djsherly

Beats said:

What next? Wal-Mart not allowed to sell their in-house brands? Restaurants have to give customers “choice” on prepared ingredients? YouTube having to allow PornHub videos? DuckDuckGo giving users the “choice” to run Google ads instead? BMW allowing customers the “choice” to preinstall Ferrari engines?

Do these sound stupid to you? So should Apple not being allowed to run its software  the way they need to. And if this sounds extreme, remember, the government works in baby steps.

None of these analogies make sense.

If artists agree to exchange their time for an item, then on the face if it, it’s their problem.

But, in being treated this way, it just perpetuates the idea that the arts is a curiosity, that it doesn’t have any real value, and that it is legitimate to approach an artist and tell them that this will be good for “exposure”.

Yes, I appreciate that in this case, that artists *are* compensated.

However for a company which prides itself on its connection with the arts, that has built itself on the back of the arts, and artists, for a company like that to *barter* with those very people... it tells me that they don’t value artists nearly as much as they think they do.

The person who designed the 5th ave Apple store wasn’t paid in iMacs or ‘exposure’, why should an artist be treated any differently?

Mike Wuerthele said:

indiekiduk said:

"Several people have started threads on Apple's support site but had them deleted, iFixit said." if that is true then that is shocking behaviour by Apple's forum team. Is there any evidence like screenshots?

We didn’t have any problems finding forum threads about it.

Yeah, but did you find the deleted ones? One statement does not disprove the other :-)

Not so sure it’s shocking behaviour in any event, those threads might have violated other site standards, like ad hominem (which is forbidden here too but not heavily policed).

radarthekat said:

saltyzip said:

mld53a said:

k2kw said:

radarthekat said:

The fact Apple pulled the allegedly infringing models shows Apple’s seriousness in following through with their case against Qualcomm.  It takes integrity to willingly suffer losses along the way to following through on what you believe to be the correct course of action.   

It shows Apple can’t get away with stealing intellectual property in All markets.   They pulled it because of their dubious legal position.

It shows that Apple is following the German Court mandate and us obeying the law. Not because of their dubious legal position. 

Shame Apple didn't follow the contractual law they had with Qualcomm. Both companies are as bad as one another, greed and bullying must be written into their company charters.

A contract remains valid only as long as it is deemed legal.  Breaking a contract that is executed in bad faith or that has an illegal basis frees the parties involved to break the contract and pursue legal action.  This is what’s going on here. 

Perhaps the better way to put it is that a contract remains on foot until it is shown otherwise. One may allege the contract is illegal but you can’t unilaterally terminate a contract. You take that contract to court and allege some sort of illegality. If the court decides otherwise, you are likely to find yourself in breach as your own behaviour almost certainly means you weren’t fulfilling the contract. That’s why Qualcomm is posting a bond. 

EsquireCats said:

The idea of suspending sales in a market doesn't make any sense and would only harm Apple while helping Apple's competitors.
Also contrary to other posters (on here, but also on other similar posts) Apple is a significant player in the Australian market, and that market is a significant source of revenue for the company as also reflected by the relatively high number of retail stores in Australia.

Apple does however have significant ability to affect change in legislation, especially as it is a large tax payer in the country, which earns it a place to petition the government about such matters.

Don’t kid yourself. $180m tax on $8b revenue? And a good part of that tax paid was deferred from previous years. https://www.crn.com.au/news/apple-pays-largest-australian-tax-bill-in-years-481971