backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by SavagePotato.. on Nov 3 at 12:26 PM


"So that's a 'No' on a cut of the iPod hardware sales? Well, I had to ask."  (Source: NBC)
New allegations emerge which indicate more possible causes for the NBC and Apple split.

The story of NBC and iTunes' breakup is well known to DailyTech regulars.  Back in August DailyTech first reported the split.  It then went on to cover Apple's decision to prematurely drop its contract with NBC, which would have last until year's end. 
The coverage included a blast at NBC in which Apple alleged that the split resulted from NBC's greed $4.99 per episode pricing demands.  NBC fired back, finding a new home at Amazon's new Unbox download service.

NBC previously stated that it wanted to be able to offer free pilot episodes, control the packaging of content and have more flexibility in pricing.  It also wanted additional protection from piracy.  It stated that Apple was unwilling to work with it on these issues.

Now new allegations have emerged, which may provide shocking testimony to NBC's audacity, if they are true.

NBC President Jeff Zucker, according to a report in Variety, allegedly shared with The New Yorker's Ken Auletta during a benefit for former football powerhouse Syracuse University that NBC had wanted a cut of every iPod Apple sold as part of NBC's negotiations to renew their contract. 

Zucker is quoted as saying, "Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money.  They did not want to share in what they were making off the hardware or allow us to adjust pricing."

This revelation is being met with incredulity in the media industry.  After all, NBC was not alone in most of its complaints against Apple -- for example, iTunes’ fixed price of $1.99 per episode.  However, no other television network would dare make as audacious a demand as a cut of hardware revenues.

More surprising is how little money NBC was really making for Apple and itself.  In the first year of its contract Zucker is quoted as placing its iTunes revenue $15 million USD.  In comparison to the $16 billion USD in revenue that NBC Universal, this is only 0.3 percent of the company's total revenue.

It was noted that NBC Universal's theme park business did $100 million USD in revenue. On the other hand, this does mean that iTunes sold approximately 7.5 million NBC TV episodes.

It seems relatively obvious that such demands were the realm of fantasy.  Otherwise every television maker from Sony to LG would have to pay a slice to NBC, Fox and the other studios.  The “iDevices” would have to pay cuts to Fox, ABC and many more.  This is obviously an untenable business model, considering the drive for low cost expensive hardware that often is only slightly profitable at best.

Other networks such as FOX and ABC have not dared make such demands.

NBC has a chance to prove itself on its own with the new HULA service it is starting with FOX (coverage later today at DailyTech), its deal with Amazon Unbox and its NBC Direct service, reported about at DailyTech earlier this month.

However, until NBC shows a far larger business volume, its demands may appear undeniably like gold-digging of a hardware giant.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Chuck
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 9:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
I love this show. The writers really nailed the whole working in a big box store thing.




RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Chuck
By h0kiez on 10/31/2007 9:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
Relax dude...it's a sitcom.

Plus, the co-star is hot. I'm in just for that. Can't we get some pics of her on this page?


RE: Chuck
By therealnickdanger on 10/31/2007 10:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah... Jason must think it too cliche to post a pic of her have us all obsess over it.

In yer face, Jas!
http://www.modelvolume.com/yvonne_strzechowski/yvo...


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 10:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure one hour shows can be classified as sitcoms. I think you have to have a completely pointless half hour show for that.

The show was meh even ignoring the constant mac and iphone cameos. The hard drive thing was really just a last straw in pulling the plug on watching a boring show. As for the co star, she's just another tube shaped fashion model type with hips like a 12 year old boy. So meh again.


RE: Chuck
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 1:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
What does length have to do with the genre of show? Sitcom means Situation Comedy, which Chuck definitely is, with a hint of action show thrown in for kicks. If Heroes (speaking of boring shows) was only 30 minutes would it no longer be a drama?

Product placement is everywhere, it's time you just accept it and move on. Even Terminator back in 1985 or whatever had a very long shot on Reese's Nike shoes. I agree that the co-star isn't that attractive.


RE: Chuck
By 16nm on 10/31/2007 2:47:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I agree that the co-star isn't that attractive.

Yeah, she's a real dog-girl
http://www.edu.lahti.fi/~meheinon/MIKÄ%20TÄÄ%20O.j...


RE: Chuck
By V2K on 10/31/2007 10:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I hate the fact that they always get it wrong when people have a top secret computer database uploaded to their brain. They way they do it in Chuck is very unrealistic.

And the NSA never allows undercover operatives to sell hot dogs dressed in hot novelty outfits!


RE: Chuck
By MPE on 10/31/2007 11:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
That is one dumb reason.

You actually care enough about how people refer to a computer - especially a fictional character you have no dealing with in real life?

Things like that don't get you girlfriends outside of The Sims.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 1:10:54 PM , Rating: 1
Being irked because people call something by the wrong name and refuse to be corrected is what is called a pet peeve.

If you are going to expect me to watch your show, movie etc, you better make it authentic or I am not interested.

Furthermore insulting me over it is something that just proves your place as an internet forum bully that needs negative attention to survive.


RE: Chuck
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 1:56:08 PM , Rating: 1
It's a TV show. Stop taking it so seriously. You sound like you didn't/don't have enough friends as a child.


RE: Chuck
By adam92682 on 10/31/2007 12:06:19 PM , Rating: 3
I thing they got the part right then because in store technicians are incompetent.


RE: Chuck
By borismkv on 10/31/2007 12:39:10 PM , Rating: 1
You actually correct the way people whose computers you are fixing talk? Wow...they must hate your guts. Being able to handle users with respect and patience is a major part of being a competent technician. Guess you haven't quite nailed that one yourself.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 1:15:28 PM , Rating: 1
Referring to things by the wrong name to make people feel smart when they are in fact stupid, is not in my job description. Maybe you feel it is in yours, thats great for you. I feel no need to baby people about their lack of knowledge.

If someone gets their nose out of joint about being told what the correct term for something is, too bad for them. Thankfully I do not work at dell, so I have no need to be an obsequious boot licker to try and get business. That is the sales reps job.


RE: Chuck
By borismkv on 10/31/2007 1:43:47 PM , Rating: 1
I assume you're one of those techs that works in a back room in a computer shop where no customers ever go? It may be a salesman's job to *get* customers, but it is a technician's job to *keep* customers. Making people feel small and idiotic (by correcting them on such simplistic and inane things as jargon) is just plane rude. If someone refers to something incorrectly, just ignore it. But I guess I should be grateful that you're a complete SOB to users. I mean, it's people like you that help me get all the customers I want, since I actually know how to deal with people as well as computers.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 1:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Theres a difference between saying "hey moron it's not a hard drive, my god you are stupid." than saying "actualy hard drive refers to the physical storage inside your computer are you maybe referring to the tower?"

Would you honestly be so out of joint over that that you are going to think I am the antichrist? If so I would say you are maybe just a wee bit sensitive.

Correcting mistakes does not automatically imply doing so in a rude manner.


RE: Chuck
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 1:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
The customer already feels stupid because they can't fix it themselves. No matter how nice you are about it they will still come away from you feeling even more stupid because the holier-than-thou computer tech corrected them.


RE: Chuck
By Oregonian2 on 10/31/2007 2:07:09 PM , Rating: 3
Or maybe smarter because they've learned something?


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 2:22:15 PM , Rating: 1
That is exactly the point. Theres no reason the customer can't learn something by taking their computer in. Much in the way of giving them advice on how to avoid problems in the future so they won't have to bring it back in.

Furthermore it often times is neccesary to correct them in the process of clarifying the problem. "Theres something wrong with my hard drive." Just doesn't cut it, eventualy you are going to have to ask them if they are refering to the actual hard drive or some other general problem and to be specific about what it is.

I would love for every customer that gets dealt with to come away smarter and knowing more about their computer. If it means I don't have to clean vundo off it every two months because they learned to avoid it for example that's a good thing.

I can imagine if I went to a mechanic and told him there's something funny with my engine when my brakes were squeaking I would be getting corrected somewhere along the line. It is just the wall of ignorance comes up when dealing with a computer and a total air of wanting to be babied.


RE: Chuck
By borismkv on 10/31/2007 2:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
So the fact that they keep calling it a hard drive even after you've corrected them doesn't make you realize that you're doing it wrong?

There is a big difference between saying, "Actually, the hard drive is an internal storage device" and saying, "I'm sorry, I'm a little confused, do you mean that there is a problem with your internal hard drive or with the whole computer?"


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Chuck
By borismkv on 10/31/2007 5:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because I didn't feel like going back to re-type everything you said. Everyone who's following this thread knows what you said, my paraphrase takes them back to it. It isn't *what* you say that is my point, it's *how* you say it that I'm arguing against. Anything you say, "Actually" to someone, it belittles them, and makes them think that you feel like you are better than them. A simple change of wording can make an incredible amount of difference when dealing with people.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Chuck
By borismkv on 10/31/2007 2:30:59 PM , Rating: 1
You do realize that any time you correct someone in any way, what they hear ultimately becomes "It's a hard drive, you idiot" and not what you actually say, right? When you correct them, you put yourself above them. People don't trust people who are above them or below them. That's why poor people hate rich people, rich people hate poor people, liberals hate conservatives, conservatives hate liberals, and it's also why you seem to think that because a person hasn't spent their lives taking apart and rebuilding computers over and over again that that makes them "stupid." It's also why those same people refuse to accept your correction and continue calling a computer a hard drive.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Chuck
By borismkv on 10/31/2007 6:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, this is the last thing I'm gonna say cause I've wasted too much of my time on this thread. Most of the people who are "being ignorant and refusing to learn" are doing so because they are frustrated with having to deal with the technology. More often than not they are frustrated because they've had to deal with someone who takes it upon themselves to try and educate them, but rather than having patience and trying to look at that technology from the user's perspective, they decide to use jargon or bludgeon the users with facts, like what the difference is between a tower and a hard drive. Many of them just simply don't have the time to deal with it or make the connections required to actually learn about the technology.

The point I've been trying to make is that so many technicians complain about how stupid some users can be sometimes. However, to me it seems that that stupidity is due more to the technicians not knowing how to help those users learn about the technology with patience and kindness. When I work with people, I always remind myself that it's my job to understand all of this stuff and help it work for the users. It isn't their job to understand it. They have a different job, and every minute I spend trying to correct them or teach them stuff they don't really want to know in the first place is time they cannot spend doing their jobs, and it's rude of me to assume that it okay for me to spend their time making my job easier, even if it eventually makes theirs less of a hassle. If they want to know some of the stuff I know, they'll ask, and I'll be glad to spend some time helping them understand everything. Otherwise, I'm going to spend my time making it work so they can do their jobs without having to worry about whether or not it's going to work.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Chuck
By borismkv on 11/1/2007 1:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I've been doing it for about 12 years and I haven't gotten tired of it yet...guess you're just in the wrong industry.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 11/1/2007 10:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
If you are someone that enjoys having to talk to adults as if they are 2 years old, I'm honestly realy happy for you.

Back here in reality bills still need to get payed and work still needs to be done to do it. When it comes to working with computers I enjoy my job. That doesn't mean I have to enjoy talking to people that like to act like a baby when they are a full grown adult and come away from it feeling enriched somehow like you do.


RE: Chuck
By MPE on 11/2/2007 10:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
Just fix the stupid computer. That is what you are paid to do. Stop educating people who is paying you. Educate them when you are paying them. That is how the world works.

Your obsession, based on that assumes computers are simple machines, is classic nerd impotence syndrome.

Get a job of power instead of being exploited. Then again, you seem to be convinced that brain power alone makes you happy or better than anyone else. Hint: Unless you are Einstein - brain power is not enough. I'm sure even smart people from Google have realized that by now.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 11/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Chuck
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 1:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, it's called writing for your audience. The general public likes to call their computer cases "hard drives" so the writers chose to use that term as well.

Calling it a computer is wrong to me since the computer IMO is the entire system (case, keyboard, mouse, display). What does bug me is when people call it the modem.


RE: Chuck
By SavagePotato on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Chuck
By V2K on 10/31/2007 3:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Considering every form of entertainment on TV or in movies is done with the aim to "entertain," they sacrifice realism and facts all the time. Your viewing habits must consist of the occasional documentary.

People don't watch Chuck for technical accuracy any more than people watched Top Gun for the real life experiences of a Tomcat pilot. They watch them for fun.

Maybe you should rediscover that concept.


RE: Chuck
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/31/2007 9:24:05 AM , Rating: 2
I love it too (having worked as a tech in my dad at a mom and pop computer store).

It's like a computer geek "Scrubs" to me :D


RE: Chuck
By Etsp on 10/31/2007 8:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
See, this is another place where an admin approved edit function would be beneficial... so you could correct what you said, the part about working inside your father, without changing the meaning of the post. It would be so nice to have, although admittedly, probably hard to implement.


RE: Chuck
By Proteusza on 10/31/2007 11:08:29 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
It seems relatively obvious that such demands were the realm of fantasy. Otherwise every television maker from Sony to LG would have to pay a slice to NBC, Fox and the other studios. The “iDevices” would have to pay cuts to Fox, ABC and many more. This is obviously an untenable business model, considering the drive for low cost expensive hardware that often is only slightly profitable at best.


It should be an untenable business model, but while this example might not be happening in practice, others like it are.

The downfall of the record companies and studios has nothing to do with piracy - piracy is just a reaction to their high prices and bad quality content. Cases like this show us what the studios really think - money at all costs. Thats why they are in the decline - they dont know how to compete in the new economy. They want absolute control and profit from everything, even where it isnt due.


RE: Chuck
By Oregonian2 on 10/31/2007 2:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
But also keep in mind that what one does can be done unto them. Networks such as NBC make their money off of all the TV's that people have. If it weren't for the TV's NBC would be making diddly-squat. Therefore, NBC is making money off of the TV Set manufacturers. Therefore, NBC owes THEM a cut of their revenue for providing the method of NBC selling their content product. Eh?


If Apple...
By EntreHoras on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: If Apple...
By TOAOCyrus on 10/31/2007 9:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
The situation is completely different. AT&T has an exclusive contract with Apple for the iPhone and part of the agreement was for Apple to get a cut of the service revenue. If the iPhone was generic and worked with all providers then there is no way Apple would have such a deal.


RE: If Apple...
By Screwballl on 10/31/2007 9:28:56 AM , Rating: 3
so every single channel out there wants a $10 cut of every television sold or if it is HD then $20... so out of the 1000 channels out there, each TV would cost $12,000 (instead of $150-300) just to pay the $10,000 to the channels?
NBC has always been a greedy money hog to which there is nothing too small for them to try to profit off of.


RE: If Apple...
By omnicronx on 10/31/2007 9:51:58 AM , Rating: 1
Key word here: 'allegations', nothing has been proven. Knowing these two companies I don't trust a word from either of them.

And as for greedy; Apple lives in their own little world and are just as bad or worse than NBC. If they think they can sell songs for $1.99 forever and keep almost all the profits, they are kidding themselves. Kudos for apple for coming up with the Itunes idea in the first place, but if they don't start shelling out more cash, they could lose some big players in the industry. I still to this day do not understand why apple thinks it can tell the music industry what to do, when Apple doesn't actually own any of the music they are selling.

Regardless if these allegations are true and this is the real reason NBC left, Apple is eventually going to have to give others a cut, or suffer the consequences.


RE: If Apple...
By michael2k on 10/31/2007 10:17:54 AM , Rating: 4
You got that wrong.

Apple charges $0.99 per song, half what you allege.
Apple keeps $0.35 per song, which is not "almost all the profits". The labels get that charge at $0.64 per song. I hear the artists get $0.08 from the labels, as alleged at Downhillbattle:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

So rethink your opinion here; if Apple shells out more cash, it means the labels are in the more dominant position, and nobody except the labels want that.

Apple already gives the majority (where 65 percent is greater than half) of the cut to the labels. What else do you think they should do?


RE: If Apple...
By Oregonian2 on 10/31/2007 2:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
The writer of a music piece gets a fixed percentage (single digit) but the music companies think they're getting ripped off and are working with the agency that sets the amount to get it reduced. The artists, if they didn't actually write the material, might get nothing after their expenses are deducted (I read a book on this: ugly unless you write the music).


RE: If Apple...
By mal1 on 10/31/2007 11:19:19 AM , Rating: 2
Apple didn't "come up" with the idea for iTunes any more than Steve jobs invented the personal computer.


RE: If Apple...
By Oregonian2 on 10/31/2007 2:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's a VERY good point (although I think some will disagree). NBC (or Apple) can negotiate for whatever they want, even if stupid or outrageous. Demanding a different 30 virgins every night (or perhaps 29 the second night, 28 the third...etc ) might not be legal, but they can ask for anything. Hopefully the stupid stuff will be pushed up their hose with a rubber nose -- but they can ask/demand and then not getting it, go their own way. Not significantly different than Walmart (or Sears back when they were all powerful) demanding their suppliers drop their prices yearly or get dropped. Some will say "bye-bye" and both lose. You can demand whatever you want (that's legal) in such a contract -- but one may also get nothing if demanding too much.

P.S. - I don't think Apple gets a slice of AT&T's profits. I think they get a slice of their revenue. If AT&T is losing money hand over fist, I suspect Apple will still get their $18/month per iPhone.


Article Edits
By ralith on 10/31/2007 9:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
"This is obviously an untenable business model, considering the drive for low cost expensive hardware that often is only slightly profitable at best."

I think you meant inexpensive.

"After all, NBC was not alone in most of its complaints against NBC"

Second NBC should be Apple?




RE: Article Edits
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/31/2007 9:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
The second one is being fixed.

Reread the first, what I meant was low cost to the consumer, but expensive (high end) hardware. Hardware like the XBOX 360 or PS3 is expensive and these companies take large losses to give their expensive hardware product to consumers at low cost, in hope of future profits.

Even the iDevices and Wii I would marginally categorize as expensive hardware at low cost, as they aren't making much profit past covering their shipping, advertising, retailing, and warehouse fees.


RE: Article Edits
By omnicronx on 10/31/2007 9:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the iDevices and Wii I would marginally categorize as expensive hardware at low cost, as they aren't making much profit past covering their shipping, advertising, retailing, and warehouse fees.
I beg to differ, Apples high earnings in the past years have been solely due to ipod sales. The Wii is in the same boat, its a cashcow and they are surely making more than a few dollars more than it costs to ship/r&d/make. Itunes sales sure as hell have not been giving apple the profits that are coming in. Same with the low attach rate wii, most of Nintendo's profits must be coming from the Wii console(or DS) as the Wii has one of the worst console attach rates.


RE: Article Edits
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/31/2007 10:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, but my point is that as far as hardware is concerned they are doing slightly better than breaking even with a small profit. Those small profits add up, but it is really the iTunes/Software/etc sales which make these products "Cash Cows", as they come at little cost to the hardware manufacture, but deliver a sizeable cut to them.

However, if hardware manufacturers had to pay cuts on their hardware to everyone who might place content on it (ie if every Wii sold gave a cut to EA, Activision...) it would force them to raise prices or go from profitable hardware to hardware that is sold at a loss.

Hardware sold at a loss, ie the XBOX 360 @ introduction is certainly valid, it is certainly an aggressively competitive business strategy. But not every company has the massive financial backing of Microsoft or Sony to "ride out the financial storm" until your software sales/media content sales catch up to your hardware losses.

Giving NBC a cut of iPod revenue would be a bad precedent and just plain would ruin Apple's profitability and just is incredibly preposterous from a business standpoint.


A slice of iPod revenue?
By Polynikes on 10/31/2007 2:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
That'd be like tire makers asking for a slice of car sales if their tires are sold on the car. I doubt that happens. If the allegations are true, that's pretty ballsy of NBC.




RE: A slice of iPod revenue?
By Oregonian2 on 10/31/2007 2:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
Less so than my asking for a date back when I was younger and single. :-)


RE: A slice of iPod revenue?
By rdeegvainl on 11/1/2007 2:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
What about when your older and still single.... JK :P


Bravo, Apple!
By leonowski on 10/31/2007 12:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
If this story is true, I really admire Apple's stand against NBC and UMG. This is in contrast to Microsoft's Zune deal.

Microsoft's "deal" with UMG sets a dangerous precedent that pays money to UMG even if a device will never have UMG content on it! Why should a company that doesn't develop the hardware or own the hardware IP make any money simply off the sale of the device?




RE: Bravo, Apple!
By clovell on 11/1/2007 3:18:25 PM , Rating: 1
Because businesses can enter into contracts freely within the law.


RE: Bravo, Apple!
By leonowski on 11/2/2007 2:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Your statement is obvious, but I do not understand where you are going.

My point is that hardware has the potential to become more expensive if hardware manufacturers are forced to pay money to content providers FOR JUST HARDWARE SOLD. Do you think a CPU or hard drive manufacturer should pay Microsoft because Windows MIGHT be used with the hardware products?

Sure, Apple could certainly share hardware revenue with NBC or UMG. But, that would allow future contract negotiations with other providers to go against Apple. Other content providers will also stick out their hands. Do you think that would be a good position to be in as a business? Come on, tell us - you seem to be the expert on business contracts.

Jackass. Why don't you reply with some meaningful points instead of spewing out a sentence? I guess every topic needs a Captain Obvious.


oi
By logaldinho on 10/31/2007 9:14:22 AM , Rating: 3
"After all, NBC was not alone in most of its complaints against NBC"

huh




Pot and Kettle
By Kougar on 10/31/2007 7:00:28 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not judging anything here, but couldn't a similar case be made for Apple's cuts off every iPhone user's monthly bills ? It would explain Apple's incredibly harsh stance against iPhone unlocking, and I am sure AT&T is happy to pay that amount for the extra customers they will/have gotten out of this arrangement.

quote:
According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, AT&T is paying Apple an average of $18 a month for each iPhone customer. In other words, Apple receives $399 for each iPhone sold plus an additional $432 over the course of a two-year contract thanks to AT&T's exclusivity arrangement.




Profit
By mendocinosummit on 10/31/2007 10:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is obviously an untenable business model, considering the drive for low cost expensive hardware that often is only slightly profitable at best.


In Apple's case I highly doubt this.




Tongue in Cheek?
By Whiskyboy on 10/31/2007 1:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
Syracuse is a football powerhouse now, eh?




chuck
By k1234 on 10/31/2007 9:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
In regards to savage potato's comments regarding the ignorance of his customers regarding there computers and the correct naming of there parts I must agree with borismkv in his objections. I have been a tech for over 30 years in the automotive field and find that over 80% on the customers that I serve don't know the first thing about the car they drive. I should think that if you(savage potato) brought your car in to me for service the shoe would be on the other foot. You would be the one out of your element and would not appreciate me correcting you on every misnaming when you are trying to tell me what's wrong with your car.not everyone is as knowable as you are about computers and not everyone is as knowable as I am about cars.After all if they were they would fix it themselves
and would not need me or you. Your attitude about not being a boot lick er because you treat your customers lack of knowledge with destine about the very thing they are bring you to fix is astounding.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki