Last Active
  • Qualcomm says Apple's software workarounds undermine case against US iPhone ban [u]

    dewme said:
    It would be nice if Qualcomm and Apple would focus on resolving their business relationships through negotiation at the CEO level. Constantly resorting to using the legal system as a club to attack those you can not or will not talk to is a sign of weakness and ineffectual leadership. What the hell are these so-called leaders being paid for if they cannot solve fundamental business problems on their own? When did so-called leaders of industry become nothing more than utterly pathetic hood ornaments? 
    I believe they tried that. The crux of the matter appears to be that Qualcomm agreed to offer “FRAND” (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) Licensing terms in exchange for having their parents made part of the 4G standard. So you can’t really avoid all of them, assuming they’re valid. But then they turned around and tried to take a percentage of total device value as licensing. So if Apple offers a better screen or battery and charges more, Qualcomm expects more money too for the exact same part and function. Apple says that’s not fair, reasonable, and considering Apples unique place in the industry, not non-discriminatory either. Neither side will budge and it’s a fundamental difference of opinion. If Apple loses, all devices which implement any modern spec will become a minefield of patent percentages. Usually there isn’t that clear a bad guy, but here it’s pretty clear it’s Qualcomm acting against the industry and public good. Hopefully they lose soon and hard. 
  • Cydia, the 'original iPhone App Store' is suing Apple over antitrust claims

    JonG said:
    I think there is a case for anticompetitive behavior, which does not require a monopoly.  All of these comments about "monopoly" address Epic's case (which I agree is rather laughable).  The Cydia case rests on anticompetitive behavior, not a monopoly.

    Apple does not OWN the platform, since they sell it to me and do not rent it.  None of these EULAs have been tested in court really. Note that Apple continues to tell me what I can do with something I have purchased. No one would accept this logic in a car; here's the only parts, oil, and gas you are permitted to use. Or how about a lightbulb; you can only use it with the light fixtures that I make, or vice-versa.

    How about selling a refrigerator and then saying that it is monitored and will shut down if you buy certain foods that aren't on the approved list?

    I'm an Apple user, and even an admin for a company that predominantly uses Apple.  I'm very submerged in their ecosystem, but that doesn't mean I have to defend all of their behaviors.  This all harkens back to a few years ago when everyone who is defending Apple right now was up in arms because Sony started going after hackers who modded their PS systems to run linux.

    Also, everyone can remember a few years ago when it wasn't a government regulation that once you had paid off a cell phone, that the original carrier, at their own option, could keep it locked to the network.  Now, once you own it, you own it and a carrier can't tell you that you have to use their service.  You can't call Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile a monopoly, but they CAN engage in anti-competitive behavior that freezes out smaller businesses in the same space.

    The simple basis is this:  All of these devices are computing platforms and laws have to be universal for computing platforms. Either platforms need to remain open so that you have a right to do with a hardware platform as you please, or we have to agree that all computing platforms can be locked down and companies are allowed to dictate how their product is used after you purchase it.
    Interesting take. Although car analogies are classic, though, in this case we have exactly this same situation with Tesla, which sells you additional functions on hardware sitting in your garage. 

    But the specific arguments in this court case are not going to hold up. Jailbreaking DOES reduce the security of the phone. And that security is one of the selling points of the platform. Fixing those bugs is responsible. And Apple should be under no obligation to do extra work for free on behalf of Cydia. You know up front that you are buying a phone that is locked to Apple’s App Store as a fundamental restriction for using (licensing) Apple’s OS. There’s no deception and no coercion.

    The only argument I could see that could hold water was if someone wrote their entirely custom mobile OS from the ground up, and wanted to install it on their phone but was prevented to by Apple locking the hardware down to their own OS. At that point, you’re only utilizing the physical thing you own, and not trying to subvert the software you’re licensing. But just an App Store on Apple’s platform? I hope the Government doesn’t compel Apple here. 
  • First look: Apple's 2018 13" MacBook Pro with Touch Bar

    I’ve been a Touchbar MacBook Pro owner since they came out, and can’t wait for the refresh when Apple admits the Touchbar concept was a failed experiment. It’s so bad. The only time I ever use the Touchbar intentionally is to change the volume, but I’m accidentally activating things all the time and really miss physical function keys. Does anyone actually find that thing useful??
  • Apple Arcade goes live in macOS Catalina GM ahead of public launch

    I'm already subscribed on iOS, but ugh, the choice between losing access to all 32-bit apps and getting to play macOS Apple Arcade is an annoying one to have to make. I'll probably upgrade, but not right away.