melgross

ApplePoor said:

Not so sure Apple's use of cash is benefitting the shareholders or the Board Room members and senior staff that have inside information.....

Perhaps if they expended more on R&D we would not have to have a bunch of lies covering up their failures to get the job done they promised. Leadership sucks so bad that four top AI guys were recruited away as they were obviously disgusted with the Apple work place. Lack of Leadership is not usually rewarded with anything other than a termination notice.  Tim Cook has a huge Apple provided financial cushion and his life style would not be negatively impacted if he had to do work elsewhere.

Well, those were the A.I. guys who were responsible for the failure. Good riddance.

but they could buy Perplexity as they were said to be thinking of doing. They would certainly have the money if they didn’t throw it away. Also the talk about gaming has been goi g on for how long? Microsoft understands what has to be done, and they spent $67 billion for Activision. Apple could have done that.

but they would rather tear up their cash than do something with it. I guarantee if they bought Activision, their stock would be at least $15 higher. If they bought Perplexity, it would rise another $15. But buying stocks back has never shown any appreciable gain. People have been so brainwashed about this since it became legal in 1985 that they think it’s a real benefit. I’ve read a number of economics papers on this and there has never been any proof it it’s effectiveness. Some economists agree that it’s not a good thing.

greginprague said:

melgross said:

Quite frankly. $0.26 is well under what Apple should be paying. They buy much more stock back than they pay in dividends.

They “could” pay much more than $0.26 quarterly.  Why should they do so?  I prefer the buybacks.  That doesn’t create a taxable event for me.  I think they pay a 1% fee to buy back versus a 15-20% qualified divided tax rate for most folks.  How is that better?

I totally dislike buybacks. There is zero evidence it causes the stock to rise and it takes all of that money and burns it. What could the company do with all that money? Marketing, R&D, maybe even a factory. Give employees better benefits so they wouldn’t feel they have to unionize.  Apple has bought somewhere in the range of $780 billion shares over the years. A total waste of money. There is no reason they should be paying a 0.5% dividend. Not with all that profit. They also said they have $108 billion in debt and issued more. This is all to finance buybacks. That’s good in your eyes?

diman80 said:

melgross said:

So wait, is this saying (rumor, rumor) that we will be getting a tele optical zoom lens? Because, if so, that’s a very odd way to describe it. Otherwise, it sounds like the old Leica various focal lens, which was not quite a zoom because you would move the “zoom” control, but just get several fixed focal lengths.

either would be better than no optical zoom. But I would prefer a true 3x optical zoom for the main camera. Something like 24-72mm equivalent. That would make their best camera more like a stand alone digital camera. Eventually, I’d love a 12-24 for the new ultra wide. And a 72 -288 for the tele. Those ranges because it’s hard to make a wide range wide angle zoom, but easy to make a wide range tele zoom. It would kill the 4:3 format which is barely hanging on as it us.

You had a true optical 12-24mm lens for a while, but something over 120mm (like the current 5x) will really slow down aperture and make the tiny lens less sharp. Plus, using it in cities can be a privacy issue and is like having a candid camera. At 288mm, a phone camera is not immediately obvious to someone being filmed or photographed.

Now, on the iPhone 15-16 Pro/Pro Max, you have true optical 12mm (0.5x), 24mm (1x), and 120mm (5x) lenses at full resolution, and 48mm cropped.

In previous few generations, you also had 12mm (0.5x), 24mm (1x), and 60mm (2.5x) or 72mm (3x) lenses at full resolution.

What would be great (and likely will come with 17 Pro models) is 48mp sensor on all three cameras and faster lenses with less distortion. Then it is possible that they will switch to significantly improved 4x (8x cropped matching this rumor).

I don’t remember the 12-24 lens on any of my iPhones. When was it? I don’t agree about the tele. These are small sensors. The tele and ultra wide sensors are smaller than the main sensor. We have 70 - 200 F2.8 zooms for full frame. Mine is very high quality. It can be done. It really comes down to cost. The entire three cameras can’t cost all that much. It’s why I tell people when they see a Leica or Zeiss lens on a smartphone that they aren’t any better than anyone else’s. When the len’s has a budget of $10, there’s not much you can do.

It’s amusing that someone is giving dislikes to these of us who thing this lawsuits was ridiculous. I wonder if it’s the person who brought the lawsuits? Otherwise who, in their right mind, could agree with it? It’s so obviously ridiculous 

So wait, is this saying (rumor, rumor) that we will be getting a tele optical zoom lens? Because, if so, that’s a very odd way to describe it. Otherwise, it sounds like the old Leica various focal lens, which was not quite a zoom because you would move the “zoom” control, but just get several fixed focal lengths.

either would be better than no optical zoom. But I would prefer a true 3x optical zoom for the main camera. Something like 24-72mm equivalent. That would make their best camera more like a stand alone digital camera. Eventually, I’d love a 12-24 for the new ultra wide. And a 72 -288 for the tele. Those ranges because it’s hard to make a wide range wide angle zoom, but easy to make a wide range tele zoom. It would kill the 4:3 format which is barely hanging on as it us.