Apple's 2018 shareholder meeting today, held for the first time at Apple Park

Posted:
in AAPL Investors
Later this morning, Apple is holding its 42nd annual shareholder meeting at its new Apple Park facilities for the first time, offering some members of the public a glimpse inside its new headquarters. However, this year attending the meeting requires a pre-arranged registration; shareholders of record who simply show up have been put on notice that the event is already at capacity.




Apple's shareholder meeting will be held at the subterranean Steve Jobs Theater where the company last year introduced Apple Watch Series 3, iPhone 8, 8 Plus and the new iPhone X. The new theater is larger than the auditorium in the original Apple Infinite Loop headquarters, but still can't accommodate everyone who might want to attend.

For the first time, the company has noted on its Investor website that "while we appreciate shareholders' interest in attending the meeting, registration has reached capacity and we are not able to accommodate additional requests," adding that, "only shareholders who present valid confirmation of registration from rsvp_events@apple.com will be permitted to enter the Apple Park campus for the meeting on February 13."

In addition to the Steve Jobs Theater itself, the company is also be hosting additional seating for invited attendees within its adjacent facilities in the Phase Two development of Apple Park, new buildings on the edge of the new Apple Park campus designed to host research and development activities.

Apple's annual corporate meetings

Apple has held its official shareholder meeting each year in accord with its corporate bylaws as a public company. It involves a brief status report of the company's activities typically delivered by its chief executive Tim Cook, followed by official company business involving the reelection of board members and a consideration of (and vote on) various proposals advanced by either the company's executives or by outside groups representing individual shareholders.

Following the conclusion of all official business, the meeting is typically followed by a question and answer session that allows shareholders to address Cook and other members of Apple's board with their concerns or simply voice their appreciation of the company's performance--with the subject of the questions often reflecting the recent nature of Apple's current stock price movements.

Decades ago, back when Apple was only marginally significant as a consumer tech company in a sea of much larger PC makers, the corporate meetings drew little public interest. However, in the early 2000s as Apple began to rapidly grow and gain stature under Steve Jobs, its shareholder meetings began to attract the attention of various groups seeking to promote themselves.

Increasing media scrutiny as Apple's growth exploded

Apple's popular sales of millions of iPods once drew staged protests and "shareholder proposals" orchestrated by groups such as Greenpeace, which insisted that Apple's consumer electronics were contributing to "toxic ewaste," and used Apple's corporate meetings as a platform to direct attention to their organization and its fundraising efforts, while calling the company "rotten" in grandstanding press releases.

This occured despite Apple's still relatively small share of the global production of computers and media player devices, and despite the fact that iPods and their rechargeable, recyclable batteries had actually dramatically reduced the annual consumption and disposal of tens of millions of single use batteries that formerly powered most portable music players.

A variety of other politically charged corporate issues have similarly attached themselves to Apple's shareholder meetings, including liberal proponents of open public governance and transparency in executive pay; environmental policy, social justice and human rights issues related to Apple's contract factories and its supply chain; and groups seeking to derail Apple's efforts to develop clean energy production and minimize its corporate impact on global climate change, under the conservative argument that a public company shouldn't do anything that doesn't immediately produce an obvious "Return On Investment" to its shareholders.

At one point, Cook delivered a rather scathing reply to one such demand that Apple document the ROI of every activity related to environmental concerns, stating "if you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock."

Cook stated at the time, "we do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That's who we are as a company. I don't--when I think about human rights, I don't think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can't see or to help a kid with autism, I don't think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don't think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view."

In 2015, Cook similarly again noted that there was "not a business model" behind Apple's work on health-related efforts including Research Kit and that, "for those looking for an ROI, there's not one."

At the same time, he noted Apple's efforts that did have an obvious business model, including the development of Apple Pay, Apple Watch, Car Play, HomeKit and the Swift programing language.


Tim Cook addressing Apple shareholders in 2017

The shrinking session of public comments

Public comments at meetings have occasionally devolved into long-winded personal attacks on individual board members or executives--targeted first at Jobs, then at Cook and public figures who sit on Apple's board, including former American Vice President Al Gore.

Over the years, Apple's executives have worked to proactively address issues and draw attention to the work the company is already doing in various respects related to its global operations, rather than simply suffer through the finger wagging of outside groups seeking to gain headlines for their own causes.

Apple has also dramatically scaled back the amount of time it devotes to public questions and comments. In recent years, Cook has invited public figures--including the Reverend Jesse Jackson--to address issues related to social justice and the strength in diversity and inclusion, leaving little remaining time for public discourse.

That's likely because public comments have commonly either consisted of fawning praise from satisfied fans or ecstatic shareholders or introduced awkward, unscripted questions with the potential to open up media scrutiny into areas Apple's Cook doesn't want to focus any attention.

Ten years ago, however, Jobs seemed to welcome public comment, using questions as an opportunity to address a range of subjects, or, in Jobs' signature fashion, masterfully dodging questions he didn't want to answer by simply talking about things he did want to discuss.

Public questions posed at shareholder meetings actually served as the first real discussion of Apple's internal efforts to reduce or eliminate the use of harmful chemicals, and the standards it had internally developed to protect the workers employed by its partners and even third party suppliers up the chain.

I once asked Jobs and Cook during a shareholder meeting's public comments session why Apple didn't more publicly promote its pioneering, substantial work in supplier responsibility, as was essentially told that the company didn't think it needed to do this, and that its motivation was to do the right thing, rather than gain attention for its actions. Since then, Apple has incrementally outlined to the public more about its internal work in annual Supplier Responsibility reports.

Other public comments that resulted in a better insight into the company's plans included questions posed about whether Apple took the video games industry seriously, and--after the introduction of iPhone in 2007--whether the company was planning to ever open the new device to third party apps development.

At the time, Jobs described various issues involved with deploying an app store while maintaining the security and privacy of its customers, providing a glimpse into the thinking and curation that would later define one of the primary differentiating features of Apple's iOS strategy in contrast to the open, unregulated platforms of Microsoft Windows and Google's Android that didn't give much thought to customers' data privacy, advertising and behavioral tracking, malware threats and other serious problems.

Last year, Cook expressly directed his comments at the meeting aimed at concerns about Pro Macs that had been floating.

"You will see us do more" with Macs and professional software, he told shareholders, noting that creative and pro markets were very important to the company. Since then, Apple introduced its new iMac Pro and Pro Apps updates.

This year, the company is likely to address what it plans to do with foreign cash holdings after paying taxes on the huge holdings under the newly shifted U.S. tax laws.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    This vividly illustrates the problem with being a publicly owned company:  You have to respond to every insane demand or request from investors.
    lolliverjony0
  • Reply 2 of 19
    Hey Apple Insider, this would be an good story next time around:  "Apple announces date of shareholders meeting and instructions for requesting access."  Obviously it "sells out" even faster than the WWDC, but it would be good to know when to (try to) sign up.

    I'm a shareholder, but I never receive any communication from Apple directly (e.g., I don't receive the Annual Report).  Do I have to ask my broker to provide that?
  • Reply 3 of 19
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
  • Reply 4 of 19
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,337member
    Hey Apple Insider, this would be an good story next time around:  "Apple announces date of shareholders meeting and instructions for requesting access."  Obviously it "sells out" even faster than the WWDC, but it would be good to know when to (try to) sign up.

    I'm a shareholder, but I never receive any communication from Apple directly (e.g., I don't receive the Annual Report).  Do I have to ask my broker to provide that?
    Your broker should be communicating to you things like proxy statements, shareholder ballots, prospectuses, etc. They are required by law to send these to you.

    By default these materials are sent via US Postal Mail to your address on file unless you opt-in for e-delivery (which of course requires a valid e-mail address and confirmation of said e-mail address).

    If your broker is not doing this, they are likely in violation of SEC regulations.

    As for AAPL, the Proxy Statement and Form 10-K were available as of 1/4/2018. Note that the Form 10-K is a document that the company that must be provided to the SEC annually. This is different that the often glossy annual report that is offered to current and prospective shareholders. The latter is not required by law and is more of a shareholder marketing communication, not an SEC-regulated document.

    Your broker does not have any responsibility is providing you with marketing materials (which is what the glossy annual report is).

    In most instances, the companies you have invested in will not send you any direct communications. Shareholder communications are typically sent by the brokerage firm or by a corporate governance services company like ProxyVote (Broadridge Financial), ISS, AST, and other similar companies.

    You could look to see if you can sign up for a Shareholders Communications newsletter from Apple Inc., but understand that many of these communications would not be SEC regulated documents, but rather marketing tidbits.
    edited February 13 fotoformatSpamSandwichargonautjony0
  • Reply 5 of 19
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    An actual Apple TV would put Apple in an entirely different, very competitive market.  They must have considered it and decided the effort-reward wasn't worth the distraction.  Apple can be in the space, providing solutions much more easily with the Apple TV product line without also trying to sell big screens as well.
    lolliver
  • Reply 6 of 19
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,337member
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    Various factors.

    First of all, you'd have to buy a specific television set to get the Apple TV functionality unless Apple could negotiate with every single TV manufacturer to include the technology in all of their models (a highly unlikely scenario).

    Also, there are already millions of existing TV sets. Even here in the USA, I believe there are something like 3+ televisions per average US household. If I recall correctly, the average age of a television set is something like six or seven years.

    For companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Roku, etc., an affordable set-top box brings that desired functionality to whatever device you have/want, and doesn't force you to purchase a specific model from a specific manufacturer at a specific price point. It also provides those features to legacy equipment and is portable to other units.

    Technology that is built into a specific device isn't transportable. The Roku functionality in your fancy new 4K TV isn't helpful elsewhere.
    edited February 13 randominternetpersonlolliverjony0
  • Reply 7 of 19
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,364member
    This vividly illustrates the problem with being a publicly owned company:  You have to respond to every insane demand or request from investors.
    This is why I wish Apple could go private. No more pesky shareholders who think they know how to run Apple better than Apple. We wouldn't constantly get these articles about how Apple is doomed. People would obviously stop worrying about the damn stock price. I know this entire thing sounds stupid, but I wish it were possible. 
    lolliver
  • Reply 8 of 19
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,364member

    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    What do you do when something goes bad, or if you want to upgrade? The hardware/software is fixed into the TV so you can't swap it out without having to go get a brand new TV again. This is exactly the reason why Apple never made a TV  in my opinion. There is absolutely no future proofing what so ever. Sure, its fine today, tell me the same thing in 2-3yrs when something new comes along and you can't use the built-in Roku service. With AppleTV, if Apple comes out with something better this year or next, you can simply sell the old external box and get the new one without having to purchase a new TV. It just makes more sense. 
    lolliverjony0
  • Reply 9 of 19
    mpantone said:
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    Various factors.

    First of all, you'd have to buy a specific television set to get the Apple TV functionality unless Apple could negotiate with every single TV manufacturer to include the technology in all of their models (a highly unlikely scenario).

    Also, there are already millions of existing TV sets. Even here in the USA, I believe there are something like 3+ televisions per average US household.

    For companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Roku, etc., an affordable set-top box brings that desired functionality to whatever device you have/want, and doesn't force you to purchase a specific model from a specific manufacturer at a specific price point.
    But more and more TVs are becoming smart. Pretty soon I’ll bet very few if any TVs will be sold without native support for content apps. With my TV it’s so quick to pull something up on Netflix I don’t even think about firing up Apple TV. I guess the only advantage Apple TV puck will have is it will be the only place you can stream original content funded by Apple. That’s the only thing I’ll be using mine for and that’s only assuming the programming offerings are something I’m willing to pay for.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    An actual Apple TV would put Apple in an entirely different, very competitive market.  They must have considered it and decided the effort-reward wasn't worth the distraction.  Apple can be in the space, providing solutions much more easily with the Apple TV product line without also trying to sell big screens as well.
    On the other hand, I was recently reminded here by one of the posters that Apple will be bringing out their own large external monitor(s) again. Gene Munster may yet get his wish for an actual Apple television (I think he’d literally die of a heart attack).
  • Reply 11 of 19
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,280member
    "if you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock."

    I didn't know Tim said this, but bravo!   (And I'm a stockholder).   And how could anyone complain about Apple's ROI?   $233.7 billion in revenue and $48.3 billion in net income last fiscal...although that wasn't a record (2015 was).  

    And $88.3 billion revenue and $20 billion net income the first quarter of this fiscal, which is a record.  Apple's net income for this first quarter alone is larger than its annual revenue back in 2006.   Is there any other company that has had that kind of growth?  Apple Services alone (which almost no one pays attention to) is now large enough to be a Fortune 500 company all by itself.  

    If a shareholder is concerned only about ROI they should dump the stock in any case, if only because of what Apple spent on the new building.   

    This has always bothered me about shareholders, especially shareholders who have never run a company or have no expertise in the market the company is in:   don't try to force a company to change - if you don't like the company, dump the stock.  

  • Reply 12 of 19
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,280member

    mpantone said:
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    Various factors.

    First of all, you'd have to buy a specific television set to get the Apple TV functionality unless Apple could negotiate with every single TV manufacturer to include the technology in all of their models (a highly unlikely scenario).

    Also, there are already millions of existing TV sets. Even here in the USA, I believe there are something like 3+ televisions per average US household.

    For companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Roku, etc., an affordable set-top box brings that desired functionality to whatever device you have/want, and doesn't force you to purchase a specific model from a specific manufacturer at a specific price point.
    But more and more TVs are becoming smart. Pretty soon I’ll bet very few if any TVs will be sold without native support for content apps. With my TV it’s so quick to pull something up on Netflix I don’t even think about firing up Apple TV. I guess the only advantage Apple TV puck will have is it will be the only place you can stream original content funded by Apple. That’s the only thing I’ll be using mine for and that’s only assuming the programming offerings are something I’m willing to pay for.
    That's a good point.  I just bought my very elderly mother a cheap 39" TV ($219) and even that had Roku built in (not that she'll use it).   So for Apple TV to survive in the long run, I think Apple has to add tremendous value-add, whether that's a vastly superior UI, integration with other Apple products that standard smart TV's can't accomplish or great content that can't be gotten elsewhere and even that might not be enough because consumers will settle for "good enough".   If Apple wants to get high-end users, they should start doing the work to integrate 8K now, especially on original content that they own where they demand DI's finished in at least 4K (most DI's, even for UHD releases, are currently 2K).   And/or, they've got to buy at least one studio.   Assuming that Jobs' widow still owns all the Disney stock Jobs got when he sold them Pixar, which made him the largest Disney shareholder (maybe since exceeded by George Lucas), maybe Apple can partner with her (and possibly Lucas) and buy Disney, which might also get them 20cFox if that deal goes through.  
  • Reply 13 of 19
    zoetmb said:

    mpantone said:
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    Various factors.

    First of all, you'd have to buy a specific television set to get the Apple TV functionality unless Apple could negotiate with every single TV manufacturer to include the technology in all of their models (a highly unlikely scenario).

    Also, there are already millions of existing TV sets. Even here in the USA, I believe there are something like 3+ televisions per average US household.

    For companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Roku, etc., an affordable set-top box brings that desired functionality to whatever device you have/want, and doesn't force you to purchase a specific model from a specific manufacturer at a specific price point.
    But more and more TVs are becoming smart. Pretty soon I’ll bet very few if any TVs will be sold without native support for content apps. With my TV it’s so quick to pull something up on Netflix I don’t even think about firing up Apple TV. I guess the only advantage Apple TV puck will have is it will be the only place you can stream original content funded by Apple. That’s the only thing I’ll be using mine for and that’s only assuming the programming offerings are something I’m willing to pay for.
    That's a good point.  I just bought my very elderly mother a cheap 39" TV ($219) and even that had Roku built in (not that she'll use it).   So for Apple TV to survive in the long run, I think Apple has to add tremendous value-add, whether that's a vastly superior UI, integration with other Apple products that standard smart TV's can't accomplish or great content that can't be gotten elsewhere and even that might not be enough because consumers will settle for "good enough".   If Apple wants to get high-end users, they should start doing the work to integrate 8K now, especially on original content that they own where they demand DI's finished in at least 4K (most DI's, even for UHD releases, are currently 2K).   And/or, they've got to buy at least one studio.   Assuming that Jobs' widow still owns all the Disney stock Jobs got when he sold them Pixar, which made him the largest Disney shareholder (maybe since exceeded by George Lucas), maybe Apple can partner with her (and possibly Lucas) and buy Disney, which might also get them 20cFox if that deal goes through.  
    Make Bob Iger permanent independent CEO of Apple Entertainment and Kevin Feige permanent CEO of Marvel (Kathleen Kennedy’s position at Lucasfilm... TBD) and we’ve got a deal.
    edited February 13
  • Reply 14 of 19
    davendaven Posts: 457member
    Hey Apple Insider, this would be an good story next time around:  "Apple announces date of shareholders meeting and instructions for requesting access."  Obviously it "sells out" even faster than the WWDC, but it would be good to know when to (try to) sign up.

    I'm a shareholder, but I never receive any communication from Apple directly (e.g., I don't receive the Annual Report).  Do I have to ask my broker to provide that?
    The notice should come from the broker where you have your account. Mine came January 4th.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,337member
    mpantone said:
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    Various factors.

    First of all, you'd have to buy a specific television set to get the Apple TV functionality unless Apple could negotiate with every single TV manufacturer to include the technology in all of their models (a highly unlikely scenario).

    Also, there are already millions of existing TV sets. Even here in the USA, I believe there are something like 3+ televisions per average US household.

    For companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Roku, etc., an affordable set-top box brings that desired functionality to whatever device you have/want, and doesn't force you to purchase a specific model from a specific manufacturer at a specific price point.
    But more and more TVs are becoming smart. Pretty soon I’ll bet very few if any TVs will be sold without native support for content apps. With my TV it’s so quick to pull something up on Netflix I don’t even think about firing up Apple TV. I guess the only advantage Apple TV puck will have is it will be the only place you can stream original content funded by Apple. That’s the only thing I’ll be using mine for and that’s only assuming the programming offerings are something I’m willing to pay for.
    You are ignoring the fact that Apple TV also provides other types of content such as games, other apps, integration with Apple Music/iTunes Match, etc.

    My iTunes music library has over 25,000 items. How many of those can I access via my Roku? Zero. (Disclaimer: I own a Roku and a 3rd generation Apple TV).

    I have nothing against smart televisions and I welcome innovation by all consumer electronics manufacturers. The point remains that there are many, many reasons why a set-top box is still a very viable and useful alternative for many individuals and households.

    Remember that these smart TV features are not free. The cost is buried in the price of the overall unit.
    lolliver
  • Reply 16 of 19
    macxpress said:

    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    What do you do when something goes bad, or if you want to upgrade? The hardware/software is fixed into the TV so you can't swap it out without having to go get a brand new TV again. This is exactly the reason why Apple never made a TV  in my opinion. There is absolutely no future proofing what so ever. Sure, its fine today, tell me the same thing in 2-3yrs when something new comes along and you can't use the built-in Roku service. With AppleTV, if Apple comes out with something better this year or next, you can simply sell the old external box and get the new one without having to purchase a new TV. It just makes more sense. 
    I’m not sure what new is going to come along that will prevent me from streaming Netflix.
  • Reply 17 of 19

    mpantone said:
    mpantone said:
    I recently bought a 4K TV which happens to have Roku integration. It’s made me use my Apple TV less. Makes me wonder if Apple shouldn’t have designed its own TV set running tvOS. Especially if they’re not really pushing casual gaming. What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?
    Various factors.

    First of all, you'd have to buy a specific television set to get the Apple TV functionality unless Apple could negotiate with every single TV manufacturer to include the technology in all of their models (a highly unlikely scenario).

    Also, there are already millions of existing TV sets. Even here in the USA, I believe there are something like 3+ televisions per average US household.

    For companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Roku, etc., an affordable set-top box brings that desired functionality to whatever device you have/want, and doesn't force you to purchase a specific model from a specific manufacturer at a specific price point.
    But more and more TVs are becoming smart. Pretty soon I’ll bet very few if any TVs will be sold without native support for content apps. With my TV it’s so quick to pull something up on Netflix I don’t even think about firing up Apple TV. I guess the only advantage Apple TV puck will have is it will be the only place you can stream original content funded by Apple. That’s the only thing I’ll be using mine for and that’s only assuming the programming offerings are something I’m willing to pay for.
    You are ignoring the fact that Apple TV also provides other types of content such as games, other apps, integration with Apple Music/iTunes Match, etc.

    My iTunes music library has over 25,000 items. How many of those can I access via my Roku? Zero. (Disclaimer: I own a Roku and a 3rd generation Apple TV).

    I have nothing against smart televisions and I welcome innovation by all consumer electronics manufacturers. The point remains that there are many, many reasons why a set-top box is still a very viable and useful alternative for many individuals and households.

    Remember that these smart TV features are not free. The cost is buried in the price of the overall unit.
    I’m not, and I never said Apple should stop making an Apple TV box all together. I would be curious to know how many people use their Apple TV for things other than streaming content. I can’t rememner the last time I played a game on it. If games and other non-streaming apps were taking off Apple would be highlighting them more. I have a feeling Apple TV is like Apple Watch and the future is not apps.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,337member
    For sure, Apple's gross margins on its Apple TV set-top box are far more than what any television manufacturer's gross margins are on any television, regardless of whether the TV is smart or dumb.

    The margins on TV sets are razor thin.

    Even if you do not play games on your Apple TV, for sure those apps and others are enjoyed by many others. Your usage case is not the only one of this planet.

    I will point out that you did question the raison-etre of the set top box: "What’s the point of another box when it’s integrated right into your TV set?"

    The answer? The box is useful when functionality specific to that service provider isn't available yet desired. I don't have Amazon Fire, I don't have Chromecast. For some people, they want that, so they seek out TV sets or set top boxes with that functionality. That's fine.

    No one is pointing a gun at your head saying that you need to buy Set Top Box A or Set Top Box B or Set Top Box C or all three of them. In the same way, no one is telling you to buy three similar kitchen appliances, or all the different shoes at a shoe store. The consumer is being given a choice.

    If you don't want an Apple TV, don't buy it. Buy whatever you want. Someone else will probably buy the Apple TV and will probably be happy with it. That's the basic premise of the free market economy.

    If you don't see the point of a standalone set top box, guess what? Someone else does. If nobody cared about set top boxes, the product category would vanish, like Betamax VCRs.
    edited February 13
  • Reply 19 of 19
    Hey Apple Insider, this would be an good story next time around:  "Apple announces date of shareholders meeting and instructions for requesting access."  Obviously it "sells out" even faster than the WWDC, but it would be good to know when to (try to) sign up.

    I'm a shareholder, but I never receive any communication from Apple directly (e.g., I don't receive the Annual Report).  Do I have to ask my broker to provide that?
    @randominternetperson but they did, on December 18th: http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/18/apple-to-hold-annual-shareholders-meeting-at-steve-jobs-theater-in-february

    I received my control numbers as usual in January, followed the instructions, registered, attended the meeting, and voted my shares. It was all very straightforward.
    randominternetperson
Sign In or Register to comment.