Last Active
  • Epic vs. Apple takes new turn as 34 US states & DOJ side with 'Fortnite' maker

    Dogperson said:
    List all the states so people can contact their representatives. Actually do something about this BS.
    Or go on your state gov website and look at pending legislation!
    "Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C. (I’m not taking a position on the controversial question of statehood here), Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah (submitter), Vermont, and Washington" - White House and 35 US states support Epic Games antitrust appeal against Apple

    The crazy thing is the California court could only use state law to claim anything for Epic - on every Federal guideline they found for Apple.  That is why I suspect this might be little more than political pandering as I can't see the Ninth Circuit overruling the California court.  Never mind any legislation could turn into a 'let's open up everything' boondoggle.
  • Developers get day in court over 'tyrannical greed' of Apple's App Store

    It is entirely reasonable for Apple to set a standard by which app developers comply. Why should Apple provide the App Store free? It has cost Apple a huge amount to create it. Plainly many developers are happy enough to pay a fee. When you go shopping, you pay a sum which covers the store’s overheads. Where does £200 billion come from? That is obviously completely fanciful.  If the apps are free, the amount of compensation is obviously nil: any percentage of nothing is nothing. To me such a claim is vexatious litigation and the court should throw it out. 
    Why is the court wasting its time with these two?  The points they are raising have already been addressed in the Epic vs Apple case ( Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21) and other than the anti-steering provision Epic lost on every point.  It should be noted Apple has asked for a dismissal of the the lawsuit (something the OP doesn't mention). The court should rule for Apple and hit them for Apple's legal feed and send a clear message to those looking for a big court payout.

  • iMac Pro is 'currently unavailable' from Apple in the US, Canada [u]

    MplsP said:
    Great. Now let’s get back to making the iMac all it can be. 

    Would love to see:

    1) hefty cpuGPU core counts with architecture improvements. 

    2) massive amounts of RAM. 

    3) ultrawide screen of 34 inches or greater. It’s time. Everyone loves ultrawide. 

    If Apple really wants to make an enduring splash with the new Mac of Macs, it’s time to show the world how ultrawide is done. 

    And while you’re at it... make it touch capable. I’d rather not have to use a Microsoft surface to control concert lighting...

    4) colors: silver, space, gray, blue, gold, green, and brilliant white. 

    5) a minimal and industrial design aesthetic. 

    How about just upgradable ram and an upgradable hard drive (or a place to add a 2nd HD/SSD

    personally, I’d rather not have a touch screen - a touch screen on an iMac isn’t really convenient and just leaves fingerprints all over the beautiful screen. 
    The 27" iMac has upgradable RAM, and I hope the new iMacs keep this feature.

    HD/SSD upgrade without having to remove the screen would be nice too...

    If, for whatever reason, the SSD ends up being soldered in, I like your idea of having a place to add a 2nd SSD. Perhaps a removable panel to provide access to an area that would allow attaching a Thunderbolt drive inside. Or, given that SDUC-I Express cards can have SSD speed and capacity, maybe two SD slots--one external and one internal (you wouldn't want to inadvertently eject an SD card being used as an SSD). Frankly, I doubt either of these would happen, but we can dream, can't we?
    Why do this when you can just have and external SSD that you can boot from?  The is an iMac not a portable.
    forgot usernamewilliamlondonRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Apple appeals ruling in Epic Games lawsuit, requests stay on App Store changes

    Their is no antitrust. No monopoly. No breaking of the law going on. How the previous judge went above their pay grade and basically legislated from the bench is beyond rational thought. 

    Let’s see a judge on appeal who actually does their job snd simply rules based on right snd wrong according to the law. 

    To be fair to the Judge that one point Apple lost on seems to be due to California state law not federal law.  I have no idea how well that part will hold up via appeal.
  • Tested: Mac Studio with M1 Max vs. Mac Studio with M1 Ultra

    Does anyone else think that paying $400 for 32GB of RAM or $200 for 512GB of SSD space is a bit expensive? Like perhaps four times what the parts should cost? I guess we will just have to upgrade them our... oh snap!
    It's always entertaining when commenters here become component cost experts. 
    You mean like every fiscally responsible person who budgets and justifies purchases? 

    Of course we know what things cost. And of course we feel gouged when Apple pulls this stuff.
    Dell Memory Upgrade - 32GB - 2RX8 DDR5 UDIMM 4800MHz costs $519.99... which is $119 less than the $400 Apple is charging.  And thanks to the M1 that can pull double duty as video RAM.  So what exactly is Apple "pulling"?  Or are you not as knowledgeable as you think you are?
  • Apple blames business rivals for India App Store antitrust filing

    One only has to go to statcounter to see this is a total BS lawsuit: (For India) Android 72.81%; Windows 17.9%; Unknown 3.86%; iOS 2.73%; Linux 0.97%; OS X 0.91%

    Limited to just the mobile market (for India): Android 95.53% iOS 3.43%; KaiOS 0.81%; Samsung 0.11%; Nokia Unknown 0.04%; Tizen 0.03%

    The very idea that Apple dominates anything outside of its own brand is so insane that the CCI should regard the Together We Fight Society with the same contempt the Ninth Circuit regarded the Coalition for App Fairness (nothing but a mouthpiece/sock puppet and not worth the government's time to even listen to)
  • Apple calls Epic Games 'self-serving' in Australia hearing

    gerrit said:
    Around the world Apple is currently being investigated in 8 different antitrust investigations, has already been found guilty of antitrust violations for their iBooks Store in the US, and in 2019 lost a Supreme Court ruling on how the App Store is run (Apple v. Pepper). Epic may be self-serving, but most developers I know agree that Epic is on the right side of this and are hoping that Epic wins. Self-serving or not, they're on the side of the developers. The big question is really if anti-trust legislation will force Apple to change before the lawsuit is even decided.
    Apple v. Pepper only determined the right for people to have bring class action suits and it was a 5-4 in any case.. "Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, arguing that the majority's interpretation of Illinois Brick goes against previous principles and long-standing antitrust regulations."

    The US Supreme Court can make boneheaded rulings   Another 5-4 one was the now infamous Kelo v. City of New London.  All these years later then the promised economic development has not materialized and the city is out the property taxes it would have earned over the years.
  • Epic vs. Apple takes new turn as 34 US states & DOJ side with 'Fortnite' maker

    DAalseth said:
    Marvin said:
    DAalseth said:
    Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.

    It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing. 
    The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.

    The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:

    Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:

    They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:

    The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.

    Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
    Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.
    There have been several attempts already.  Even South Korea didn't go as far as to force side loading and every bill in the US to do this has either spectacularly failed (North Dakota), pulled from the voting calendar because it was clear it would fail (Arizona) or went to committee where 90% of all bills die.  As the EU's Digital Services Act shows such legislation is just as likely to limit customer choice as help it and it seems to be less about helping the consumers than 'let's stick it to the US Companies' ie a form of protectionism dressed up as "helping the consumer".
  • Congress running out of time on its Big Tech antitrust bill

    DAalseth said:
    You know, I get the feeling that “Big Tech” is where the “Big Three” automakers were in 1962. Fat, abusive, turning out a decent if not great product, complacent. I just get a feeling that some little company will come out of nowhere and introduce a new way of doing things. Maybe a new phone OS, maybe a new online hang out, maybe a new way of putting customers and businesses together. I don’t know. If I did I’d be jumping all over it. But I get the feeling that for all the people who love Amazon, and gush over Android, or yes pine for the next Apple thing, there’s an undercurrent of discontent. Somebody is going to come in, be the next little upstart company that is “for the rest of us”. Someone will come in and drop the 21st century equivalent of the Toyota Corolla, or Honda Civic, or Apple II. When they do “big tech” will be caught completely flatfooted. They’ll disregard the little guy until one day they find that a lot of their customers, died in the wool Windows and Mac fans, hard core Android and iOS users have jumped ship for something better. 

    It’ll be the best thing that could happen to them.

    A changing marketplace is Operation Normal.  Intel was king of the PC world until they got complacent and proceeded to do a series of boneheaded moves that allowed AMD to make headway and then thanks to Intel producing an insanely buggy CPU Apple said 'screw it, we'll design our own based on that ARM CPU we have had in our iPhones and iPads'.  Now everybody and his brother either are on the ARM bandwagon or have announced they are getting on...even Intel (though Intel is still trying to hold on to the increasingly clunky x86 with a weird x86/ARM hybrid)

    I firmly believe if Sears had been run more intelligently they could have been Amazon.  Heck, Sears last general catalogue was in 1993; in 1994 Amazon (then Cadabra Inc) opened its doors.

  • Senate committee advances bill that could threaten encryption, Section 230

    Child sexual abuse is bad, but trying to prevent it should never mean taking away the privacy of everyone using a online services.

    Trying to get this passed by using the "it's for the children" argument is despicable.
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin