Wow, this thread has turned into a sad nasty little cesspool.
Who knew a RED iPod nano could have turned the hate up a notch?
Who knew a RED iPod nano could have turned the hate up a notch?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
RED iPod Nano Tomorrow?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mizzoucat said:Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer.
kurtsayin said:
That's nothing. I can solve AIDS, stop global warming, eliminate poverty and end war for free. Ready? Humans: stop breeding.
mizzoucat said:Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer.
This campaign is to provide AIDS sufferers with a treatment that is KNOWN to be quite effective in extending their lives, in some cases indefinitely. So it's more akin to providing polio or smallpox vaccines in years past - it's something that's KNOWN to work, it just needs to be distributed worldwide to people that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it.
Not only does cancer already get a LOT of money from both non-profits and for-profits, but it's not a given that more money would necessarilty make much impact in finding either a cure or more treatments for cancer....
Well there is nothing stopping you from doing this.mizzoucat said:Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer.
LaMerVipere said:Wow, this thread has turned into a sad nasty little cesspool.
Who knew a RED iPod nano could have turned the hate up a notch?
No kidding! This is something that Apple *didn't* have to do. And no one is forcing anyone to buy these iPods. I don't see how people could think this is a net negative....
mizzoucat said:Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer.
Um, I'm going to restrain myself on this one. But I'll settle for this: please read a book, a newspaper, or anything mildly intelligent written on a subject that includes FACTS and RESEARCH before writing something so utterly ignorant it is mind boggling.
There are currently almost 500,000 HIV/AIDS infections in the United States, and there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 new cases every year. And those are just the ones that are reported. There are likely many more. Of those, nearly half as many (17,000 - 20,000) die every year. That's the World Trade Center, almost TEN times every year.
Not an epidemic? Please find your brain, attempt to turn it on, find facts, then post.
lmalave said:
You conveniently glossed over the one major flaw in your argument: pharmaceutical drugs are patented before there is opportunity for competition. There are no alternatives, no competition, and therefore there is no fair market. The market for competition is strangled before it ever has a chance to grow. That's not capitalism... there's no free enterprise there. That's the very reason we have laws against monopolies.
The reason it's allowed to go is because the Federal government has an extremely high financial stake in these companies. The entire system is corrupt in that sense, so to say that these companies charge "fair" prices is lunacy, pure and simple. These companies can charge any price they want, and people will pay it, not because they think it's fair, but because they have no alternative. These companies are NOT the same as any other capitalist enterprise. They have a moral responsibility to make drugs available to people who need them at a reasonable cost. If there were a free market for these drugs (as exists in other countries) the prices would plumit. You know it, and I know it. It happened briefly when there was the ability to purchase similar drugs from outside the US. Same drugs, a fraction of the price.
It's sickening at best.
mizzoucat said:Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer.
Haha, thank you, foreign person, for your hilarious impersonation of an "ugly American." This is almost as funny as Borat.
It is just an iPod folks. Buy it, or don't buy it.
I personally think it is a sweet and goes to a good cause. Yeah there is cancer, but there is so much money there already.
AIDS could become a serious problem if we don't try to do something about. Sure there are other things that could be an issue, this is just one.
One step at a time people.
I personally think it is a sweet and goes to a good cause. Yeah there is cancer, but there is so much money there already.
AIDS could become a serious problem if we don't try to do something about. Sure there are other things that could be an issue, this is just one.
One step at a time people.
mizzoucat said:Why don't they focus on a real disease that is taking the lives of our own nation every day........like cancer? AIDS is not a serious epidemic in the United States. I don't know a single person who has died of AIDS nor anyone who has even been HIV positive. Yet, I know several people who have died of cancer.
And other nations call Americans selfish!!!
</sarcasm>
Okay. Do you have a computer? An iPod? A TV, DVD player, 2 pairs of shoes, a toothbrush?peas said:
I am so glad Apple is doing this. We all know we could just give $200 instead. BUT, we all are also all going to buy an iPod. One of the only ways to get the majority of American spenders to help with world issues is to tie the help to commodity sales.
We need to be informed consumers. Informed about the power that our spending has to influence trends in the world. Stop buying clothes manufatured in sweat shops, and start buying products that support the well being of humans ANYWHERE in the world (I can't believe the ignorance in mizzoucat's post). I don't care if it's Cancer, Aids, domestic abuse, whatever. If it's a product you were going to buy anyway... and it's HELPING.... Why are so many people upset?
This product is enough to convince me to get it instead of an 80GB video.
Please, be informed consumers; there is a lot of power in your disposable income.
clintob said:
On your first point: did you read my first post?!!!??? Here's what I said:
"The purpose of patents is to spur innovation by promising companies a 17-year monopoly during which they can potentially make huge profits."
Ummm...how is my above statement "glossing things over" again?!? That's how patents are supposed to work work. They're supposed to create incentive to spend massive amounts of money on research and innovation, in the hopes of reaping the profits in the future. What would be the incentive to spend time and money to invent something, and then have someone immediately steal your idea once you make it public? Innovation would wither without patent laws.
On your second point: I guess we fundamentally disagree here. I don't think Pharmaceuticals have a moral obligation to lower their prices. If that's the case, then we should just nationalize all the drug companies so that the government can set the prices.
In terms of other countries having a "free market" on drugs, I believe you are confusing a couple of different issues. Yes, the US has protectionist policies with regard to GENERIC drugs. These are drugs whose patents have *expired*, so anyone can make them and they are much cheaper. And I agree with you, those restrictions are just protectionist policies and should be removed. I believe protectionist policies are generally harmful, and preventing imports of generics isn't even the most harmful, IMHO (I think farm subsidies are the worst since mostly target poor countries at the expense of enriching mostly industrialized, wealthy agribusiness).
Also, keep in mind not all countries have the same respect for patents and intellectual property. NO foreign company is allowed to sell in the U.S. a product that is violating U.S. patents - whether its a medicine or an electronic gadget. What I have heard other countries do is violate U.S. patents on medicines so that they can distribute them in their own country. I'm more ambivalent about that. They are taking the initiative to produce and distribute medicines to people in their own country that would probably never buy the real product anyway, so it's not as if they're cheating the company out of profits. That's different from saying the patent-holding company has an *obligation* to produce and distribute the medicine around the world to whever needs it at their own expense - which is what you're implying.
Humans are bread to be argumentative, if everyone had the same point of view none of us would be around right now.
Death is good
Aids is good
Hurricanes are good
Sandstorms are good
Fat is good
Sex is Good
Mold is good
Money sucks
Trickle Down Economics sucks
Olean sucks, actually it blows but that's a another topic
MS sucks, Apple sucks...we are all gonna die in 150 years or less... so, it's time we all quit our jobs and started having sex with our neighbors, giving all our money to the poor and reusing toilet paper to save the trees.
Did that gal actually work for Apple???
Death is good
Aids is good
Hurricanes are good
Sandstorms are good
Fat is good
Sex is Good
Mold is good
Money sucks
Trickle Down Economics sucks
Olean sucks, actually it blows but that's a another topic
MS sucks, Apple sucks...we are all gonna die in 150 years or less... so, it's time we all quit our jobs and started having sex with our neighbors, giving all our money to the poor and reusing toilet paper to save the trees.
Did that gal actually work for Apple???
lmalave said:
I understand how patents work. My point here was that that I don't see any benefit to granting patents to something that is designed to be for the common good. Drugs are designed to help ill, sick, or suffering people. That's a scenario that should be monopolized, nor should it be regulated. It should be free market - the more competition exists, the more alternatives exists, the faster prices drop and quality goes up. That's economics 101. People, both in this country and worldwide, could only stand to benefit from a more open Pharmaceutical industry.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the latter point. I'm not suggesting pharms should have to distribute drugs freely to all in need. As you said, they're not charity organizations. I'm suggesting that the prices should be allowed to have a built in profit margin that's reasonable, not outrageous. Reasonable, of course, is a subjective term, but again I go back to the point that pharms profits last year were greater than the entire economies of several countires combined. I don't think it's unfair to say that's a little ostentatious, even for us Americans.
At the end of the day, we could ALL stand to practice a little more restraint, a little more charity, and a little less greed. But that has to start at the top.
clintob said:
I completely disagree with your first paragraph. Pharmas need to have an incentive to invest 10 years and $2 billion on developing a drug, which is what it costs to bring a major drug to market nowadays. They need *more* patent protection than almost any other company. What would be the point of investing that much time and money in research, if another company that spent *nothing* developing that drug could just copy it?!!?? Can you answer me that? Because of the nature of the Pharma industry, I would argue they are almost *unique* in their absolute reliance on patent protections. Without those protections, almost the entire industry would wither, along with all the research they are doing.
As to wether they make a "fair" profit with the drugs they have patents on, then I agree, that's subjective. Some companies like retailers make 5% profit, some software companies have made 30% or 40% profit margins. What would a "fair" margin for the Pharma industry be? And how over how many years should they recoup their multi-billion dollar R&D investment? The problem is that any cap you set on profits means you're also capping their incentive to invest. If Pfizer made $6.5 Billion dollars, then they would love to invent *twice* as many drugs so that they could make double that. I mean, what company says "ok, we made enough money - we'll stop here."
lmalave said:
I think part of the problem is that we have to make a distinction between the various sectors of the Pharmaceutical industry. The REAL problem is that most of these billion dollar profit margins that I've spoken about are actually fueled predominantly by non-essential medications. There needs to be a distinction between drugs like Viagra, Propecia, and the medication for "Restless Leg Syndrome", and drugs that are in R&D for Cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and the like.
I'm all for protecting companies who want to make an investment into Cancer and AIDS research, but that's not where the money is and we both know that. There's no advertising market in that so there's no push for it (although there certainly should be). Those R&D projects are mostly privately funded, whereas the R&D for Viagra and Propecia is funded by sponsors and investors who stand to make a buck.
Drawing a line between medication that is designed to cure disease and aid suffering, and medication that is designed for pure and simple profit, would be a perfectly good comprimise here (both to our own discussion and to the problem as a whole). Perhaps allow drug companies the same profit margins they've had all along, but insist than 30 - 40% of that money be re-invested into R&D projects that have no financial backing from ad campaigns. Now THAT is a cause I'd rally for.