zoetmb

steveh said:

Microsoft's "saving" Apple was hardly done out of altruism, nor did it cost Microsoft anything in the long term.

In 1997, Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of Apple preferred stock, convertable to common shares of Apple stock at a price of $8.25, redeemable after a three year period, for $150 million. Apple was worth ~ $3B at the time.

By 2001, they'd converted all of the shares into common stock, netting the company approximately 18.1 million shares. 

By 2003, they'd sold all of it.

It was mostly optics.

One of the reasons Microsoft invested in Apple was to make sure Apple survived.  They needed Apple because there were threats of restraint-of-trade suits against Microsoft because of the dominance of Windows and (at the time), Explorer as the default browser.    There were fears the Government was going to get involved. 

Apple really was in trouble at the time.   There were calls for Apple to either shut down and give the money back to shareholders or sell itself to a company like Sony, which demonstrates how analysts and industry insiders were just as dumb (if not dumber) back then as they are now.

I've posted this before, but here's some brilliant quotes by these geniuses over the years:

John C. Dvorak, 1984. “The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a "mouse". There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I don’t want one of these new fangled devices."

former Apple VP Gaston Bastiaens, January 1996.  “Within the next two months, Sony will acquire Apple. … Sony will be the white knight who will step into the picture."

Michael Dell, October 1997.  "I'd shut [Apple] down and give the money back to the shareholders."

Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe, 1998.  "The iMac will only sell to some of the true believers. The iMac doesn’t include a floppy disk drive for doing file backups or sharing of data. ... The iMac will fail. 

10/5/2000   Michael S. Malone.  Apple R.I.P.   … “Nevertheless, the bloom is off the rose. The incredible run-up Apple stock has enjoyed since Steve's return is over, and the sheen of success that had enveloped the company has been tarnished.    A temporary setback? Don't be too sure. Unlike, say, Hewlett-Packard, Apple has always been a company that deals poorly with failure. When things go bad at Apple, they go very bad. “

5/21/2001  Cliff Edwards    Commentary: Sorry, Steve: Here's Why Apple Stores Won't Work. “New retail outlets aren't going to fix Apple's sales “

 12/23/2006 Bill Ray (Mobile)

“Why the Apple phone will fail, and fail badly”.  It's the Pippin all over again”

 1/14/2007 Matthew Lynn.   Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move

“…Don't let that fool you into thinking that it matters. The big competitors in the mobile-phone industry such as Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc. won't be whispering nervously into their clamshells over a new threat to their business…

The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant”

 

3/28/2007 John Dvorak.  Apple should pull the plug in the iPhone.   Commentary:  Company risks its reputation in competitive business

“… Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp… and Motorola Inc.” 

Apple just had two record breaking sales and net-income quarters at a time when the analysts and press claimed the iPhone X wasn't selling.  Apple Services alone, if spun off, would make the Fortune 100 list and it's rarely even mentioned.    Apple's net income in fiscal 2017 was LARGER than their net sales in 2009 and before.  One quarter of Apple's Services revenue is LARGER than annual sales of the entire company before fiscal 2004.    And yet the analysts keep trying to imply that Apple is somehow failing.   Either they're completely stupid or this is clearly stock manipulation.     

I don't care what the article says - Buffet didn't buy more Apple stock because he saw that customers liked Apple and bought into the eco-system - there's no doubt in my mind that he looked at the numbers, which are extraordinary.  There's a good chance Apple will beat the fiscal 2015 net sales record of $233.715 billion as they're already at $149.44 billion after two quarters.   But having said all that, there is a question of what Apple is going to be ten years from now.   I've predicted for some time that 15 years from now, Apple will be an A.I. and robotics company, but with Siri still being so lame, I'm not so sure anymore.  

freqsound.com said:

Music services that don't actually produce content (though obviously provide a distribution channel) have been getting away with paying extremely little to the artists. I haven't had a chance to look at the legislation in detail, but hopefully it addresses the royalty rate imbalance so the creators can make a living. As an independent musician in a variety of bands for the past 43 years, I can tell you it is not equitable the way things have been to the writers, the performers, and the independent labels.

And let's not forget that U.S. over-the-air radio has never paid performance rights.  It does pay writers via ASCAP, BMI and SESAC and if they stream, they do pay some performance rights via Sound Exchange.    I don't think this bill corrects that situation for radio, otherwise the NAB would have been violently opposed.   Radio stations make their money from recordings and most no longer do any kind of creativity like DJ's used to do, so it's ridiculous that they don't pay, especially since OTA radio doesn't really drive record sales anymore, at least not the way it used to.  

Let's see what the Senate does with the bill.   It's a long way from passing.  

Under current law, sound recordings published in the. U.S. prior to February 15, 1972 are only subject to state common law protection and enter the public domain on 2/15/2067.   Recordings from 2/15/1972 to 1978 and published without notice are already in the public domain.  Those published with notice have copyright for 95 years.   Recordings published from 1978 to March 1, 1989 and published without notice are also already in the public domain.  Those published with notice as well as all recordings published after 3/1/89 have copyright for 70 years after the death of the author, or if a work of corporate authorship, the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation.  

In 2017, even though paid subscription streaming revenues increased 56%, limited tier paid subs increased 125% and on-demand ad supported streaming increased 35%, Sound Exchange payments dropped over 26%.   

While this bill might be an improvement, with traditional record sales so low, I doubt it enables most artists to make a living from royalties.   In 2011, the RIAA reported that 80% of albums sold fewer than 100 copies, 14% sold between 100 and 1000, 5.5% sold between 1000 and 10,000 and just 0.5% sold more than 10,000 copies.   And since then, album sales (both physical and digital) have dropped 37%.   

Duh!   Almost by definition, lower priced models of anything will sell more units than higher priced models.    The surprise would be if they didn't.  

Which sells more units?  A high level Toyota Camry or a Lexus?    A Sony A8F 65" OLED TV at $3800 list or a Sony X850F at $1800?    A Hershey's chocolate bar at $1 a bar or some hand made chocolate at $30 a pound?  Etc.

markbyrn said:

His points only prove that he wasn't competent in either his understanding of constitutional rights much less encryption.  If there's a backdoor key that Comey and his Orwellian vision of government would have ready access to, the encryption would be a farce.  He's not a good businessman either considering he wants $17.99 for his book.

He doesn't set book prices - his publisher does.  And I don't know whether you're trying to say that he's charging too much or too little, but $18 is actually a low list price for a hardcover these days.   The NY Times hardcover non-fiction bestsellers average about $27.50 list.   

deepinsider said:

tallest skil said:

So, uh… why’d they do this to Safari? Why can’t I say “allow first party cookies only”? Look, I know that it never worked. IT NEVER WORKED. I ALWAYS got third party cookies. But this was a conscious decision they made, to change this feature. They took time to go into Safari and actually do something. AND THEY DIDN’T BOTHER TO ADD A COOKIE WHITELIST. Do they care anymore?

Also, is “prevent cross-site tracking” Apple’s way of saying, “We’re wiping the HTTP REFERER when you click on a link,” or is it something else entirely? Because I’d like to wipe my HTTP REFERERs but there’s no Safari extension to do that.

Looks like I'll have to switch back to Firefox. Thanks for that, Apple... 

This isn't a change.  Safari 11.0.3 has the same options: