cnocbui

mac_128 said:

cnocbui said:

I think it is all about making more money.  I wouldn't be surprised if Apple have a new wireless audio streaming protocol that will be lossless, which they will do the usual spin with on why it's better than lossy Bluetooth.  Then they won't have to pay aptX to use their lossless BT codec.  That way they will get royalties from every headphone manufacturer who want to make a lightning compatible wired headphone and from those that want to make wireless earbuds and headphones that use the new protocol - ka-ching.  They will also sell the 3.5mm adapter for everyone else who want's to use anything legacy - ka-ching.

This is the Gionee Eliife S5.1.  It is 5.2mm thick - 1.9mm thinner than an 6S.  It still manages to have a 3.5mm headphone jack.  It came out in 2014.



I don't think phones need to be even this thin.  There would have to be structural strength issues and I would suspect such phones probably have to rely on the inherent strength of the screen glass.

So it's quite clear the 3.5mm jack is not an impediment to making a phone thin.  Oppo make an even thinner phone, the R5, which doesn't have a 3.5mm jack and comes with a micro USB dongle, much like Apple's equally inelegant 'solution'.



Phone manufacturers keep doing this thin thing but in a survey of phone users the most important feature is battery life.

You are missing the forest for the trees. It has nothing to do with the 3.5mm opening on the edge of the device, and everything to do with 150x that the volume the internal hardware consumes.

By the way, are you saying that Elife otherwise competes with the flagship iPhone with 1:1 parity in performance, hardware and function? If so, you should dump your Apple stock and invest in them, because according to you Apple is removing the 3.5mm Jack that is so widely used worldwide, in order to gouge its  customers, so it would be hard to imagine anyone staying with Apple when they can get everything the Apple flagship offers, Even thinner, and with a headphone jack. 

You have mentioned the volume thing at least three times previously that I can recall.  The volume the socket takes up works out at being a fraction of a percent  of the overall volume (0.28% of the volume of a 6S), which is negligible and inconsequential.  There is no point making a flagship phone thinner unless you can get a leading edge camera module that is equally thin - which you can't without employing folded optics and such which have not appeared in phones yet, that I am aware of.  Samsung realised this and made the S7 thicker than the S6, pretty much eliminating the camera bulge the S6 had and they but in a much higher capacity battery.  Have you noticed an outpouring of criticism of the the S7 because they made it thicker and with a massive increase in battery life, particularly in the case of the Edge version?

alexmac said:

For me the point is that we had a standard with rather good quality, specs, size, etc and what's the deal for changing it? Water resistant, really? Thickness, really? (With the horrible camera hump)

I think it is all about making more money.  I wouldn't be surprised if Apple have a new wireless audio streaming protocol that will be lossless, which they will do the usual spin with on why it's better than lossy Bluetooth.  Then they won't have to pay aptX to use their lossless BT codec.  That way they will get royalties from every headphone manufacturer who want to make a lightning compatible wired headphone and from those that want to make wireless earbuds and headphones that use the new protocol - ka-ching.  They will also sell the 3.5mm adapter for everyone else who want's to use anything legacy - ka-ching.

This is the Gionee Eliife S5.1.  It is 5.2mm thick - 1.9mm thinner than an 6S.  It still manages to have a 3.5mm headphone jack.  It came out in 2014.



I don't think phones need to be even this thin.  There would have to be structural strength issues and I would suspect such phones probably have to rely on the inherent strength of the screen glass.

So it's quite clear the 3.5mm jack is not an impediment to making a phone thin.  Oppo make an even thinner phone, the R5, which doesn't have a 3.5mm jack and comes with a micro USB dongle, much like Apple's equally inelegant 'solution'.



Phone manufacturers keep doing this thin thing but in a survey of phone users the most important feature is battery life.

However if there is one particular area in which many users chose to focus on, it would be battery life. Compared to the other features, many felt that battery life was the most important feature to them, with 56% of Android users choosing battery, 49% for iOS, and 53% for Windows Phone. These are some pretty interesting statistics and perhaps one that smartphone OEMs should take into consideration.
...
This is according to a recent survey conducted by the IDC of 50,000 participants in 25 countries.

I don't understand Nadella at all.  He talks multi-platform then deliberately destroys their capability in terms of phones, an entire platform, the ones where future developments and growth are most likely to be and arguable the most important platform.  I can't see how he isn't actually worse than Ballmer.

How can you talk multi-platform and then get rid of one?

Hey world, remember that upgrade path from 8.1 to 10 we promised you several times, well that isn't going to happen because I just fired everyone who works for us who worked on phones so you won't have to worry about future OS upgrades anymore because there won't be any; clever, non?  Now I have more good news for you - before I got rid of the phone guys, I had them run up a bunch of new phone models I think are really exciting..... hey!  Where are you all going?  Why are you leaving?  These are really good, and you won't have to bother with an OS upgrade ever again... Come back.... please... I don't understand...

laytech said:

Surprise, surprise. This is utter disgusting behaviour by the Australian bank cartel. Whilst they may be a tiny argument it stinks of protectivism of their own interests and profits.

Apples offering is all about safer and more secure payments, and one that offers consumers a better choice.

If other banks around the world particular in the UK and US have embraced this technology then clearly the banks argument in Australia is all about them and not in the interests of anyone else.

i am shocked, disappointed and alarmed at this. Quite honestly, the Government should be holding the banks to account for stifling innovation and choice. 

The banks should feel disgusted with themselves for trying to keep Australia in the dark ages of technology.

It has been pointed out in these forums many a time that Apple is free to charge whatever it likes from sellers wanting to sell through their app store.  I believe Apple takes 30%.  If it's fair for Apple to set the fees for use of it's systems, why is not also just as fair for the Australian banks to set the fees for use of their systems - the financial systems created, financed and owned by the Australian banks?  Why is it just the banks fault, why isn't Apple also at fault for not reducing their demands?

I hear you have a house to rent.  I'll tell you what, I don't want to pay you rent, I want you you to pay me $100 a week to live in your house.  That ok with you?  When can can I move in?

radarthekat said:

cnocbui said:

Not engaging in these ridiculous buybacks in the first place.

I’ve heard a lot of analysts as well as retail investors suggest that share repurchases are nothing more than financial engineering, implying that they do nothing to add value to a company or its stock.

But there's an additional, and I think significant, value of share repurchases and dividend payments that comes from removing unproductive excess cash from the balance sheet. Lets look at Apple, with a $570 billion market cap and about $160 billon of cash and equivalents on the books, net of debt.  Therefore, a dollar invested in Apple represents about 78 cents invested in the actual operating business, which is where the profits come from, and about 22 cents invested to buy a bit of that cash pile, earning about 1%.  Arguably a less-than-ideal allocation of each invested dollar. 

So a smart investor wants that cash removed from the books, which would either reduce the market cap of the company or, if the cash isn't being valued at even 1x its value, which could be argued is the case with Apple, removing that cash would leave the market cap where it is, which would then imply a higher earnings multiple against the productive operating side of the business, while also taking shares off the market, which would increase earnings per share going forward.

And a higher earnings multiple means that as earnings grow in the future, the stock will climb faster.  Carl Icahn must have had all of these effects in mind - more efficient allocation of investor's dollars, increase in earnings multiple against operating business, and reduction in shares netting an increase in earnings per remaining share - when he approached Tim Cook years ago.  Pity he didn't articulate his case better.

I get the theory, but it isn't working.  You can also take cash off the books by paying it out as dividends to shareholders, which is what I think should be done with any excess, which benefits shareholders twice over: firstly as income and secondly by making the stock far more attractive than do buybacks, thus stimulating the share price.

Obviously it's impossible to prove, but I think if Apple had told Icahn to go fly a kite and had spent half as much on increasing dividends as they have on buybacks, the share price would be at least 80% higher than it is.