melgross

Beats said:

melgross said:

I definitely do NOT want a curved screen. What’s the point to that? We see that with the Samsung’s curved screens that nothing advantageous is gained from it, and instead, it causes problems.

Apple already uses curved displays just not stupid curved like Sammy. Samsung dropped that turd because they read the Apple patent which I believe was used for iPhone 6, Apple Watch and Apple Park. Will have to refresh my memory as this info flew under the radar.

I have never seen an Apple product with a curved display. I had the iPhone 6 and the display was totally flat. The Watch screen is also flat. You are confused by the thick glass edge, which may give the impression that the edge is curved, but it is not.

jdb8167 said:

Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?

They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific. 

I was going g to make a separate comment on that too. I keep reminding people that John, in his presentation, which had been given some time in June, stated very definitely that Apple would not be using the iOS series of chips in its Macs, and that a special line of SoCs for the Macs would be used. But I’m amazed at how many people keep saying that the A14x will be used. This is everywhere. It’s all wrong too.

CloudTalkin said:

Ugh.  This horse should have been put down a long time ago.  All four legs were essentially broken when they accepted money to build a factory for a company that already knew it was moving on to a different technology.   Keeping it alive was nothing more than cruelty.  They were never going to be able to pay Apple back.

The news here isn’t entirely accurate. The plant produced panels for at least some iPads too. But JD was supposed to be moving to OLED for Apple’s phones as well. Apple still sells a lot of LCD phones, and while that will continue to taper off as the older ones go out of production, they should have been able to operate the plant profitably for the time needed. Buy JD had some serious quality control and production issues. That kept the plant from producing competitively. That where most of the problems came from. by the time most of the issues had been resolved, times had rolled by.

mknelson said:

ddawson100 said:

davgreg said:

It is a bubble. Stay tuned.

Bears always pretend they know something but a vague [gestures at everything] pronouncement isn't a discussion and using the term "bubble" doesn't mean anything here. There will be dips but no one has made money betting against this company for long. I was there for the 7-to-1 split and now here for the 4-to-1. I'm baffled at the meteoric rise but staying long on AAPL. The only regret AAPL owners have is not buying more.

Yeah, I don't get that either.

Tesla is a better example of a potential bubble. Their price seems to be based on where people think the company will be in 10 years, rather than the production level it is at now (selling 1/10 as many cars as Chevrolet last year and how much lower is GM's market cap? Toyota's? etc?)

The value of a company is twofold. One is present sales and profits. The second is estimates on where that company will be in the future. A year from now, five or. Even ten. A company’s trajectory is certainly part of the computation.

thevproblem with Tesla, whose P/E is now well over 1,000, is a matter of over exuberance. The fans of Tesla are really more fans of Musk than the company itself.

when Steve Jobs died, the company, and the stock price wasn’t particularly affected. People saw Cook as a good successor. But if Musk dies tomorrow, the stock would plunge to $100. Because without him, no matter who takes his place from the company, the Magic would have also died. People saw Apple as a company with plenty of excellent managers who could continue the company successfully. Not so with Tesla.

SpamSandwich said:

The old guard slowly being replaced one by one. Who does the Board replace Tim with eventually once he retires? I assume they learned their lesson with John Sculley and will promote from within.

Jeff Williams? He’s been given broad authority over the years, and us in Tim’s old post of COO, so he’s next in line, unless something changes.