Just google "Apple AOI tax" and consider Apple's real concern (sales) disguised as user privacy (iCloud private?). History teaches that companies that turn to exploiting every little trick in the book, versus just delivering truly differentiated products, tend to have a significant fall from grace. How long do you think Chinese government will put up with pro-democracy content iPhones that it can't access? Now think what that will do to Apple sales when the ultimatum comes.
Non-GAAP financial wonders at Twitter.
Good point. Apple is working with the US from a cloud perspective. Perhaps I should have highlighted the HW vs SW difference. FB and TWTR are primarily SW entities versus a physical cell phone. Its harder to redesign, or worse, recall many shipping phones.
Regarding your point "it is about CRIMINALS and even foreign governments", it's the latter that matters to Apple from a BUSINESS perspective. This is about sales, not privacy. Apple's biggest fear is that it's seen working with the US gov on a back door, and then China says "give us one or we ban all Apple imports." That's what's going on here.
From a consumer perspective, Google (Android) will also have to comply if Apple does, and any other device maker that wants FCC approval. Result: no net change in sales.
However, what if China gets even a whiff of Apple working with the US government on a back door? I think you're looking at a Chinese import ban threat to all Apple products unless China gets its own. Sure, Android would also have to comply, but if they didn't China would be perfectly happy to have only Chinese-developed cell phone OS's.
FB and TWTR are working with the US Gov. Maybe because is easier and quicker to change SW than HW. This looks like a big delay tactic at minimum by AAPL, Google, etc. Precedent is set: US citizens must comply with a TSA inspection request. Samsonite cannot design surveillance-proof luggage. FCC security requirements will require similar for all cell phone makers.
To AAPL and its corporate backers, this whole scenario presents EPIC RISK to their businesses. They are collectively stalling via public circus to figure out how to maintain sales WHEN, yes WHEN - not IF - they are required to comply with the FBI request to disable the unlock attempt time-out and frequency limits.
The press hasn't figured it out yet. They think it's Privacy vs Security. It's really AAPL sales versus security. Here's why:
If the US Gov gets a back door, other countries will want one too, OR???? That's right, they'll apply an import ban to all AAPL products until AAPL does the same for them. That will also send some buyers to other platforms, but that's less significant since all major platforms (i.e. Android, MS, WP) will also have to comply.
AAPL wants at minimum to delay this thing until they can: 1. Work out a deal with the US Gov that's less absolute, and 2: Develop a solution to somehow minimize the "other country" back door risk.
The AAPL backers, like Google and Verizon, also see the short-term back door fallout as HUGE downside risk to their businesses. Another terrorist event supported via a locked iPhone will only further support government back door insistence and dampen any public outcry for privacy.
At the end of the day it is AAPL telling you that you should trust a company over a government. The US government won't let this happen. Precedent is set. Imagine if Samsonite designs TSA surveillance-blocked luggage. That also protects privacy, right? So we should trust Samsonite and not the US Gov?
Seattle prep school?! Biology at Stanford? Has anyone even looked at Jess's LinkedIn profile????
Investors are counting on this experience, loyalty and work ethic in M&A????? Let's see what you can produce off the track (nice pic).
Thanks mobileappy for the multitude of posts that clearly show you're a campaigning short.
In our laser-like precision analysis, we've decided to change our price target by 50%. Would you ride with someone who steered a car in the same fashion?
Or would you prefer the nothings going to change flavor of board support like Dorsey gave Costolo in the infamous CNBC interview upon Costolo's resigning in June???
Who better to effectively question the value of some development efforts. I kind of like "convince me" mentality in the boardroom.
People are vested in short positions and/or negative past predictions. Most retail investors are not tracking TWTR closely enough to see this is a natural progression after Dorsey was named CEO a week ago. In fact, now is the best layoff timing versus reading of this in the future. Those laid off are probably disgruntled Costolo hires or underperformers that are slowing execution at least since Dorsey became interim CEO. Sorry to see folks get laid off, but I see only upside in this from a shareholder perspective.
I seriously doubt it; just one analyst upgrade today. However with a good CEO selection I think the stock could make $30.
So I watch The Tonight Show and a guest spends a minute talking about how she found out about her new role ...on Twitter. Today on CNBC there's a Honda ad talking about hashtags, etc (i.e. Twitter). Moving to ESPN every analyst title graphic has a Twitter logo and name to follow. Donald Trump's voicemail asks you to follow him on (you guessed it) Twitter. No reference to Facebook. All US presidential candidates can be followed on ...Twitter. Shimon Perez ...on Twitter. New Saudi king ...on Twitter. China Xinhua News ...on Twitter. Try to go a day of TV watching without seeing a Twitter logo.
Brand has only gotten more pervasive since the IPO. Selling is overdone. I'd love to be the new Twitter CEO at a $28-something stock price.