mfryd

Massiveattack87 said:

This is just a "nothing burger" action from shareholders. 
Apple will win this case. However, Apple has already lost their credibility. Their reputation is damaged (a bit). 

I don´t care about this case. What I want is that Apple just delivers what Apple showed at WWDC 2024. 

Keep in mind that most consumers don't pay attention to the Apple Developer Conferences.   

thedba said:

nubus said:

M68000 said:

The debacle of Apple advertising “Apple Intelligence” before it was ready may be the beginning of the end of the Tim Cook era. 

DOJ and consumers will take Apple to court on running ads for vaporware. Agree, this is the beginning to the end. It can take a while before he is replaced. Microsoft drifted for 10 years and behaved like a bond. We have seen Apple slide to #2, #3, and... well... the distance to Amazon makes it likely that Apple could drop one more spot. 

As for his legacy we need to split CEO from COO. He was outstanding as COO.

And you are all ignoring the elephant in the room. TARRIFS.

Which Tim Cook has nothing to do with and has no control of.

Actually, Tim Cook does have some control over tariffs.   He donated a million dollars to Trump's inauguration fund, and that got Apple a temporary exemption from some of the worst tariffs.   Cook could identify other ways to transfer money to Trump in order to exempt Apple from tariffs.

leehericks said:

Isn’t the point of buying stock that you take a risk on supporting the company? How can you sue them?

When you buy stock, you are investing in the company.  Often, the intention of buying a piece of a business is to make money.  For many, buying stock is a business decision, not a show of support for the company.

As with anything, people get upset if they have been lied to in order to make a purchase.  If you bought a car and an advertised feature was missing (or did not work) you might be quite unhappy at being deceived.

It is not unusual to buy shares of a company because you think the company will make money, and therefore your share will increase in value and/or pay you dividends.  The public statements of a company are often important factors in that purchase decision.  If you believe you were lied to in an effort to get you to buy the shares, then it would not be surprising if you get upset, and perhaps feel cheated.

CheeseFreeze said:

mfryd said:

However, this is not a reason to prohibit running Mac OSX on an iPad.   Users should have a choice as to which OS they run.

I have nothing against the iPad OS.   It's a great solution for many (but not all) users.   Why not allow users to choose which OS they are running?    

The iPad OS can be the default, but please allow power users to install OSX.  iPad apps already work inside of Mac OSX, so no functionality is lost.  

An iPad with an M4 processor, 16GB RAM, 2TB SSD, Thunderbolt 3, and a Magic Keyboard Folio (Keyboard and trackpad) would make a damn fine portable Mac.

Giving users options what to do with their iPad may sound great at first - flexibility! Choice! - but it makes for a lousy product where you essentially are diluting f the whole idea behind it and creating a Frankenstein product that kinda competes with their laptops.

Apple’s vision makes sense. But to me that also means their Pro offerings don’t make sense pricing wise. This is how I express that with my wallet: I buy mid to high-end macOS product, and low end iPadOS product.
The iPad’s promise and associated use-cases to me excel under the $700 price range.

If you are worried that Apple is diluting the whole idea behind the iPad, then you should be complaining about the fact that they offer an optional keyboard and trackpad for the device.  Furthermore, they have a Thunderbolt port that allows external monitors, external disk drives, wired ethernet, etc.  They even offer a "pencil" that gives you the functionality of a mouse.

However, this is not a reason to prohibit running Mac OSX on an iPad.   Users should have a choice as to which OS they run.