bmatthews

beadlien said:

I literally couldn’t care less.

Ostensibly, you could care a bit less so as not even to bother commenting on how little you care.

Personally, I find this whole thing fascinating from a PR and implementation perspective. I can't say as I'm a fan of Yeezy myself, but I'm super curious as to how much of this is staged buzz and how much of it is organic, ie. is a delay really a delay when there are organized events to drip feed more hype. It's like meta-hype--press coverage about the press coverage. Makes for a great media studies case study.

I do find the structure of this article kind of confusing though. The headline makes it sound as the the album is no longer available, the article itself clarifies that it's only impacting a small number of people.

Two things I don't understand: 1) Why didn't the designer apply for a patent for the concept of inclusive emoji rather than rely on a copyright for the artwork? 2) Wouldn't this case have more to do with the Unicode Consortium than with Apple?

This might look like an evil corporation going after something frivolous, but they actually have to take action because of the way trademark cases go these days. As someone that has seen the flip side of trademark disputes, for every trademark that is in anyway similar to yours that you don't dispute can actually be used against you by another company to demonstrate a lack of suitable protection. It's the law that's messed up, not the companies.

Mightn't just be for updating the Vision Pro availability in new countries?