davidw

melgross said:

retrogusto said:

In her early years, she was consistently among the most unreasonably bearish regarding Apple, and Gene Munster, who was at Piper Jaffray at the time, was probably the most bullish. Then at a certain point (quite a while ago) after numerous embarrassing quarters she must have realized that she was grossly underestimating Apple, and she’s been pretty consistently bullish ever since, which has been a much more successful strategy. I tried to dig up some of her old comments, but couldn’t really find them, just an old Andy Zaky column bemoaning her pessimism.

I like Katy a lot. but I have to truthfully say that it was in 2004 that Gene got me to significantly increase my Apple holdings, which I've kept ever since.

It was Jobs return to Apple in 1998, that got me invested in AAPL. Didn't need any analyst to tell me it was time to take the gamble. But if you were to follow Morgan Stanley (not sure if Katy was the analyst back then) future outlook for AAPL, you probably would not had invested in AAPL. I seem to remember for the longest time, that Morgan Stanley nearly always had the lowest predicted future outlook share price for AAPL. And often, it was below AAPL current share price. Say that AAPL was at $75 and other analysts was predicting AAPL will be anywhere from $85 to $95 one year out, Morgan Stanley would predict AAPL would be at $70. And it wouldn't be until AAPL hit $90, that Morgan Stanley would raise their one year outlook prediction to $85. But I don't recall Morgan Stanley ever having a sell rating for AAPL.

I think that it wasn't until Cook became CEO and Apple began paying share holders a dividend and instituted their share buy back program, that Morgan Stanley started being more in line with other analyst. And of course Apple hitting the $1T mark in 2018 and then the $2T mark just two years later, might had played a role in Morgan Stanley bearish one year outlook turn around.  

But I don't recall Morgan Stanley being more bearish or even bearish at all, when it came to quarterly earnings. They might not had ever predicted any blow out quarterly earnings but also didn't predict any misses. But back in those days, if you didn't predict a blow out quarterly earning from Apple, you were bearish. It was their one year outlook back then, that always seem clearly bearish. And that's one of the numbers investors look at when deciding whether to invest in a stock. Traders are the ones that look at quarterly earning predictions. 

There is no Apple "monopoly". Under the Sherman Act, iOS can not be consider a "relevant market" on which a monopoly is determined. The "relevant market" can not be (or very rarely can be) narrowed down to a single brand.  The "relevant market" in this case would be "mobile devices" or at the least ... "mobile OS". And Apple Pay is not a monopoly  in either of those markets. Apple would have a monopoly with Apple Pay only if the iPhone had a monopoly in the mobile device market or iOS is a monopoly in the mobile OS market.   

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=84446bf5-7cd3-4d98-8c43-e1000c2a7823

Microsoft have a monopoly with Windows OS because MS Windows is on 80% of the World's desktop computers. Not because Microsoft have 100% of the Windows OS market.

Just because one can only buy a Whopper at a BK, that doesn't mean BK, under the Sherman Act, have a monopoly with the Whopper. The "relevant market" would include all fast food burgers and not just the Whopper.  And BK is under no obligation to allow McDonalds to sell Big Macs in their BK diners, to compete with their Whoppers.     

argos.panoptis said:

Not to belabor the obvious, but Linux anybody?  My 2013 15" MBpro still runs MacOS, and quite well actually, if I leave it 2 generations back.  Despite this, if you want something absolutely modern, linux is a perfectly viable, inexpensive solution, available in dozens of flavors and usage/support cases.  any MacBook Pro or iMac would literally blaze with Linux, and mine is no different.

Perfectly viable, light, modern.  Childishly easy to install in most cases, with great community support, and covers all intel Macs and maybe even an eMac or two (lubuntu powerpc edition should cover it, it works on my G3).  Even if you're not particularly technically oriented (and enterprise actually has IT staff for support), keep a backup of your data, and on the rare occasion something goes wrong, just re-install.  You know, like everybody with Windows does, even when they know how to fix it - it's just faster.

Why anybody would use ChromeOS is a complete mystery to me.  It's garbage spyware.  Oh, and it's based on Linux, so if you're thinking of installing it, then you're already doing what I'm suggesting.

Linux in 2022 is a far cry from what it was in 2010.

How about a patch from DosDude1 or Open Source Legacy Patch (OSLP)?

http://dosdude1.com/software.html

https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/START.html#how-do-i-get-started

Patched a friend 2009  white MacBook, whose last OS supported was El Capitan, to run High Sierra, Mojave and then Catalina with DosDude1 patch, so he can use TurboTax. A friend of his buys the CD with 5 users every year and only needs 3, so he gets it for free. But TurboTax began requiring a newer MacOS version every year starting with High Sierra in 2018. So I installed the DosDude1 patch on to a bootable external every year and it works just fine for his TT needs. Any graphics intensive program bogs down as there's no GPU acceleration on older white MacBooks and only 6GB RAM max on his 2009. He really only uses the MacBook for e-mail and word processing stuff and El Capitan does the job. This so he doesn't have to type long messages or fill out forms on his iPad. (Plus it connects to an old B/W laser printer.)

Now I patched it to MacOS Monterey using OSLP (2022 TT now requires a least Big Sur) and am impress. OSLP has some sort of software graphic acceleration and runs much better than the DosDude1 Catalina patch. Plus running the latest Safari browser isn't all the bad. So long as he's not trying to watch any HD video on YouTube.  

I got a 2010 (white unibody) MacBook running OSLP MacOS Monterey and it's much faster (than the 2009) because I installed an SSD, 8GB RAM and it has a better GPU. Being able to get on the internet with the latest most secure Safari is the main reason for the patch. Over 85% of what I need a laptop for is for using the internet. Can't testify how well it will run newest software and most my old software won't run on MacOS Monterey anyway. Might spend the extra $40 to max out RAM to 16GB (2 8GB stick) . It's a 12 year old, last of the Intel C2D, white MacBook, running the latest MacOS Monterey, better than any older PC laptop running Windows 10 Home. So far, everyone of my friends with an 8 year (or so) old PC laptop that came  Windows 8, regretted upgrading to Windows 10 (for free) as it rendered their laptop almost useless. And that's with Microsoft saying their old PC laptop supported Windows 10.  

I also have my 2013 MacBook Air (11inch 4GB) running Monterey using OSLP with no issue what so ever. But that's not unexpected as its last MacOS was Big Sur. I read that Monterey is a much better OS than Big Sur. But went from Catalina to Monterey so I can't say for sure.        

The patches takes about 45 minutes to an hour. But so far, never had a problem. Just be fully prepare ahead of time, install on to a blank drive, followed the instructions and be patient as at times, it will seem like the process froze but will continue after what seems like a forever wait. 

spheric said:

blastdoor said:

I wonder if Lockdown mode is an example of how apple will respond. That is — use enhanced security/privacy modes to allow users to turn all that EU spyware off

What EU spyware? 

Which article have you been reading? Because it certainly hasn't been this one.

Edit: or are you talking about the photo analysis to catch child porn? Apple built that to comply with a UNITED STATES law. 

There is no UNITED STATES law that requires Apple or any other entity that stores or transfers consumers data on their internet cloud servers, to scan for CSAM. NO US LAW WHAT SO EVER. The only US law is that any entity storing or transferring consumers data must report any CSAM material, if they know about it or are informed about it.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10713

>Currently, nothing in federal law requires providers to monitor their services or content for CSAM in the first instance. Under the law, although providers must report CSAM to NCMEC, which must then make the reports available to law enforcement, providers are not obligated to “affirmatively search, screen, or scan for” these violations.<

In the US, thanks to our US Constitution, it would be very difficult if not impossible, for the Feds to pass any laws that requires an entity to search its customers data for illegal material or activity, without probable or reasonable cause. It's not a matter of 1st Amendment right to free speech but 4th Amendment right to privacy and from unreasonable search without a warrant.  

I believe this is also currently true in the EU ( not that the EU must abide by the US Constitution) because the EU tend to care more about the protection of its citizens privacy. But that might be changing soon. It seems the EU might only care more about its citizens privacy from other third party entities and not from the government itself.

https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-privacy/proposed-eu-law-requiring-csam-scanning-could-put-an-end-to-encrypted-messages/

>The European Commission is considering a new child sexual abuse material (CSAM) law that could undermine all encrypted messages if enacted. If it were to become EU law, the proposal would require that all messaging services scan all of their messages for potential CSAM materials, something that would either require a removal of end-to-end encryption or the insertion of backdoors.< 

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.

Take away the OS and the hardware and 3rd party development won't exist. There's no chicken/egg dynamic for iOS/iPhone. Apple had to put the R&D into iOS and the iPhone first. If Apple had screwed up the execution of either of those then customers and developers would have looked elsewhere. The original iPhone was a radical product relative to the rest of the market at the time. It was closer to desktop/laptop functionality than what developers were accustomed to with smartphones. Obviously there would have been very few developers anticipating that type of product at all in 2007.

But none of that changes what I said. 

No matter how good the hardware/OS, if third party apps aren't there, the phone won't be successful. Apple isn't going to serve up a first party app to handle everyone's banking needs. No bank would allow it. 

Take the hardware away and people will migrate to the web/G network. Most people's daily key apps are web/G dependent anyway. As 5G IoT becomes ubiquitous and 'distributed' systems become more widespread, the role of the 'phone' will be lessened. 

Actual on device tasks are probably better suited to laptops/tablets anyway. 

Where do you really want to edit that video you just recorded?

Or on your AR/VR/XR glasses? Now there's a thought!

Ditto reading and replying to social media and the like. I can imagine plenty of situations where having the equivalent of a large screen projected before my eyes would be preferable to squinting at a phone screen. 

Quit making it sound as though developers are developing apps for iOS and Android out of the goodness of their hearts, just to see that Google and Apple are successful. It's making you sound silly.  More consumers are using smartphones than computers. There are many more consumers that don't own a computer than don't own a smartphone. And many more that have not bought a new computer in years. There are many more consumers that will stop using their computers because they can edit their videos on the smartphone, than there ever be smartphone users that will get rid of their smartphones because they don't want to edit their videos on a small screen. Twice as many consumers are surfing the internet on their smartphone than a computer. Remember people saying Google (with their search engine), have nothing to worry about because ..... who wants to surf the internet on a small screen? Well, it's a good thing Google didn't listen to those people and invested heavy on mobile search. Developing for smartphones is where the money is now, in the resent past and in the future. Developers are not going to abandon developing for smartphones. There's a reason by PC sale (including laptops) are declining. Though there have been a resent increase due to more people working from home. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/11/pandemic-boom-in-pc-sales-is-over.html

Developers are developing for the apps stores because they want to make money. It's a capitalism at work. The bottom line is that developers would not be developing for iOS or Android, if they did not some how benefit from it. Not even the developers of free apps. Developers are not stupid. They are not a charity organizations.  

Apple don't need to provide the likes of banking apps to their customers, it's the banks that will want to provide banking apps to their customers. And banks are not developers making money with their apps. They are in it for their customers satisfaction and must compete with other banks that do provide banking apps. Banks with banking apps are more likely to attract accounts. So banks will hire developers to develop their banking apps. Apple sees these apps as a benefit for their customers and have no problem not charging the banks for hosting their free apps.

And since the likes of banks will also provide their Android users the same free apps, their apps do not make the iPhone any more attractive to consumers, than an Android phone with the same apps. And this is true for nearly all third party apps that are available on both platforms. Why is the iPhone widely more popular and successful than most other Android phones, when both of them practically have the same third party apps, if third party apps are what makes the iPhone a success? If Apple wants to make their hardware more attractive to buyers, they need to develop their own first party apps and services. Apps and services that are not available on Android. Apple Music is one of them. So is the Apple Watch. iMessage another. For free, Pages, Numbers and Keynotes (iWorks), Photos, are others. It's nothing but capitalism and competition at work.  Apple having an app store with practically the same third party apps as on the Google Play Store on Android, offers Apple zero advantage of their hardware being more successful that Android devices.  Apple don't have to worry about providing a free Facebook app to their iDevice customers, Facebook would be stupid to not provide a free app to their social network customers, on any platform. So would all the other social network platforms. 

When the app store first appeared, developers saw an opportunity to keep 70% of the sales vs the 20% from selling their software through retail channels. Ask any old time software developers here about how much it cost to sell their software through stores like CompUSA, BestBuy, Walmart, Target, Fry's, etc.. They would consider themselves lucky if they got to keep just 20% of the sale price of their software. 

When the app stores came along, they eliminated 2 middlemen for the smaller developers. The publisher and the distributer. Thus developers got to keep 70%, instead of 20%. So getting to keep 70% was seen as more than "fair" by all the developers that flocked to the app stores.  What's even more "fair" was that they got to set the price of their apps and they only had to pay a commission based on actual sales. There was no left over inventory to get rid of. Unlike having to pay a publisher and distributor, even if you ended up selling nothing. Developers also got easy access to customers from all over the World. There is nothing "unfair" about app stores platform owners charging developers a 15/30% commission. Except for the greed of developers like Epic and Spotify.

The original iPhone sold 6M in the first year at $499 or $599, unsubsidized and with a 2 year cellular contract from ATT.  At the time, one could have gotten a high end Nokia, Samsung or Motorola for $99, subsidized, with a 2 year plan. Ballmer had every right to be skeptical about the iPhone success. Developers did not make the first iPhone a success. The first iPhone did not include an app store and it was still highly successful by all account. And the second iPhone sold over a 1M in the first weekend, even though there was only about 700 apps in the app store at the time. Apple biggest gain in iPhone sales didn't happen because of developers. It happened when carriers began subsidizing the iPhone at $200, (with a 2 year contract). That increase of sales drove more developers to develop for the iPhone. 

Apple and Google created an ecosystem that greatly benefited themselves, their customers and developers, from the start. Neither Apple or Google are forcing developers to develop for their platforms. They are developing on their own free will, driven by the opportunity to make a lot more money, than from selling software through retail channels. If the developer did not benefit at all from their apps being in the app stores, they would be the first to leave and neither Apple or Google will or can, stop them.

Apple and Google had no problem what so ever with kicking Epic Fornite out of their app stores, even though Apple 30% commission generated for Apple,  over $100M in a year. Epic was making over $25M a month from just Fortnite on iOS. Until Sweeney gave all that up just to show the World how greedy some developers can be. Who would have thunk that Epic could make so much money from gamers that wanted to play games on a small screen. Yet, just 7% of Fortnite players playing on iOS, generated over $1B for Epic in about a year. So don't underestimate how much developers can make from just a small percentage of their customers using smartphones. Just 5% of smartphone users amount to over 30M customers. 

You need to educate yourself on what it was like to be a developer for phones, before Apple introduced the iPhone and a year later, the Apple App Store, before claiming how unfair it was for Apple to charge a 30% commission to developers for developing for iPhones and how lucky Apple was to have them develop for iPhones anyway. Plus developers could not develop for iPhones without Apple developing and offering at a very reasonable cost, the SDK that allowed them to do so. 

https://www.larvalabs.com/blog/2017-10-24-15-1/app-development-before-the-iphone

and while you're at it, educate yourself on what it was like for developers to have to sell software through retail channels, before app stores. 

https://successfulsoftware.net/2008/04/21/selling-your-software-in-retail-stores-all-that-glitters-is-not-gold/

The app ecosystem that consist of platform owners, consumers and developers, is not a case of a"parasitic" ecosystem but a case of "mutualism". Everyone in the ecosystem are benefitting and wants to see all the others benefitting. Well, everyone except you and the EU. Both you and the EU seems to think the platform owners are parasites that are taking advantage of the consumers and developers. One of these days, the platform owners are going to go home and take their ball with them. Leaving the consumers and developers standing around playing patty-cakes with each other.