sdbryan

janiceandrusty said:

A couple things that are revealing with Carl's investments.

1. Upside with Apple isn't there. He sold all his stock. He is also a billionaire who wrote books on how to make money, not loose it.
...

OK, I was going to let it go after the first two times (in an earlier posting) but not again. The word is LOSE, not loose. They are two completely different words and the one you mean to use is spelt with just one O, unless you really meant that he intended to set that money loose, rather than to simply lose it. My apology in advance for the rant, many if not most people make this mistake so it seems inherently unfair to single out anyone. Now I will go back to my location under the bridge.

sog35 said:

bkerkay said:

You keep talking about the loss and the "failure".  

But what about the gains and increase and money in the bank?  Yes, it's less now than it was a year ago, but it's still more than it was when he took over 5 years ago. 

Come on man.

The massive rocket ship that was the iPhone was going to blast off with or without Cook.
You can't give Cook credit for the iPhone taking off in 2012.

Hard to believe the stock is worth LESS than in 2012. 

So do you seriously think it was Cook that made the stock go from $50 to $100 in less than a year? 
That was his first year as CEO the stock DOUBLE.  Was that Cook?  Come on man. It was all about Jobs.

And since it reached $100 in 2012 the stock is LOWER today.

Mainly a point about chronology. The iPhone was announced in 2006 and introduced in 2007. It went through many iterations before 2012. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011 and Tim Cook was effectively in charge well before 2011. There were many factors and individuals involved in the continuing massive success of the iPhone and iOS juggernaut. To downplay the role Tim Cook played and continues to play is ridiculous.

But the winning dopey comment is "Hard to believe the stock is worth LESS than in 2012". In June of 2014 Apple did a 7 for 1 stock split. Do the math.

Sir_Turkey said:

gustav said:

That may be an incorrect assumption. Myself, and plenty of people I know, prefer a smaller phone. I've been holding off upgrading my 5s to see what happens in March.

Ding Ding Ding winner !! 

Now I'm hoping Apple does the correct thing here and makes a high end 4 inch phone for guys like us. There's no excuse!  Make the 4 inch phone a little thicker and jam all the goodies in it. 

Why not pile on? I have commented on this issue several times before and I still await a 4" iPhone with "current" specs (specifically, Apple Pay and Apple Watch capability) and as much memory as is made available. We will only know the demand for a 4" iPhone when Apple makes a new model available. Frankly, I don't care how big a hit it is. After all, I have been an Apple customer since the early 80's when it was not exactly the choice of the masses. I do hope there are enough customers so Apple continues to release updated 4" models.

JeffA2 said:

metamancer said:

The assinine presumption is that there is anything of significance on the phone in the first place. I am guessing the odds are there is really nothing of import on the phone, and yet if the FBI prevails, all that will be accomplished is the precedent of forcing law-abiding citizens to go above and beyond to aid authorities.  Methinks that is the real intent, and the contents of said phone is irrelevant to Comey.  Any words about "Justice" and the "victims' families" are just grandstanding BS.

 

You don't get to make that judgment. Whether you agree with the FBI's request or find it an attack on privacy, these investigators have a legal warrant to search that phone. Your opinion of the odds don't come into it at all.

Actually public opinion is almost all that this is about. Comey has made a very cynical and calculated attempt to bully his way by shouting “terrorist” in a crowded theater (to mix metaphors). This bit of security theater may fail to provide an immediate victory in the form of a precedent, but even more sinister would be if the cynically manipulated public and Congress proceeded to pass disastrous encryption crippling legislation. That is why it is so important to educate the public at large about the dishonest and cynical nature of this demand.

I can easily understand why Apple can and should disable touch ID if it has been compromised by the user's decision to bypass authorized repair service. What is less understandable is having the iPhone rendered utterly unusable.
A stolen iPhone could conceivably be tampered with to allow the thief to use ApplePay to make purchases which should be Apple's responsibility if it did nothing to defend against this. But I don't understand why a user who doesn't care about TouchID shouldn't be able to continue to use the iPhone sans TouchID due to third party repair.

I had an iPod touch with a failed lightning port so it could not be recharged. Apple's only solution was to swap it for a pricey rebuilt unit without the contents of my internal drive (I was traveling and did not have a good backup). I found a third party that would replace the lightning port and almost all was well. I was able to back up my data at home.