Why did it go to $150? Because stocks, particularly manipulated ones like Apple, behave irrationally at times. Where is it now? $150 was a gift, so hope you picked up a few shares.
Investing is nothing like gambling, or you’re doing it wrong. Buying quality companies and/or index funds consistently over time will make you rich, period. Selling Apple at $150 because it went down is precisely why people think investing is gambling. They don’t understand what they own so instead of buying more at $150, they panic and sell at the bottom. I love when Apple goes down because I add on the cheap.
When the numbers say something is changing, my thesis will change. Your opinion their products and UI are worse than before are simply your own opinions.
Yes, I totally get that... stock manipulation and speculation. As one of my friends who does a lot of playing in the Market says, if it were purely about investment, the rules would be different. It's kind of purposely setup this way, and I think the social media, rapid (un-investigative) MSM and such have driven this irrationality to new heights.
Unfortunately, like when Apple was $10/share, I don't have the extra money to invest. I only invest with money that is extra, for the most part (aside from retirement funds, etc.), and it wasn't a good time. I told others to buy, though, and that the hysteria was crazy (and why).
So, I think we're in agreement besides where Apple might be headed. My concerns aren't typical, Steve's gone so they are doomed (which I argued against in the past), or rumors of parts ramp-downs, or so many of the other silly things in the press that just show a lack of understanding. My opinion comes from being a 30+ year close follower of everything Apple (which, as you said, is how you should invest, and I agree).
I see a fundamental change to Apple's values and business practices, and it scares me. Thesis 1 is that with change of leadership and their insanely rapid growth, these things are growing pains which will be corrected. I hope that's the case, but that doesn't explain other aspects of their behavior. So, Thesis 2, is that their values and priorities have actually changed, which I think means long-term trouble.
Note, I'm talking a decade or two from now... nothing immediate. But, if they lose the creatives and content producers; their lineup continues heading towards consumer gadgets and fashion; they prioritize marketing-driven design over just making the best stuff possible; they continue to slip in terms of QC and good UI design; then the brand will erode and their success will become much more unstable.
[doublepost=1526405044][/doublepost]
But, many of the incidents we've witnessed are due to human decisions, such as the Uber management decision to use less sensors in Arizona, and the lawmakers of Arizona not requiring higher reporting standards.
I'd say most of the incidents have come down to humans, falsely trusting the technology too much.
Even in the Arizona death- while there seems to be some question about settings around sensor sensitivity - the software detected the person and ignored her, or mistook her for a piece of garbage in the street.
But, yea, it certainly does come down to lawmakers though... they shouldn't be allowing this kind of danger on the roads, period. They are also allowing $$$ to overtake their common sense (assuming they have any).
Cars will be a lot harder to completely automate. Not impossible, but more difficult, especially in the early stages when you have mostly human drivers mixed with automated cars.
Yes, if we could put these things on closed tracks and all automated, I'm sure they'd do just fine. That isn't the real world. Also, the problem here isn't one of scale, but of kind.
That said, I also find it pretty hard to imagine Apple getting into the car business too, so I’m pretty baffled by what they’re doing.
I think they are just in it because they think they have to be.
Until you're replaced by a small shell script of course
I'm in data operations for financial institution. AUtomation is key these days. if it can't be automated, reliably, with monitoring, it's not wanted anymore.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you that automation involves it's own share of risks, But with everything going real time these days, Automation is insanely important to ensuring that things happen instantaneously. In the world of Finance, if it's not immediate, you've lost money.
Oh yea, we had tons of automation. Besides watching all the automated stuff, automating it further and automating new stuff was mostly what I did. What I meant was that I never really trusted any of it. When I'd go on vacation, some of my peers often did trust it too much, and Murphy generally picked that time to strike. There is no such thing as set it and forget it.
The upshot here, is that the automated car will seemingly be doing just fine, until it isn't. It's an impossible task. The only thing they *might* be able to pull off is making it safer than a texting teen or a drunk. But, that isn't saying too much.
What I mainly want from this is assistive technologies. Like, detect that Moose off in the forest heading for the road, or maybe alert me of objects moving around me that I might not be able to track all of them, especially if they are in 'blind spots' or stuff like that. Maybe even have emergency braking when it's clear I've missed something.
