jordo
Nov 28, 08:46 PM
I think we all saw this coming with Microsoft setting Apple up for this with their feeble Zune; I'm not surprised. I mean it is not like Microsoft is actually going to pay up, as they would have to actually sell a unit before they did that, ha!
Universal has it coming if they think that the leading digital media player manufacturer is going to dish out money to them for a product whose production/ingenuity they have nothing to do with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Sony ever paid $10 to each music company for each CD player they sold. This is like forcing Apple to pay a fee to the manufacturer of my desk because my iBook sits on it. Jobs has no reason to give in. Apple holds 75% of the cards in the US market alone, and if other people want in on the action, they should consider themselves lucky if they are chosen. I smell a boycott...
Universal has it coming if they think that the leading digital media player manufacturer is going to dish out money to them for a product whose production/ingenuity they have nothing to do with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Sony ever paid $10 to each music company for each CD player they sold. This is like forcing Apple to pay a fee to the manufacturer of my desk because my iBook sits on it. Jobs has no reason to give in. Apple holds 75% of the cards in the US market alone, and if other people want in on the action, they should consider themselves lucky if they are chosen. I smell a boycott...
Sydde
Apr 27, 02:43 PM
... are there any graphic designers here who can help?
What you really need is a gang of mods to show you how to use "[ t i m g ]" :mad:
What you really need is a gang of mods to show you how to use "[ t i m g ]" :mad:
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:59 PM
Only if you have an active subscription on all of them. That's the number the graph behind the link shows.
I have three subscriptions. Two in europe, one in US. How does that count?
I have three subscriptions. Two in europe, one in US. How does that count?
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush?s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last ?days, not months? before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration?s ?coalition of the willing? in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush?s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last ?days, not months? before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration?s ?coalition of the willing? in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
louis Fashion
Apr 11, 12:01 PM
Hope to see VZ convergence in 2012. Hate to wait tho.....
iMrNiceGuy0023
Jun 9, 01:21 AM
I think this will be great for AT&T and Apple....Radio Shack is the closest store out of AT&T and Apple Store
Radio Shack and Best Buy use the same AT&T POS system to upgrade and activate phones
I got my 3G and 3GS from Best Buy.....but i'll go to Radio Shack for my iPhone 4
Looks like AT&T and Apple are looking to do big numbers with this release
Radio Shack and Best Buy use the same AT&T POS system to upgrade and activate phones
I got my 3G and 3GS from Best Buy.....but i'll go to Radio Shack for my iPhone 4
Looks like AT&T and Apple are looking to do big numbers with this release
mwswami
Jul 21, 04:48 PM
Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?
TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)
TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)
TallGuy1970
Mar 31, 04:20 PM
Maybe, just maybe, Steve jobs knows a bit about computing. You may not like his business model, but the man isn't stupid.
Benjy91
Apr 27, 09:06 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
A lot of people are upset over this. But, no one seems to care that the US Government can snoop on any electronic communication it wants for well over 10 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
Of course, anyone who doesnt like this idea, is a communist who hates America and Freedom.
A lot of people are upset over this. But, no one seems to care that the US Government can snoop on any electronic communication it wants for well over 10 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
Of course, anyone who doesnt like this idea, is a communist who hates America and Freedom.
PurrBall
Mar 26, 09:12 AM
Not quite, W7 is still based on Win NT technology, dating back to 1993.
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
CaoCao
Mar 4, 01:46 PM
This is true because you say it's true?
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
Cinch
Aug 27, 02:39 PM
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
The consequence is a laptop with a power cord attach to them feeding the insatiable appetite of the thermo nuclear reactor we call the CPU. For the love of reason and common sense, why can't Apple make a laptop with a day worth of battery powered. How about OLED display and multicore chip running at much lower frequency. Enough with the Ghz BS; what is the different between a 2.16Ghz and a 2.33 Ghz processors again?
Cinch
The consequence is a laptop with a power cord attach to them feeding the insatiable appetite of the thermo nuclear reactor we call the CPU. For the love of reason and common sense, why can't Apple make a laptop with a day worth of battery powered. How about OLED display and multicore chip running at much lower frequency. Enough with the Ghz BS; what is the different between a 2.16Ghz and a 2.33 Ghz processors again?
Cinch
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 03:47 PM
Real tablet OS, Full internet, True multitasking - the list's expanding fast :D
Google did have to take Open off the talking points list... ;)
Google did have to take Open off the talking points list... ;)
dhunt
Jul 29, 04:41 PM
I know for a fact that the design college I go to just placed an order for MANY MANY MBP 17". Apple knows that students and schools need computers before school starts, and getting rid of some "old" products before you release your new ones, is a pretty good idea if you ask me.
mc68k
Dec 6, 01:20 PM
I have only done one. But I didn't feel as if I could start the race, leave, come back and have won. The race I did, I watched. My guy was in 1st the up until the last lap, and the person in 2nd over took him. I am sure if I was not there to instruct him to "over take" he would not have done it and I would have gotten 2nd.
Maybe I just need to level up?yeah your bspec driver will really suck until he's leveled up a bit. still havent figured out why you would want more than one bspec driver, prob for the later enduro races? got my bspec up to 12, he's racing and overtaking much better now. the amount the bspec driver levels up every time is small, so it's very grind-y but at least you don't have to watch it, and you get some diff gift cars than the same race in a-spec
Maybe I just need to level up?yeah your bspec driver will really suck until he's leveled up a bit. still havent figured out why you would want more than one bspec driver, prob for the later enduro races? got my bspec up to 12, he's racing and overtaking much better now. the amount the bspec driver levels up every time is small, so it's very grind-y but at least you don't have to watch it, and you get some diff gift cars than the same race in a-spec
cozart
Jul 31, 12:00 PM
so i'm having a difficult time deciding what to do.
North Carolina's sales tax holiday is this coming weekend, just a couple of days before WWDC (of course!). i had every intention of buying a MacBook Pro during the holiday, but now i have no idea what to do.
assuming there's not a silent release of an updated MBP tomorrow...
will waiting be worth losing the 7.5% (somewhere between $150 and $200 depending on how i customize it) that i'll have to pay if i don't get it during the holiday?
should i go ahead and get it during tax free weekend in case there's not even an announcement at WWDC? or, if there is an announcement, should i go ahead and get it and then return it within the 14-day window, losing the 10% restocking fee.
so many options and this first-time mac buyer doesn't know what to do!
North Carolina's sales tax holiday is this coming weekend, just a couple of days before WWDC (of course!). i had every intention of buying a MacBook Pro during the holiday, but now i have no idea what to do.
assuming there's not a silent release of an updated MBP tomorrow...
will waiting be worth losing the 7.5% (somewhere between $150 and $200 depending on how i customize it) that i'll have to pay if i don't get it during the holiday?
should i go ahead and get it during tax free weekend in case there's not even an announcement at WWDC? or, if there is an announcement, should i go ahead and get it and then return it within the 14-day window, losing the 10% restocking fee.
so many options and this first-time mac buyer doesn't know what to do!
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:40 PM
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
I don't need to travel to know that >99% mobile phone penetration is complete BS. Are you trying to say that EVERYONE in Europe has a cell phone?
Well using the Dr's stat, GSM is 81% of the market. A good chunk of the remaining 19% is CDMA. So roughly 1/5th of the market, with much of that market in affluent areas, uses CDMA. I stand by my statement that it's a significant market that Apple would be foolish to pass on.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
I don't need to travel to know that >99% mobile phone penetration is complete BS. Are you trying to say that EVERYONE in Europe has a cell phone?
Well using the Dr's stat, GSM is 81% of the market. A good chunk of the remaining 19% is CDMA. So roughly 1/5th of the market, with much of that market in affluent areas, uses CDMA. I stand by my statement that it's a significant market that Apple would be foolish to pass on.
JAT
Mar 22, 02:06 PM
I'm glad that RIM and Samsung come with those prices.
Next months will be crucial for me to decide the successor of my iPad 1.
Come: present tense. See: iPad2
Will come: future tense. See: Samsung tablet.
May come: conditional tense. See: RIM tablet.
Next months will be crucial for me to decide the successor of my iPad 1.
Come: present tense. See: iPad2
Will come: future tense. See: Samsung tablet.
May come: conditional tense. See: RIM tablet.
leekohler
Apr 27, 02:26 PM
They're not. The proper file is flat. I downloaded and opened the PDF from the White House. Flat in both Illustrator and Photoshop, just one group on one layer... and no security on the PDF. No embedded fonts.
This is a fraud.
Uh huh- thanks again, fivepoint.
This is a fraud.
Uh huh- thanks again, fivepoint.
Reddmanz
Apr 27, 08:09 AM
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
I was looking forward to seeing mine seeing as I've been doing a lot of travelling last few months, then I remembered I'm still running 3.1.3.
I was looking forward to seeing mine seeing as I've been doing a lot of travelling last few months, then I remembered I'm still running 3.1.3.
MacRumors
Nov 28, 06:24 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Reuters reports (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml&WTmodLoc=TechNewsHome_C2_technologyNews-1) that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way,"
Universal made news earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061109124909.shtml) when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.
Reuters reports (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml&WTmodLoc=TechNewsHome_C2_technologyNews-1) that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way,"
Universal made news earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061109124909.shtml) when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.
yoak
Apr 12, 01:14 PM
+1
I posted it over in the other FCS thread after learning of the link here. Thanks
I posted it over in the other FCS thread after learning of the link here. Thanks
bamerican
Apr 25, 03:43 PM
This guy's website is hilarious.
The biggest corporations in the States fear us because we tell it like it is. We?ve sued corporations and brands that are household names, like Kraft, Oscar Mayer, and Hormel, and we?ve sued them for nasty misbehavior, like fraud, lying and cheating.
All too often in corporate cultures a profit motive overrides principled behavior, and corporations find themselves testing just how much they can get away with before a critical mass of people complain. Historically, corporations have targeted relatively small extra fees, or unclear charges that they can levy on many or all of their customers. Their calculation is something like: ?if we can make $5 extra on each customer, then after a million transactions, we?ve made $5 million extra.? The problem arises when those charges are deceptive or otherwise unfair to customers.
Corporations rely on the small individual harm to each customer serve as a deterrent. Such small amounts are sometimes not even worth the time it would take to call the company to complain. Those who do call to fight the unfair charge will often obtain the result they wanted: the corporation will correct that single customer?s account, maybe refunding the $5. But it will not correct any else?s account. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and quiets down, while the corporation retains the other $4,999,995 it effectively ripped-off from its customers.
Class actions can be an effective way to force corporations to repay the entire $5 million, in our example, by allowing one of the squeaky wheels to represent everyone who got ripped-off by the company?s same unethical practice. The people who got ripped-off are ?class members,? represented by the squeaky wheel, who is the ?class representative.?
At the Mayer Law Group, we like squeaky wheels. We stand for what?s right and demand that companies behave ethically. If you are aware of corporate misbehavior ? if you?re a squeaky wheel ? then we?d like to hear from you. Shoot us a quick email or give us a call.
Squeaky wheels who have served as class representatives have often been awarded payment for their service. It is not uncommon for a class representative to receive $10,000, but it depends entirely on the court because only a court can make such an award.
Whether a corporation is liable for millions of $ or billions of ?, the Mayer Law Group has the know-how to make them pay.
http://www.mayerlawgroup.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=3
The biggest corporations in the States fear us because we tell it like it is. We?ve sued corporations and brands that are household names, like Kraft, Oscar Mayer, and Hormel, and we?ve sued them for nasty misbehavior, like fraud, lying and cheating.
All too often in corporate cultures a profit motive overrides principled behavior, and corporations find themselves testing just how much they can get away with before a critical mass of people complain. Historically, corporations have targeted relatively small extra fees, or unclear charges that they can levy on many or all of their customers. Their calculation is something like: ?if we can make $5 extra on each customer, then after a million transactions, we?ve made $5 million extra.? The problem arises when those charges are deceptive or otherwise unfair to customers.
Corporations rely on the small individual harm to each customer serve as a deterrent. Such small amounts are sometimes not even worth the time it would take to call the company to complain. Those who do call to fight the unfair charge will often obtain the result they wanted: the corporation will correct that single customer?s account, maybe refunding the $5. But it will not correct any else?s account. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and quiets down, while the corporation retains the other $4,999,995 it effectively ripped-off from its customers.
Class actions can be an effective way to force corporations to repay the entire $5 million, in our example, by allowing one of the squeaky wheels to represent everyone who got ripped-off by the company?s same unethical practice. The people who got ripped-off are ?class members,? represented by the squeaky wheel, who is the ?class representative.?
At the Mayer Law Group, we like squeaky wheels. We stand for what?s right and demand that companies behave ethically. If you are aware of corporate misbehavior ? if you?re a squeaky wheel ? then we?d like to hear from you. Shoot us a quick email or give us a call.
Squeaky wheels who have served as class representatives have often been awarded payment for their service. It is not uncommon for a class representative to receive $10,000, but it depends entirely on the court because only a court can make such an award.
Whether a corporation is liable for millions of $ or billions of ?, the Mayer Law Group has the know-how to make them pay.
http://www.mayerlawgroup.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=3
leekohler
Apr 28, 09:58 AM
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
