View Single Post
Old 11-13-2012, 09:50 AM   #403
PatNY
Zennist
PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
PatNY's Avatar
 
Posts: 928
Karma: 46026034
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by holymadness View Post
Lol I am not sure what industry you work in but I assure you that fixing a unit cost is the first element of any purchase contract. This particular contract may include clauses that allow the manufacturer to raise or renegotiate prices if certain conditions are met, such as inflation or labour costs reaching agreed-to levels, but Samsung would never be given the ability by either Apple or the courts to raise prices arbitrarily. The idea that they could suits the revenge wishes of the Apple-haters, but is so divorced from reality that it shows to what extent they're willing to believe anything so long as it lines up with their prejudices.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying someone fabricated the story? If so, who?

Obviously, either this was a newly agreed-to contract extension, OR, Samsung was allowed to alter prices at some interval in the existing contract based upon certain criteria which they obviously met. What their motives were is irrelevant, so long as they stayed within the parameters of the contract.

Bottom line, there is nothing fishy about the original story as reported. LOL indeed.

--Pat
PatNY is offline