Last Active
  • Wedbush raises Apple stock target to $190 on rising demand

    JP234 said:
    $190 price target for Apple Inc. Same as Morgan Stanley.
    What is never mentioned is "over what time period?" If it's over a week, that's dramatically different than over a year. Or is $190 a point at which Apple stock is fully valued and has no room to go higher and should be sold? If I'd followed that advice, over the last 10 years I'd have lost over $100,000 by selling when Apple hit previous price targets.

    Buy it. Hold it. Put your kids through college.
    Indeed. The one and only great bet my wife and I made in the investment game was purchasing a ton of APPL within a month of SJ’s return to Apple in 1997. Have held it ever since, and we put two kids debt-free through 4 years of college. It was particularly nice when the stock split 7-to-1 in 2014 when it hit $700/share, and later a 4-to-1 split in 2020. Now we have a ton of shares. Will be very nice if it ever hits $190/share, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Anyway, thanks Apple!
    Also purchased AAPL in 1998 when Jobs return (and some more again in 2003). We also enjoyed  2-1 splits in 2000 and 2005. But don't forget to mention the dividend AAPL started paying in 2012 (when Cook took over as CEO). It wasn't a lot percentage wise, but when you have a lot of shares, it adds up.

    For the past 10 years of my retirement (retired in 2010) my income from my pension plus AAPL dividend comes to more than my salary at the time I retired. And since I'm paying the lower 15% tax rate on qualify dividend (on my Fed return), my after tax income is significantly more now, than when I first retired. Though CA taxes long term capital gains and dividend as regular income, no tax break there. But at least my AAPL shares have allowed me to afford to stay in CA. Several of my retired  friends had to move out of CA (or already had plans to move out of CA when they retire), in order to afford a more comfortable retirement. (Most of them took advantage of the $500,000 ($250,000 for single) of tax free capital gains by selling their home, buying a much cheaper and better home in another State and still ended up with all or most of that $500,000 in their retirement accounts.) 

    To put it in perspective, one share of AAPL at $20 in 1998 is now worth 112 shares of AAPL at $153 (over $17,000), plus 10 years of dividend. 
  • New EU rules would force Apple to open up iMessage

    spheric said:
    gatorguy said:
    -Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly".
    -If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone?
    -Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules?
    -And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try? 
    The simplest thing to do would be to ship EU phones without Messages installed, and make it available for download in the app store.

    The EU/EC are waaayyyy too full of themselves, and the best thing to do is to ship crippled phones to EU customers and let EU customers know it's EU rules and regulations causing it.

    The EU has already crippled their native industries, and outside of a couple of infrastructure companies there are no big tech companies left within their jurisdiction.

    The fact that the EU thinks it's appropriate to go after revenues made outside of the EU just shows how fatheaded they've become.
    The point of fines is that they’re supposed to hurt. 

    Even with fat headed global megacorps who figure they don’t need to follow laws because they can afford the cash to violate them. 

    The US courts generally seem to agree, btw. Look up this famous case for an inkling of how silly you sound: 

    No, your link shows the the US court disagree. The $2.7M was for punitive damages awarded by a jury, not the government. And the courts lowered the jury $2.7M award for punitive damages by about 80%, to $480K. The $2.7M award was based on 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales and not McDonalds total annual revenue. 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales only amounted to .54% of McDonalds annual coffee sales revenue. It's a rounding error compared to McDonalds total annual revenue. But the US courts still saw fit to lower the jury $2.7 award by 80%. The final award is confidential, after the plaintiff and McDonalds agreed to an out of court settlement, upon appeal.

    Here in the US, we have the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution which states ....

    >Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. < 

    This prevent the government from levying excessive fines for the violation of any laws. The fines must be in proportion to the harm done. Not some random amount arrived by using a percentage of the violators wealth. A wealthy person violating a law don't do any more harm than a poor person violating the same law. That would be like writing a $50 parking ticket for a ten old Honda and a $500 parking ticket for a 2022 Mercedes, for the same parking violation.  

    However, a jury can award punitive damages that might be considered excessive. Punitive damages awarded by a jury in not a government fine. But the government can still step in and reduce that punitive damage award, if they think the amount of the award is excessive and violates the 8th Amendment concerning excessive fines. As they did in the Lieback vs McDonalds case. 

  • New EU rules would force Apple to open up iMessage

    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    lewk said:
    What's pretty screwy about this is that they evidently haven't bothered to talk to their security people.  A lot of government agencies in the US and I suspect in Europe as well, use iMessage because it is encrypted end to end, and considerably more secure than SMS.  I know that I read that the US Armed Forces were using iPhones and iPads as well as Macs more and more due to the better security.

    I suspect that Apple would lose some sales if they simply said they wouldn't support this and stopped selling iPhones in the EU, but I bet people would find still find a way to buy them there - black market, mail order, or having a friend pick one up while on vacation in the USA.

    If you've read about what is coming out in Great Britain about the use of WhatsApp by government officials it is quite an eye-opener.  I'd be amazed if the same sort of thing wasn't happening in the EU.  (They literally laughed at you)
    Research iMessage and the Ghost Proposal.  

    Of course it's more secure than SMS, but that raises the point of why Apple won't swap over to RCS which can be secured in the same manner as iMessage when that service is unavailable but insists on maintaining the insecure SMS which does Apple users no favor when communicating outside of Apple services. The reason they have not done so benefits only Apple's revenues, and works against improved inter-device security for Apple users.  

    When Apple's hand is forced, which I believe will happen, I posit it will be RCS and not SMS that is used for the interoperability, which will allow for secure E2EE messaging between Android/Apple/other users. That's the smart play. 
    There's already a very popular messaging service the will allow for secure messaging between Android/Apple/other users and it's WhatsApps. It's been around for awhile now and by far the most popular messaging app Worldwide (But only about maybe 25% in the US). So there is no need to force the RCS protocol on everyone or anyone.

    Here's the thing, in order to get E2EE with RCS (for now), both the sender and receiver must be using Google Messages as their RCS client. Google Messages is not available on iOS. (But that can change). Google Messages is Google attempt of iMessage for Android. E2EE is not a standard feature of RCS. Every carrier must use their own encryption and it's only E2EE when messaging to someone using the same carrier. But E2EE is available if using Google version of RCS with Google Messages, so long as the messages goes through Google servers.

    The reason why iMessage defaults to SMS is because an SMS client is installed on every cell phone by the carriers. (Even iPhones use iMessage as an SMS client.) There is no need for the user to install any special app in order to receive SMS. RCS is not being used by every mobile carrier. It's more common in Europe. And because texting is no longer a big money maker for carriers, they are reluctant to invest in it. 

    So Google comes along and offer to host their RCS messages on Google servers, at no cost to the carrier, if the carrier uses Google Messages as their default SMS client. Which Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile have agreed to do. But AFAIK, none of them are going to remove their SMS client and use only RCS for messaging. Not so long as many businesses (including spam) still uses SMS as SMS is all they need. So there's now E2EE between users of Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and other carriers that chooses to use Google Messages as their RCS client. But not every carrier is using Google Messages as their RCS client or using RCS at all.

    And there's no way to have E2EE from iMessage to RCS. 


    I'm sorry, but Whatsapp is just a terrible app. 

    As far as E2EE through RCS, technically E2EE can be enabled for iMessage to RCS messages literally if Apple just worked with Google to make it work. It's not that hard to just work on making RCS work properly between iPhones and Androids, and once Google opens up the RCS APIs, then Google Messages won't be one of the only apps that's needed for RCS (Samsung Messages actually works as well for Samsung devices) 

    At the end of the day, while there's no need to force RCS, there's also no reason to NOT go and try replacing SMS. SMS is outdated already. These other messaging apps only work because people HAVE to use other apps to text others with a good experience. But when you start having people split into all kinds of apps, some on WhatsApp, some on Signal, others using even FB Messenger. It's becoming ridiculous. I shouldn't need to install another app just to talk to people and still be able to send good quality images just because businesses like Apple don't want to adopt better protocols that will only improve the standard default texting experience. 
    I don't know what people are thinking when they think that just because WhatApp is a "terrible" messaging app, that some how Google Messages will be any better?

    Here's a link to the long history (15 years) of Google attempts at messaging. The pertinent part is in 2019. When Google adopted RCS. (It's on page 7 of this very long history of Google's failures in developing a messaging app that Android users actually want to use.) But the whole article is a very interesting read, if you have the time. 


    About the only thing one can say about Google RCS, is that it's better than SMS. That alone don't make Google Messages any better than WhatsApp or any other messaging apps. 

    If one had to choose who is worse when it comes to protecting the privacy of your personal data ...... Google or Facebook? ...... It's going to be a coin flip for many.  
    OK, this is becoming a recent habit I hadn't noticed from you before. Vaguely worded implications or red-herring replies are not what I typically expect when I read your posts.  

    The OP was arguing for Apple's adoption of RCS. You respond by pointing to a history of Google's messaging apps?? How is that related to the far better security RCS brings to the table?

    You then imply in so many words that Google Messages is not as secure as iMessage, and that Google is managing to access those communications to use the private and personal data they contain for profit. Are you claiming that as fact?

    As far as you can tell from researching, is Google's implementation of RCS in Messages as secure and private between that service's users as Apple's iMessage is for theirs?  

    I'd ask you why Apple should not be working to make communications far more secure and private for ALL users by adopting RCS over the privacy leaking SMS. They don't have to open up iMessage to the masses to do so, and working with Google to help make it so would not be a first for them, they work with Google on many other things (AV1, Thread, etc.) Seriously, do you have anything besides lock-in making Apple more money? Yes, that's a reason, but hardly a user-friendly one. 
    Because safety as an issue with SMS is a red-herring created by Google and its history of messaging service shows that safety is not the main reason they are so adamant about Apple not supporting RCS. (And most don't buy the "green bubble" theory either.) Google main concern is trying to figure out how to get  Google Messages to be the default messaging service that more Android users will turns to for all their messaging needs.   

    If SMS is such a safety issue, then why do Google Messages still support SMS? Shouldn't Google show by example and stop supporting SMS on their own messaging service?  They will not because they also know that SMS is still popular with businesses and people that don't need any more than SMS to send a simple text. SMS is still the only service protocol that can send a text to every one with a cell phone, including iPhones. Google real issue is that Google Messages is not as popular as they would like it to be on Android. Even though (by now) it's available on every Android phone, most Android users are either using some other messaging services that are better than Google Messages or just staying with the carrier SMS client (if SMS is all they need.). Much like how iMessage is on every iPhone but not every iPhone users need iMessage for much more than SMS texting. If there were, then iMessage would be much more popular in the US (not just with teens). 50% of mobiles users in the US, uses an iPhone. Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are the most popular messaging services in the US. But that can change if the carriers makes Google Messages their default RCS client. Which is why Google Messages must still support SMS. SMS is never going to go away unless the carriers stop supporting it. And there are probably way more Android users not using Google Messages to receive (and send) RCS messages, than there are iOS users. 

    For most mobile users, safety is not the main issue with SMS, it's the lack of features. SMS do not have all the features of most (probably all) other messaging services. But for businesses that only need to send a simple text, it's still the best messaging service. Do doctors really need to be able to use half a dozen messaging services to send their patients a reminder of an appointment? How about retails informing their customers that their curbside pick up is ready? Or DoorDash informing your order been delivered. Do pizza take-outs really need to ask you what messaging service you're using, so they can text you when your order is ready? Do any of these type of messages need to have E2EE?  Or be able to send a photo? Or need more that 160 characters. These type of short text messages are still very common.

    Apple iMessage is not what's stopping RCS from becoming the standard messaging protocol, it's the mobile carriers. As long as they have customers that just need a simple text messaging service and businesses that might still be paying for it, they will stick with SMS as their standard. They already had over 12 years to convert over to RCS and they still see no reason why they should invest money in competing with better messaging services that are free.

    If Apple users want to text securely with Android users, they can use Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, SnapChat, WeChat, Signal, etc.. Apple have no problem with that. That's what most iPhone users around the World do. But Google would rather Apple users use RCS with Google Messages. (ironic how RCS can only be received on Android using Google Messages and I think on some Samsung phones through a special deal with Google.) Having iMessage default to the carrier RCS on Android is a big step toward making Google Messages a more popular messaging service as more and more carriers (by Google urging) are using Google version of RCS that must use Google Messages as the default RCS client. But that will only happen if the carriers stop using SMS as the standard text messaging protocol. Which is still unlikely and why both iMessage and Google Messages still support SMS. 

    Don't take offense to the link I provided. It was the first link that provided a good write up of Google attempt of getting RCS as the standard on Android. I only got page 7 first, the RCS part and didn't know it was 8 pages long until I got to the bottom of the page. 

    Here are two, much more neutral article, that is much shorter and just as informative. I know your not going to be too happy with these write ups was well, as it also puts Google in a bad light. But at least it also puts Apple some what in a bad. But I don't take offense to that. 

  • President Biden upholds potential Apple Watch ban

    AppleZulu said:
    The spin on this report is making me dizzy. 

    The actual facts of the case appear to be this:

    AliveCor held patents in the area of ECG reader tech. Apple built ECG tech into the Apple Watch. AliveCor claims Apple has violated its patents, and took two parallel actions. They 1) filed a patent infringement suit against Apple, and 2) asked the International Trade Commission to ban US imports of Apple Watch if  AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases. 

    Three things have resulted so far. 1) The courts invalidated AliveCor’s patents. 2) The ITC approved the import ban that would go into effect if AliveCor wins its infringement cases. 3) The President did not exercise his option to overrule the FTC. 

    This is not the same thing as suggested by this headline and article, that Joe Biden somehow sided with AliveCor to “uphold” a ban. 

    This whole thing is moot unless AliveCor turns everything around and wins the infringement case on appeal, which is unlikely. So why, other than cynical click bait, run a headline that makes it sound like Joe Biden is personally going to take your Apple Watch away?

    Not quite. Not that it matters, except for getting the detail of the facts right.

    AliveCor did not .... "asked the International Trade Commission to ban US imports of Apple Watch if  AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases." It was the ITC that decided not to enforce any ban on the US imports of Apple Watch unless AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases. The ITC has the power to ban Apple Watch imports before the outcome of the trial but AliveCor would have to post a bond to cover Apple losses during the ban, in case AliveCor don't win their infringement case against Apple. AliveCor would never be able to afford to post such a bond. But you never know if some scumbag like Sweeney (CEO of Epic Games) might post the bond for AliveCor.

    And it was not the courts that invalidated AliveCor patents, it was the US Patent Office own patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found the patents invalid. This makes it a lot harder, if not near impossible, for Alivecor to have their patents made valid again, on appeal. They are arguing their appeal case to the PTAB patent judges, not to a judge in a court of law. The courts must abide by the PTAB rulings and have no power to overturn any PTAB rulings on patents.

    But you're right about the headline. It makes it seem as though there's a "potential" that the ITC will ban Apple Watch imports, when in reality at this point, there's almost no chances at all.

    It's a win-win for POTUS Biden to say that he would not veto the ITC "potential" ban on Apple Watch as this shows his progressive supporters that he is not on the side of big tech but he also knows that the outcome of the ITC case is almost certain to be in Apple's favor anyway. Thus no harm done. If there was a real "potential" that the ITC could ban Apple Watches, he would surely had waited until the ITC made such a ban, to decide on any veto. He still have the power to veto a ban, even after the ITC makes the decision to ban Apple Watches.


  • DOJ escalates antitrust probe into Apple's alleged anticompetitive practices

    lkrupp said:
    rob53 said:
    Apple doesn’t make the most phones so how can it be anticompetitive when there’s other choices? 
    Yeah, they’re always being accused of being a monopoly as if people have no choice but to buy Apple products. The argument that Apple operates a monopoly on its own platform is about as screwball as it gets. If you don’t like Apple’s business practices buy a PC and an Android phone, right? Apple neither dominates nor controls ANY market that I can see. The old AT&T was a real monopoly. If you wanted telephone service you got it from Ma Bell, period, no other choice.

    But ATT was granted their "monopoly" by the government. The government wanted to ensure that every one had a telephone that could not only be used be to call anyone else in the US, but was also affordable for everyone and easy to use. Plus municipalities did not want a dozen phone companies telephone lines and poles all over their cities. There had to be only one standard and ATT was the standard the government chose. The best telecommunication service the consumers ever had (before wireless) was when ATT was a "monopoly". ATT was government regulated and served the government goal.

    It wasn't until big companies like MCI and Sprint complaining about ATT "monopoly", that the government and ATT agreed to break up ATT into 7 Baby Bells. Which ironically, were each granted a government "monopoly" for local telephone services in the region they served. That's why local telephone services were still government regulated. Your local phone service still had to get approval by some government agency, in order to raise prices. Telephone service was still considered a public utility, like electricity, gas and water.  And ATT still had their "monopoly" with long distance calls.

    By the time ATT was broken up, consumers were already allowed to install telephones that were not made by Western Electriic (part of ATT monopoly). The average consumers weren't complaining about ATT "monopoly". And who gained the most from the break-up were big businesses that made a lot of long distance calls. MCI and Sprint (along with ATT) were able to compete for their telephone service needs and this brought the cost down. Because the government still let ATT keep all their long distance infrastructure, which they had to let competitors like MCI and Sprint have access to, (but were allow to charge for that access). ATT was still had a "monopoly" with the very profitable long distance services.  And after shedding their not so profitable local services, the cost of long distance calls got lower, while locals calls got more expensive. This was because ATT  "monopoly" was subsidizing the cost of local calls with the profits from long distance calls. The local Baby Bells had no such advantage, so they had to raise prices. 

    ATT "monopoly" was no where near like the "real" monopoly Standard Oil was or Microsoft still is, at the time of their anti-trust cases. And the reason why consumers didn't have a choice of telephone services, except for MaBell, was because the government granted ATT a "monopoly". 

    Here's a good summation of the history of ATT and its eventual break-up.