431–440 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NYT has an anti-tech agenda in general because tech is killing newspapers. It's also a contrarian position because most people love their tech, and contrarian positions and outrage drive clicks.
It's not just the NYT, we see it in the UK media as well.
NY Times made a mess of this story and slanted it toward their agendas. Horrible reporting. Apple beat most estimates. Revenues grew. All time high revenue from services. Forward guidance was raised. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/07/apple-reports-third-q...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with touch id? I never used face id, but fingerprint sensor on iPhone 8 is good. It unlocks at the same time I'm pressing on button, so most of the time I don't notice it at all. And I almost never getting false negatives. I can't imagine how face id might be better, but I can imagine how it can be worse.
There's nothing _wrong_ with touch ID. It's just that FaceID is way better. It is faster and more seamless, it can work even if you are wearing gloves. Plus, it lets the phone not display sensitive notification details until you are the one looking at the screen(with attention detection on, the default, you have to be really looking at it), only then it will display the details(including actual messages, depending on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats the reason Buffet has now invested in Apple as he prefers a stable earnings. His investment indicated to me that Apple will be a stable investment going forward and won't have the upward and downwards swings of fast growing company where there can be large swings up or down with each quarter earnings
The fact that AAPL goes on regular stock buy back sprees with its warchest instead of risking innovation helps with the stability of what should be a declining stock price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an Apple shareholder...biggest concern with driving "services" is that the 30% commission on in-app purchases is borderline obscene and I don't think longterm sustainable e.g. if the tech regulation hammer is pointed at Apple, regulation around the App Store, including limits on Apple's commission, would make the most sense.
it's a tax. as long as apple's walled garden is so much better than anything else - no reason to worry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a commoditized market and Apple’s success blueprint is out for everyone to see, yet no one else can adapt mid century design principles and “high fashion” style marketing to technology. This sounds like shilling (and I do own Apple stock) but I’m serious. Compare the Apple remote (with the iOS “emulator”), Apple TV, and Airplay to Chromecast’s UX, for instance. Apple does have special sauce. They make tools that…
I got a new cable box with Chromecast built in a couple of months ago. Still don't know how to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t even mind the touchbar. Just give me back the Escape key!
And take the escape key off the TouchBar. I hit it all the time by accident. I really wanted to give the TouchBar a fair shake but after two months I still think it’s beyond useless.
The TouchBar is nice on paper, actually adds to some applications, but the current implementation is a world of hurt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When are we going to stop expecting exponential growth though? Or should the exponential growth just continue indefinitely? Is there no value in having a nice S-curve, ending up as one of the most profitable companies in history, and then just staying insanely profitable for a long time in a sustainable way?
We have stopped expecting exponential growth, that's what the linked article is about. "Slowing Growth" is literally in the title! And that means things, like for example the stock has to decline and/or dividends increase because it becomes more productive to put that money into companies that are growing. Investors care about news like this. It seems like a lot (a lot ) of readers here are looking at the article as…
serious, I never understood why a company must steadily grow, isn't that in contrast to the limited economical resources we have globally?
Wealth creation is not zero sum, 100 years ago we had far less wealth than we had today and in 100 years we’ll have a lot more.
Sure, an individual company can stop growing but everything must continue to grow in aggregate to push humanity forward.