cnocbui

clemynx said:

wizard69 said:

Which have zero visibility in sun light.  I wouldn't be surprised to find Apple jumping right past OLED's to a new technology.   In any event I'm not convinced OLED's are that much better than LCD's.  

Using my AW in sun light frequently... don't see that problem.

The 'problem' is that Apple phones don't have OLED screens at the moment while Samsung phones obviously do, so OLED has to be considered to be an inferior technology right up to the minute Apple releases a phone with an OLED screen when suddenly it will become the best technology since sliced bread and the ass-covering will take the form: Apple's OLED panels are better than anyone elses and all those that existed in products before the iPhone can be discounted as grossly inferior. There will be claims that OLED panels have only become good enough because Apple has secretly been researching the OLED tech that is in the new panels, based on Apple marketing inventing and using some term like 'retina' in describing 'their' new displays.

I have argued with people that claims of burn-in are grossly exaggerated and are limited to extreme cases, but no doubt any panels Apple uses will be touted as being somehow superior to all others and free of the non-issue because Apple has solved the 'problem' because of some marketing spiel.
Think of all the BS arguments on AI for years about the inferiority of phones with screens larger than what were in iPhones - right up until iPhones got them. It's exactly like that nonsense.

Apple is said to be developing a new Hi-Res Audio format featuring an expanded 96kHz, 24bit sampling rate for its Apple Music subscribers, leveraging the higher fidelity audio output capabilities of Lightning ports. ... Apple Music is planning to launch new its Hi-Res music streaming—with higher audio quality than can be delivered through standard earphone jacks

Higher capabilities than what? 'Nothing' is the correct answer.

A standard earphone jack delivers analogue audio. In the case of Apple devices that would be an analogue signal that has been converted from a digital source, so it is actually meaningless to claim it's higher audio quality. A 3.5mm headphone jack can pass an analogue audio signal that was derived from a 96khz 24bit 'digital' source just as competently as it can one from a 44.1khz 16 bit one.
From a technical standpoint that statement is also false as if you were to wire up the port to pass a digital signal then it could indeed convey a digital signal that had been encoded at 96/24.

The physical, analog headphone jack is limited to delivering roughly CD-quality sound.

Bullshit.
There are several Android and Windows phones with high quality D/A converters and amps, Samsung's S6 being an example. Claiming you will be able to get better audio quality from Apple devices because the D/A conversion and amplification is taken outboard and built into headphones is nonsense.

gatorguy said:

shahhet2 said:

The 40% refers to the combined U.S. federal(35%) and state tax rate(5%) Apple would likely owe.

Still doesn't account for the taxes Apple already paid on those profits. Surely Apple paid something on it already and that would be deducted from what is stilled owed to the US, right? For example if they paid 12% to the Irish the remaining corporate taxes owed to the Feds would be 23% if they brought it home. If Cook's comment was close to accurate it would presume they've paid nothing to anyone. That's why 40% doesn't sound like it could possibly be right.  

Perhaps it's a near admission that Cook's: "That is total political crap, There is no truth behind it. Apple pays every tax dollar we owe." actually means that those third party calculations that Apple has been effectively paying low single digit taxes overseas are indeed correct, otherwise they wouldn't be up for 40 % or anywhere near it - unless they had paid next to nothing overseas.

Apple had AU$ 6 Billion in revenue in Australia in 2014 yet paid only 80.3 M in taxes there.  That's a tax rate of 1.3%.  Cook revealed the secret deal with Ireland was for a tax rate of 2%, so Apple is only paying 3.3% on it's Australian profits, unless the Irish tax is less taxes paid in Australia which would mean it's only paying 2% in total.  And before someone tries to claim Apple pay VAT - no they don't.  Consumers pay VAT, retailers just collect it and forward it to the government.

What Cook actually wants is single digit tax rates on  profits repatriated to the US, which is unconscionable.  If Apple is only paying single digit tax overseas and is allowed to then repatriate funds at single digit tax rates  - I am presuming he is asking for the single digit tax rate to be in addition to those already paid overseas, though he probably want's those to be deducted first - that would mean Apple would be paying single digit tax rates on most of it's income.  That is immoral, considering personal tax rates.

ac1234 said:

Let me help some of you understand the issue of buybacks as I have opined on:

Rough figures, Apple has spent about $100 billion on repurchases since the inception of the current program.  There are roughly 6 billion shares outstanding.

So, add $100 billion from the cash horde - you now have $200 billion to distribute to shareholders.  Spread that out over the 6 billion shares and you get $33.33/share.

If you held 5000 shares you would receive $166,000 in a dividend.

By contrast, we get a $2 dividend per share/year - $10,000 a year.

I have said several times that Apple only has to announce an intention to pay a decent dividend going forward, rather than this weird buy-back thing, and the share price would take off like it had rocket boosters strapped to it.

impossibly low-distortion sound reproduction rivaling that of speakers ten times the cost and many times the size

Could you provide the distortion figures for the Phantom and the details of the $20,000 speaker they rival please. I feel like some humour, even though the article had me in stitches already. Wow, I'm so impressed at the kevlar and the sphericiity. Here's a little something I made some years ago: The enclosures are carbon fiber. There is actually a second CF sphere inside with the gap between the two filled with sand. The mid-range driver has a kevlar cone and is a B&W unit made for car audio systems. The tweeter has a titanium dome. They are driven by a 70 watt per channel Nakamichi car audio amplifier and have a B&W crossover.