arlor

As somebody who's interested in the products, not the financials, and actually owns an old Mac Pro, I'm still allowed to want an up to date Mac Pro, right? Or should I just shut up about it, because I should care more about Apple's profitability?

d_2 said:

gregoriusm said:

“Shazam's 2018 profit was $34.5 million, less than 2017's $44.8 million, but boasted a profit of $158.4 million and reversed $19.4 million in losses the year prior.“

Am I missing something?

Glad it’s not just me confused with this statement.

Me three. I looked at the actual report, and I'm not an accountant but I couldn't find the exact numbers cited under any label. 

On page 10 of the report, it shows $40.8m of revenue ("turnover") in 2017, $31.4m in 2018, with operating losses, not gains, of $17.8m in 2017 and $13.8m in 2018. That's as close as I think we get to the underlying operational revenue and profit (that is to say loss). The profit in 2018 of $144.2m (before tax of $20.3m), not $158.4m, is entirely due to a payment by Apple of $157.7m for intellectual property (see page 23) offsetting the $13.8m in operating loss. 

For the record, I predict that if Apple ever does make a folding phone, the balance of commentary here will shift from "why would anybody ever want that?" to "Apple figured out how to do it right and I need one."

daven said:

The only app I can think of that I would want to share my location with when I'm not using it is find my iPhone. Can anyone tell me of an app they want to share their location data with even when they aren't using it?

Two fairly innocuous cases: maps and fitness tracking apps. 

beowulfschmidt said:

If the bond is 500K, how much is the actual bail?

In California, bond is almost always 10% of bail, so the bail should be $5 million. The $500k is a deadweight loss to Levoff, but it spares him putting up $5 million, though he probably will have had to put up collateral too. 

I agree I wouldn't buy the Air just for the weight difference. The fractional differences in weight just really aren't all that exciting anymore. It was great when laptops went from 7-10 pounds to 3-5 pounds, but they're already more than light enough not to be a nuisance. 

chasm said:

rivertrip said:

An iPhone problem? Android phones never are stolen?

I’m sure the premium ones are, but remember: the thief wants the phone so they can loot your bank accounts or run up your credit card bill. People with broke-ass low-end Android phones are 100 percent not the target of thieves.

And all Apple owners are wealthy, latte-sipping, skinny-jeans-wearing, holier-than-thou prigs, right? 

Even if it comes in gold, it's a mass-market product now, the most popular phone in the country. Can we leave the class warfare out of it? 

The only thing I'm sure of about this product is that it won't be called Apple Glass. It would directly copy a competitor's product name, and the whole "Glasshole" coinage is available for Apple customers just as much as it was for Google customers. 

Apple iGlasses (obviously my best name)
Apple Eyes
Apple Eyewear
Apple Sight
Apple iSight
Apple Shades
Apple Specs

Stabitha_Christie said:

As for people recording in public goes, it is perfectly legal and you don’t need to get consent. 

IANAL, but a quick Google search suggests this is not true in many states (outside of dressing rooms, bathrooms, and not peeping through people's windows, of course), unless you're taking care to record no sound. Be very careful with audio recording; there are a lot more laws and regulations governing it. 

Sample link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118810712.app5

While it's true that Samsung's cupholder analogy doesn't hold in this case, I'm inclined to think they have a point in general: Apple has on occasion lost patent disputes with other companies, and it would be unfortunate indeed for Apple and us as its supporters if that were to result in the loss of Apple's profits for a whole product line. It's definitely hard to say how much a particular patent affects consumers' decisions to buy one phone or another, but it makes more sense to try to figure that out (on the average) than to say that any violation forfeits all profits. 

Think of it another way: what if Samsung violated not just Apple's patent on a product, but somebody else's patent, too (ha, I bet they do)? Would Samsung owe all the profits to Apple, the other company, or some proportion between them? Surely the latter would make the most sense, so similar logic ought to apply to intellectual property's contribution as between Apple's intellectual property and Samsung's own.