guelahpapyrus69

yojimbo007 said:

Timing is kind of interesting.. Why sell just a few days before earnings...? What are the rules of the game.... I dont know about you... but to me its not very comfortable that he is selling now... Rather than after earni gs report... Any thoughts? Thanx

There are quite a few rules regarding the sale of stock by an executive of a publicly traded company.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm

Among them is any stock issued has to be held for a year, the corporation has to sign off on it, it has to be sold by a broker etc..

Due to the "process" these sales are scheduled a year or more in advance. They are essentially put into a trust with the broker and they are sold on the scheduled dates no matter what. Whatever the price is that day is what they are sold at, I'm not sure you could stop the sale. Once it's scheduled it's going to happen on that day.

i read in another article. The recent sales were originally scheduled from a 2015 filing. So this was planned 18+ months ago. 

Mikeymike said:

guelahpapyrus69 said:

yojimbo007 said:

Timing is kind of interesting.. Why sell just a few days before earnings...? What are the rules of the game.... I dont know about you... but to me its not very comfortable that he is selling now... Rather than after earni gs report... Any thoughts? Thanx

There are quite a few rules regarding the sale of stock by an executive of a publicly traded company.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm

Among them is any stock issued has to be held for a year, the corporation has to sign off on it, it has to be sold by a broker etc..

Due to the "process" these sales are scheduled a year or more in advance. They are essentially put into a trust with the broker and they are sold on the scheduled dates no matter what. Whatever the price is that day is what they are sold at, I'm not sure you could stop the sale. Once it's scheduled it's going to happen on that day.

i read in another article. The recent sales were originally scheduled from a 2015 filing. So this was planned 18+ months ago. 

You are confusing Company buyback with individual's holdings.

Tim can sell his shares anytime he wants after a specified period of holding (probably a year)
He chose to sell now for whatever reason he chose.

I don't think I'm confusing the 2. That SEC regulation addresses stock sales of stock awards by a executive from a company.

I'm not an expert by any means. But C-level stock sales can't be done on a whim. I don't think Tim could wake up and sell shares even if they doubled in price overnight. If it wasn't already a scheduled sale meeting the criteria listed in rule 144.

maybe I'm wrong but for my own knowledge can you direct me to the rule that allows a c-level exec sell their company awarded stock any time they please? I've always understood it to be otherwise. 

jkichline said:

There's got to be some reason why not just Apple, but other manufacturers are on the outs with Qualcomm.

I don't have links to various articles I've read handy. But it is my understanding that besides double-dipping accusations.

Qualcomm has been charging licensing fees based on the value of the finished product even though the part is the same. Apple has stated that every time they add new tech to their products (3D touch, AR, oled etc) that adds value or higher selling price, Qualcomm wants more licensing fees.

Apple has been paying more for a 7+ than a $200 commodity phone even if they have the exact same chips. This would be like other manufacturers charging you more for your furniture, appliances, tv's etc if your house was worth $1 million instead of $100,000.

If that aspect is true. I can see why they don't want to pay anymore. It doesn't work like that for any other FRAND licensing and apple is arguing that Qualcomm is capitalizing on apples innovation/design which allows them to maintain higher ASP's.

Apple hasn't always been first to market with any technology or product line, that is not to say they don't research, test and refine until they feel they've nailed the user experience before they bring any of it to market.  Even then have they made mistakes? of course but overall they tend to get it right.

Here's an example from John Kheit over at MacObserver who after vilifying Apple on a point by point basis beyond everything discussed here had this to say about the microsoft surface studio.

"Microsoft’s Surface Studio is cool in theory and in hardware, but after playing with one, I think Apple dodged a bullet.  First, outside the apps made/updated for the 28″ touch screen, Surface Studio with Windows 10 still has the wrong interface ‘recipe.’

This is much like Microsoft’s original Tablet PC was the right idea with the wrong implementation, and which was subsequently usurped by the iPad’s right recipe. I found it cumbersome to deal with tiny widgets (e.g., checkboxes, popup menus, window grab areas, etc.) with my fingers. It was worse when trying to deal with touch UI elements using a mouse.
Surface Studio doesn’t detect and ‘get’ your context well enough, yet. For example, even within the creative paint/draw apps tailored for the 28″ touch screen, the Surface Studio would often get confused when I’m pinching/zooming/rotating. It would instead draw at my fingertips.
Also, using the Surface Dial is not intuitive in switching through its modes. For instance, it might be left in a cool time-scrub undo/redo mode, then you click out to use a mode, say, that lets you choose colors. You have to click up and out to different rings of colors in a non-intuitive clunky way to actually select a color–think Watch UI 1.0 but worse. Then the apps will lose track of the Dial completely, and the advice of the Microsoft employees is to restart the app, and if it still doesn’t find the Dial, restart the machine!  
However, what is completely clear is, Microsoft nailed the hardware."

I would like more analysis of the product along these lines for verification but if true, this could be why Apple has not "released" a similar product yet.  I have no doubt they have prototypes in this and many other form factors but they haven't found that "recipe" that translates into a polished user experience.  Could you imagine the vitriol thrown at apple were it to release a product similar to this right now if the touch interface got confused about what the user was trying to do consistently? or if one of its main accessories got "lost" and the only recourse is a reboot?...they would be crucified.

Has it happened before, usability issues/bugs/etc. Of course. Would it happen again. No doubt.  But it seems Apple isn't happy with large screen application of the touch interface yet.  Time will tell if the touch bar is a useful tool or a gimmick, but would you rather have a MacBook Pro that still performs as a laptop even if it becomes a gimmick or a 28" touch screen workstation that ultimately you're abandoning touch features because they simply don't work or force reboots regularly?

Maybe Microsoft will fix and refine the problems with the next OS update, maybe the one after that, or the next...who knows. But it seems they rushed a beta product to market for a splash and will fix usability problems going forward, this is something Apple rarely does intentionally.

So the form factor and concept is a home run, just the interface and implementation sounds like it will be frustrating for the end user. Here is a apple patent from 4 yrs ago on a touch screen iMac  so it's not like Apple has been ignorant or unaware of this hardware/software combo possibility. They just IMO haven't found the right "recipe" to launch the product yet. 

Skylake doesn't support hdmi 2.0 natively. Only over display port or thunderbolt. Idk if that complicates things or not.

I realize this connects over thunderbolt but still it may be complicating things.

I see someone beat me to it.

Here's a another link to its history

http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/12/26/apple-to-save-historic-barn-on-site-of-new-cupertino-campus/