davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,775
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,204
Reactions
-
Raise in Apple's dividend and $35B share buyback program extension predicted
You must be one shrew investor, since Apple has only been paying a regular dividend since Aug. of 2012. That's just about 7 years ago. I wish I could have collected 15 years of AAPL dividend since then.MacPro said:AAPL the gift that keeps giving. We've had all the dividends automatically buy more AAPL for the last 15 years.
Kidding aside, I choose to get the cash. Since it's taxable either way and my portfolio is already too heavily weighed by AAPL. I do not need to add any more shares of AAPL. Now if they didn't tax dividend used to buy more shares, I would jump at that in an instant.
-
Google charging Android device makers up to $40 per phone to install apps
When one think about it, it's a round-a-bout way for Google to charge a licensing fee, based on the cost of the phone. Phones with higher PPI cost more, thus are charged more for the same license that will cost less for lower priced phones, with lower PPI screens. If a vendor wants to lower the licensing fee by installing a lower PPI screen, then they have to lower the cost of the phone as buyers won't be willing to pay as much for it, as a phone that comes with a better screen.ericthehalfbee said:Charging based on the PPI of the screen? That has to be the most bizarre fee structure I've ever seen.
-
Forensics firm urges police not to look at screens of iPhones with Face ID
Evanston212 said:these arbitrary decisions such as 5th amendment protecting your face but not your deadbolt key need to be decided. People's rights shouldn't be decided on a whim or case by case basis. Rules should be more defined. We can hold your house keys against you but not your actual face, but maybe a good picture of your face we can use or we'll 3D print a composite of your face from the pic and use that...The 5th Amendment do not protect your face or your fingerprint. They are treated the same as the key to your deadbolt. The government, with a search warrant, can get the key to your deadbolt from your landlord or hire a locksmith. Just as they can take a mug shot of your face or get your fingerprint when charged with a crime and booked.However, unlike having the key to a deadbolt, which anyone can use to unlock your door and there's no need to force you to do it, having a picture of your face or an ink copy of your fingerprint will not unlock your iPhone. The real question is, can you be forced to unlock your own phone, knowing that what's in it will incriminate you in a crime. Where as the government don't need you to unlock your deadbolt once they have the key, they still need you to unlock your phone, by placing the your correct finger/thumb on the sensor or looking into your phone with the right facial expression.So far, it seems with several court rulings, that what ever is required to unlock your phone, be it your fingerprint, face or pass code, is not protected by the 5th, as it is not considered self incrimination to unlock your phone, even if you know that there is evidence in your phone, that may be used against you. And not doing so can get you tossed in jail on a contempt of court charge.However, with a pass code, the government can not force you reveal your pass code, if you simply tell them ... "I forgot". The government can still initially toss you in jail for not unlocking your phone but eventually they have to ask ....... what if you actually did forget your pass code? How can they prove that you didn't forget? It is not impossible nor improbable, that someone might forget their pass code.Now if you clearly tell the courts that you know your pass code but you're not going to unlock your phone, then theoretically, the courts can toss you in jail for contempt, until you unlock your phone or until they found some other way to get the information from it and they no longer need the pass code from you.
-
Apple records first-ever accident in self-driving car program [u]
nunzy said:You don't merge at 1 MPH. You merge at the speed of the traffic you are joining.Unless you are an old lady who never has merged before. Then you cause accidents.Well, it would also depend on the car you're driving. For sure I couldn't safely begin a merge into traffic, at 1MPH, with my mini van. It would take me 4 to 5 secs just to get up to 45MPH, providing its level. But if I was driving a Tesla Roadster and merging at 1MPH, I could be doing 45MPH in 1 sec and 60MPH in less than 2 sec. I would have to be careful not to rear end the car in front of me, once I have a gap to merge.Not sure if its like this now, but back in the 90's, went to Oklahoma City, OK, several times for on work related business. Over there, they have a Stop sign right before the merge lane begins. You have to stop, wait for a gap and then go and it's a short merge lane. But over there, the drivers are more polite and won't try to beat you to the end of the merge lane, when they see you entering the freeway. They just slow down and let you in. Never had a problem, even in heavy traffic and driving a slow-ass Ford Escort rental car.Over here in urban areas of CA, nearly every driver will step on it, to try to get in front you, before the end of the merge lane, as soon as they see you trying to merge into the gap in front of them. So it's almost impossible to safely merge into moving traffic while moving at 1MPH, unless traffic is moving at 5MPH or there is no traffic.
-
Apple touts Cupertino public works investments ahead of employer tax vote
You're not making sense, "recoup" is not even close to the right term to use. You're making it sound like the local government some how lost some tax revenue when the federal government lowered the federal corporate tax rate and thus must recoup some of it back with this employee tax. The local government did not lose any of their tax revenue, the are not "recouping" anything. They are just doing their usual money grab. It's no different that what the EU is doing.foregoneconclusion said:Corporations got a gigantic and unnecessary tax cut at the federal level and largely used it for stock buybacks or adding to the profit column, so it makes sense that local government would look to recoup a small percentage of that for infrastructure use that does benefit the general public, which would include Apple's own employees.
Apple and other corporations are not using the extra profit they're going to be getting from the cut in federal corporate tax rate, for stock buy backs. They are using the overseas profits that they are bringing back into the US, where the profit will be subject to the new lower US tax. These overseas profits have already been accounted for in the profit column, when they were made. These overseas profits can not be added to the profit column again. I guarantee you, Apple will not be making another $230B in profit column, when they bring their overseas profits into the US and pay the US tax on it.
Here's the thing about the new federal corporate tax cut, corporation will no longer be able to hide foreign profits from US tax, by keeping it overseas. Apple will be paying US federal corporate tax on all their profits, whether made overseas or not. The federal tax on their US profits will go from 35% to 21%. But their US tax on foreign profits will go from 0% up to 21%. (I'm assuming they will still be able to deduct any foreign tax paid.)
If Apple were to become less profitable in a few years, will they be able to "recoup" some of the employee tax they are going to be paying every year, if it were to pass?
