FileMakerFeller

About

Username
FileMakerFeller
Joined
Visits
7
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
288
Badges
1
Posts
195
  • Apple disputes allegations that Apple TV+ trial will drive down stock price

    ScottNY71 said:
    Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."

    That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.

    What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.
    AI have reported that the way Apple accounts for services changed at some point in the last two years (maybe in the previous financial year?) and that the cost of services is now part of the services grouping and not tied to the hardware any more. I wouldn't say it's abnormal, but it's not how Apple have done things in the recent past.

    From what I can tell, the GS analyst was essentially saying "people are idiots who don't pay attention, and they'll get spooked" - which, from my point of view, is spot on. His claim of the share price dipping was proven correct, and Apple's rebuttal has hopefully turned this into a short-term blip.

    If it was planned by Apple & GS then I agree it was a brilliant manoeuvre. It may also fall under the umbrella of market manipulation although I think as long as any executives from either company avoided trading the stock for the period in question the regulators will treat it as a "no harm, no foul" scenario.
    watto_cobra
  • Here's why Apple didn't win with a $500 million offer to J.J. Abrams for Apple TV+

    lonestar1 said:
    I think some people are not anti-family but want variety. Peanuts has it's audience as does Game of Thrones.

    We already seen that See has weapons and war in it so like I said, looks like something is wrong with the rumors suggesting Apple is only allowing family friendly content. Why would they approach JJ and Shyamalan if that was the goal?
    The other services aren’t going away any time soon. People can still get their soft-core porn on HBO, even if Apple doesn’t supply it.

    I don’t really care about ”See”. Just as another post-apocalyptic dystopian drama, with one original twist. (But wait a minute, if everyone on Earth is blind, why does the series star a guy with creepy tattoos over every square inch of his body?) 

    In fact, I’m not impressed by most of Apple’s TV offerings. A Jennifer Aniston sitcom? Oprah? 

    “For All Mankind” looks interesting, based on the trailer, but where is Asimov’s “Foundation”? Those are the only two shows I’d be tempted to pay money for. 
    And yet if you buy an Apple device you can have a year's worth of access for "free." When my new iPhone arrives I will be checking out TV+, and if it's worth it I will pay the ongoing subscription fee.

    Plus, I've found it difficult to locate content suitable for my entire family so if ATV+ gives me even one show we can watch together I reckon it's worth the money.
    watto_cobra
  • Antitrust committee demands Apple, Amazon, Facebook & Google internal documents

    mobird said:
    Wow.  If you want to see the worst homework assignment ever, read the letter in its entirety:  https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Apple%20RFI%20-%20Signed.pdf

    I especially liked these bits:

    They lead off with a couple softballs:  "[Submit] the most recent org chart..."  "[Submit] a description of each of the products and services listed below [because we can't be bothered to read your website.]

    Then it gets more challenging:
    "[Submit] all information--whether created by the Company of a third party--regarding the US market share of the Company and each of the Company's competitors in any market in which the Company offers or sells the following products or services [followed by a list of 12 Apple products and technologies]."

    "[Submit] all financial statements prepared on an annual or quarterly basis ... since 2016 including profit-and-loss reports for each of the Company's products and services listed below [same list of 12 things].  If the Company does not prepare or maintain financial statements ... for the above-listed products or services ... the Company should submit the revenues, cost, and expenses for each product or service listed and use its best efforts to provide a profit-and-loss statement for each product or service."  [Apple's competitors and financial analysts will love this.]

    Then they request all communications with a bunch of senior executives for the past decade on dozens of topics.  

    And in the instructions they clarify that the rules don't apply to them:

    "In responding to the request be apprised that ... the Committee does not recognize: any purported non-disclosure privileges associated with the common law including, but not limited to, the deliberative-process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product protections; any purported privileges and protections from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; or any purported contractual privileges, such as non-disclosure agreements."

    This one letter will literally cost Apple a few million dollars.
    Tell them to go pound sand. Where is it in our laws that requires an entity to generate all of this information?
    At a guess, it's part of corporate law.

    @randominternetperson's complaint about the Committee being above "the rules" is somewhat harsh - this language needs to be included so that corporations don't hide behind a range of "Can't tell you because..." excuses. Sadly, past abuse of those protections has forced their application to be limited. This letter initially smells like over-reach by the government, but if they didn't ask for all this information (and threaten the companies so that they'll actually receive it) they'd be faced with charges of incompetence once the investigation is completed.

    Having said that, that line of "[Submit] all information--whether created by the Company of a third party--regarding the US market share of the Company and each of the Company's competitors in any market in which the Company offers or sells the following products or services [followed by a list of 12 Apple products and technologies]." opens them up to a firehose of potentially irrelevant data, because who can definitively say that "all information... regarding the US market share..." is a finite subset of the Internet? :wink:
    randominternetperson
  • Popular iPhone XR 'saved' Apple, says report

    AppleInsider said (quoting the Arwin report):

    "Our look at the top handset manufacturers in 2018 would have suggested that Apple was likely going to lose share in 2019, however, the data to date shows Apple's share has grown even despite gains from the likes of Huawei and Google. We believe the data shows that the iPhone XR is the sole reason for this. You could even say that the iPhone XR saved Apple."
    @eightzero would like some of whatever the report's authors were smoking. Duuuude.
    watto_cobra
  • OLED patent aggregator suing Apple over implementation of every screen it uses

    gatorguy said:
    dkhaley said:
    gatorguy said:
    MissNomer said:
    Thought Apple closed their last store in the area to avoid this district from being used...
    That was East Texas. 

    Patentee-friendly West Texas is the "new East Texas" and moving out of their jurisdiction would entail a whole more than closing a store or two. Highly unlikely Apple would be willing to do so. This is one they'll have to live with. 
    It should still be better than the Eastern district. The Western district includes San Antonio and Austin. The Eastern district didn't cover any large metros (other than a few suburbs of Dallas). There isn't nearly as much of a financial incentive to boost the frivolous lawsuit industry.
    The Western District includes Apple's engineering offices, many of their data mining/analysis teams, a new $1B complex in North Austin, retail stores...
    Apple's not moving. 
    Apple: "Yeah, OK, we'll manufacture more of our equipment in the USA. Texas is offering us some concessions."
    Trolls: "Texas? Hahahahaha!"
    watto_cobra