Last Active
  • Apple stock climbs on word of planned US investments & repatriated cash [u]

    sumergo said:
    lkrupp said:
    I still find it miraculous AAPL continues to trade so low. The company is worth much more based on cash in the bank alone, but they don't play the game like Jeff Bezos knows how to play the game.
    You are correct in that Apple refuses to play by the rules so Wall Street remains tepid in its valuation. Then we have the near constant barrage of pundits that say Apple has one foot in the grave since it doesn’t play by the rules and didn’t take their sage advice on what to do with their cash hoard. Maybe if Apple were deep in debt and had a massive P/E like Amazon they would get Wall Street’s blessing but I suspect not. Everybody is standing around waiting for Apple to stumble and die.
    I suspect AAPL is also riding the general market buoyancy to some extent.  It will be interesting to see how AAPL (and the market as a whole) reacts to the 2018 mid-term results and the 2020 presidential election.  Only then will we know if the market is really booming (in step with the US economy over the last few years) or as a result of some other bizarre "trump effect" ;-)
    Trump is the best thing to happen to US businesses and stockholders since Reagan.

    In the short term yes. In the long term no. Even Reagan understood the necessity of taxes. 
  • Apple stock climbs on word of planned US investments & repatriated cash [u]

    Superb moves by Apple and Tim Cook. Kudos.

    Also, credit is due entirely where it is due, which means the passage of the recent tax plan and the hectoring/shaming of US corporations into putting the issue of investing in US, and bringing jobs back to the US, on the front-burner.

    The Republicans don't deserve credit. The same result could have happened without giving the mega rich huge tax breaks. 

    Democrats favored a lower tax rate to repatriate funds. What they didn't favor was giving the rich huge tax breaks that eventually everybody else is going to have to pay for. 

    Regular folks are going to save a few dollars on taxes, but pay a lot more for things like health insurance, and have to save more for the anticipated cut backs in programs like social security.

    Further, I doubt many companies are going to follow Apple's lead in terms of creating american jobs. They haven't on other things Apple has taken a lead on. 
  • Amazon Prime Video is already the most popular Apple TV app at launch

    hodar said:
    I find it amazing that Amazon Prime, which is technically FREE, offers more quality movies, than Netflix which charges me more per year, than Amazon Prime costs.  Add to that the made for Amazon movies and series, the fact that I can watch all 7 seasons of GoT, Westworld and other "Premium" channel specials - Netflix certainly falls short in comparison.

    To each their own, but I think Netflix has better content overall. Sure Amazon ocassionaly gets some better movies and the HBO content is nice, but I still use Netflix much more.

    I downloaded the Amazon Apple TV app, and I used it once. I honestly couldn’t find much I hadn’t watched else place already.
    Also Netflix's App works much better.
  • Why Apple opposes the FCC's repeal of net neutrality

    georgie01 said:
    I am for small government and differ with many political positions Apple takes, but I totally agree with Apple on this. Even besides the important issue of it becoming harder for many businesses to compete, the content of the internet will also be at the hands of money making endeavours, instead of all content being treated equally as it is now.

    We won’t see changes right away, but over time companies will make whatever changes they can get away with until the internet differs very little from the way network TV is.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this was even partially a move to control ‘fake’ news. If content is monetised by service providers the news can be better controlled than it is now. Information control in the name of market freedom... It’s not worth it.
    I'm in favor of a "free and open Internet", but I'm not in favor of forcing other people to fund your (or anyone else's) access to said Internet via taxes. If anyone can figure out how to get on the Internet for free without an Internet Service Provider (ISP) then by all means, have at it.

    Funny I haven’t heard about any ISPs complaining about losing money.

    Further, people forget ISPs didn’t create the Internet, tax payer dollars did. Further federal regulation helped it grow by protecting internet companies from things like State regulation and taxation.
  • FCC votes to undo net neutrality protections despite public protests

    rwx9901 said:
    Funny how some who are for net neutrality seem to believe they are somehow entitled to a service that somebody else provides.  Those businesses are not charities, they are businesses with a bottom line and responsibility to their shareholders.  They're job is to make money.  So, they will do so and if that means tweaking speeds to get there then so be it.  If one doesn't like it then don't buy it.  Simple concept.  And the sentence in this article that says "potentially radically reshaping the nature of the U.S. internet." is complete horse hockey and hyperbole.  All this essentially does is revert back to the way it was before this nonsensical policy was put into place to begin with.  It wasn't called "radical" back then now was it?  Now all of a sudden it's "radical".  Give me a break.

    Here is the thing. These companies didn’t develop the Internet. The government did using tax payer dollars. So the public should absolutely have a say in what happens with the internet. 

    Further, these same companies spend tons of dollars so that they don’t have to compete fairly. For instance, laws attacking municipalities from creating internet services or passing laws that only allow one ISP provider.