- Last Active
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.