singularity

xbit said:

lkrupp said:

DeD has better writing skills than any tech writer I have read online. What, you think he’s a clickbait author because he writes positively about Apple instead of regurgitating the negative pablum we have come to expect from AI trolls? Do you think trolls repeating their mantra of MARKET SHARE, MAKRET SHARE, MARKET SHARE means Apple is a failure? Then there’s the malcontent caterwauling away about Apple’s QA, alleged loss of innovation, and “Steve would never have allowed this” bawling. You prefer that to a positive perspective? You call this clickbait? You’d rather wallow in the negativity?

I prefer John Gruber's writing. Gruber clearly writes from the perspective of an Apple fan but still manages to maintain some objectivity. Gruber builds such a compelling (and concise!) case, when he writes, that he never needs to make spurious statements like '[Apple] sold the only profitable tablets and smartwatch'.

kraytinprime said:

singularity said:

If all the major stock markets are down, why do some people expect Apple to only go up?
That's not manipulation it's investors getting nervous. 
But I'm sure sog will still have a rant about it being all timmys fault.

Look at Apple's peers.

Netflix up 2.6%
Google up .32%
Amazon up .40%
Facebook up .40%

Apple DOWN 1.40% today
Apple DOWN almost 30% in the last few months
Apple UP only 1% since Sept 2012.

Tim Cook has allowed Apple to lose almost $200,000,000,000 in value because he refuses to address bullshit rumors. Thanks Tim Cook.  Thanks for making my portfolio go down $40,000 in a matter of months. 

hentaiboy said:

sog35 said:

Block me and keep drinking the Tim Cook Kool aid.

No need to. Quit reneging on the self ban and go away.

sog35 said:

ksec said:

Sog35 is annoying as hell... although he has a point.

But basically it is the same theory. Steve can do the impossible, when he is running Apple, Wall Street will believe and trade at P/E 20
Tim Cook is in comparison, human. So Wall Street decide to run numbers and they can't figure out how Apple is going to be able sustain.

I don't blame Tim, it would have been the same for anyone else to run it. 
The only thing i hate is Tim is spending money buying back stocks. Those money should be invested somewhere else.

WRONG.

Many of the elite CEO's can convience Wall Street to give their companies 20+ PE's.

Amazon CEO knows how to please Wall Street.
Google CEO.
Facebook CEO.
Microsoft CEO. 
Netflix CEO.
Even the FRIKENT Yahoo CEO has convienced Wall STreet to give her company a 125 PE.

Basically every Elite Tech company has a CEO who's better with handling Wall Street and the Media than pathetic Tim Cook.

Face it.  Cook sucks. I don't know of any other company that has such a depressed PE despite growing earnings and revenue at 20-30%.  Its all because Cook is total crap at controlling the company message.

gatorguy said:

Daniel Eran Dilger said:

You are right that andro- denotes "man," and android specifically denotes a robot with a human-like appearance (as opposed to robots, many of which don't attempt muscle-like movements, walk on legs, have a head, etc.)

However, Boston Dynamics has several robot designs that all have human-like or otherwise being-inspired appearance or functionality. I also intended to reference Andy "android" Rubin, who got Google into Android, Motorola and then robotics, before his peace-out left the company with a series of albatrosses wrapped around its neck.

Google also rejected further Darpa funding nearly two years ago didn't they? It only honored this one because the contracts were already committed to by Boston Dynamics when Google purchased the company.  I imagine I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know tho.  Google has zero interest in creating military robots. Further, DARPA has better uses for their limited $2B+ budget than giving it to a company that doesn't need any of it. They traditionally take an interest in startups.  Giving money to Google for research would be as ridiculous as giving it to Apple or Microsoft. So of course there would be no marriage between Google and military research. 

In any event I think it's great that that there's no longer any connection to military uses of Google-owned robotics tech. Kudos all around. It needs to stay that way. 

EDIT: For those that weren't aware of it here's the link to Google rejecting any further DARPA funding on any new projects back in March of 2014
http://defensetech.org/2014/03/25/google-rejects-military-funding-in-robotics/

EDIT2: Speaking of robotics it's entirely possible that some Google developments are helping to build Apple products. Google and Hon-Hai working together on robotic manufacturing processes? 
http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Foxconn+Working+Together+on+Robotics/article34305.htm