entropys

www1111222 said:

mattinoz said:

Yes if he took his landline phone out swimming with it could have saved him. 

My point is that the watch was a communication device, similar to a landline phone, why give the credit to the watch, if the watch sprung out propeller blades and dragged him back to shore, I would then say the watch saved his life.  The watch didn't even detect he was in distress, and automatically send a distress signal, he manually had to do it.  If he had his iPhone on him, and he then placed a philosophers call, would Apple give credit to the phone?

Without the watch the helicopter would not have turned up and he would have drowned. And he had to call manually? Oh, noes! What was supposed to happen, the watch know when his lungs were full of water and call 000 then?

Anyway, Apple margins are such there is a lot of room to absorb tariffs. Plus emphasis on subscriptions in recent times.
I don’t think the full cost of any tariff will be fully passed on to consumers.

this places Apple in a stronger position than other computer companies.

sigma902 said:

“My pet hypothesis is that Siri was Scott Forstall’s baby. He pushed for the acquisition of SRI or Siri and lead the integration of it into iOS. After Forstall was fired, nobody wanted it and Apple only did the minimum to keep it going as a feature in their products. There wasn’t anyone in leadership to push it forward.”
  I recall Forstall as being a proponent, as well. However, a year after Apple announced Siri, I attended a talk by the Entrepreneur in Residence at SRI for the project. He related that Steve Jobs called him personally to express interest in Apple acquiring the technology and doing a deal. 

Sure but I suspect Forstall would have been all in for Siri as a Jobs clone.  While the Maps issue was the blame, I reckon certain execs were getting rid of a threat.  

I think it fair to say that the USA has contributed far, far more to the ledger than Western Europe. There are tens of thousands of yank dead in European cemeteries that suggest otherwise. As a distant observer, I would suspect that Europe resents that, as it does resent all uppity former colonies that have done well. But the USA most of all.
my own country just has the general 10% tariff applied, so I reckon we won’t notice it. The risk for us is our massive trade surplus with China (that surplus means China has us by the short and curlies), the reverse situation for China with the USA (which will have China by the short and curlies). If China contracts and stops buying our minerals, well….

danox said:

blastdoor said:

An important concept to be aware of:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bear-market-rally.asp

Don’t disagree with anything that was said on that webpage however, I think we’re in new territory what happens when one country out of the blue decides it’s going to take on all of the other economies of the world alone by itself? With the added cherry on top of stabbing two very friendly trading partners just to the north and just to the south, one country supplies, you with oil and gas at a significant discount under the world market price, and the other supplies, you with a significant amount of the food you need to eat along with large amounts of industrial support cross several industries, note, that also applies to your northern partner too. 

The rest of the world will trade around the United States. They pretty much trade around Russia currently, and Russia is not getting stronger with their fiasco/war with the Ukraine which they started, in fact they are getting weaker.

Only trouble with that theory is that for the rest of us, the USA actually dominates the world market. Russia is nothing.  Many countries, including my own, impose tariffs and non trade barriers on all sorts of stuff from the USA, so there actually is a bit of a case for the USA to finally do something about it. All at once is a bit of a shock to people used to things going their way.