Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2012 14:51 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Thread beginning with comment 534638
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I can't blame you for skimming my post (it was a bloody long one), but if you're not going to read it properly then please don't waste your time responding as I really can do without these pathetic misunderstandings.
Technically your response was already emotional enough, since it was basically an ad hominem.
BTW, here let me help you remember what you actually wrote , so perhaps now you can comprehend my previous post:
Thus they need to monopolise the market and thus they need to prevent their biggest competition from, well, competing.
Cheers.
Edited 2012-09-11 17:43 UTC
Technically your response was already emotional enough, since it was basically an ad hominem.
That's purely your emotional interpretation of my post and nothing more. So please don't accuse me of emotional bias because you're unable of impartiality yourself.
BTW, here let me help you remember what you actually wrote , so perhaps now you can comprehend my previous post
You do comprehend what "needs" means? It represents a desire, not a literal quantitative. Perhaps next time you decide to drop Latin into your comments, you learn grasp English first.
Anyhow, the crux of the point you're querying is that exponential growth cannot be sustained (neither by iOS nor by Android) without:
1) absorbing their competitors market,
2) and eventually monopolising the market.
Thus -as I had stated- Apple need a monopoly if that want to sustain the exponential growth that their currently displaying.




Member since:
2007-03-26
I never said they did. In fact that was part of my bloody point in regards to their financial bubble
Many of whom? I'm talking purely about financial side of things.
Apple is not suing anyone because they can't compete,
I didn't say that either
In fact, did you even read anything I said or did you just decided you'd go off on your own random counter-argument on the assumption I'd probably be spouting some emotional BS?
I can't blame you for skimming my post (it was a bloody long one), but if you're not going to read it properly then please don't waste your time responding as I really can do without these pathetic misunderstandings.
Edited 2012-09-10 21:23 UTC