If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#321
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:18:39 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: ... Bloomberg fundamentally misunderstood what was going on. Qualcomm wants to collect a certain sum by way of license and whether you express this as X% of the cost of the phone or 8X% of the cost of a chip is immaterial. nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero. I guess you never heard of value based pricing. i guess you haven't a clue. value based pricing isn't the issue. If you go up a few paragraphs you will see that you have stated the essence of value based pricing, and said it doesn't exist. if you go up a few posts, you will see that i never said what you claim i have. Is it your claim that you never said the following: "nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero." now go back one more level to put it into context since you clearly do not understand it. let me help you: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. And why should not be paid on the basis of the value of the device which could_not_be_made without Qualcomm's technology? Sure Apple could make a device with all the bells and whistles of an iPhoneX but what would it be worth without the ability to communicate with the telephone network? It's not as if they have any alternative supplier to Qualcomm. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#322
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 19:33:12 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: ... Bloomberg fundamentally misunderstood what was going on. Qualcomm wants to collect a certain sum by way of license and whether you express this as X% of the cost of the phone or 8X% of the cost of a chip is immaterial. nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero. I guess you never heard of value based pricing. i guess you haven't a clue. value based pricing isn't the issue. If you go up a few paragraphs you will see that you have stated the essence of value based pricing, and said it doesn't exist. if you go up a few posts, you will see that i never said what you claim i have. Is it your claim that you never said the following: "nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero." now go back one more level to put it into context since you clearly do not understand it. let me help you: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. I see you admit that Qualcomm is engaged in value based pricing. no, they definitely aren't at all. not even close. I get the clear impression that you don't understand what is meant by value based pricing. that is engaged in value based pricing. There is nothing morally wrong with that, in the context of its actions. the ftc disagrees with you, as do numerous other companies. Right now the FTC doesn't agree or disagree with anyone. It has yet to hear the case. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#323
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: nope. i'm talking about real world experience and that of numerous others. the only ignorant and arrogant person is you. You are hilarious! You have zero real world experience. Which is easy for a person with more than 30 years in the industry, working at exactly what we are discussing, to spot. not only is this not about me or my experience, which you have no idea what that is, but you can't spot the difference in business versus residential service, something that is well known in the industry. How would you know what is or is not known "in the industry"? All this mystical mythical speculation by someone (you, with no experience at all) about how telecom companies function. Your fabricating it all! Out of blue smoke! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: so far, you're the only person to claim that business customers get the same level of service. several other people in this thread alone say that's wrong, not just me. Didn't you notice that not a single person who said what you are claiming is true... had any experience other than as a customer looking in from the outside! that's all that matters. None of them realize, or could realize, what those of us employed by their service provider would actually be doing. nobody but you cares what goes on inside. at the end of the day, they want their outage fixed as soon as possible, or whatever the problem was. business class service will have it fixed within hours. residential won't. Bull****. It don't happen that way kid. it's that simple. No, your way of thinking is simple. some residential customers are willing to pay for business class service at home because they want that level of service. Sales and Marketing might love it, and certainly will not discourage it. It doesn't get troubles fixed any quicker though. I'm not saying that I suspect what happens is this or that, due to the way somebody else acted or described it or how they talked to me on the phone. I'm telling you that this is what we actually did. This is what Marketing does, this is what Sales does, and if you have a Customer Serice Rep this is what they do... None of those departments ever fix and trouble faults, but if your line stops working this is, instead, the chain of events that necessarily happens to get a repair person to first test the line from the Central Office, and then dispatch someone that works Outside Plant to fix the problem. nobody said the customer service rep fixes the problem. where in the world did you get that idea??? First come first serve, it makes no difference how big you account is or what class of service, yes it definitely does make a difference. Then you just tell us how! You can't because you have no idea what the internal business methods are. unless you've actually paid specifically for Priority Service (perhaps $50,000 a month). not relevant. Oh no, not at all. You so naive and so willing to say virtually anything, no matter how obviously stupid it is. That is why you have zero credibility on any subject. We all know that you do that with regularity no matter what the subject. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#325
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On 6/5/2017 8:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 19:33:12 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: ... Bloomberg fundamentally misunderstood what was going on. Qualcomm wants to collect a certain sum by way of license and whether you express this as X% of the cost of the phone or 8X% of the cost of a chip is immaterial. nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero. I guess you never heard of value based pricing. i guess you haven't a clue. value based pricing isn't the issue. If you go up a few paragraphs you will see that you have stated the essence of value based pricing, and said it doesn't exist. if you go up a few posts, you will see that i never said what you claim i have. Is it your claim that you never said the following: "nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero." now go back one more level to put it into context since you clearly do not understand it. let me help you: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. I see you admit that Qualcomm is engaged in value based pricing. no, they definitely aren't at all. not even close. I get the clear impression that you don't understand what is meant by value based pricing. that is engaged in value based pricing. There is nothing morally wrong with that, in the context of its actions. the ftc disagrees with you, as do numerous other companies. Right now the FTC doesn't agree or disagree with anyone. It has yet to hear the case. Will you please stop injecting facts into the discussion. -- PeterN |
#326
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 13:05:26 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: PeterN wrote: On 6/5/2017 4:45 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: nospam wrote: snip some residential customers consider that to be worth the extra cost and have business service at home, without a business. You have no idea at all about how "issues resolved faster" would happen Please sit in the corner and listen. Some listen without comprehending. And even if they comprehend, won't admit they were wrong. Poor nospam lives in a very difficult fantasy world! In this case it may merely be that he is living in a different world from you. You seem to be that the practices of your previous employers are the practices of every Telco world wide. There is no reason why that should be the case. One of the neat things about working in a "Communications" company is the ability to do just that... communicate. Whatever industry you or the next person might work in, how often do the folks in that industry actually talk and work with other companies around the world that do the same things??? Trust that I had no choice but to learn not just what Alascom and later ATT did, right from the start, but Sprint, MCI, and Western Union, of course all the LEC's too, not to mention working with major as well as minor testboards in various European countries as well as the Pacific Rim. We all knew what everyone had in common, and we all knew how everyone differed too. Add to that the cultural changes that took place all around the US following the breakup of the Bell System. Nospam has no clue about the telecommunications industry, and is making up everything he says. I'm not guessing. It is not just a different world, he is fantasizing what he thinks it must be. I'm just telling you what it is. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#327
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: ... Bloomberg fundamentally misunderstood what was going on. Qualcomm wants to collect a certain sum by way of license and whether you express this as X% of the cost of the phone or 8X% of the cost of a chip is immaterial. nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero. I guess you never heard of value based pricing. i guess you haven't a clue. value based pricing isn't the issue. If you go up a few paragraphs you will see that you have stated the essence of value based pricing, and said it doesn't exist. if you go up a few posts, you will see that i never said what you claim i have. Is it your claim that you never said the following: "nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero." now go back one more level to put it into context since you clearly do not understand it. let me help you: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. And why should not be paid on the basis of the value of the device which could_not_be_made without Qualcomm's technology? qualcomm should be paid *only* for the value of the parts they provide. under no circumstances whatsoever should qualcomm (or any other company for that matter) be paid for parts they did not supply, manufacture or design. device makers are paying qualcomm when they use sony cameras, samsung memory, lg displays, synaptics fingerprint sensors and numerous other parts. that's ****ed up. qualcomm is entitled only for what they produce. no more. Sure Apple could make a device with all the bells and whistles of an iPhoneX but what would it be worth without the ability to communicate with the telephone network? It's not as if they have any alternative supplier to Qualcomm. which means qualcomm is abusing their monopoly position with frand patents. it also has absolutely nothing whatso****ingever to do with qualcomm's absurd pricing, which you even agree is *illegal*. |
#328
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. I see you admit that Qualcomm is engaged in value based pricing. no, they definitely aren't at all. not even close. I get the clear impression that you don't understand what is meant by value based pricing. i do, and it's not relevant here. that is engaged in value based pricing. There is nothing morally wrong with that, in the context of its actions. the ftc disagrees with you, as do numerous other companies. Right now the FTC doesn't agree or disagree with anyone. It has yet to hear the case. the ftc is suing qualcomm, so clearly they disagree with what qualcomm is doing. |
#329
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: nope. i'm talking about real world experience and that of numerous others. the only ignorant and arrogant person is you. You are hilarious! You have zero real world experience. Which is easy for a person with more than 30 years in the industry, working at exactly what we are discussing, to spot. not only is this not about me or my experience, which you have no idea what that is, but you can't spot the difference in business versus residential service, something that is well known in the industry. How would you know what is or is not known "in the industry"? lots of ways. All this mystical mythical speculation by someone (you, with no experience at all) about how telecom companies function. Your fabricating it all! Out of blue smoke! tell that to peter, who began it all, and he's exactly correct: In article , PeterN wrote: When systems go down, business phones get priority in repair.(at least in theory.) |
#330
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: so far, you're the only person to claim that business customers get the same level of service. several other people in this thread alone say that's wrong, not just me. Didn't you notice that not a single person who said what you are claiming is true... had any experience other than as a customer looking in from the outside! that's all that matters. None of them realize, or could realize, what those of us employed by their service provider would actually be doing. nobody but you cares what goes on inside. at the end of the day, they want their outage fixed as soon as possible, or whatever the problem was. business class service will have it fixed within hours. residential won't. Bull****. It don't happen that way kid. don't call me kid, and yes it does happen that way. it's that simple. No, your way of thinking is simple. and exactly correct. some residential customers are willing to pay for business class service at home because they want that level of service. Sales and Marketing might love it, and certainly will not discourage it. It doesn't get troubles fixed any quicker though. yes it absolutely does. In article , PeterN wrote: When systems go down, business phones get priority in repair.(at least in theory.) I'm not saying that I suspect what happens is this or that, due to the way somebody else acted or described it or how they talked to me on the phone. I'm telling you that this is what we actually did. This is what Marketing does, this is what Sales does, and if you have a Customer Serice Rep this is what they do... None of those departments ever fix and trouble faults, but if your line stops working this is, instead, the chain of events that necessarily happens to get a repair person to first test the line from the Central Office, and then dispatch someone that works Outside Plant to fix the problem. nobody said the customer service rep fixes the problem. where in the world did you get that idea??? First come first serve, it makes no difference how big you account is or what class of service, yes it definitely does make a difference. Then you just tell us how! You can't because you have no idea what the internal business methods are. nobody gives a **** *how* it's fixed, only that whatever problem is fixed. unless you've actually paid specifically for Priority Service (perhaps $50,000 a month). not relevant. Oh no, not at all. You so naive and so willing to say virtually anything, no matter how obviously stupid it is. That is why you have zero credibility on any subject. We all know that you do that with regularity no matter what the subject. we all know that you are full of ****. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
have i managed to buy a camera with two faulty lenses | sean-sheehan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 21 | September 20th 10 05:37 PM |
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question | Stanislav Meduna | Digital Photography | 23 | December 22nd 05 06:18 PM |
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question | Stanislav Meduna | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | December 22nd 05 06:18 PM |
Color Managed Slideshow Program | andre | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 01:13 AM |
Color Managed Slideshow Program | andre | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 01:13 AM |