Tech News

What would happen to the Camelot that is Apple, Inc. if Steve Jobs is not exonerated for the backdating of stock options? This is a question that a lot people who love Apple or buy their stock are asking themselves or perhaps should be asking themselves.

By now everyone has heard about the stock options investigation that has been on-going at Apple for the past year or so. At first it seemed like a dignified, self-regulating investigation that Apple launched. It seemed as if they were doing the “right thing” without the SEC having to get involved. The stock market was not quick to judge and neither was Apple’s board. But that can only last for so long.

Apple’s golden boy is in the SEC’s crosshairs which does not bode well for Apple, iPhone or no.  No one can doubt the impact of a federal investigation on Apple’s shareholders, especially if Job’s is the center of their investigation. Without Job’s the Apple brand would suffer serious setbacks from their recent surge in popularity. Let’s face it, Job’s is the redeemer of Apple and without him they would not make the front page of the news every quarter and be the icon they have become with so many followers.  Apple and Jobs are synonymous and have a symbiotic relationship. How much they are intertwined will be revealed once the federal investigation gets underway.

Here’s my prediction: Jobs will be in the hot seat for a while, he may even found guilty by the SEC in the back dating stock options investigation (it’s not a scandal…yet), but instead of removing him from his duties at Apple they will be served a hefty fine, which they will pay, of which the stock market will duly take note and the shares will drop. My guess on the drop is 10 points at which time I will buy even more shares. This is one SEC investigation that I am watching closely. The outcome will not only impact the shareholder’s but the tech world as well. Here’s to a great new year and fast resolution to the investigation.

Technical Specifications

Screen size 3.5 inches
Screen resolution 320 by 480 at 160 ppi
Input method Multi-touch
Operating system OS X
Storage 4GB or 8GB
GSM Quad-band (MHz: 850, 900, 1800, 1900)
Wireless data Wi-Fi (802.11b/g) + EDGE + Bluetooth 2.0
Camera 2.0 megapixels
Battery
Up to 5 hoursTalk / Video / Browsing
Up to 16 hoursAudio playback
Dimensions 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches / 115 x 61 x 11.6mm
Weight 4.8 ounces / 135 grams

Found at Tech Specs

When I first bookmarked Digg in the favorites folder of my browser I was really excited. I mean think about the premise: create a user powered website that lets people from all over the world publish important and late-breaking stories from their section of the globe and let the “people” vote what gets top recognition. In theory this sounds like a great social experiment: What will the people do with this kind of tool? In reality this has been a disappointment.

When stories about “24” get promoted or free games become a top 5, I get a little disappointed. This is what we get from the world wide web? We have a global economy, more people connected to the net that at any point in history, and bloggers from every corner of the earth and this is the information that get dugg. Is this really what people want or is Digg fast becoming nothing more than a medium for self-promotion? Maybe Digg.com should have taken the Y! money and ran. I don’t know if my disappointment lies in Digg’s lack of control over some of these links, but it definitely hurts its cause (I am aware that some of these guys in the top spot are nothing more than the digg equivalent to junk mail in my inbox…no part from digg’s personal I’m sure.) I believe the site can be a much more powerful tool than it is becoming. At this point I think that what makes digg such a great idea in theory is also its achille’s heel.

The democratic ideology behind the website is to be applauded. It would be a difficult decision to decide to lay aside your convictions in exchange for more effective news control? After all if Digg started monitoring or censoring what is put on the site we would come full circle to the problem with the mass media today. But without some type of filtering or control of the site, we have what always happens in a capitalistic democracy… those with monetary gain in mind will find a way to subjugate the unadulterated progress of open discourse. When you see “24” posts or anything else of that sort I am reminded that some people (getting advertising cents) use Digg as nothing more than another market to exploit and more virtual billboards to take advantage of. Is it wrong? No. Sure it’s not. It’s what makes the world go round right? It’s just disappointing. I liken it to Edward Murrow’s hope that television would become something powerful and informative (which at times is but overall I would say it’s 90% crap). I guess time will tell if something as progressive as Digg.com will become something powerful or become the on-line equivalent to MTV.