- Last Active
Apple's listing on the Trademark List appears to be something of a fuck you to these folks. Memoji as listed there now is all-caps MEMOJI® (unlike every other mark listed) and if you look at the original lawsuit, you'll find the Android app was using MEMOJI while Apple was using Memoji. This is also in contrast to how Apple actually uses it, as Memoji.
Basically Social Tech filed an intent to use MEMOJI [Pseudo mark: ME MOJI] in April 2016 and then, more than two years later, was still not ready to go when Apple launched Memoji. They then scrambled to put something out so they could capitalize on having filed the intent to use and maintained it over those two years.
Also, the trademark application that Apple did buy was for MEmoji ... [Pseudo mark: ME EMOJI] -- filed April 2017.
So they are different.
Maybe when Apple's lawyer cites "common law" in its defense he is talking about the fact Social Technologies did not launch until after Apple did so. So they can't complain about getting swamped, and they have no right to recompense for that. Apple isn't required to sit around waiting to see if Social Tech will ever launch. They can argue about ME EMOJI versus ME MOJI, but that's all. And maybe that's a loser for Social Tech, because ME EMOJI is a stronger pseudo mark than ME MOJI -- WTF is a "MOJI" ? -- when Apple uses "Memoji."
Misogyny aside, this is her job, and there is no question the government needs to look at these issues and take positions. The App Store bullshit is minor in the overall picture. Whatever oversight or regulation that gets enacted in that respect will not pose any serious issues for Apple.
No, social platforms like Facebook will be front and center here. Things like the Instagram acquisition and other kinds of anti-competitive practices need to be looked at. Not to mention privacy and security aspects. The idea we should all sit around with our thumbs up our asses while we let people like Mark Zuckerberg do whatever they like is not going to fly.
KidGloves said:Looks amazing though I would like to see how the likely crippled $5999 version compares to similar PC workstations. I can't help thinking that the Apple Tax is back with a bang. The stuff looks like it's fantastically engineered (probably over the top for 90%). Anyone want to guess how much RAM the $5999 version will ship with?
We're talking a base version that's DOUBLE the price of the current base. That's a big jump in anyone's book.
So that thinking is wrong.
StrangeDays said:On Gruber's podcast he said there are no suitable new Xeon chips to put in the iMac Pro. Is this correct?
The new ones are 165W, instead of 140W. They use the same socket, and support more memory (up to 1 TB instead of 512 GB in the first-generation).
These are us. Setup took a few minutes, as I had to use their serial numbers to manually identify which of our three nodes was in which room, but it was easy and basically nothing to it. The Linksys app just asked if I wanted to integrate with HomeKit, then sent me to the Home app.
One thing I’m not sure about is parental controls over internet access for kids’ devices. I used to manage that from the Linksys app, and it looks like I still can, but I’m not sure if I’ve got additional options now, with regard to Screen Time and the like. If I learn anything interesting, I’ll post it here.
Dave Kap said:This is a great article and reminds me of DED. Speaking of DED, can anybody tell me if he is ok and coming back to Apple Insider?
He’s still active on Twitter. So I don’t know, it’s hard to say. Seems like he’s been on leave from AI, rather than being completely gone, or maybe now he’s working freelance rather than on staff?
dk49 said:Xed said:dk49 said:"It will take another 5 to 7 years to ship". I am afraid that's quite long, and if Apple finally launches the car in that time gap, it might be too late. Other car makers like Tesla would have evolved quite a lot. Even If Apple manages to release a Level 5 autonomy vehicle, it's highly likely that others like Tesla and Waymo would have done so already. And given that Tesla and other are increasingly focusing on the in-car entertainment and productivity, Apple's offering might not be as compelling as it seems right now.
Tim Cook always says, "we want to be the best, not the first", but if you enter a nascent market too late, the odds of failure increases. Homepod is the perfect example of that.
The HomePod isn't one of them at this time, but there are reasons why a Siri-controlled device that puts security first can't compete with the likes of Google and Amazon when customers have little regard about their own data privacy… and I say this as someone who has four creepy Echos in his home. Even Apple had to scale back HomeKit security to get 3rd-party vendors to adopt it.
Smartphones were not new when it launched. Windows Mobile, Palm, BlackBerry, and Symbian phones all existed, and more. iPhone was derided as being far behind the competition—why? Because it didn’t allow third-party apps. The irony in that criticism, of course, is later, when Apple did introduce the iOS App Store, it crushed that competition almost literally overnight—mobile developers flocked to it because it wasn’t an expensive, pay-to-play scheme like all the others. You basically only paid Apple if you were successful.
The negative “trashcan” crowd here are engaging in a bit of selective memory with regard to what Apple has said about the problems with the 2013 cylindrical Mac Pro.It’s instructive to go back and look at what was actually said in 2017, now with the added benefit of hindsight:
For example, the remarkable description of how a subset of Apple's “pro” users had been drifting away from the Mac Pro, toward increasingly-powerful iMacs. In addition, they talked about how the 2013 cylinder was an attempt to meet the needs of a further subset of Mac Pro users, for whom the regular iMac just wasn’t enough. The iMac Pro was also aimed at them, and this glimpse into Apple’s thinking at that time would argue for its rebirth into the Apple Silicon world.They do admit pretty much outright that they failed the subset of Mac Pro users who want a modular system. Thus the current Mac Pro was born. But that doesn’t negate the reality or weight of the other two subsets Apple was catering to. Nothing in the 2017 mea culpa (or since) suggests Apple has given up on the users who liked the cylinder and/or the iMac Pro, at least in concept. Especially now in a world where the XDR display exists.
The devil will be in the details here, so we’ll see, but this ruling dovetails nicely with the new South Korean anti-steering law that is in the works. It formalizes something Apple is going to have to do anyway because of laws like the one in South Korea. Like that law, this ruling doesn’t say Apple doesn’t have a right to extract payment from Epic for using its platform. Somehow I’m not worried about Apple figuring out how to do that. There’s a reason Epic is appealing this, and not Apple.I am flabbergasted there are people commenting on here who think the App Store cut is only for payment-processing. You’d think folks would stop for a second and think, “No, that can’t be right,” but they don’t. Yes, it’s not surprising given the times we live in, but I still find it to be — what’s the right word? — incredible.