iPhoto in Japan/Europe and iTunes Soon? [turned political]

[keysersoze]

When's Steve going to open iTunes Mars?

Dubya's not only taking on the world, he's taking on the whole solar system. Apple should stake its rightful claim.

 

[kettle]

Originally posted by lord_flash
If you wanna be xenophobic, that's fine, but at least accept that it comes from a small-minded fear of minor cultural differences rather than the assorted other excuses you hear in the UK press. For example, all the papers went on at length about the weakness of the Euro for it's first year. Now it's stronger than the Pound you don't hear a thing about it...

You just made that up.
The Euro is weaker than when it was launched. It is weaker than the Pound.
You just made that up.

 

[kettle]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
Apart from the Europeans speaking languages other than English I've always felt that I had much more in common with them rather than the Americans.

I'm glad you identified this as a personal afiliation to Europe.

I'm suprised you have such a selective connection with recent history.

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by kettle
You just made that up.
The Euro is weaker than when it was launched. It is weaker than the Pound.
You just made that up.

When launched in 1999 (Jan IIRC) the Euro was worth 72p. It went down to 62p and is currently 69p. If you viewed the Euro vs the $ then the Euro is much stronger now than it was though I'd have to admit that has more to do with the weakness of the dollar than anything else...

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by kettle
I'm glad you identified this as a personal afiliation to Europe.

I'm suprised you have such a selective connection with recent history.

Have you ever been to the US or Europe or is Wells as far as you've travelled? Even a cursory experience of actually being there rather than what you see on TV will tell you we socially have more in common with the Europeans than the US.

 

[lord_flash]

Originally posted by kettle
I'm suprised you have such a selective connection with recent history.

What, exactly do you mean by that? 'Recent history' is a fairly relative phrase, isn't it?

We could say that, in the last ten years (that's recent, right?) the US has continually tried to hamper UK/US trade through tariffs and that the US has made the UK a military and terrorist target through it's actions (e.g. installing SDI technology in bases there that does not protect the UK). In the same period, the EU – admittedly in it's slow and bumbling way of agreeing things between states – has ensured that all staff get a minimum holiday allowance, human rights are protected by an international court and, perhaps best of all, it's easier to pop abroad on holiday.

Of course my suspicion is that, by 'recent history', someone is refering to armed conflict across Europe. Seriously, that was a long time ago and it was war the UK started to defend our friends in other European states. The sooner people who seriously consider the political thinking from the late 1930s as a way to dictate the future have died out (or at least stopped voting) the better. Then the rest of the world can get on with making things a bit better. For one, I don't want to show my passport when I travel on the Eurostar. I don't like carrying that photo of me around...

 

[lord_flash]

Originally posted by kettle
You just made that up.
The Euro is weaker than when it was launched. It is weaker than the Pound.
You just made that up.

Hmm... clearly in Somerset (where I was born, by the way) you don't get a fair or balanced reflection of the news.

January 2nd 2002 GBP/EUR 1.6
January 2nd 2003 GBP/EUR 1.54
January 2nd 2004 GBP/EUR 1.42

You can prove anything with facts. So long as it's true. The 'weaker' myth is perpetrated by the right wing press, which was my original point. You believe that the Euro is weak because the papers you read (and TV) immediately went quiet when the facts no longer fitted their politics. I suggest you complement your Telegraph/Sun/Daily Mail (with up to date news on Princess Diana) with the FT if you want to argue about currency.

 

[kettle]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
Have you ever been to the US or Europe or is Wells as far as you've travelled? Even a cursory experience of actually being there rather than what you see on TV will tell you we socially have more in common with the Europeans than the US.

Wow, that told me, your opinion is obviously superior to that of my own. However, I fail to see the relevance in quoting an estimation of a persons travelled miles and backing it up with a factual statement eluding to my locality in order to give weight to the initial inaccuracy.

The true argument is not to whom we feel there is more common ground, It is a simple question of whether you believe these Islands of Great Britain should be governed by people not on these Islands.

The ideals of travel and convienience have no real place in the decision. I'm sure the Pro Europen Ruled Britain would like to make the question much less simple.

I love the Europeans and the Americans. I just don't want them running Great Britain. It is a simple as that.

 

[lord_flash]

Originally posted by kettle
The true argument is not to whom we feel there is more common ground, It is a simple question of whether you believe these Islands of Great Britain should be governed by people not on these Islands.

The world is already rulled, to some extent, not in Westminster, Brussels or even Washington, but in the private boardrooms of Microsoft, Sony, and their illk, and of course, OPEC.

I don't see why having an elected representative sitting in Westminster making local decisions and another in Europe making wider decisions is such a problem. It's how the US works, for example. For me, it's more important that either location makes decisions that genuinely benefit their people.

The EU has quite a good record there, from my perspective (social chapter especially) whereas Westminster government was responsible for misconcieved plans like the poll tax.

I think there are all sorts of institutional problems in the EU, many of which come from national pride (e.g. the whole parliament moving to Strasbourg for one sitting a year to keep the French happy), but I'd rather we kept it, and sorted them out, than made all our decisions in the UK. Because we sometimes make bad ones. And we'll get left behind.

Oh, and I note you've now gone as quiet as the Daily Mail on the Euro...

 

[kettle]

Originally posted by lord_flash
I don't see why having an elected representative sitting in Westminster making local decisions and another in Europe making wider decisions is such a problem.

A. Who is going to pay for it?

B. MEPs don't make decisions, they are there to be instructed by the (Brussells) unelect and then report back to the people they represent.

Euro -
Fri 16 January, 2004 14:56
LONDON, Jan 16 (Reuters)
Sterling hits two-month high on broad euro retreat. - Sterling rose to two-month highs against a weaker euro on Friday but also slid to one-week lows against the dollar, broadly tracking moves in major currencies amid a lack of domestic UK data.
The dollar has rebounded against the euro on recent comments from European officials worried about the single currency's strength. This has also taken the pound lower against the greenback but helped it a bit against the euro.

 

[lord_flash]

Originally posted by kettle
A. Who is going to pay for it?

Me. Glady. I'll pay my tax towards a few more MPs and civil servants on thegrounds that some things make more sense to do at the largest, most efficient level. Like arranging tariff negotiations, suporting agriculture, space programmes, or defence. Other stuff is best left to local governments.

B. MEPs don't make decisions, they are there to be instructed by the (Brussells) unelect and then report back to the people they represent.

Because, of course, those MPs in Westminster (the legistative branch) are never given something to vote on by the executive, are they? And they'd never follow the party line, or the whip, rather than do theright thing by the constituents? Anyway, I think MEPs should have more power.

Fri 16 January, 2004 14:56
LONDON, Jan 16 (Reuters)
Sterling hits two-month high on broad euro retreat.

Two whole months to counter my 2 year comparison, in which the Euro moved less than 2p in value? It's still significantly stronger than it was (by about 20p).

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by kettle

Sterling hits two-month high on broad euro retreat. - Sterling rose to two-month highs against a weaker euro on Friday

I think the author meant weaker today compared to yesterday. Not it is weaker always. What's so weak about a currency used by 300 million people and is considered second to the dollar in importance? The pound is only important to those living in the UK...no-one else gives a toss.

 

[grouse]

WOW!

An EU/european debate on Macrumors, what fun!

Can I just ask, and no I'm not asking how - just if, to our correspondant in Somerset, whether you voted in the last European Elections?

If you didn't then criticising some unelected body, who ultimately appoints the executive, that's how the democratic system works, puts you on rather muddy ground.

And if you are looking at the For-ex reporting, you need to understand the lingo, a "weaker" euro, simply means based on that days trading. op cit "the pound was weaker today against the Yen, Dollar etc", it's shorthand for "fell a couple of pence" etc.

And I could start about the fact that most of our hugely improved social legislation comes as a direct result of the interference of Brussels, as some might put it. Bringing in such interesting concepts as the minimum wage (something the US has had for ages) and employment protection. Nearly every improvement in the UK worker's rights has come from Brussels in the last ten years.

There we go.

But no-one has answered my question from the mini iPod thread about exchange rates, international pricing and profits, to whit....

If Apple goes for a dollar= pound exchange rate which they and many other companies have done in the past, ie electronic product X sells for $499, in the UK sells for £499... then who makes the differential profit? is there a differential profit? Or does it all go to the foreign banking sector?

And how would one find such figures in Apple's accounts?

It was all much simpler for the US tourists when the euro/dollar exchange rate was nearly one for one!

That's all.

 

[Sayhey]

Oh - Oh, now you went and did it! Dumped in the political threads with the rest of us malcontents. Seriously, it is interesting to read political discussions not centered around US politics. A mention of Tony Benn no less! I haven't heard much about him in awhile.

Anyone up for explaining Berlusconi to clueless Americans?

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by Sayhey

Anyone up for explaining Berlusconi to clueless Americans?

Berlusconi - richest man in Italy. Vast media empire in Italy. Also Prime Minister of Italy. Some might say that the two are incompatible...he doesn't think so

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by kettle
A. Who is going to pay for it?

B. MEPs don't make decisions, they are there to be instructed by the (Brussells) unelect and then report back to the people they represent.

A. We will and already do. There's no point pretending that if you close your eyes it will all go away. It won't. The best thing is to try to work within what's there. The 'independent' option isn't an option.

B. So the British MPs represent the views of their constituents and not the views of their party. Interesting.

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
Berlusconi - richest man in Italy. Vast media empire in Italy. Also Prime Minister of Italy. Some might say that the two are incompatible...he doesn't think so

Thank you, caveman. Actually, that much I know. The question was meant more as a humorous aside, as in "how did this buffoon become PM of Italy?" Of course, I'm sure many Europeans are thinking the same thing about our King George. I didn't really expect you or anyone else to really answer the question. Sorry.

More on topic of your conversation, if you don't mind me intruding, how do you see the fight over the new EU constitution effecting the UK (helping or harming Labour, Tories, etc.) and do you think the US had a hand in pushing Poland and Spain to their position?

 

[j33pd0g]

Napster extends service to Europe

Computer company Apple is now also expected to extend its own music download service - iTunes from the US to Europe.

Well I hope Apple gets to Europe fast! I would not want Napster to beat them to the punch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3403867.stm

 

[kettle]

Re: WOW!

Originally posted by grouse
Can I just ask, and no I'm not asking how - just if, to our correspondant in Somerset, whether you voted in the last European Elections?

If you didn't then criticising some unelected body, who ultimately appoints the executive, that's how the democratic system works, puts you on rather muddy ground.

Yes you can, but inevitably you will fall into the "spoken an infinite deal of nothing" catagory. You are the second person to try and add leverage to their opinion by criticising a factual element of my lifestyle that is an unknown.

What ever you would like to bolt on or unbolt to the question of a Federal Europe, there is one point you cannot argue. The fact remains that if Great Britain loses its sovereignty, there will be no political path to return it, just a bloody path.

In a question of if Great Britain "goes it alone" there are obvious answers. If we prosper, we prosper. If we fail, we join Europe with something to gain.

One only has to view the facts for financial contribution to the E.U. to see how much money we would save, or on the other hand how much money Europe would stand to lose.

On the the question of good europian policy, there is no reason not to adopt good ideas for our own, and on the other hand there would be a way of rejecting policy that would damage our islands.

I don't care how well anyone gets on with there neighbours, it is insanity to knock a door through to their apartment, pool incomes and dictate acommon rule for both households. It will only end in tears.

On the question of iTunes/iPhoto printing, judging by the confussion deliberate or otherwise, you can probably get a feeling as to why organising anything on this scale could easily take as long if not longer than a united europe to be properly sorted out.

I've been Kettle from Somerset, it's been nice ranting with you, thankyou and goodnight.

 

[grouse]

sounds good to me!

Simply see what's best for us, wait until the last minute, then sign up once we've seen if it's going to work or not, and once everybody else has decorated the front room not to our taste.

Always the best the way to go about things, I feel. And then we can always enter the party late and shout about how it's all being done wrong.

Of course it does come down to that slightly disgraced word idealism. Either one has a gut feeling that pooling our resources on the social, economic and environmental front will give us greater say in the world, help to check the military-run, single global power in the world or be isolationist like the good folk of Norway - Not often in the news, doing very well thank you, but not really consulted or involved in any of the great decisions.

I happen to rather rose-tintedly believe in the great european project, for the same reasons that it was formed, which has kept the peace. And the fierce independance of the various states that make up the federation of America, (as well as the strong federal structure of the United Germany) shows how it is utterly possible to break certain things down to a more local level, while having a larger protective structure over a greater whole.

But fundamentally it comes down to ones own instinct. And whether one sees the great opportunities in an extended (up to 25 states this year) Europe or the huge dangers of giving up something as abitrary and fluid as an etherial national sovereignty. Are the citizens of the united kingdom any less proud than those of France or Italy, two countries in at the start of the European Project?

And will someone answer my question about exchange-rate differentials?

 

[lord_flash]

Re: sounds good to me!

Originally posted by grouse
And will someone answer my question about exchange-rate differentials?

As I understand it the big winners on this front are Apple (or whoever). Prices tend to be set at 'what the market will bear', and we Europeans, especially in the UK, seem to pay a lot more.

Part of the reason is that exchange rates vary, so prices tend to be set higher outside the home country (in this case the US) so that there won't have to be sudden changes with the fluctuation of the exchange rate.

Apple would also probably point to the extra costs of a European distribution network, but that's obviously a bit rich since they wouldn't sell any products at all if they didn't have that.

Obviously there will be some money for whoever changes Apple's money, however it's done, but bascially Apple will pocket the difference and laugh about how gullible we are in the UK.

Things might, of course, be a little better if we joined the Euro, simply because those prices marketing people like are closer to those of the dollar: Today €199 EUR = $246 USD whereas £199 UKP = $358 USD. Then again, Apple would probably mark it up still further.

 

[grouse]

many thanks

To the peer's posting.

Of course, being a lord 'n all, you may be interested in the question of life-peerages, the reform of the house of lords, and a fully-elected second chamber, but then again, that's a whole new thread.

In the meantime, it's Dean or Edwards for me! Kerry is, frankly, slightly scary looking (a bit like lurch from The Addams Family) and Dicky G, nice guy, but surely his time has passed. As for Gen Clarke, he's just bonkers!

 

[lord_flash]

Re: many thanks

Originally posted by grouse
Of course, being a lord 'n all, you may be interested in the question of life-peerages, the reform of the house of lords, and a fully-elected second chamber, but then again, that's a whole new thread.

Well, I've thought long and hard about this one, and I tend to feel that the solution is people elected using list-system PR, perhaps every 8-10 years. That way there should be no absolute majority for any one party. There should also be a rule that anyone who has ever sat in the "lords" cannot ever sit in the commons or executive branch, so that career politicians steer clear.

The problem is that much of the time the Lords as-is does a very good job. The law-lords influence especially helps the house come to sensible decisions on stupid or impractical legislation. No one there has to pander to a party line or risk losing their seat, so they have the ability to provide sober second thought. As it's possible to use the parliament act, the elected representatives in 'the other place' are still reasonably empowered.

So, getting rid of herreditary peers good, but now what? I'm torn between an 'if it ain't broke' attitude and a feeling that democracy ought to play a part. In a way though, at present it is a little like having a law vetted against the European Convention on Human Rights before enactment, rather than waiting for it to be declared illegal after enacting it. you don't need elected representatives for that, you need impartial judges. It'd help if the government didn't bring poorly-prepared legistlation to parliament in the first place, but that's (yet) another matter.

 

[Sayhey]

Re: many thanks

Originally posted by grouse
To the peer's posting.

Of course, being a lord 'n all, you may be interested in the question of life-peerages, the reform of the house of lords, and a fully-elected second chamber, but then again, that's a whole new thread.

In the meantime, it's Dean or Edwards for me! Kerry is, frankly, slightly scary looking (a bit like lurch from The Addams Family) and Dicky G, nice guy, but surely his time has passed. As for Gen Clarke, he's just bonkers!

While I can't help in the discussion of the House of Lords (we did away with the problem in 1776), I can take a stab at your assessment of the Democratic candidates.

I'm sure that former General Clark (no "e") is happy you are not voting in New Hampshire, but it looks like he is rising in the polls in that State and important Southern and Western States that follow. Michael Jackson view (your General not the singer) notwithstanding most of us don't look at him as "bonkers." He looks to be a good bet to last long into the primaries.

Kerry has overcome his "Lurch-like" looks and seems to be a possible winner in Iowa. Even if he doesn't the buzz will be that his campaign has righted itself and he can't be counted out. He may be the strongest candidate against Bush if he can make it to be the nominee.

Gephardt must show strong in his neighboring State of Iowa in order to continue to have any chance. He has vital Labor union strength behind him, but unless he wins Iowa or comes in a photo finish second he is probably done.

Edwards showing is the most surprising and if he comes in second or third in Iowa he may have a chance to win some upsets later on. He looks like VP material to most people. Not a bad job if you can get it.

Dean is the most disappointing of the candidates in his poll numbers. However, it isn't the Zogby or Gallup polls that matter. He needs to win Iowa because expectations have been so high, but even a close win will end up hurting him. It's clear whatever happens in Iowa, without a total collapse in New Hampshire Dean is in this for the long haul.

There is my tout sheet on the daily horse race of American politics. Notice how issues are completely left out?

 

[lord_flash]

What? I thought Martin Sheen was the President and everything would be fine. A thousand curses on the decitful nature of TV.

Oh and, since I'm meant to be preserving the 'dignity' of rank in the UK, it's General SIR Michael Jackson to you! Curiously enough, he was the hounarary doctorate when I got my degree, for his services to international law.

Kosovo chap, wasn't he? I'm not very up on guns'n'ammo, since I neither have nor want a right to bear arms. (And there's another big issue one, too...)