FileMakerFeller

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.

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. 

mobird said:

randominternetperson 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?

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?

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."

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.