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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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*.

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.

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.)

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 ****.