Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (69593)	10/3/2007 3:15:01 PM
From: inaflash	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

I'm one of those that's complaining about the video out issue, but besides Apple's greediness, there are some copyright issues that need to be played out. Similar with ringtones. Apple totally at fault: "iPod touch Screen Problems: Deny Them, Charge Restocking Fees" Solution: Fix the damn problem and move on. Apple somewhat at fault: "iTunes Store iPod Games: Buy Them Again for New iPods" Solution: Depends on what one believes is Apple's responsibility in backwards compatibility. Folks bought the games for then current devices. Hope, but not promise of future device compatibility is helpful, but not guaranteed. How many programs got free updates/upgrades to intel processors? As programs migrate from OS X version to version? Usually programs migrate versions as well and some improvements justify the addons. So Apple should just make some improvements, add some levels to the games, and offer past buyers an upgrade path. Split the difference as most software programs have done lately. Apple appers at fault, but possibly deeper issue: "Apple Breaks 2005-2007 Video Add-Ons: No Warning, Just Buy New Ones" and "iPhone Ringtones: Pay Twice for Each Song; Forget Using Your Own" Solution: There are significant copyright laws that are being defined. I've read this a couple of times and still can't make heads or tails of the matter: Ringtone Decision copyright.gov I think Apple is being conservative about the interpretation so it doesn't expose itself to undue liability. Same goes for the video restriction. In working in a hardware solution, it could be possible to gain industry support like Macrovision. Beyond the Betamax decision, there hasn't been that many victories for fair use, plus there's no telling that the Betamax decision couldn't be revisited and revised if the right cases and courts decide to act or legislative action is taken. With Jobs having a vested interest in both the devices and technology (through Apple) and content (thru Disney), he's in unique position to see the compromises necessary to move things forwards.

To: slacker711 who wrote (69593)	10/3/2007 4:59:03 PM
From: Doren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

There are two ways to make profits: Squeeze your customers vs. Innovate and create I don't think companies have to do either exclusively. Microsoft and Ebay IMHO are classic squeezers. Neither has innovated much. Sometimes they buy innovation. Usually they screw that up as Ebay has screwed up half.com by trying to squeeze. Apple and Amazon are, in general, innovators. Apple though has not been above squeezing. On the other hand they don't have any competition in the computers that don't squeeze. They do have innovative competition in the phone market. I think they are skating on a thin edge here. They realize they can squeeze a little bit. One way of squeezing is to develop a reputation for excellent quality then downgrade the quality and take home profits. Sony did that and, if my perception is correct, paid dearly. I can't imagine Apple taking it that far, but I do think Apple is not above doing it when it makes sense.