Last Active
  • Google faces $9 billion in damages after ripping off Java in Android

    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    Actually, Google did copy code from Java. That's how the case first got started, but that's not really the point. The Java license permits this as fair use, and many of us have made a good living from Java and have given back by helping out on other projects and with occasional bug fixes. If fork a new version of Java, however, and then make a commercial product based around this fork then you are expected to buy a license. IBM did, and so did Microsoft.

    Google thought it was above such paltry concerns as fair use. It believed that because it gave Android away for free, then it wasn't a commercial product and so no license was needed. Unfortunately, the court has decided that because Android is used to harvest user data which is then sold on to advertisers, then it is actually a commercial product: Google does make money from it after all.

    So they are guilty, but what this means in monetary terms is the big unknown. Guilty does not mean they owe Oracle any money, especially if they can prove that Android doesn't make them much. This could be tricky. Google takes 30% from apps sold on the app store. But then a lot of them are free. Google is more concerned with harvesting data from iOS users than Android users. Is that another point in favour of them? Does Android make so little money for them that it translates into not very much owed to Oracle?
    Muntz[Deleted User]MacProericthehalfbeeairnerdflashfan207tmayracerhomie3Macsplosionmariowinco
  • Apple's new Mac mini finally arrives with 5X performance, Thunderbolt 3, more

    ascii said:
    Same chassis after all this time, whaaaaa?
    If there are server farms using these things by the thousand then they might not appreciate a redesigned case. 
  • Apple looking to deploy 1Password company-wide, company buy-out denied [u]

    loopless said:
    I agree that 1Password is much more than a simple password manager - I have been using it for a long time.
    However, the iOS keychain is now much more convenient than 1Password as a single user password manager.
    I have several apps/web sites that prompt me regularly for a password. With keychain, I can unlock the keychain quickly with touch id, then keychain enters them directly from the "keyboard" - the suggestions seem always correct and match up with the app/website.
    With 1Password I would be switching back and forth to the 1Password app to get the username and password.

    Should become much easier when the next round of upgrades are ready. Apple is adding an API that third party password managers can hook into. 
  • Apple proposes flat streaming music royalties for songwriters, at the expense of Spotify, YouTube

    First post, and that's the best he can do. Where's the originality? Where's the suspense?

  • Robbers smash into Apple's flagship UK store in lightning raid

    UK has crime even after banning guns?? What a surprise!!
    UK should consider banning automobiles next cause clearly that’s what is causing these crime. If there were no automobiles these crimes would never happen.
    Yeah, but during the robbery, fifty people weren’t shot dead. 
  • Apple to launch branded over-ear headphones as soon as this year

    What we know:

    They will be gorgeous. 

    They will sound terrific. 

    There will be a cool Jony Ive video. 

    They will cost an arm and a leg. 

    They will miss the Christmas buying period. 

    Audiophiles will claim their $800 Clymedia KnockingFlange XRW646774366SD headsets sound much better. 

    Folk will post lots of bizarre “what if” disaster scenarios: What if I’m walking along and someone shouts “Hey you”. When I look round, someone hits me in the face with a frozen kipper and runs off with my iMuffs. 

    A month after they’re released, Samsung will drop viral marketing shots of an almost identical product, except they will hint that the sound will be ten times better and they will be the first headphones featuring a unique “over the groin” design. 

    tmaybrian greenmmatzmike1fruitstandninjadacharracerhomie3eideardNotsofastSoli
  • Ad firms losing 'hundreds of millions' after Apple clamps down on Safari tracking

    It’s almost as if Apple owns the only platforms worth advertising on. 🤔
    tmaywlymanton zuykovStrangeDayslollivertdknoxmacseekerMuntzracerhomie3christopher126
  • Goldman Sachs may accept 'subprime' Apple Card applications

    jusjeff said:
    664 and denied...  :/
    Yes, I imagine that they’re taking into account more than just your credit score. 

    It’s quite possible that folk with lower scores will get approved if they have a high enough income. 

    I worked for for a credit card company a while back, and the offer formula is not as simple as AI believes it to be. Not only that, but the formula can change a n response to market forces. 

    We once ran the workforce through test applications, and found that contractors with higher pay and no debt were less likely to get an approval. 
  • Global notebook shipments up with Apple showing biggest growth

    But … but … the keyboard falls to bits if you breathe on it!

    Apple skimps on memory!
    There’s no parallel port!
    If Steve was alive he’d turn in his grave!
    It costs several times as much as something else!
    I know nothing about Apple, but I’d just like to say how totally fabulous Google is!
    I know nothing about anything but I’d just like to say how totally fabulous Huawei is!
    There’s a woman running retail!
    It’s too thin!
    I have to carry so many dongles my added mass is affecting local tide patterns!
    Why don’t they buy Netflix!
    Why does Apple hate me!

    Thread summary.

    You’re welcome. 

    I’m off to the beach. 
  • Editorial: Bloomberg spins Apple's Event as a desperate, blind stab for cheap iPads in edu...

    I have to say I’m a bit of a fan of young Daniel’s “stream of consciousness” writing style: always well-researched, always passionate, rarely spell-checked…

    This particular article had me thinking about something that’s played on my mind for some time, and I think it was a bold observation on Daniel’s part that will probably encourage more heated debates further down the line. 

    Poor schools (the majority of them) buy Chromebooks. I assume this is true even though all the schools I encounter have iPads. (Mrs Rayz2016 is a head teacher which is why I know a lot of other head teachers, and is also why she always takes charge in a hotel evacuation. Nothing moves an adult faster than a headteacher telling them what to do. I think it’s a genetic memory thing). 

    Anyway, here’s the takeaway from this article. 

    If a child uses a platform in school then he will carry on using that platform as an adult. 

    Daniel’s right: it’s a myth. If it wasn’t a myth then the iPad would never have sustained its lead. I used a PC throughout my formative years, and couldn’t wait to get off the platform as soon as I could afford it. 

    Furthermore, Apple knows it’s a myth. 

    Furthermore, I suspect that both Daniel and Apple know that once the kid gets home, the Chromebook is dropped in favour of the iPad, which the family can afford to buy because they got the Chromebook for nothing (thanks Google!). 

    Furthermore, Google knows its a myth too. But it doesn’t matter because their business is data harvesting, not education, so they’re happy to support education as long as they can track data from it to sell on. 

    But if there should come a time that folk become worried about the tracking of personal information, especially when it concerns their kids, then Google might find itself under the same sort of scrutiny being suffered by Facebook at the moment. (Incidentally, neither Facebook or Google has done anything wrong: everything they do is fully explained to you when you sign up – aside from when they do something illegal, like track your browser when you tell them not to). 

    There have been more, far more serious data breaches recently, and Apple has kept quiet. Now the Facebook thing, and Apple starts banging the drum. I think that Apple's timing is no accident. I’m going to stick my neck out and say that the privacy of the child will be a big thing at Apple going forward. Might even get a mention at the event on a Tuesday. 

    As for a desperate attempt to win back education? Apple won’t get drawn into a race to the bottom of the class; they’ll catch ‘em later. So don’t expect loss-making iPads on Tuesday.