doggone

A headless Mac that is not a Mac mini really needs expandability.  So a shorter, smaller version of the MacPro would be cool.  An overweight Mac mini does not fit the bill. 

ramanpfaff said:

Rather pathetic dividend increase. I really am surprised it wasn't $0.02/share. Let's just say my retirement isn't going as planned. 

I don't consider Apple to be a good dividend yielding stock.  At $1 a year the yield is ~0.6%.  There are FDIC insured interest accounts that are yielding 4-5% at the moment.  So if you are looking to live off interest those are good bets.  E.g. I put spare cash into Apple's savings account.  That is also where Apple Cash goes.

There are plenty of stocks that have high yields.  Their problem is that their value does not grow.

I see Apple as a long term growth stock.  Since I bought into the stock in the early naughties, the value has increased 42000%.  That rescued my 401K for sure.  I have started to divest out of Apple but still hold a good amount.  The dividend is a bonus and by reinvesting it in AAPL I increase my holdings by 0.5-1% annually.  So probably since 2012, the dividend has increased my stock by 10%. 

I don't quite get it.  
#1 Leather is a by-product of the food industry.  I doubt that any more cows were needed to make the cases.
#2 A recent study showed that leather watch straps hold significantly fewer germs.  I imagine that same goes for the cases.
#3 Leather ages well, forms a patina and stays clean well.
#4 Leather is water resistant.

The form factor for the iMac has bothered me for years now.  The chin on the display is unnecessary and apple should be placing the circuit boards behind the screen.  Essentially all you should see from the front is the screen with the bezel just big enough to house the camera.
I agree that the iMac is on its last legs.  It has limited utility as an all in one for young kids, schools and maybe kiosks or receptionists.  Any other use is better served by a laptop that you can easily hook up a display to when you want to work at a desk.
I agree on the pricing for SSD and RAM and the miniimum configuration really needs to be 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD. Unfotunately that is where Apple makes free money so i don't see it ending. Personally I just by the model that has the configuration I want.  It generally is cheaper than doing a custom configuration and the delivery is faster.

As a consumer, I will continue to only use the Apple App Store. Security is a critical issue for me and I don't want to lose my financial and personal information just because I downloaded an app from a site that does not do the type of due diligence that Apple does.  Other app stores will have to cut corners and I'm sure their verification process will be part of that.  

I estimate that >99% of iPhone users do not care about getting apps outside of the App Store.  I also estimate that the majority of those are also happy not to have to worry about apps stealing their data or having to deal with viruses etc.  The rest probably don't even think about it and buy into the system because it is so easy.
So the question is do we have give the <1% who want an open, whilst the rest of us have to deal with less security and easy of use.

This might sound silly but I have never figured out why the pencil isn't allowed to work with an iPhone.  I don't an iPad but I would like the ability to jot stuff down on a phone by writing rather than typing.  

blastdoor said:

I’d love to see intel regain the process lead and win apples foundry business. 

Seriously.  Intel have been falling over themselves to screw up.  They've relied on the old X86 business to keep themselves going.

Toortog said:

The only thing making this a big story is TSMC has said yields on on 3nm wafers are low.    What I've read in the past TSMC yields are around 90%, but the new 3nm the yields are just around 50%.    

I rememberApple made the deal with TSMC after Intel had backed out of a 3nm deal with TSMC.   So what's going with yield could be why Intel backed out they could see this coming. Apple depended on the Intel TSMC deal because the Intel was the money needed by TSMC to ramp up on 3nm fabrication.  Intel backing out meant Apple wasn't going to get the 3nm chips they were planning on.   So Apple goes into negotiations with TSMC so TSMC would have funds to make 3nm chips.  Whole lot to the business side of the Apple TSMC deal.

Doesn't it always happen that way.  Yields are low in first production runs and then when the kinks are ironed out the yields improve.  That is true for all new product manufacturing but especially for chips using a new higher density process.
If Apple Pay for the finished good price, that fee per working chip will likely be based on expected yields over the lifetime of the chip.  Cost will be initially high but then reduce as efficiency and pass rate improve.  TMSC margins will be lower initially but will improve over time.
Intel nowadays tend to be the follower.  It seems to me that they have lost their edge in chip fab innovation.  It's been like that for years and they can't keep up with TMSC.

When I got my M1 MBP at the beginning of 2022, the difference in performance over the previous Intel MBP was startling.  Everything was "snappier".  Apps open faster with less lag.  
For me though it is the battery life that is exceptional.  There is a game I play which is battery intensive.  The old machine would get hot and the battery only lasted an hour.  Now I can play up to 4 hours and still have battery left.  The same for watching videos, the battery lasts a lot longer on one charge. 
This machine is over 2 years old and still going strong.  I would love to get an M3 or M4 when it comes out but I really can't justify the new spend when this machine works so well.  Amazing.