or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by addicted44

No one's ownership was changed. However, outside investors' influence was halved and insiders' influence was doubled. It was a very dirty move, IMO. Surprised there wasn't much of an uproar (OTOH, I am not. The people suffering the most were probably the smaller guys, since the institutional investors were probably aware of this, and most likely also ended up on the beneficiaries side).
I think 1 aspect of this split a lot of people are ignoring is that this makes the Apple stock available to the vanity "investor".   This may be someone who isn't really into investing, but is an Apple fan, and would like to "own" a piece of Apple. It's far easier to do that if you have to pay only $70 instead of $500.   Now, this may not affect AAPL's price at all, but what it does is strengthens the loyalty of the customer. Such purchases won't help Apple on the...
This move also makes Apple a shoo-in for the Dow.   The DJIA values companies based simply on share price, and Apple's high per share price meant including it in the Dow would give way too much weight to Apple.   With the lower share price, Apple will almost certainly be the next company included in the Dow, and therefore see its share price rise even further as index funds have to buy AAPL (although the share price may not change since this expectation may already...
I have been very surprised by how long it has taken Apple to release a larger iPhone. They have lost significant market share, and worse, mind share, especially abroad (most of Asia at the very least), because competitors hammered them for the small screen size. If the rumors of the iPhone 6 coming with larger screens is indeed true, there will be no reason other than cost for most consumers to buy something other than an iPhone. Will be interesting to see how things play...
the next time Samsung builds a phone they will try and innovate, and won't straight up copy.We saw this when Samsung completely changed the look and feel of the Galaxy phones (I believe with the S3) because the S2 was such a legal landmine.This helped customers too with more innovation in the market (of course, this being Samsung, no one thought the new design was better).
There may be many things that may highlight the need for an Apple TV revamp.   The FireTV is NOT one of them.
No. Microsoft would not be able to make any money off Google because Google does not directly make any money off Android. Microsoft simply repeated their Linux strategy. They went against the vendors (Suse, and IBM during the Linux days). They did the same thing with Android, and are getting paid by nearly all Android vendors. They never went against the Linux Foundation.
When android was released swiping wasn't the standard method.But you are right. Android is now also copying from Windows Phone.
If it's the hardware, I think the vendor is responsible. Some of the lawsuits have claimed the OS as the offender (the scrolling rubber banding effect, for example), but Apple is suing Samsung, instead of Google, because Google does not indemnify Samsung (although, in this case it may be because Samsung copied the feature, and it wasn't present in stock Android? Not exactly sure. I don't really follow the patents stuff much).
I am talking about touch controls only. iOS (and consequently Android) use tapping as the primary touch gesture to move between panels (the exception being the home screens). WP7, OTOH, uses swiping as the primary gesture to move between panels. So, for example, on iOS, to switch from your Facebook news feed, to your Friends list, you will probably tap an icon. On WP, you will probably swipe left to right, or right to left. I am not saying it is better. However, it was at...
New Posts  All Forums: