davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 185
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,741
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,184
Reactions
-
Apple tells EU to forget about getting all the new iOS 26 features
avon b7 said:
Nope! And if you had read up on why that requirement was put into place, you would know full well that the EU had tried for decades to harmonise the situation.missile man said:
If you believe in free markets and no fraud is occurring, please tell how the EU setting a USB-C standard is a good thing. Shouldn’t companies be free to provide options. If the customers feel ripped off, they’ll buy an Erickson or Nokia. Oh wait, that didn’t work out too well. Did Apple cheat or just out compete? Since the EU has mandated USB-C, how will we ever get anything better? Oh yeah, the old Soviet model, what ever the government mandates is for the good of the people! Do you remember the US government mandating Windows for all us Government computers? How well did that work out? Innovation?sloth77 said:I voted Remain in the UK back in 2016. But as an Apple user, I can't say hand-on-heart that I would do so now, with the shenanigans the EU is pulling with Apple.
It is a shame, as some of the EU regulations have been decent - like the USB-C support.
The requirement was due to fragmentation in charging options (and goes far beyond phones BTW).You are giving the EU way too much credit (surprise!, surprise! surprise!) for fixing the fragmentation that existed with mobile phone chargers, pre-iPhone. Apple and Google deserves most of the credit, not some memorandum that mandated the use of a USB Micro port (by 2012) in 2010.Before the iPhone (2007), most mobile phones owners did not need to be sync their "dumb" phone with a computer. Back then, syncing to a computer was mainly use for importing and editing contact info, without having to use the small number pad on the phone. Therefore most phones back then had a syncing port and a separate charging port. And the most common syncing cable had a serial DB9 interface on the computer end. Guess what a DB9 interface don't support? Charging.But soon after the release of the iPhone, mobile phone companies were scrambling to catch up. And the fastest way was to use the free Open Source mobile OS from Google .... Android. And what did Android already support? The USB interface for data syncing and charging. So there was no longer a need to have a separate charge port on their mobile phones. By the time the EU charger memorandum was signed in 2010, by nearly all the mobile phone makers, the fragmentation of phone chargers was already fixing itself. All Android phones were already using either USB Mini or the newer USB Micro interface. With nearly all of them using USB Micro, before adopting USB C when it came out in 2015,Apple also signed the memorandum and did not violate any of its mandates. Though many here think they did with them using their Lightning interface, instead of USB. With-in the memorandum, was a cause that allowed any mobile phone makers to adopt an interface that had better technology than the USB Micro (at the time). And it had to be more than just size of the port. Apple 30 pin dock connector and then Lightning, had far better tech than what USB Micro can offer. It is this clause that allowed for mobile phones makers to adopt USB C. If it weren't for this clause, Android phones would still be using USB Micro. Which was the standard set at the time the memorandum was adopted. The EU did not want to limit innovation by forcing mobile phone makers to adopt a standard whose interface was technologically inferior, to what was available or possible.Lightning remained better technology than USB C with USB 1 protocol. USB C with USB 2 protocol mostly caught up with Lightning but Lightning still had its advantages. It wasn't until USB C with USB 3 protocol that Lightning began to show its age. Apple could no longer claim that Lightning was better technology than USB C. But still, a lot of the tech advantages of USB C with USB 3 protocol were for computers. It still took a year or two for hardware on mobile devices and mobile network, to evolve and benefit from those advantages. By this time, Apple had already planned to move on from Lightning. USB C had already been adopted on Apple high end iPads. Rumor had it that the iPhone would fully adopt USB C before 2026. But because of the EU, Apple adopted USB C about year earlier than they planned.As for E-waste, Apple stopped supplying a charger with their iPhones back in 2020. Samsung soon followed about a year later, of course after making fun of iPhones no longer coming with a charger. (With most mobile phone makers following Apple lead more than 2 years later.) By the time the EU forced Apple to use the USB C port on their devices, a USB C charger could be used to charge an iPhone. Most iPhone users at the time were either re-using a Lightning charger they already had or they bought a USB C charger with a USB-C to Lightning cable. A USB C charger have a USB C port on the charger itself. One can use it to charge USB A, USB Mini, USB Micro and Apple Lightning devices, with the use of the compatible cable. (And one of high enough voltage and wattage, can also charge laptops.)The iPhone not having a USB C port was not causing any added E-waste. The E-waste being generated by the fragmentation of chargers on mobile phones, which was the main reason for the memorandum (2010), is with the charging brick. With most of them at the time, having an attached cable with a proprietary interface. Left alone, all mobile phones would had eventually adopted USB C, even without any EU memorandum to set USB C as the standard. Just like how they were all already migrating to the USB interface, before the memorandum (in 2010), thanks to Google offering for free ..... Android that supported USB and mobile phone companies having to make mobile phones that had to compete with Apple iPhones getting thinner and smarter. Natural competition and innovation would had taken care of chargers fragmentation (on mobile phones), soon enough.
-
J.P. Morgan trims Apple stock target to $230 citing iPhone & Services weaknesses
MassiveAttack said:It shows that Apple is and will always be an iPhone company. Their service growth is maybe 10% ~ 11%.
Their iPhones get uglier with 17 series.
Apple fails to convince consumers why they should upgrade their phones regularly. Their Apple Watch series have no major improvements. It is really a huge disappointment that Apple Watch X did not get any huge improvements for the 10th anniversay.
Siri is a fail. I bet Siri will not be ready next spring.
Apple Intelligence is rather Apple Incomeptence with Genmoji bulls*its.
In any departments, you get news about delays.
Tim Cook... Sure that he is still the right guy? His mismanagement needs to be punished.
I would not be surprised if AMZN and GOOG(L) surpasses AAPL sooner or later in terms of the market cap.
AAPL investors must be frustrated while NVDA, META, MSFT heading to ATH.
Tim Cook needs to step down. He makes Apple just.... rotten Apple.Why? Neither Nvidia, Meta or Microsoft competes with Apple. Nvidia makes chips catering to AI and Intel would a competitor. Meta main revenue comes from targeted ads and Google would be their main competitor. Microsoft main revenue stream is now from supplying IT software and infrastructure to corporations and they have become the new IBM. Apple do not sell the chips they make, have a significant amount of revenue from targeted ads or rely on generating revenue from supplying IT software and hardware that corporations needs. Their stocks rising have no affect on AAPL. The only frustration that AAPL investors might have is if they didn't invest in these stocks a years ago. Of course any investor would be frustrated for not investing in these stocks years ago. But many AAPL investors might also be investors of NVDA, META and MSFT in order to diversify their portfolio. After all, even if these stocks are in all in Tech, they compete in different sectors and not with themselves or Apple. There is no investment rule that say that if you invest in AAPL, you can't or shouldn't also invest in NVDA, META and MSFT.Not everyone in this forum is an investor in AAPL or even an investor at all. So there are probably just as many people here that are frustrated that didn't invest in NVDA, META and MSFT years ago, as there are non investors that are frustrated that they didn't buy stocks in AAPL.I hope you aren't giivng anyone advice on stocks investing because you sound like someone that don't know a thing about investing in stocks.
-
Apple shareholders sue over Siri delays and massive losses
sconosciuto said:
You seem to think that the securities market is the Wild West, anything goes and caveat emptor. While this is true to a certain extent, the most obvious counter-example is Enron which engaged in grossly fraudulent misrepresentations that were aided and abetted by their accounting firm. There are many other less notorious examples of shareholders successfully suing public companies over lies and misrepresentations to the public and to shareholders.rob53 said:So shareholders want to sue for vaporware? Good luck on that. This happens all the time with products in every business. Companies try and make a good faith effort to bring a proposed product to market but these products don't always work out. I'd challenge the stockholders to justify everything they've said they were going to do but didn't. The stock market is gambling, plain and simple. Sometimes you win, most times you lose. Deal with it!With Enron, not only did Enron Execs lied to the public and shareholders, they lied to the SEC on their 10Q and 10K filings. That in itself is a very serious offense. Enron stock not only plunged because they "lied", it plunged when their true value was revealed. But the SEC do take lying to the public and shareholders in order to manipulate its share price, very seriously and its punishment is just as severe. Which is why the bar is set very high, when providing proof that a publicly traded company lied to manipulate its share price.Here, notice that the lawsuit is not claiming that Apple "lied" to its shareholders. It's claiming that Apple "downplayed" of the delay of what was promised, caused AAPL shareholders to hang on to their shares pass its all time high in Dec. 2024, in the hope of more gains later. Then they claimed that further delay caused AAPL price to plunge in 2025 and thus Apple is responsible for the loss of nearly $1T (25%) in market cap value. In order to prove that Apple had "lied", they would need to prove that Apple execs were 100% sure that Apple would not be able to provide what was promised and that what was promised would greatly increase the sale of iPhones in order to retain or increase its market cap.This isn't the first time Apple delayed what was promised. Back in the early 90's, Apple promised to deliver their new OS code named "Copeland" by mid 1996. Then it was delayed to the end of 1996 and finally canceled the release altogether in early 1997. The cancellation caused Apple to look outside for a new OS and that new OS ended up being NeXTStep. If Copeland was not delayed and then cancelled and Apple did not go outside looking for a new OS, Jobs might had never returned to Apple. Right now Apple is looking at acquiring AI firms to right their AI ship. Who knows, maybe Apple might end up with the "Steve Jobs" they need to get Apple AI on course. Imagine if shareholders had sued Apple (in 1997) for the 36% loss in market cap (YoY) by claiming it was caused by the delay and cancellation of Copeland and Apple ended up never acquiring NeXT for $427M. Of course, most likely not even the scum bag lawyers would had taken the case, as Apple did not have a substantial amount of cash worth suing for, at the time. Apple market cap at the time was $1.5B. (This is a classic case of you can't connect the dots looking forward, you can only connect them looking backwards, as mentioned in Jobs Standford graduation speech.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system)
-
FireWire may finally be dead in macOS 26 & Apple isn't looking back
Still use Firewire on occasion. Maybe couple of times a year, to help friends and family members digitize old home movies. In fact I used it once this year for that very purpose. To convert old home movies taken on VSH, Beta, 8mm or DV camcorders, the easiest way for me (and the way I've been doing it for about 20 years) is to connect the old format camcorders (or tape players) using a standard video RCA plug to my Sony DV camera with i-Link (Sony version of Firewire) and by using pass through mode, connect it to my Mac (an old Mac Pro Xeon with 8 core now) using a Firewire cable. No problem what so ever with any versions of iMovie (that I can run) seeing the Firewire connection and allowing me import and digitized those home movies, on to a DVD and/or QT movie file).As for my older Firewire HD enclosures, I'm pretty sure they all also have USB. But I can always remove the HD and install it in a USB enclosure.As for my 1st generation iPod. If I'm only going to use it for nostalgic reasons, I might as well go all out nostalgic and fire up my old Apple G3 Pismo PowerBook. Which still have one of my older iTunes library and of course Firewire. All my batteries are dead but still boots up fine to OSX Jaguar, with the "Yo-Yo" AC power supply.Can't remember the last time I used Target Mode. But remember it did come in handy on more than a couple of occasions.
-
Apple faces iCloud lawsuit after after judge reverses victory
Rogue01 said:Apple does ‘coerce’ the user to use iCloud backup by defaulting the feature to ‘on’ and only giving a measly 5GB storage which is not enough space, so iOS constantly prompts the user to buy iCloud. Many people do fall for it. Apple did that on purpose.But the lawsuit falsely alleges that people are ‘forced’ to buy it. That’s not true. It can be turned off and the device plugged into your computer which does a full backup, but many don’t know that. I refuse to buy Apple’s iCloud storage.That's not quite right. iCloud might be turn on by default because every Apple account have 5GB of iCloud storage but there are more uses for iCloud storage than just for "back up". And it can be turned off if one don't want tp use iCloud storage. But "back up" to iCloud is not on by default. One has to go to the iPhone settings menu and perform a "backup" or schedule one for a later time. When in the "back up" menu, there is no default storage, iCloud is the only choice when using Apple "back up" software. It's called iCloud back up for a reason.If you using an Android phone and do a backup using the phone menu Google Back up software, are you given a choice to use Amazon Cloud? Or Microsoft OneDrive?When you download the Google Drive app for iPhones, to perform back ups on to Google Drive, do Google give you a choice to use iCloud? Google did that on purpose.If Apple device users want to use another cloud storage service, then it's just as easy to click on that cloud service app and perform a back up, as it is to click on the Apple settings menu to perform the iCloud back up. About the only advantages of Apple users using iCloud (besides making it ridiculously easy to sync all their Apple devices) are that since all Apple account holders already have some sort of payment method on file, Apple users don't have to give their credit info to a third party if they need to pay for more cloud storage and there's less likely the chance of having their data mined. For many, that's worth the extra cost of iCloud storage. Don't think for a second that Google giving away more cloud storage is a bargain, when compared to Apple 5GB of free iCloud storage. For Google, your data is worth way more than your money.
