Recent Comments

  • Ron Fredrick on Saturday Apple video: The structure of a Steve Jobs keynote - 'Gregg Thurman said: “I didn’t even see a woman until 7:15.” **Please check again, Gregg. Go to minute 4:50 and watch as a bare MacBook(?) chassis is passed down a row in the audience. The woman I believe to be Laurene Powell Jobs is sitting to the left of a woman with reddish hair and to the right of a gentleman with a blue shirt.'
  • Gregg Thurman on Saturday Apple video: The structure of a Steve Jobs keynote - 'I didn’t even see a woman until 7:15.'
  • Ron Fredrick on Saturday Apple video: The structure of a Steve Jobs keynote - 'Nicely done video breaking down Steve Job’s wonderful presentation skills. And, if the blond, smiling lady at about minute 5 in the video is not Laurene Powell Jobs, she’s her doppelganger, IMO. 🙂'
  • Gregg Thurman on Premarket: Apple is red - 'Any decline is in search of support. I think yesterday’s decline with double recent volume (capitulation?) could be support (aka bottom). I’ve called a lot of bottoms over the years. Sometimes I’m right and sometimes wrong'
  • Joseph Bland on Premarket: Apple is red - 'Also, David, an $8.77 drop is 3.3% of $264.18 (Apple’s closing price). Looked at over the last 12 months: AAPL: +9.2% AMZN: -1.1% IBM:: -4.8% META: -3.0% MSFT: -1.1% NFLX: -1.9% QCOM: -9.4% Then there are the 1year “winners”, several of which owe there rise* at least in part to Apple: AVGO: +60%* GOOGL: +83%* INTC: +92%* UNTC: +92%* NVDA: +42% TSLA: – 37% TSM: +-107%*'
  • Steven Philips on Premarket: Apple is red - 'Oops! Didn’t make it! “Don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin For the times they are a-changing.” Again.'
  • Steven Philips on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'Same reason Apple lost its suit (and shit!) against Microsoft stealing its UI?'
  • Steven Philips on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'It makes good counterpoint and makes me (us) think.'
  • Joseph Bland on Premarket: Apple is red - 'This setup is looking more and more like what happened at the end of President Trump’s first term, except it’s only taken a year to develop, probably because the damage is much more extreme and over a far shorter time span. Remember? Apple was sailing along, then all the other big tech companies started going over the cliff around November and December, eventually dragging AAPL with them the following January. Hear’s hoping everyone’s got their safety belts on real tight….'
  • David Emery on NATO trusts Apple, Pentagon trusts Grok - 'From DuckDuckGo Ai : In the context of the 2025 12-Day War between Iran and Israel, Apple devices, particularly iPhones, were notably implicated in cybersecurity concerns. No explanation, no justification? Just a bald assertion from some LLM? The non-technical term for that, I believe, is bovine effluent'
  • Joseph Bland on Premarket: Apple is red - 'Hi, David. That is why we moved heavily into cash in our 401Ks when it became obvious that this Trump Administration was going to be far different. That said, if you are worried about Apple, where are you going to park your money that isn’t now a crapshoot? At least Apple’s buybacks will match valuation with inflation, which is much better than seeing the value drop in real terms. And the lesson of the Great Recession is clear: In a recession, all valuations get hit across the board.'
  • Joseph Bland on Premarket: Apple is red - '“Volume today was quite high.” How did I get that wrong? Apple’s Stocks app let me down. Should’ve refreshed it.Thank you, John, and upvoted! That’s a horse of a different color. To drop that much on a high volume Friday is a definite sign of great unease. It’s as if everyone who bought Apple this week sold it. And I agree with your take on why, John.'
  • Romeo Esparrago on NATO trusts Apple, Pentagon trusts Grok - 'Also from Duck.ai : Grok’s challenges in fact-checking and content moderation during conflicts, such as the previous 2025 Israel-Iran escalation, highlight its limitations in handling complex geopolitical events.'
  • Romeo Esparrago on NATO trusts Apple, Pentagon trusts Grok - 'From DuckDuckGo Ai : In the context of the 2025 12-Day War between Iran and Israel, Apple devices, particularly iPhones, were notably implicated in cybersecurity concerns. Will have to wait & see if the latest iOS updates has reduced those concerns in light of the latest conflict, proving ’s strength in this area.'
  • David Emery on NATO trusts Apple, Pentagon trusts Grok - 'The desktops in all of the government offices I worked in (including some visits to SCIFs) were all locked-down versions of Windows… But that’s in part because Windows is all the IT people understood, and there was LOTS of guidance on how to secure Windows. Of course, with every release came more problems they had to mitigate…'
  • Romeo Esparrago on NATO trusts Apple, Pentagon trusts Grok - 'I’m assuming Apple devices like iPhone are in use by all sides somehow in what is happening now. From Why iPhones Remain High-Value Intelligence Targets: Lessons from Apple’s February 2026 Security Patch on citanex dot com, with iOS26.3 to be more secure against “Nation-state cyber capabilities … Iran’s Cyber Warfare Structure … Israel NSO Group’s Pegasus … “'
  • Greg Lippert on NATO trusts Apple, Pentagon trusts Grok - 'Read the article, so if you want to have safety limits on a new, evolving and dangerous technology you are a LEFT WING NUT JOB?!?? Trump, you sick pedophile, FUCK YOU!'
  • David Emery on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'Apple promoted and advertised features that were not available. What else would you call that? Uh, marketing? 🙂 But I think there’s a difference between saying something was available ‘now’ vs ‘real soon’.'
  • Jonny T on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'Just saying Dan, you do tend to take the shit side of every Apple argument.'
  • Gregg Thurman on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'Not being a Windows user I wasn’t exposed to every iteration of DOS with a layer of lipstick on it. Why there wasn’t a class action alleging consumer fraud with every new iteration of Windows I’ll never know. Oh wait it wasn’t Apple, a company held to a higher standard than MSFT ever was.'
  • John Konopka on Premarket: Apple is red - 'Volume today was quite high. Near as I can tell from reading the news it sounds like a generalized chaos is gripping the market more than any one story. I’m hopeful that the announcements next week will help calm the market. If we can get through the month without war in the Middle East that would be good also.'
  • John Konopka on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'https://youtu.be/PjmVN7mAMwc?si=orVgl0EJNaKcmcQ3 LOL'
  • Gregg Thurman on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'If failure to perform, as to announced capabilities/features, was a crime punishable by a successful class action suit, MSFT would have been sued into oblivion back in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. New releases never worked as promised, requiring several Service Pack upgrades that MSFT charged the injured party to get. Windows 97 was an absolute failure, requiring the rapid release of Windows 98 (that you had to pay for).'
  • Gregg Thurman on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - '” What else would you call that?” Being wrong. That isn’t the same thing as being deceitful. Tp prove its case the plaintiff is going to have to show that #1 Apple knew it couldn’t deliver and #2 with that knowledge announced and promoted features it knew it couldn’t deliver and #3 Plaintiffs were harmed by such acts. Saying you were harmed is not proof that you were harmed. All of these points must be delineated in the complaint. #1 and #2 are crucial to the Plaintiffs case. If proof of these two points do not exist in the complaint the presiding judge must dismiss. Failing to deliver, in and of itself, is not a crime.'
  • Dan Scropos on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - '“The lawsuit argues deliberate deception.” Apple promoted and advertised features that were not available. What else would you call that? I’m sure there was some number of consumers that looked at the ad and said, “That’s something worth upgrading over.” Those are the folks I’m referring to. As far as the investor class action suit goes, I can’t see how you can prove you were hurt when the share price eventually went higher. Seems like day traders with sour grapes.'
  • David Wilson on Premarket: Apple is red - 'I’m glad that it provides Apple an opportunity to buy its stock, but this long-term investor feels better when the stock goes up. I don’t have forever, and I want to be up when I get there. A lot. I’m trying to find a reason why going down $8.77 in a single day would make me laugh much. We’ve been stuck down here for a long time, and I’m ready for it to go up. A lot.'
  • Bill Donahue on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'The class action that’s being pursued isn’t by people who bought iPhones. It’s being pursued by shareholders. And it’s on the basis of alleged securities fraud.'
  • Bill Donahue on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'Exactly. By my count, Musk is now something like 12 years late on his first claim that fully self-driving Teslas would be available the next year – which he’s repeated annually.'
  • Bill Donahue on NATO trusts Apple, Pentagon trusts Grok - '“The looser controls on Grok, and Musk’s absolutist stance on free speech, have made it a more attractive choice to the Pentagon” … for use in classified settings. Like that makes any sense at all. In a normal world, those two things would probably be viewed as unacceptable risks in the context of classified settings. Any strategic leader in politics or a military force should look hard at the fact that Elon temporarily cut off the Ukraine military’s access to StarLink to prevent Ukraine from striking Russian forces in Crimea, because he personally did not want it to happen. Who says he won’t do that with Grok at some point?'
  • David Emery on Apple's securities fraud defense: We didn't know - 'There’s a difference between technical failure and deliberate deception. The lawsuit argues deliberate deception. It’s quite a stretch, but usually the goal for class actions is to not go to trial, but to get a settlement (which the law firm gets 1/3 or more). At trial, the plaintiffs might win big, or they might completely lose. There’s no middle ground there.'