gmgravytrain

If it's a Jony Ive design, then I'm sure it will end up thermal throttling long before some other companies' design. Jony Ive's quest for thinness will always hamper cooling. I'm being sarcastic but I'm willing to bet I'm right. I've also heard of Apple being cheap and careless when it comes to the application of thermal paste. So sad. Apple has the power to do things right but seems to be getting lazy and that's just so unfair to loyal Apple product users. If I'm wrong, then I truly apologize but it just seems that's how things are at Apple. There's no point in Apple using high-performance components if they can't fully take advantage of them.

williamlondon said:

And people keep harping on about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, always giving Google a great big pass. Google has been at it longer, has wider reach, is much better at it, and has far more customers than Facebook.

I doubt most users care what happens to their private data. I only know that investors of data-harvesting companies are quite happy with such easy profitability available thanks to unconcerned consumers. Apple is losing out financially due to its consumer privacy stance and Wall Street is quite unhappy about Apple not taking advantage of easy money. Facebook will be quickly going to $250 a share while Apple struggles to break $190. Facebook's profit margins are unbelievably huge and it's basically just a social app company. Google will be allowed to get away with what it's doing with private user data and continue to make easy profits without limits or constraints. As long as there is easy money to be made from taking private user data, Google will continue to thrive. Facebook and Google will never be regulated or even fined for harvesting and selling user data. Those companies are indeed, very lucky, to be so highly valued and praised by everyone.

As an Apple shareholder, I'm not counting on any "supercycle" in a totally saturated smartphone market. I'm somewhat annoyed that this "supercycle" nonsense keep being tossed around. All it does is try to lure greedy investors into buying Apple stock hoping for some huge payoff. I don't believe that's going to happen. Buy Apple stock for other reasons, such as a steadily growing customer base, more services in the future, a possible new product category or just for the dividends. If the "supercycle" idiots were wrong before, then they can easily be wrong again. Anyway, I'd hold off doing anything about Apple stock until after the WWDC event.

So, if a "supercycle" can only produce a $200 a share price target, I'm sure greedy investors will head on over to the FANG stocks because they're being promised much greater share gains than Apple shareholders are.  Heck, even scandal-laden Facebook is going to make better share gains than Apple.  I sure don't see most consumers paying $1000 for iPhones and only getting two years use out of them. I don't think Apple is that stupid. I'm sure Apple is only counting on slowly and steadily growing its user base. $1000 iPhones are just a whipped-cream topping.

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

So far, Apple is deeply invested in pursuing such thoughtful contemplative efforts, while its rivals do not even seem to recognize this as an issue. That's not going to work out well for them.

That seems like a logical conclusion but based on the minimal fallout that Facebook has had since the whole CA thing, I’m not sure how accurate it is.  

It’s interesting that CA had to close down because their business tanked, but Facebook, the originator of the data collection that CA used, seems to have only been slightly bruised.

Considering that, I’m not sure many people care about ethics or privacy.

I doubt more than 5% of consumers on the entire planet care about personal privacy. Most people have nothing worthwhile to hide from anyone except some little white lies. If Apple wants to go about advocating privacy, that's fine, but Apple is going to end up dead last when it comes to intelligent assistants. The best assistants know everything about the person they're working for. It would be stupid to hide things from your own assistant because you'd be hurting their efficiency.  Siri is considered the most stupid assistant because Apple is handicapping Siri in so many ways. Apple should have had its own search engine database by now and not having one is a serious drawback to any intelligent assistant. A really good assistant needs to be able to gather as much data as possible about everything. What annoys me most is that Apple can EASILY afford to buy or create a massive database, but chooses not to.

Zuckerberg and Facebook are doing absolutely fine no matter how much data they harvest from consumers. Ethics are for losers and Zuckerberg is a winner. Zuckerberg is practically a god on Wall Street because his highly profitable business can't be touched by any regulating bodies. Since the data-harvesting scandal, Facebook is doing as well as it ever was. So much for consumers worrying over loss of personal privacy. If consumers don't care what happens to their personal data, why should anyone else care for them? Tim Cook going around telling people that privacy is a right is simply wasting his breath. If anything, the Feds are going to keep going after Apple because they hate the idea of iPhone encryption. The Feds believe everyone should be snooped upon and that nothing remains a secret. Apple is now the criminal for not letting the intelligence agencies have a back-door to iPhones. Apple is said to be protecting criminals and terrorists, so screw consumer privacy.

The companies that data-harvest 24/7 are the ones that will always have the most value because they're turning high profits using endless amounts of free information. Almost no one cares about personal privacy, so it seems to me companies might as well use it to their heart's content. The way I see it, Apple is going to be the biggest loser for taking an ethical stance over privacy. Tim Cook obviously doesn't understand how much consumers love "free" services and they're willing to hand over their souls to keep those "free" services. To most consumers personal privacy isn't worth anything, so giving it up is not such a big deal.

When it comes to big business, having ethics is like trying to swim with an anchor tied around your neck. Only profits matter to investors and they don't care how profits are obtained. That's why the big hedge funds started loading up on Facebook stock despite the data-leak scandal. They surely didn't say, "Facebook is unethical, let's buy Apple instead."

nunzy said:

Google does nothing but steal. They steal your information. They stole Android from Apple. Google is nothing but a thief.

Very few consumers see Google as a thief. Most believe Google is a generous company giving away free services to the poorest people in the world. You do realize that Android OS is the most prolific OS in the world and used by billions of consumers around the globe. Those consumers are happily giving their information to Google and almost no one is complaining about it. Most consumers would always go with free services over personal privacy. 88% mobile market share percentage is proof enough of that.