[mass_transit_prophet]

@mama’s left eye:

Apple does not make money through “innovation.” Money is not made through vague concepts or repetitive metanarratives.

Apple makes its money through the sale of product (whose production resources are dictated by investor confidence – better known as the stock market, whose quantitative elements are measured in stock price loss and stock price gains). Pure and simple.

Both movement of product and stock loss/gains are issues that are material.

Apple’s current budget surplus is extremely high; the sale of the iPod over the Christmas holiday brought in a tremendous influx of capital (the figures of iPod sales are mentioned in Steve’s Keynote). With this excess capital, Apple no longer requires the absolute beck and call of the market for production funds, research and development funds, etc. Indeed, because of the massive profits Apple has taken in, its stock prices have a stopgap from massive investor loss (what Wall Street analyst loses confidence in a company that has such a high budget surplus, popular and critical acclaim, and a cornerstone on “cool”.)

The iPod, perhaps for the first time in the past eight years, has granted Apple a form of economic autonomy from the whims of the market. Investor confidence is at an all time high. Therefore, the chief pivot on whether or not Apple generates profit comes from its ability to move product. (This is what makes the iPod Shuffle and the Mini Mac such brilliant ideas at this moment in Apple’s success; both products have exceedingly low costs and therefore the near-assurance of Apple having the ability to move the product quickly and consistantly.)

Apple’s stock prices will not surge further until Apple increases its market share, even by a percentage point (again another quantitative element).

Even if I were to ask either Apple, or Think Secret, to open their books to the public so that I could see what losses/gains have been incurred neither company would do so. Why is that one might ask? Because both are businesses for whom their financial records are privileged information. Therefore, none of use on this forum are qualified to speak on actual, material loss or gain of either company; such things are folly and absurdity.

“Why would Apple spend money to sue if he wasn’t causing them a loss?” This question has multiple answers of which many have been brought up already. A lawsuit on the precipice of keynote brings both publicity and market interest in Apple’s impending announcements. Filing a lawsuit is an extremely cheep procedure (especially for a company like Apple Corporate, which no doubt has plenty of lawyers already on staff).

Think of the Apple lawsuit as the business equivalent of a commercial. It also has the effect of stopping any further leaks (which has already been brought up). Material loss or not, no corporation appreciates its employees breaking NDA’s and therefore violating their contract agreements. (I do whole-heartedly support prosecution of Apple’s leak…however I do not think they should be suing a reporter to get to his sources. i.e. fifth amendment – freedom of the press protections).

Both of these effects are entirely agreeable to Apple and result in its gain, not its loss.

What I prefer to do is analyze the gaps and fissures in arguments. This is the realm where speculation is meaningful. All analyses have the bent of personal opinion. I make mine in the spaces, ruptures, and fissures where valid speculation can take place. The truth-value of the charges in Apple’s lawsuit cannot be substantiated. Any potential loss or gain by either company cannot be substantiated. For this speculation, we have very few epistemological sources (so you don’t have to look that up – few places from which our knowledge may come). We have reporting on the lawsuit, and Nick’s statement saying he used valid journalistic methods.

Given the limitedness of our sources, it takes effort to make meaningful speculation that does little more than say the same (four letter expletive starting with a d) thing as everyone else on these forums. I have shown that I am capable of this ability. I have tipped my hand. I have yet to see you tip yours.

P.S. The rhetorical technique of countering someone’s argument or opinion through defamation of intellect and character is a wonderful and effective tactic. Ask any schoolyard bully (fully capable of picking on others, but scores a consistent C or D on every assignment) what tactic is their method of choice. Or better, ask anyone who has worked in the 2000 or 2004 presidential campaigns…perhaps you are in the wrong profession.

I will never tell you to stop posting; to do so would be to squelch your freedom of speech (you know, the first amendment). However, I will tell you that you are being infantile.

@iRobot: Gracias for the quick defense.

[mass_transit_prophet]

“The major media, like its racist projections, is to be rejected - not consumed - for your very patronage gives it life.”

Mumia Abu Jamal, All Things Censored

If one objects to Nick’s journalistic practices, meaning that one believes Apple’s allegation that Nick solicited trade secrets, then I do ask the question:

why do you continue to come and post at this site?

This forum has already discussed that Think Secret is a business. It makes money from the hits it gets due to its reporting and its forums.

However, businesses do not function without customers. Each time one comes to this site to expound their opinion, positive or negative, one effectively partakes of the product that Nick offers his customers: the Think Secret website itself. You effectively give him your currency, your “hit”, your internet traffic, when you come to Think Secret.

When I don’t like a businesses practices, you know what I do – I don’t buy the product.

If I don’t like Nike’s use of sweatshop labor – I don’t buy Nikes. If I don’t like Coca-Cola’s anti-union practices in Columbia – I don’t buy Coke. If I don’t like Walmart’s forcing of its suppliers down to rock bottom price to put product on their shelves (a policy that nearly guarantees that almost every product sold in Walmart is produced via means of a sweatshop to keep cost down) – I don’t buy Walmart. If I don’t like Ford or Exxon/Mobil’s funding of Bush’s inauguration gala (as opposed to using the money for defensive equipment for our boys dying in Iraq) – I don’t buy what they have to sell.

I find this a curious contradiction and I wonder how several of you manage to negotiate this ethical dilemma. In Mumia’s words, “your very patronage gives it life.”

I really am interested in answers to this question. I would not have put it out there if I wasn’t looking for answers (as your continued visiting and arguing gives the site I support more hits).

[scratt]

Even if I were to ask either Apple, or Think Secret, to open their books to the public so that I could see what losses/gains have been incurred neither company would do so. Why is that one might ask? Because both are businesses for whom their financial records are privileged information. Therefore, none of use on this forum are qualified to speak on actual, material loss or gain of either company; such things are folly and absurdity.

erm... Apple are a public company and as such they do publish their accounts. They have to by law.

'Nicks' 'Outfit' is a small internet site which trades on the theft or innapropriate gleaning of information which is not his intellectual property. He does not publish accounts. He doesn't have to as he is not a Public Company. He is however guilty as charged and Apple are in the right to pursue.

How you can say 'none of us are qualified to speak on...' and then launch into your version of the world baffles me!

[scratt]

And another thing... Apples entire business strategy is based on 'innovation' and by definition they must therefore rely on 'innovation' in order to have a revenue stream...

[scratt]

why do you continue to come and post at this site?

This site is a separate entity from Think Secret.. Just because, for example, my business sites link to other peoples companies, and visa-versa, does not mean we are in 'bed together'.

Now as for challenging people for infantile tactics and insults etc.. Ref. Your school yard bully espousement... To then go on and insult someone right after even obliquely rather dulls your point, so to speak.

Hey, and using big words doesn't mean that what you say is any more right or wrong... Using them and then being conceited about it is the height of bad taste. At the end of the day your post just has big words in it. The actual content needs work.. Concentrate on substance before worrying about embellishment. Be careful you don't trip yourself up trying to be too clever. :smokey:

[mass_transit_prophet]

@Scratt: I'll bite that one. It is best to admit one's mistakes. Apple is a public company. It has to submit quarterly financial statements to its shareholders.

(How embarrassing. Especially after my earlier rant on Corporate Charters as requiring that a corporation exist for the public good. To quote Charlie Brown, Good Grief.)

However, no one on THIS forum has numbers for these gains/losses yet. This has all occured during the current fiscal quarter, with no statement available to shareholders, i.e. the bastion of public corporate accountability. No statement has been made to the public on Apple's losses by the hands of the dastardly Think Secret.

And again, as for Nick being guilty as charged. That one is for a jury to decide. Charges are mere allegations. Convictions are the acceptance of the allegations as true <beyond reasonable doubt.> I think there is still plenty of a case for reasonable account.

This juror for one is unconvinced; but I'll be keeping a close eye on the trial precedings.

(As for the mass_transit_prophet verson of the world...how does one reply to that? All one has is their own version(s) of the world...I try to keep mine as well informed as possible.)

[mass_transit_prophet]

@scratt: Look at anyone of my posts and you'll find plenty of content. I don't even need to comment on that.

Mama's left eye's post was plenty infantile. To simply state this is not an insult. I can post some pretty infantile things once and a while. I'll admit my "so you don't have to look it up" comment was plenty infantile. Though, I thought it a pretty restrained response considered the repeated strikes on my intellegence in Mama's left eye's post.

As for big words, I've existed in academia all my life. When I use big words, its because there are concepts associated with them. If I sound pompous and arrogant, that's not necessarily how I mean to come off. I'm the first to admit that I AM pompous and arrogant. However, that is completely separate from my vocabulary.

Also, is this not the Forums site off of Think Secret (a tab on Nick's site: the first being "News", the second being "Archives", the third being "Message Board", etc.)? How are these two sites associated? I believe this site to be merely an extension of Nick's site (or at bare minimum a strategic partnership).

Is not profiting off someone else loss simply aquiescence for the behavior to continue? If you claim that Apple lost something by this news being broke, and you use this news to further your own site (thereby extending the reach and influence of the news...furthering the damage - if the hypothetical damage is the spread of this information before Steve's keynote) they are you not party to this as well? Perhaps you should have asked the question of, "Where did TS's information come from?" before using it to advantage.

Me think you doth pertest to much.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by mass_transit_prophet Also, is this not the Forums site off of Think Secret (a tab on Nick's site: the first being "News", the second being "Archives", the third being "Message Board", etc.)? How are these two sites associated? I believe this site to be merely an extension of Nick's site (or at bare minimum a strategic partnership).

There is a lot of history to do with these sites, and how this forum came about. I am a relative newcomer to this community. It peaked my interest as I got into many battles myself at the Apple forums when witnessing outrageous behaviour by certain 'moderators', and eventually got bored of it all and became a cyber refugee.... The final straw came when I found that the word 'suck' was censored! I was actually trying to post about using a hoover to clean parts of a computer!!! Hence my arrival at Applenova... I like it here. I am not sure whether people are happy or sad that I hang out here.. but I like it, so I think I'll stick around!!! I digress... there are many references to the origin of this site here in the forums, and if I understand correctly the link to Think Secret is nothing more than part of the break down of the old forum, from which most of the orignal folks here are refugees.. I think quite a few people here hold 'Nick' in high regard, others don't. I am not bothered either way, but think that he could do with some polish and savvy. With regard to forum history - Please correct me if I am wrong, those who watch from above!

Applenova is definitely not part of 'Nicks' 'erm 'empire!?!?'! (*tongue firmly in cheek with the 'empire' reference!!*)

Now as to the whys and wherefores of the alleged crime... 'Nick' has been using information which is not his to use. Period. So there is a case to answer... A good journalist, like a good cop, must operate within the bounds of certain rules of ethic and law. 'Nick' has not done so (for some time), and there are reasonable grounds to suspect him of actually 'feeding' his stories with information that he has solicited. His actions are irresponcible and they are also well within Apple's domain of (shall we say) prejudice.

Unless someone pulls a hat out of the bag, assuming this thing ever gets to trial, or a settlement (which I doubt) then 'Nick' has got some fancy footwork to do to get himself out of this mess....

In the end I suspect he will roll over on the guys who fed him...

[mama's left eye]

Originally Posted by mass_transit_prophet Mama's left eye's post was plenty infantile. To simply state this is not an insult. I can post some pretty infantile things once and a while. I'll admit my "so you don't have to look it up" comment was plenty infantile. Though, I thought it a pretty restrained response considered the repeated strikes on my intellegence in Mama's left eye's post.

It got your attention, didn't it? Do I think you aren't intelligent? I haven't the slightest clue, I haven't met you. If you do have some lights on in your brain housing group, you should know that I, nor anyone else on the forum can do what you asked.

"@mama's left eye: Prove that Nick has cost Apple money. I don't mean speculate on possible competition advantage or stock effects. Lets see some figures. "

That's a job for the courts. If someone here can prove that it costs or doesn't cost Apple money, I think I know where you can find a job. Asking questions you know can't be answered can also be a very good tactic in an argument. Ask that same school bully you mentioned earlier.

[mass_transit_prophet]

Gracias for the update on da history scratt. As you can tell, I am exceedingly new to the forums myself. I try making sure that I read as much as I can before I post - hense the low post count.

I only had the article on Applenova's home page by LoCash to run from describing their partnership.

I have a tendency to side towards the individual (or smaller business) vs. the larger corporation. It shows in all of my posts...it comes from the more marxist side of my thinking. I have no knowledge of Nick whatsoever...I just have a predisposition to defend the figurative little guy. (How big the "little guy" is is something I do not know...just smaller than Apple that's all).

As I have no history with this place, however, I also had no reason to particularily suspect that Nick has frequently done things to bring question to his journalism (I was aware of the s&d letter sent to him...but I know plenty of companies that use them frivolously to shut up news sources.)

Here's to an entertaining series of legal procedings. Cheers!

[CitizenTony]

Originally Posted by mama's left eye Whether he makes 2¢ or $30 shouldn't make much difference if he is doing it at the expense of Apple.

To that, you are correct. Though, I was voicing concern over your earlier implication that TS was in this for the money, not the fun/fame/etc...

To again quote:

Go to the front page of thinksecret.com. Look at all the advertisement. Be prepared to realize that maybe he isn't doing it for you, or for the love of Apple.

To which, I disagreed.

[CitizenTony]

Originally Posted by scratt Right on... For the record I can tell you now that I make several hundred $$ a month from very limited on-site advertising... And that more than covers hosting, renewal etc... Now I know 'Nicks' site gets a lot more traffic than mine... Go do the maths...

As I said, I was unaware of how much on-line ads brought in these days. Even still, I truly doubt he's in it for the money more than for the fun, but if he pulls more than $1k a month it does raise an eyebrow. Esp. when you figure how easy it is to garner traffic around any DC with false rumours, and more so with the true stats. If he pulls more than $2-3k a month, which is more than $8-10 an hour after taxes. The implication of him truly seeking out sources for hits to his site really could come into play in the court room. More so when you consider his age and student status.

It would be more than intresting to know this information.

[LoCash]

I'm sticking a fork in it, this thread is done folks.

And to whomever asked earlier, yeah, I pretty much did just pop in on the last page to drop in my own opinion.