randominternetperson

Huh, perhaps we should read the linked articles more carefully.  Here's the English translation of one:

https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2020/10/09/n_15056407.shtml

"Representatives of the American company Apple denied the data on the requirements to remove Telegram channels about Belarus. RIA Novosti reports .
The company said that they only turned to the Telegram administration with a request to take immediate action to delete personal data posted without the consent of specific individuals.
Apple clarified that such requirements arose against the background of complaints from users. So, people said that their personal information was disclosed in Telegram channels.
Apple representatives added that the service team did not object and promised to check the information received, and after investigation, give answers."

In other words, this wasn't about the App Store at all.  Someone complained to Apple that their personal information was available via this app without their consent and Apple reached out to the creator of the App to seek deletion of this information.  Seems pretty reasonable and harmless--unless the Apple representative included an "or else" that isn't acknowledged by Apple.

Perhaps we should be careful to take every tweet or complaint at face value.  Many times people completely mischaracterize what happened to make their case more compelling.

dewme said:

So, some guy gets his few minutes of fame and brief access to a bully pulpit to thank his supporters and possibly call the world to action for a noble cause, and he uses this opportunity to whine about his personal issues with a keyboard. 

Wow. 

Misleading headline notwithstanding, it wasn't during his Oscar acceptance speech.  It was just a comment made during an interview.

Worth watching the 3 minute video.  It appears that Scotland is trying to do the right thing in being transparent and minimizing violation of privacy.  No hint at how they are able to crack encrypted devices, but that's not the point of the video.  I find it amusing that the end of the video says "for more information visit the Scotland Police website" without providing a domain name, let alone a URL.  I suppose that's what search engines are for. https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/police-scotland/specialistcrime-division/cybercrime-investigations-digital-forensics/cyber-kiosks

Based on that link, they do acknowledge that they won't be able to access all phones:

Q11. Will ‘Cyber Kiosks’ be used for all mobile telephone and tablet examinations in Scotland?
There are a number of specific circumstances where the use of Cyber Kiosks would not be appropriate, such as:
• The device does not work and is thought to be critical to the enquiry.
• The password for the device cannot be overcome (after consultation with cybercrime).
• The case involves child abuse images.
• The investigation relates to a potential internal or disciplinary enquiry.
• The data is known to be on the device (e.g. a witness has told the police the evidence in on the device)
• The data extraction is extremely large and cannot be managed on a Cyber Kiosk.

Nonsense.  None of those is an example of "Sherlocking."

One cannot "Sherlock" a company the size of Google or even Zoom.  Also, creating an application in an existing, robust product space doesn't count.  Did Apple "Sherlock" all the other browsers when they introduced Safari?  (No; that's ridiculous.)  Finally, adding features to the OS or an application that are already well established in the marketplace doesn't count.

Nearly every example above if one where Apple is (finally) entering a market with lots of existing players or adding features that numerous other competitors already have.

The Zoom example is particularly silly.  FaceTime predates Zoom by years.  Is the notion that it's somehow unfair for Apple to keep it's products up to date once competitors come along?

larryjw said:

We know one system that will run the Apple Silicon -- Mac Pro. That's what they were demoing the products on.

Actually that's not true.  It was running on a custom prototype.  You're confusing the monitor with the MacPro hardware.

Can someone explain to us how Telegram works?  Individual channels aren't posted as updates that go through the App Store review process, are they?  So I'm going to assume, like most of the posters above, that Telegram is a platform that allows users to create "channels" during the normal use of the app.  Therefore, Apple learned of this because someone complained?  Even so, how is this different from any other messaging that flows through iOS apps every day?

On the other hand, it sounds like Apple is insisting that channels that are used exclusively to publish the personal information (presumably addresses and schedules?) of individuals. ["Durov countered, saying the three accounts in question "consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections," concluding that the removal of offending posts effectively equates to shutting down those channels."]  If there is a valid objection for interfering with speech, that's a pretty good reason.  In the US this past week there was talk about a group kidnapping and executing a midwestern governor.  This sounds like the same sort of information sharing.  I doubt they are sharing this information to mail birthday cards.

Again, I don't see why Apple is involved.  I don't understand why Apple thinks this violates its rules.  But perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to assume that Apple is appeasing dictators and crushing democracy with these requests.  Hopefully they would have made the same move if it were the Belarusian government posting the personal information of protesters using the Telegram app.

corrections said:

dysamoria said:

They should buy it all back and delist. Getting off the gambler’s market would result in far more stability.

Apple doesn’t have the trillion dollars that would require. As it bought up its stock, the value of the remaining shares would go up, so the actual cost of taking AAPL private would be higher than its current market cap. 

Sorry if someone else already answered this on page 2, but it's a common misconception that a company can take itself private.  It cannot.  When a company is taken private is because some set of investors (perhaps the executives of the company) buys up all the available shares.  So, theoretically someone (or a consortium of people) with a trillion dollars (or the resources to borrow that sum, give or take a few hundred billion) could take Apple private, but Apple can't buy it's last share and own itself.

22july2013 said:

I guess I was right, in my posts on this website. The Mac Mini would be one of the first Apple Silicon Macs. I don't recall anyone else predicting that. Yay me!

Given the form factor that was provided to developers, this isn't a surprise at all.

Here's a useful exercise.  Grab a piece of paper and a ruler.  Draw a 10-inch line using the ruler.  Now at the mid-point of the line, mark a point half a millimeter to the left or right of the line.  Now make a triangle out of this by connecting the two ends of the original line to the new dot.  Even if you used a fine point mechanical pencil (.5mm or .3mm), to draw these lines, there is no "daylight" inside this triangle.  Now hold the paper up to your eye, looking down the line.  You will see the "bend" even though for all intents and purposes, there is no bend.  If someone gets an iPad with this level of "bend" and wants to return it, that says more about them than Apple.

And if they have more of a bend then that, then Apple considers that defective.  There is no story here.

Hey, if you get trampled in an Apple Store, it's not unreasonable that you sure Apple for damages. This hardly seems different from the fact that you can sue me if you hurt yourself if you trip over an uneven paving stone walking up to my front door. This is just how common law torts work.

 What I find interesting is Apple is everywhere in this legal filing referred to as "Apple Computer Inc. [doing business as] Apple, Inc." This suggests that when Apple changed it's name from Apple Computer to Apple Inc., they didn't really. They just file some d/b/a/ paperwork somewhere, but their incorporation papers still have the original name. Just an interesting tidbit, of no practical significance.