- Last Active
SpamSandwich said:A little surprised they took this long to come around to the right conclusion since they are so concerned about the bottom dollar.
These cases are not similar at all and the assertion that they are shows a lack of understanding concerning anti-trust Law.
Anti-trust is about protecting the consumer by ensuring fair competition. Europe’s rules and the US rules differ, but the principles are the same. They tend on focusing on preventing monopolists from abusing their power to enter new markets or squeezing out competition.
In Europe Google has a monopoly when it comes to search and it’s phone operating system. Third party phone makers have no realistic choice, but to use Android. Google is using this dominance to ensure its other services like email, search, and itsbrowser stay entrenched by forcing hardware manufacturers to bundle these services or else not get a license to use Android.
microsoft did the same thing with Windows. Pc makers would get very unfavorable licensing terms or no license at all if they didn’t bundle and make Explorer the default. It put the then dominant Netscape out of business.
Apple got a raw deal with e-books. Apple had no market power to force publishers to do anything. The system Amazon favored allowed it to set the prices of ebooks thereby often selling the ebooks at a loss to publishers. Further, Amazon has the monopoly in online book sales and was using that monopoly to force publishers to give favorable terms for ebooks. The government screwed that one up. That is why Apple felt confident it would win at trial.
with the App Store Apple doesn’t have a monopoly for phone hardware sales. If you don’t like the App Store buy a phone made by somebody else.
allmypeople said:Trump has MAJOR issues.
But SO does Clinton... Arguably worse in many areas. I read Clinton Cash (well reviewed in the left & right press) and it is horrifying. There's lots of smart members on this board. Read the book or google some of the articles about it.
Bottom line: I don't think it's a good idea for Apple to take sides.
Many people probably forgot or don't remember - Jobs was friends with the Clintons. They stayed at his house when they visited their daughter when she attended Stanford.
Further, Jobs put Al Gore on Apple's board, where he still remains.
sflocal said:SpamSandwich said:huckdaisy1 said:Time to vote Al off the island.Seriously, imho Al has been a dead weight on the board. Does anyone have any info on what Gore has done in the past decade?
I'd be more interested in what you did in the last decade. I at least know who Al Gore is. Steve Jobs also personally picked Al Gore for Apple's board. I wonder why he didn't call you?
racoleman29 said:Democrat here. She'd never get my vote...Apple hater.
Apple is not a monopoly and it build the App Store concept from the ground up. I don’t always like how it polices the store but I could switch to another phone if it mattered that much.
Google and Facebook and Amazon have different issues. They often use their monopoly status in one area to push a new product in a new area at the expense of fair competition and to the detriment of consumers.
MlorianFueller said:applemagic said:
Hmm...I am not sure why AI is presenting this (the incentive payment) as some kind of a bribe that Apple offered Qualcomm. Going by Florian Mueller's article on fosspatents.com, it appears to be the other way around!
That is, Qualcomm had a habit of negotiating incentive payments from device makers in return for strategic favours. So, there's really no wrinkle in the FTC case, as suggested by AI. Instead, it's one of four issues related to Qualcomm's conduct that are being investigated. To quote:********
For the FTC, Jennifer Milici outlined the four key issues surrounding Qualcomm's conduct that the FTC is tackling (let's not forget that some other aspects are at issue in Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego, where a trial will start on April 15), which are interrelated as she also explained:
- the "no license-no chips" policy;
- incentive payments (for a brief explanation, those incentives effectively reduce patent licensing fees in exchange for doing Qualcomm some strategically-relevant favors);
- the refusal to license rival chipset makers (note that Judge Koh's summary judgment in this context was based on contractual obligations, while the focus at this trial is now on an antitrust duty to deal); and
- past exclusive arrangements with Apple.
Oh, and btw - https://www.sullcrom.com/district-court-holds-that-frand-commitment-does-not-require-licensing-at-chip-level
You are kidding right? Mueller mostly took Samsung and Nokia's in Apple's fight with those two. Further, Qualcomm's CEO's testimony doesn't even make sense. Apple didn't have any leverage over Qualcomm to demand anything. Who else is the FTC going to get to testify other than the companies that have dealings with Qualcomm?
Additionally, if a robber asks you for the hundred dollars in your pocket, and you agree because he has a gun to your head, that doesn't really mean you agreed in a legally binding manner.
The district court case doesn't mean anything. Texas is a friendly to patent Plaintiff's that is why everybody sues there. The case was contrary to how a California court rules, and the Texas court had to apply French law. It likely will get appealed.
avon b7 said:mercel said:Joe Arredondo said:At least the Chinesse realize they dont have what is required to create such amazing products and they are trying to learn how to make it... is bad but you have to learn somewere.... Apple need to protect better its investments
The US is pushing other countries hard to stop Huawei's progress in key strategic fields where the US looks to lose influence.
Pompeo is on tour at this very moment and attacking Huawei at every step - and admitting to it publicly - but with little or nothing in tow in terms of facts.
I would say if there is anything to bite on, companies must present formal charges. 'Anonymous' claims and how they are presented should be taken lightly until the 5G roll out is well under way.
Huawei's R&D outlay has been consistently near the top of the world rankings for years now and that is part of the reality the US hawks do not want to entertain.
The courts is very much the way to go if any of the facts want to be heard (should they truly exist).
As far as stripping down competitors' products goes, I'm sure it's standard practice and I include Apple in this group too as well.
There is also a difference between buying a competitors products to learn how they work to illegally stealing the underlying IP. I wonder who's phone Apple bought and broke down when it first came up with the iPhone or Apple Watch.
eye.surgeon said:So the multinational corporation is worried about elected officials accountable to the people meddling with the constitution. I guess Apple prefers to do the meddling themselves. Certainly they have welcomed their communist Chinese overlords with open arms, censorship and all, without a complaint.
Apple isn’t going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building a second home if it isn’t happy with the environment. Like any company, it wants the move to be financially beneficial. It also wants employees to want to work at the location. Apple has not publically commented on its views regarding NC’s circus policitcal environment, but it certainly is entitled to make those views known.
As far as Apple doing business in China goes, I’m not a fan, but Apple’s view is it can effectuate change from within, and putting up with China’s laws is worth the access to the market and manufacturing. Maybe it’s right. Maybe it’s made a mistake. Nonetheless it would be very expensive for Apple to just move from China after the tremendous investments it’s made in the country. Perhaps that is why Apple is proceeding cautiously in NC. It doesn’t want to make an enormous investment that it can’t easily back out of. You have already seen Apple slowly attempt to reduce its reliance on China for manufacturing by assisting its manufacturing partners to open new facilities in other countries.
Elected Officials might be accountable to the people, but Politicians, mostly Republicans, have fought to stack the deck in their favor by redrawing districts to dilute their opponents votes. Further, schools have been stripped of funding, so many people truly aren’t educated enough to understand what they are voting for. We allow the rich to spend billions of dollars to influence elections. Our source of news is owned by the same rich people. The whole trying to rewrite the constitution in NC to undermine a law fully elected governor is just another example that voters really don’t have much power. The people vote for something, the politicians try to undermine that.
equality72521 said:Getting bold these Lefties.
StrangeDays said:patchythepirate said:AppleExposed said:
But when will Apple use their tech? Apple acquired a company years ago that had a voice assistant that was so smart it makes all the current assistants look like 4-year-olds.
Exactly. Even though she is limited on the HomePod, I find her especially rewarding because she hears great. She does all the things you mention and more. She increased he joke library to boot. She added Wikipedia to her knowledge base. I ask her things all the time like, "who whom the Oscar for best picture in 1972." She knows the answer. She also can tell you things like what is the best reviewed coffee place or what is the closet coffee place. She is completely useful. She keeps improving without announcements to For instance, Siri on HomePod couldn't originally do multiple timers. Now she can. I often tell her I love a song, which means she will remember what songs are my favorites. Siri will make reservations.
She sometimes will fail on my phone if my phone is on wifi and I have a poor connection or if I am using her over bluetooth in my car but this is for poor internet connection issues. Some of this could be improved by not needing the internet for certain tasks that could be performed on the phone.
Siri also needs works building off previous asked questions.