I find that in today's world it is no longer about one person being "accountable". There is always an interplay of factors, like others have pointed out cyber security has a compliance angle. Other times it is a cost factor, redundancy costs money. Then there is the whole revolving door of employees coming and going, so institutional knowledge about why a decision was made lost with them.
That is hard to do for even a small company. How do you balance all that out for critical infrastructure at a much larger scale?
Like another commenter mentioned, the healing brush tool along with background removal + remove tool + content aware fill/move + object selection tools have improved and make life even for an amateur PS user much easier with the latest versions.
I wonder, what happens to content posted on say Instagram/Reddit/Forums etc.
They usually have a clause around getting a license to all the content posted on their site and being able to sub-license/modify it/create derivative work.
Doesn't that basically mean once content is posted there. They can do what ever they want with it? What happens in those cases when the creator has given permission(although unknowingly perhaps)?
That's likely due to tracking prevention or protection by your browser because X really, really wants to track you. If you disable the tracking protection and related settings, you may be able to see the single tweet.
Sal Khan did an interview at the Commonwealth Club this past week where he stated that the reason for region locking is one of availability and cost. It seems like MSFT is only footing the bill for US use, rather than for the world, so there's still the matter of figuring out how to further reduce costs to make it cheap enough to give away everywhere.
I'm not sure why that implies that the paid plan is not available outside of the US.
I agree with both of these takes but want to add that the tool might not have been tested on all the languages spoken outside of the US. Can't be too careful with kids in the target audience.
I am curious, what is the definition of winners here? Do they make more money or do they invent more successful products/ideas or is it something else?
Money, social acceptance, access to desirable partners, positions of prestige, etc. All the nice things we wrestle over in life.
Anything you compete for except the “he was a good man” phrasing in obituaries, the cheaters usually get to have. Even if caught.
Not cheating outside of a few really heinous crimes such as murder (killing your science fair opponent wouldn’t be a winning strategy if caught) is an altruistic action.
> Not cheating outside of a few really heinous crimes such as murder (killing your science fair opponent wouldn’t be a winning strategy if caught) is an altruistic action.
I can only imagine someone trying to justify cheating would say that.
Cheating on your spouse is okay? Not cheating on your spouse altruistic? That concept is alien to me. I don't understand someone having no self-respect or being completely numb to how others feel. I know some exist, but I can't comprehend.
If there's "winning" in life it's through living a good and happy life. Some time past our teenage years I think all but the most self-adsorbed people realize that being kind and respectful to others also contributes to our own happiness.
If profits and revenue are dropping. Isn't that an indication of harder times? Shouldn't they be saving money right now to invest more in their R&D to tide this over and continue growing?
It's an indication of harder times in the past, not in the future. Management has specific information about what the future holds that we as investors do not
Also Apple doesn't have a cash issue. Companies that need to think about liquidity are those on the verge of bankruptcy, which isn't the case here. There's sufficient cash (from the Balance Sheet but also from Operating Cash every year) to fund R&D at Apple. Heck, if you divide their annual R&D spend ($29B in 2023) by the cash sitting on their balance sheet ($148B in 2023), they have enough cash today[1] to fund 5+ years worth of R&D without selling a single additional iPhone during that time
Buying back stock when the price drops is just taking advantage of the current situation to return capital to investors "cheaply".
---
[1] Technically today = September 30, 2023, when they reported their 2023 10-K, if we're being pedantic. Both cash and R&D figures from that 10-K available here:
Ctrl+F "$148.3 billion as of September 30" for the cash balance and "Research and development" (there are multiple matches) for the $29B in R&D
I saw in the news yesterday that someone was looking to buy Paramount for $26B or thereabouts. I hope they at least went through the thought exercise of whether this builds more value than five huge acquisitions that could strengthen their offerings.
Apple has done buybacks for a while though, it is only much larger now. I believe their historical buybacks were around the $25b.
Doing this buyback is an indication that the roic is not great enough and deem it better to give it back to shareholders. Huge acquisitions are neither easy or cheap, cheap in the sense of not only the multiple you are paying but also the costs downstream of having to take over that company.
BigCorp buys BigCorp deals seem to be about consolidating the market to 1)reduce competition 2)raise prices 3)kill jobs = a)raise bonuses b)promise a higher stock value. Also synergy.
We'll get a pre-merger announcement about creating new jobs; biz media everywhere will excitedly amplify it.
Typically, the DoJ can't rubber stamp these deals fast enough but sometimes they balk - or at least pretend to.
Acquisitions tend to destroy value, especially "non core" acquisitions. I think they understand that not becoming a chaebol owning half the economy is actually a good idea.
You tell me what am I missing. They had $17,645,500,000 in unlevered FCF last quarter. With $32,695,000,000 in Cash and CE on their balance sheet.
Edit: I see the gap now with your question. The buyback plan/funds are not executed all at once. A company approves amounts to be used for buybacks and then it happens over time. My point is that these buybacks are pretty normal for apple. You can look at Apples historical buyback plans and I think the last announced one was a year ago for $90b.
How is it ridiculous. Go look at their historical buyback plans.
2018 - $100b
2021 - $90b
2022 - $90b
2023 - $90b
2024 - $110b
Is it a large? Yes. Is it out of the normal for them? No. It is also not especially a difficult reach when looking at their existing cash/security balances and FCF.
>Shouldn't they be saving money right now to invest more in their R&D to tide this over and continue growing?
That is precisely what a stock buyback is. They could invest that cash on the open market, or return it to investors through dividends. Instead this sends it to the common pool to fund current business operations.
From the company's perspective, dividends and stock buy backs are identical.
Say a company has 10 shares @ $10/share, w/ a total value of $100. The company has $10 to return to shareholders because it can't make better use of the money internally.
----Share buyback example------
- company buys back 1 share @ $10
- the company's value is decreases by $10 for having distributed the cash
- company now has 9 shares of stock at $10/share, for a total value of $90
-----Dividend example-----
- company distributes $1 to each shareholder
- the company's value is decreases by $10 for having distributed the cash
- company now has 10 shares of stock at $9/share, for a total value of $90
Sure, but that's all hypothetical. There is no law stating "higher EPS = higher share price". Stocks can (and do) still go down after a buyback. Whereas dividends are laid out exactly ahead of time and can be predicted.
Whats hypothetical about it? Nothing I said was hypothetical. The company is doing some math to determine that the roic is below their coc or some similar measurement. So they could pay a dividend or buyback shares. Now it is true that the motivations for either could have many reasons. It is also true that after the buyback happens, prices could go back down...it is a market with changing information constantly. So yes a dividend is not a buyback but they are both ways to return capital to shareholders.
Buybacks literally hands money to current investors. They can only buy shares from people who own shares Ie investors.
Individual investors get three options they can some shares and maintain the exact same percentage of the company making this equipment to a dividend, they can liquidate more shares which a guaranteed buyer propping up the price, or they can avoid selling shares and simply own more of the company. The final option is more tax efficient because there’s no taxable event unlike a dividend where you pay taxes before buying more stock.
It's not a dividend at all. A dividend gives the share holders money. This (potentially) increases the value of the share holders stocks. But the most important difference here is the Apple can sell these shares again if they need to later and they cannot get back the money they spend of dividends. If Apple feels that the market price of their stock is low and they have nothing better to do with the money then it makes sense to buy these shares.
Don't apps just refuse to work now a days if ADB is activated? It has been a few years since I tried it. But I remember my bank app refusing to working with the developer options(forgot what this is exactly) turned on. Also if I remember right, some apps do not work on rooted phones. Or are we talking about different things?
ADB requires USB debugging to be enabled, yes, although modifying the appops settings (App Ops = app that can modify appops on the device itself using ADB, appops = android service that handles application permissions and application operations) doesn't need it to be continuously enabled.
You can just activate it, change the settings and disable it afterwards. Pretty annoying but it is what it is.
This doesn't require root either, although enabling USB debugging is an important step towards rooting, which is probably why you think it's related.
I have never had an app refuse to work because of developer mode, but several if rooted. Anecdotal, but it would seem the two are treated differently by developers.
That is hard to do for even a small company. How do you balance all that out for critical infrastructure at a much larger scale?