and evolving."
Apple said on Tuesday that publishers can set the price and duration of a subscription. They can also offer subscriptions through their own existing websites, but would be required to offer the same terms to anyone signing up through Apple.
This would mean customers who want to sign up for a Netflix Inc video account may have just two choices: They could do so through the Netflix website, in which case Netflix would keep the full fee, or they could subscribe through the applications in their iPhone or iPad which would cost Netflix 30 percent of its fees.
Seemingly in response to Apple's plans, Google Inc on Wednesday launched a new subscription service called One Pass for its Android mobile operating system and promised to take just 10 percent of subscription revenue.
U.S. music subscription companies like Rhapsody and Rdio have described the new Apple policy as "economically untenable" for their businesses.
"Digital music is a low margins business. Rights costs typically account for over 70 percent of revenues and payments, technology and marketing taking most of the rest," said Forrester analyst Mark Mulligan. "So Apple's 30 percent levy has the potential to instantly turn premium music subscriptions from low margin to negative margin businesses."
Other media companies likely to be affected include newspaper and magazine publishers who have been looking forward to reinvigorating their flagging print sales by offering their publications through subscriptions on tablets like the iPad.
Apple was not immediately available for comment.
It is not the first time Apple has been investigated by regulators for its role in the music business which it dominates with nearly 70 percent market share of digital music sales. Last May the Justice Department spoke with Internet companies and music labels to determine if Apple was abusing its dominant position.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL
hard to argue with success. lots of companies sue each other all the time.
sometimes they win, sometimes they don't.
i think Mercedes should sell me a car that costs like a Kia.
how greedy can they be?
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:MSFT
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL
hard to argue with success. lots of companies sue each other all the time.
sometimes they win, sometimes they don't.
i think Mercedes should sell me a car that costs like a Kia.
how greedy can they be?
Also when people are comparing Apple to M$ they should look at the total number of shares out there. M$ has over 8 times them in the game.
The number of shares of a company doesn't matter much.
I could have a million dollar company with a million shares each worth $1 or 2 shares each worth $500,000, or 500,000 shares each worth $2, or 4 shares each worth $250,000, or 10 shares each worth $100,000, etc...
It would only matter in the rare case that there are so many buyers they want to chop it up into smaller bits. A company can split it's shares whenever it wants, so if Apple wanted to double it's shares it could do so. i.e., Everyone would have twice as many shares and they would trade at half the price. The last time they did this was in 2005 IIRC.