red oak

illrigger said:

That's Volvo/Polestar, Nissan/Mitsubishi/Renault, GM, Ford/Lincoln, Honda/Acura, VW Group, and now Chevrolet that are all-in on Android Automotive, with several others using it as their base without the Google services.

It's not shocking, it's all about money. Apple's Carplay integration requires the carmakers to still develop a local OS and GUI for those who don't have an iPhone, and presumably they have to pay Apple some licensing fees on top. Android Automotive *is* the operating system so no external reliance needs to be assumed, and presumably Google is both aiding in integration and probably covering part of the costs. In the end, automakers get a cohesive car OS that has top-notch navigation and all the apps people want, and Google does all the work for them.

In a day when the software that runs the car is as important if not more so as the hardware, anything that makes the job easier and cheaper for carmakers is going to get their money. Apple dropped the ball here by focusing on making people need to buy more of their products instead of working with the automakers to give them what they need, and Google has been more than happy to pick it up and run it home.

JP234 said:

$190 price target for Apple Inc. Same as Morgan Stanley.
What is never mentioned is "over what time period?" If it's over a week, that's dramatically different than over a year. Or is $190 a point at which Apple stock is fully valued and has no room to go higher and should be sold? If I'd followed that advice, over the last 10 years I'd have lost over $100,000 by selling when Apple hit previous price targets.

Buy it. Hold it. Put your kids through college.

Hedware said:

What alternative universe are you living in? Employees pay the taxes and employers dodge paying their share of taxes.
red oak said:

ionicle said:

radarthekat said:

Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

/rant

In fairness i never saw it from the other side….

from my perspective, when the boss turns up in a new mercedes s-class with all the bells and whistles then claims he cant afford to pay staff more than minimum wage… really enrages me, and makes me want to fight back, as without the workers working for minimum wage, the business would grind to a halt and he wouldnt be able to afford that car, his 5 bed detached house and acres of land or anything else, im not saying he shouldnt benefit from building a business, he absolutely should, but why should i be driving a 16 year old car, struggling to put food on the table while he changes his brand new car every year when i am one of the people making him so much money…

He should slow down his spending a bit and give us a pay rise so we can afford to live a bit more comfortably, i doubt it would hit his living standards too bad if he gave us all an extra few quid per hour….

it goes both ways, we have no union, but i feel if we did we might be able to get a better deal

It is YOUR responsibility to improve yourself and make yourself more valuable in the workforce.   Education, certificates, taking risk, working harder than the next person.   Create your own opportunities.  The owners you criticize are the ones paying 50%+ of all the taxes