Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
First Proof Apple Making Zero on AppleTV (And $$$ on iTunes)
gizmodo.com — We went to teardown masters iSuppli for a fresh estimate to see how much of that $70 price chop on Apple TV was paid for by falling component costs over the last year. Surprising answer: Not that much. Apple really is subsidizing Apple TV, a significant shift in strategy.
maxaids- 795 diggs
- digg it
- blakeley, on 01/30/2008, -10/+5So when can we expect some sweet subsidized Apple content?
- sockpuppets, on 01/30/2008, -0/+10I really like the "Steve Jobs in a turtleneck sipping a latte" channel.
- p4r4d0x, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5I would watch that.
- sockpuppets, on 01/30/2008, -0/+10I really like the "Steve Jobs in a turtleneck sipping a latte" channel.
- llsethj, on 01/30/2008, -3/+17should have linked to the original article if they take the idea
http://blogs.computerworld.com/apple_is_subsidizin ...- BLAM8, on 01/30/2008, -6/+2Not the same. This has an original piece of reporting by Gizmodo on it, from iSuppli.
- crackedplastic, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1Actually (and unbelievably), it's the other way around. Computerworld did paraphrase/clickthrough of Gizmodo content. Quite rare - make a note of it.
- sweintraub, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6yeah, look at the date. Computerworld was a day earlier and Giz has a link to Computerworld
- streak, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1iSuppli's estimate is not "proof" of anything. For all they know, Apple negotiated an even better discount than before for a much larger volume purchase of components, to go in Apple TVs that are expected to sell in much larger numbers at the reduced price with increased functionality.
- thenome, on 01/30/2008, -14/+9Or maybe they just want to make only $10 per appletv so they can corner the market on hd movie distribution. Anyone else think that apple wants to get 80% market share on tv's just like mp3 players. If I was apple I'ld lose money now to get a monopoly later.
- timusca, on 01/30/2008, -3/+17Please learn the definition of monopoly...
- EtherGnat, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
Pronunciation: mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē
Function: noun
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
How is it impossible that Apple could end up with a monopoly on HD movie distribution?- manitoba98xp, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6Because they'd have to be the ONLY company doing it to be a monopoly. They might get 80% market share, but that is NOT a monopoly. Similarly, Apple does not have a monopoly on the MP3 player market and Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the OS market.
- Icyfenix, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1You forgot about the milton bradley game.
- mrsteveman1, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Its only a monopoly if Apple abuses their market position to stop competition, which i haven't seen them do in any case so far, ever, in any market.
Majority marketshare is not automatically a monopoly.- Giga, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0No, that would make it an illegal monopoly. It would be a monopoly, and not all monopolies are illegal. How many governments do you have governing the country you live in?
- mrsteveman1, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Government by definition do not compete in the same area.....so thats not a monopoly, its not even relevant to market terms at all.
- EtherGnat, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
- bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -3/+6Or maybe they just know that they are not going to get that monopoly.
I LOVe how the fanboys think that everything Apple does turns to gold. When in fact there is only ONE market (our of several they they have tried to enter) in which they have significant market share. In the others they have a VERY tine one.- Icyfenix, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2But it's such a HUGE market.
Sound off- how many of you don't own an MP3 Player?
and then how many of you don't own an iPod?
I tried for YEARS not to get an iPod- I just didn't want the apple product. Finally, I couldn't find something that supported what I needed, had the battery life, screen, capacity(capacity is hard to find) and price tag(believe it or not, it's not that bad. For how much I use the thing and considering similar players cost upwards of 800 bucks)- Giga, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0I don't own an MP3 player.
- roodammy44, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1It's true. I was in the same position.
The competitors just don't seem to have the right capacity for the right price.
You can also get rid of apple's ***** firmware and install rockbox on it, all good.
The ***** firmware is still there, you just need to restart into it.
- Icyfenix, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2But it's such a HUGE market.
- phrenzy, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1They are the trend setters whether you like it or not (and you obviously don't)
- timusca, on 01/30/2008, -3/+17Please learn the definition of monopoly...
- asdfer, on 01/30/2008, -4/+50no proof there, just some analysis and speculations.
- RyGonWan, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3To me it seems like an obvious clearance tactic and I would expect new hardware soon. There is a relatively long list of features that could be updated to bring that price right back to the old one for the new model.
- timusca, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Apple rarely raises the price of an updated product. If they lower the prices on these, the next model will also be this price. I seriously doubt they are clearing out stock. When that's all they're doing, they usually just lower the price without updating the product.
- RyGonWan, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4I believe I remember this happening before. The "good" and "best" models get a price cut shortly before a new "best" model comes out and pushes the other models down a spot with the old "good" falling off the line.
- johnpaul191, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1The only thing they might do is add an optical drive if/when Apple embraces the BluRay, and maybe larger HDDs down the road. Though, an optical drive would almost make it a Mac Mini.
- timusca, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Apple rarely raises the price of an updated product. If they lower the prices on these, the next model will also be this price. I seriously doubt they are clearing out stock. When that's all they're doing, they usually just lower the price without updating the product.
- kilofox, on 01/30/2008, -7/+1So??????
- wonderchemist, on 01/30/2008, -3/+4Alternatively, content holders could be paying Apple to sell the AppleTV at reduced cost, in order to drive sales through the iTunes store. The lions share of the cash from iTunes goes to them after all.
- NightOwl4, on 01/30/2008, -7/+22Yea...I don't get the big deal people are making about how "*****" the Apple TV is. Mine does everything I ask it to?
- MadScientist440, on 01/30/2008, -3/+20I don't know, does it? Why are you asking me?
- bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -11/+7And yet you are porobably the first to whine like a little bitch at Windows, or IE, or any Sony product, etc...products that do everything that 95% of the users ask them to.
Of course, one of the thing you ask it to do is have the Apple logo on it so you can think that you FINALLY fit in for once in your socially embarassing life. You don't actualy ask it to DO things.- PandarenLord, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5I'm amazed by how detailed your analysis was based on a 2 sentence comment.
- NightOwl4, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1hey bingo bongo...whens the last time you got laid??? you need to relax pal.
- PandarenLord, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5I'm amazed by how detailed your analysis was based on a 2 sentence comment.
- phrenzy, on 01/30/2008, -8/+3Apple TV could just, gobble a dick?
- FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -9/+4Considering you'd have to be a pretty big idiot to actually buy Apple TV, I expect that your demands of the device are relatively low.
- fiftyeggs, on 01/30/2008, -13/+3Last time they subsidized a product(iPhone) they went facist against the unlockers.
What will happen to the Xvid/Apple TV mod crowd if this story is true about the subsidies?- CraigJ, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3The iPhone is not subsidized. Not by a long shot.
- fiftyeggs, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/73 ...
A 2 year contract is required for an iPhone. Apple gets a piece of every monthly bill you pay to At&t. That in the business world is called a subsidy.- EtherGnat, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yes, but normally the buyer receives the subsidy (or at least a portion thereof) NOT the manufacturer of the phone. Big difference.
- CraigJ, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Subsidy implies that the manufacturer is selling the item at a loss to get subscription revenue. What they are getting from AT&T is a revenue share as part of the exclusive contract. In this case Apple is not discounting the iPhone, in fact they make close to 35% profit (estimates are that each iPhone costs about $250 to make. 35% profit margin in phones is actually quite a lot - Motorola only wishes they made 35% on each RAZR.
- fiftyeggs, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/73 ...
- CraigJ, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3The iPhone is not subsidized. Not by a long shot.
- joshpar, on 01/30/2008, -7/+3Hmmm... I'd pay $200 to make $20 any day.
- greenlight2001, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Okay then. Give me $200 and I'll give you your $20. Hell, I'll even do this as much as you want. I'll let you make $20 over and over again.
- troye, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2/sarcasm
- xpose, on 01/30/2008, -17/+9To see a useless apple product actually fail despite the fanboy brigade is a nice sight.
- Flunk, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Well Apple are still charging the full price in countries outside the US. Its almost double the US price in the UK.
- p4r4d0x, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Apple prices in Australia, while not as bad as the UK, are still horrendously over the top.
Apples extremely questionable international pricing policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujAkPdLU7Fw
- p4r4d0x, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Apple prices in Australia, while not as bad as the UK, are still horrendously over the top.
- Cooperjones, on 01/30/2008, -3/+7Actually these numbers were already debunked - too bad tech writers don't do their homework. The slow Intel chip Apple uses for AppleTV costs about fifty bucks. Do the math from there. Apple does NOT proffer loss leader products. Never has and pro'ly never will. Not on Apple TV
- bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -4/+2It is a good thing you abbrieviated the word probably. Your life is way too important to spell words out in order to look intellgient.
- Cooperjones, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0? ... and this from someone that spells "intelligent" "intellgient"? But you were right. I am too busy trying to do something important to be Digging. Back to work now.
- bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -4/+2It is a good thing you abbrieviated the word probably. Your life is way too important to spell words out in order to look intellgient.
- joe90210, on 01/30/2008, -1/+18why did you remove the word "near" from the original title? idiot.
- Super6, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Apple is getting burned if those are the prices they pay. You can easily get MicroATX motherboards for sub $100 and the hard drive price is a complete rip off. Also, it has a $0.50 per gb and $1 per gb price on hard drive but I paid about $0.20 per gb on my last hard drive purchase.
- moisie, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Exactly, these prices are nonsense. They have no idea what Apple are paying for components. A lot of the prices are more expensive than you can get them retail, and I doubt Apple buy their components individually.
- yabos, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3They're laptop hard drives so the cost per GB is higher. But I still believe all these numbers are crap anyways. They're just guessing.
- Gogogo111, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Yeah, they pay more for packaging then for their power supply?
- gfnw, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't put it past them, Apple seems to think a gig of RAM is worth $300 after all.
- SuspicionVandit, on 01/30/2008, -10/+2When is Apple going to finish Duke Nukem Forever? it's been 10 years!
- wellyuk, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2After they release Windows 7.
- soupyc, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1And Office 2009.
- wellyuk, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2After they release Windows 7.
- yobkeeg, on 01/30/2008, -2/+5Each unit sold still returns close to 30%, why is that giving it away. Most electronics sold don't even have those kinds of margins...Why does isuppli feel that they are giving it away. Doesn't make any sense!!!
- bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2So, the parts manufacture themselves? And they researched and designed themselves?
- Raian, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6These stories always seem bogus-- Apple gets every part, and every component at a massive discount-- and I am willing to bet they are making a profit on the Apple TV...
- bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2I bet they AREN'T making anything on it. Not when you figure in R&D costs. Most companies don't make a profit on a new piece of technology for years. And certainly not one that is not selling well.
- Raian, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Apple does not have large R&D costs-- because they have been able to keep the company size relatively small, and all of their manufacturing is outsourced. If the Apple TV isn't profitable now-- it wont take very long for it to be profitable... I am also willing to bet more money went in to the design of the Apple TV then in to R&D-- they are using standard components-- and although the software is great, it does not appear to be particularly feature robust. But that's my two cents... For all I know, Steve could be taking a loan out on his Jaguar for his little "pet project".
- johnpaul191, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1The R&D is pretty much stripped down OS X and a stripped down Mac Mini. Compared to the iPhone, the R&D is almost nothing because it's almost an existing platform.
The movie rentals are pretty much the same that any computer running iTunes can handle. I am guessing the AppleTV dev team is pretty small, or done on the side during spare time. That's all great. It means Apple is not going to freak out about selling a ton of them until the market is ready. It's not like the Xbox Live market place (whatever it's called) is doing massively well either. These types of devices are not mainstream yet, but they'll be pretty nice when the public wants them.
- johnpaul191, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1The R&D is pretty much stripped down OS X and a stripped down Mac Mini. Compared to the iPhone, the R&D is almost nothing because it's almost an existing platform.
- Raian, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Apple does not have large R&D costs-- because they have been able to keep the company size relatively small, and all of their manufacturing is outsourced. If the Apple TV isn't profitable now-- it wont take very long for it to be profitable... I am also willing to bet more money went in to the design of the Apple TV then in to R&D-- they are using standard components-- and although the software is great, it does not appear to be particularly feature robust. But that's my two cents... For all I know, Steve could be taking a loan out on his Jaguar for his little "pet project".
- FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1They might be turning a profit from it - if people were buying them. :P
- bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2I bet they AREN'T making anything on it. Not when you figure in R&D costs. Most companies don't make a profit on a new piece of technology for years. And certainly not one that is not selling well.
- Mike668, on 01/30/2008, -4/+6Well they won't be making a dollar from me. I don't want to buy content from Apple only to have to continue to buy Apple hardware for the rest of my life to view it.
- EtherGnat, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5I know Apple is popular on Digg, but he has a point. Even if you feel Apple currently makes the best product, there's no guarantee that will be the case in the future. Tying all your content to one company for both hardware and software increases risk and limits future choices. I'm not saying it's enough reason not to buy an Apple TV (I'm considering purchasing one but will likely build a MythTV box or something instead) but it's a valid contribution to the discussion, and shouldn't be modded down.
- FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Why are these people getting dugg down? They're right, and you know it!
- etandrib, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3I have an Apple TV and use it to view all the movies I ripped to my iTunes library. I am excited about being able to rent HD content from my couch and enjoy the 5.1 surround sound. I'm not locked into the hardware on movies I own (I don't but iTunes movies because of the DRM) but renting movies isn't a lock in. You only get the movie for 24 hours anyway. I like being able to move it to my iPhone if I need to as well.
If you look at the Apple TV as a media player with rental capabilities it is a great device and well worth $250. - johnpaul191, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I would almost consider buying an AppleTV to access the content on my desktop machine, and rent movies. Rentals expire in 24 hours anyway, so who cares if Apple goes bankrupt in 10 years. Even if i bought a few movies.... who cares? I bought a fair number of VHS tapes in the past and i don't own a VCR anymore.
I hate the whole 24 hour rental thing, but when i realize how many movies i really watch a month, i think it would be cheaper than cable (or about the same). That's factoring in the cost of the AppleTV hardware over two years. I also feel like i would rather give my money to Apple than Comcast.
You want to talk about monopolies and being locked into one option? Let's talk about Comcast keeping other cable providers out of my area. I have Macs, so no streaming Netflix. I don't play games or own an Xbox. AppleTV is pretty much my option for accessing online rentals at this point, and it can grab content off the Macs in my house as a bonus. The access to free podcasts is just another bonus.
- Quix, on 01/30/2008, -2/+9I though subsidizing meant *losing* money on each sale (like Sony and Microsoft do with game consoles). Making little or no money, on the other hand, with the hope of profits from media sales is hardly "subsidizing."
- DarthSupero, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1Why do you mention that Sony and Microsoft are subsidizing their game consoles, then go on to say that subsidizing is not making little to no money with the hopes of profits from media when that is exactly what Sony and Microsoft are doing? (i.e. Selling the consoles at a loss in the hopes that media sales will make them money.)
- gfnw, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Sony and MS are selling at a loss. They sell the product for less that it costs to manufacture, with the difference coming out of their own pocket. Hence they are subsidizing the sale of the console, because the customer is not paying the full cost of the product.
Apple, assuming for purposes of this post that the numbers stated are correct, are not selling at a loss, but they aren't selling at a profit either. They aren't subsidizing in this case because when you purchase their product you are paying the full cost of the product, Apple does not lose money.- johnpaul191, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1It's possible the Xbox 360 and PS3 are making a profit on consoles at this point, but your point is correct. Components are cheaper than when the console first shipped. That and the other costs may have been covered by now.
- gfnw, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Sony and MS are selling at a loss. They sell the product for less that it costs to manufacture, with the difference coming out of their own pocket. Hence they are subsidizing the sale of the console, because the customer is not paying the full cost of the product.
- eddieroger, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1Then you don't know what subsidizing means. It doesn't mean taking a loss, it means pursuing other revenue in additional to normal sales. For example, in some states, a high school will subsidize standardized testing for students. The test still costs the same amount, but the student only pays some of it, and the school subsidizes the rest. Ta da.
- DarthSupero, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1Why do you mention that Sony and Microsoft are subsidizing their game consoles, then go on to say that subsidizing is not making little to no money with the hopes of profits from media when that is exactly what Sony and Microsoft are doing? (i.e. Selling the consoles at a loss in the hopes that media sales will make them money.)
- kacymartin, on 01/30/2008, -3/+4For some reason I thought subsidizing meant you sold it as a loss, even those figures show that they aren't loosing any money on the Apple TV. They're just selling it cheaper now, big deal...
- knightboat, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3You should subsidize an "o" out of the word "loosing."
- zippy757, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3..this is such a loser article....first, you can the hd on the street for about 1/2 of what they say here...second, the odds of MB being in the range are zippo....MB cost is more like $90....
lastly, they are missing some major costs like sales, marketing, distribution...all of which go into the product price.... - meshman, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4Well duh. the AppleTV is just an expensive gateway to the iTunes store. It does little else useful like play DVD's.
- etandrib, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I don't use DVD's anymore. I just rip and play.
- bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4The only proof you need is that no one is buying it.
- peestandingup, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Online video distribution will never get anywhere unless all these companies come to develop some kind of standard. No one wants to be trapped with a single proprietary device & software suite with DRM up the ass.
Online music doesn't do that & neither does MP3s or portable devices. Everything is cross platform. That is, unless its riddled with DRM (but you see where thats going).- FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1iPods do it. Try playing your iTunes music (non "iTunes Plus") on a different MP3 player, etc.
- peestandingup, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Thats why I made the comment about DRM'ed music going away, no one wants it. And iPods play MP3s/AACs that you rip yourself or buy/download from other places. AppleTV & other similar devices don't do that. It's iTunes with AppleTV or nothing. I know technically you can rip video from DVDs that will play on it, but its not as easy or as supported as ripping a CD, so they dont talk about it.
- etandrib, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2I agree with you a bit. I think Apple realizes they can't have the same iPod success with DRMed video and be in the living room. It is already a very crowded space with similar options and little room to differentiate themselves like they were able to do with the iPod.
The model should be as simple as this. Buy it - no DRM (maybe watermarked). Rent it? - DRM to obviously have the file self-destruct and you of course have to have corresponding hardware. The moral of the story? Rentals will only work with corresponding hardware and Apple is in the best position to do so with their broad range of video players.
So to clarify your argument, online video sales will not take off until they are sans DRM. Same as music. We'll see how long the movie industry takes to wise up. - colincornaby, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2AppleTV supports un-DRM'd content...
- johnpaul191, on 02/02/2008, -0/+11) the MPAA will not allow movies to be sold without DRM
2) movie rentals (on iTunes, Xbox, whatever) mean that after 24 hours it doesn't matter what the format *was*
once the iTunes rental store is fully stocked, it might make sense to drop cable movie channels and just rent things. i know some people that dropped cable and just buy the few shows they watch from itunes. they swear it's cheaper for them.
- FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1iPods do it. Try playing your iTunes music (non "iTunes Plus") on a different MP3 player, etc.
- chamady, on 01/30/2008, -2/+6Rebuttal to this article is here:
http://digg.com/apple/Contrary_to_Some_Opinions_Ap ...
I apologize for plugging my own submission, but this needs to be read imho. - sdlvx, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3This isn't any different than microsoft selling 360s for a loss.
You can sell hardware once, but if you give someone hardware, and then milk them for software, you're in good shape.
And honestly, can gizmodo write an article that isn't a complete waste of bandwidth? This was the biggest waste of 23,435 bytes I have ever seen.- johnpaul191, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1It's different because Apple apparently makes *some* money on the AppleTV. At this point the AppleTV does not have the assumed revenue stream of a game console. Same way Microsoft is getting their feet wet by offering movie rentals on the Xbox. I'm sure they don't make much money there either, but they are learning.
- FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1I'll never understand why people always make a big deal about this kind of stuff. Just because Apple isn't making any money off of sales of this device doesn't instantly make it useful. It actually still looks like a pretty big piece of junk to me.
It's pretty obvious to me that if they are willing to sell the Apple TV at loss, then they are pretty desperate to get iTunes dollars pumping from your living room to their pockets. I'm not buying it... in both ways. - Cooperjones, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2http://seekingalpha.com/article/62278-contrary-to- ...
Apple is not taking a loss. - bigheadsteve, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0I don't feel that bad Apple is not profiting from Apple TV. Just spent 4 bills on the iPhone and 2 bills on music and video downloads. I'm sure Apple will be fine if Apple TV falls on its face.
I really digg the iPhone by the way. - Justin6512, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1iPod touch + built in hard drive + $249 starting price = ultimate ownage!
- usgovterrorists, on 01/31/2008, -2/+0I wonder how many fools have been holding apple stock since it hit $200?
Play Wall Street like a Ponzi Scheme! - Pliep, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Inaccurate! (And therefore buried). iSupply NEVER includes cost for research, development, transport, etc. for those devices. They "estimate" what the processor cost (so it's a GUESS) and they do NOT know how much discounts Apple gets from their component-suppliers.
iSupply is just guessing, guessing some more, and then concluding that Apple makes either a loss or huge profits on their devices. Not scientific at all; and I think newspapers, magazines and blogs should STOP quoting their insane conclusions. - barnacle999, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Yeah this article has been thoroughly debunked. It's junk. Apple doesn't lose money on AppleTV ... or anything else.
- barnacle999, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Yeah this article has been thoroughly debunked. It's junk. Apple doesn't lose money on AppleTV, or anything else for that matter.
http://www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2008/01/news-fl ... - jabberwolf, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Thankfully there is so much content out there, less money and HD in 1080. No need for Apple TV. No need for Apple DRM!!
No need for Apple anything really. - tyrione, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0You've got two options: Margins on hardware or margins on software services. It's not that difficult.
- xuna, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Well, that explains that we have yet not seen the price drop here in Norway. Since we don't have any video-content to buy from iTunes (yes, we are still waiting to be able to PAY for content), there is no point in dropping the price...
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by