tjwolf

About

Banned
Username
tjwolf
Joined
Visits
99
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,032
Badges
1
Posts
424
  • Bell Labs descendant sues Apple for infringing on clutch of patents

    Bell Northern Research is not any kind of descendent of Bell Labs.  They’ve got nothing to do with one another.  Bell Labs was the research division of the US’ Bell Telephone Company - aka AT&T or Ma Bell.   Bell Northern Research was the research arm of Canada’s Northern Telecom - aka Northern Electric or Bell Canada.
    DnykjpRfC6fnBsronnkillroyapplguyllamawatto_cobrajony0
  • iPhone camera and iOS 14 at crux of Facebook & Instagram spying lawsuit

    iMacabre said:
    Isn't this the kind of thing that Apple is checking for during the review process?
    It's a review process, not a test process.  If the user gave the app access to the camera, a review process that is likely highly automated and can't take very long, given the millions of apps to review, isn't going to catch an app occasionally using the camera when it shouldn't.  Especially when "when it shouldn't" is not exactly easy to determine when the user gave the app permission to access it, overall.
    razorpitgilly33DogpersonmwhitesvanstrombonobobRayz2016sphericmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Apple is 'ungodly well-managed,' says Berkshire Hathaway vice chair

    "... [Berkshire Hathaway] still holds Apple as one of its most valuable assets."  Understatement of the century - Apple is, by far, Berkshire's biggest holding.  Berkshire owns some $170 BILLION worth of AAPL.  Their next biggest holdings are a mere $25 BILLION each: American Express, and Coca Cola.


    scstrrfpatchythepiratebyronlhydrogenh4y3sjas99bala1234watto_cobrajony0
  • Compared: Fortnite on the iPhone XR versus Note 9

    After around 45 minutes of gameplay, the battery life was at 82 percent, meaning it used less power than the iPhone XR for a similar-length gameplay period.” - actually, it’s pretty much a toss-up: the Note 9 has a 4000mAh battery and used 720mAh.  The XR has a much smaller 2942mAh battery and used 735mAh.
    cornchipradarthekatbb-15elijahgbestkeptsecret78Banditwillcropointwatto_cobra
  • Apple engineers lack optimism about the Apple TV strategy, claims report

    Apple’s core clientele are middle to upper income folks.  These folks are looking to simplify, not further clutter their living rooms.  That’s why, I think, Apple TV was never going to be a big seller.  It’s not  about it’s price - it’s about clutter and wiring.  As much as I’ve ridiculed Gene Munster for his years’ long prediction of an impending actual Apple TV set, I think that would be the only way Apple could have succeeded in the living room.  Apple should have sourced some 65”+ OLE panels from LG, added a thin & sexy frame to it, and built a user friendly UI on top.  Add some HomePod like built-in speakers & Homkit hub capability (maybe even throw in a wi-fi router a la AirPort) and Apple would have had a huge success.
    williamlondonScot1doozydozentwokatmewdavidlewis54dysamoriascstrrfwatto_cobrapscooter63
  • Apple Music's Jimmy Iovine says services like Spotify & Pandora can't be profitable

    darkpaw said:
    "Apple Music is effectively a "halo" project, used as much to keep people buying iPhones as generate new revenue."

    Who buys an iPhone because of Apple Music?

    Off-topic: Apple Music ballsed-up my iTunes library. My carefully-curated, fully-ID3-tagged library started since the first version of iTunes was mangled so much I had to wipe it and start again. Thanks for that, Apple.
    Obviously nobody buys an iPhone *solely* because of Apple Music, but lots of people buy iPhones at least partially because of the additional Apple services - including Apple Music.

    Off-topic: I don't use Apple Music, but I love Music Match!  For $25/year, I got a high quality version (ie. Apple's version) of my 300 CD collection I ripped (at low quality) a long time ago.  After I signed up, I subsequently deleted my local library (backed it up of course), and Apple rebuilt it with the high-quality version :-).  I could stop the service and end up with a much better library :-)  But I have kept it - because it lets me keep stuff in the cloud without using up my storage allocation.
    king editor the grateracerhomiejbdragonNameo_kiltedgreenrandominternetpersonjony0watto_cobra
  • Microsoft dethrones Apple, becomes world's most valuable company

    To overtake AAPL,, MSFT's P/E ratio had to go to 37.  AAPL's is at 29.3.  Big difference.  Why does MSFT deserve a higher P/E?  Apple's services business is growing just as fast as MSFT's.  It's established products (iPhone, Mac) are growing just as quickly, if not more so, than MSFT's cloud and subscription services.  On top of that, Apple has new hardware categories (e.g. AirPods, Watch) that are growing gangbusters and for which MSFT has no equivalent.

    MSFT has done a great job getting into the cloud business and moving their core software assets into a subscription-base.  In my view it just doesn't deserve a 10 point higher P/E as it's not growing its revenues much (any?) faster than AAPL.
    patchythepirateJanNLMacProAlex_VFileMakerFeller
  • Apple's lobbying against Georgia app store bill included threats to pull investments

    amar99 said:
    Used to be against Epic, the push for 3rd party apps, etc. But given the recent steps taken by Apple I'm all for the opposition. Apple has shown their true colors, and they ain't pretty.
    You're not logical.  You're fine with EPIC lobbying states to create laws in their favor, but you think Apple fighting this effort with its own lobbying is "showing their true colors, and they ain't pretty"???

    This issue isn't (or shouldn't be) resolved at the state level.  Whatever people think Apple is doing wrong with its App Store policies it is doing at the national, even international level.

    My personal opinion is that as long as Apple is applying the same rules to the apps it sells on the iOS App Store as it applies to third party apps, it can create whatever rules it wants - the App Store is its property!  People crying monopoly abuse are just making noise.  Apple can't have a monopoly, since there is no "market of App Stores" in which it is the dominant/monopolist participant!!  Apple created the App Store to let developers sell their wares to its iPhone and iPad customers - provided they followed its rules.  It told potential iPhone and iPad users that if they buy one of their devices, they don't have to worry about security as much as when they buy other devices, because Apple protects them by only allowing apps on their devices that have been vetted by Apple.  All was good in the world - customers got what they want (a more secure device) and developers got what they want (another channel through which to make money).

    But as time went by, some developers - primarily the more successful ones - no longer liked those rules.  They wanted to keep more of their money.   Leaving the iOS platform in protest wasn't an option - they were making too much money from iPhone customers - so what to do?  The answer, of course, was to turn to politicians for a little "help".  Telling those politicians about "monopoly abuse" and "customer harm" (from not being able to choose where they get their apps from), and greasing the wheels with promises of future campaign contributions, their pleas found fertile ground.

    The only customers that will be harmed if Apple is forced to allow other app stores are Apple's EXISTING CUSTOMERS!  Most bought an iPhone at least partially because of the additional security a single App Store affords.  They would be made less secure if, suddenly, there were multiple stores.  Supporters of more App Stores would argue that those customers would still be just as safe because they could ignore the new stores.  But is this really true? No, it isn't!  If I get an email with a link to an app or an existing app I already have has a link to another app, I now have to be more vigilant that it's not leading to a non-Apple app store.  I now have to worry that everyone in my household that is on my Apple ID is just as vigilant - since a malevolent app on one iPhone can have disastrous effects on all the connected services & devices.  Even outside my family, I now have to worry that my data on iCloud isn't quite as secure as it once was, since there are now more malevolent apps able to run inside the Apple ecosystem, potentially taking advantage of weaknesses in Apple's security, since that security up to now assumed a relatively clean set of devices inside the castle.
    jahbladebaconstangrobabaapplguydanoxArchStantonwatto_cobrajony0
  • 'Apple Car' team dissolved & 2025 launch may be in doubt says Ming-Chi Kuo

    Considering how often I've read this team gets dissolved, I'm not sure the Apple Car will ever be a thing.
    It's not even clear it ever was a thing!  That's the nice thing about rumors - you start one and then simply start another one saying the parties to the first rumor changed their plans.  Voila, you've gotten clicks/revenue on both.

    Apple definitely wants to be in its customers' cars.  But I always thought their ambitions lay solely in CarPlay with a future version of CarPlay reaching further into the car - e.g. providing self-driving capabilities, etc.  Building your own cars is not only highly capital intensive, it's also not all that lucrative - at least not compared to the 30+% margins Apple gets from its iDevices and 70+% on its services.  Were any of the rumors that Apple was approaching car manufacturers to build a car from them ever substantiated?  I mean, I have no doubt Apple did talk to various manufacturers about such a partnership, but that could have just been to inform themselves what the margins, in fact, would be.

    There is supposedly a "Project Titan" at Apple that relates to the car.  But that could simply be a software team working on self-driving features of a future CarPlay, no?
    magman1979mark fearinghcrefugeegregoriusmflyingdpjroylkruppStrangeDaysdesignrcommand_f
  • Jony Ive delayed Apple's AR headset project over design concerns

    asterion said:
    When Apple becomes technology-led rather than design-led we'll know that the spirit of Apple — of Steve — has finally left.
    Apple has always been about excellence in human-centred design.
    More like shareholder-led.
    Clearly nonsense.  If Apple was shareholder led, it would be creating products cheapest possible off-the-shelf components and with the highest possible profits in order to 'maximize shareholder value'.  Shareholders would have made more money in the short term - and Apple wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today.  It's the UX and perception of quality/security/simplicity that made Apple what it is today.
    muthuk_vanalingamcornchipasdasdGG1Scot1chaickaanantksundaramJWSCwatto_cobrafastasleep