CloudTalkin

Unfortunately, the article is factually incorrect.  The car referenced in this article is 1. not the rare 1979 Apple liveried 935 K3 that raced at Le Mans, 2. was never sponsored by Apple, and 3 the video in the article is not the Apple 935 K3.  The car in the article is a replica (hence the cheap $500K price tag) basically built from a GT2 chassis. 

Tangent: The replica being an older reskinned GT2 is ironic since the new Porsche 935, built as an homage to the original, is basically just a new GT2 RS reskinned to race spec.  Details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT2EhcwoO6k

Fun fact:  The real Apple 935 K3 is owned by Adam Carolla.  He paid a whopping $4.4 million for the car because it was owned by Paul Newman.  Story here.  It won a class victory and 2nd overall at the 1979 24hr of Le Mans with Newman co-driving with Barbour and Stommelen. Apple only sponsored the car for one season since the 1980 campaign was not very successful.  The car went back to it's primary sponsor, Hawaiian Tropic (the livery it wears now) and subsequently won the '81 24hrs of Daytona and '83 12hrs of Sebring.  

Carolla is a die hard Paul Newman fanboy.  He owns 10 of Newman's race cars.  Personally I think the truth is a better story than the original.

sflocal said:

mknelson said:

sflocal said:

I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

All I can think of is that would be the licensing fee that Broadcom would have charged Apple IF Broadcom had licensed the CalTech patents?

Maybe, but whatever money Broadcom got from Apple I would think is irrelevant.  Broadcom sold x-number of infringing chips to Apple, and <insert other phone manufacturers), then each $1.40 in costs per chip is owed to CIT from Broadcom.  

A patent holder can sue anyone along the chain of alleged infringement.  In this particular instance, CIT can sue Broadcom who made the chips, Apple who uses the chips, and even end users who use the products that use the chips.  Obviously, there's no strategic advantage to suing end users or shipping companies that move the chips or any of the other ancillary touch points.  

I know you're probably saying to yourself, "but that's not fair".  You'd be right, but it would be pointless to make that observation.  The laws as currently constructed say that it's legal.  Here's a classic example of legal but even more unfair:  Microsoft v Datatern.  End users sued.

applesauce007 said:

Apple should appeal.
Broadcom could be sued but not Apple.

Unfortunately, that's not how the law works.

razorpit said:

mike1 said:

If this is all true, I'm very surprised to learn that Hyundai uses separate plant(s) to manufacture essentially the same car(s).

I also doubt that Kia would need to "agree to take control of production". They'd be told they are producing the car.

I don’t know the Hyundai/Kia models that well, is there a Kia made that Hyundai doesn’t offer? Maybe it is a Kia plant that also makes Hyundai’s? Just a wild guess but I could see where the minivan plant would have plenty of spare capacity right now due to the SUV craze. Not saying this is where minivans are made, just an example.

Kia's plant in Georgia makes the Sorento, Optima,Telluride, and made the Hyundai Santa Fe (2010-16). 
Hyundai's plant in Alabama makes the Sonata, Elantra, and made the Santa Fe (2007-10).  Will start making the Tucson and Santa Cruz in 2021.

Since 2016, the Santa Fe production has been shared by both facilities. 
Info from Thanks Obama! Wikipedia.

 Apple has been in discussions over micro LED for some years, and is believed to be already gearing up to produce devices with the related mini LED technology.

Nice recap until the last sentence.  That sentence is only going to serve to further cement the confusion of the people who already think the technologies are related.  Micro LED is more closely related to OLED.  They are both emissive screen technologies where the individual pixels are lit to produce an image.  Mini LED is a backlighting technology that requires an LCD layer for image production.

goofy1958 said:

harrykatsaros said:

aderutter said:

This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea.
I

100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.

Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them.  Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me).  I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me.  If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.

Apple couldn't put out a disclaimer stating using an alternative store or infrastructure would void the warranty.  That would be considered anti-competitive and would be smacked down in short order.  Example: Your screen has a small crack and you want it replaced before the crack grows.  Oh no there's an app on your phone from an alternative app store.  Warranty voided.  ←  That dog won't hunt.

Apple could (and will if everything comes to fruition) put out a disclaimer that they are not liable for damage to device or information compromised by an alternative app store app.  Example: Alt-app store app steals cc and banking info or app causes chip to overheat and burn components.  ← Apple not responsible.  That dog will hunt.

wood1208 said:

It is good to live in a country with an independence justice system but when it comes to the national security, Court should respect president's decision to ban Tik-Tok. If US Court system can not understand national security issue and support own president than how can anyone trust if other critical national issue comes in front of the Court to decide and make the right decision..

No they should not.  The courts should serve as one-third of the checks and balances our government is suppose to use lead justly and wisely.  "National security" is not a catch all, blanket term to be used to circumvent the rule of law.  It's not the courts who don't understand.  Based on your post, it's you who lack the understanding.  Real national security issues come with substantiating evidence backing the claims.  Thus far, beyond Tic-Tok users embarrassing Trump, there has yet to be any credible evidence backing national security claims.  Trump using the government to settle personal vendettas doesn't rise to the level of national security.

Why is Appleinsider including a picture of the Fitbit Sense on an Apple Watch article?  

fred1 said:

How about buying Corning outright?

That would be a terribly terrible idea.  Corning's product mix is incongruent with Apple's products.    Apple doesn't do manufacturing because it makes no financial sense for them.   Manufacturing at the scale we're discussing only makes sense at extremely high volumes.  That means manufacturing for as many customers as possible.  Apple making glass for Apple wouldn't reach that type of volume.  The hypothetical Apple Glass company wouldn't be manufacturing glass for everyone else so their costs would be astronomical... consequently so would yours.  

Never say never, but Apple is never getting into manufacturing.  There's no business case that makes any sense for them to ever do it.  Just like there's no business case for Apple buying Corning.  Their current relationship is optimal as is.

More importantly, Samsung has an ownership stake in Corning.  

The SID hands out 3 Display of the Year awards annually.  This year's recipients were Apple for the XDR, BOE for their BD Cell Display, and Samsung for their foldable display.  The article sort of conspicuously omitted one of the winners.

Beats said:

Apple needs to jump on this with an exclusive deal. Android runs games like sh** anyway. 

Bud, Sony isn't doing any exclusive deals with Apple or anyone else.  Exclusivity deals would only hinder Sony's efforts.  Sony wants to get their mobile/clould/PC gaming initiatives running to catch up with Microsoft.  They got caught flat-footed with MS's Game Pass.  Xbox Game Pass is currently handing Sony's equivalent Playstation Now service it's ass in a hat.  

Fortunately, it's early in the life of Game Pass and Sony has time to catch up... if they execute properly.  Executing properly means getting their IP in front of the most people possible.  To get their IP in front of the most people possible they have to get PS Now in a better state... and quick.