gatorguy

badmonk said:

I still don’t understand why an established well defined 50+ year old technology can lead to these decisions.  We live in a time when cheap $20-30 pulse oximeters are readily available.  Obviously none of these manufacturers are paying royalties to Masimo.

Of all the crazy patent claims why this one and not one of the previous patent fights??!

Masimo patented a specific method of reading from a wristworn smart device, not pulse oximetry as a discovery. It's that method that Apple was found to infringe, rightly or wrongly. Apple patents many a method for using a technology they did not invent. Same thing here.

This would be the second US antitrust lawsuit targeting Apple Pay if it gets certified. The previous was allowed to go forward back in September after several hearings.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/09/28/apple-pay-antitrust-lawsuit-accuses-apple-of-coercing-consumers-excessive-fees ;

StrangeDays said:

darkvader said:

Apple promised to open source the iMessage protocol years ago.

They should get on with it.

They did no such thing. As usual you’re ignorant about Apple history. I believe you are referring to Jobs’ ad hoc comment on stage that they’d open source FaceTime, unbeknownst to his own dev staff.

Since iMessage is E2EE Apple and someone like Google would have to coordinate and orchestrate servers and security keys to make it work, which I’ve not heard of being done before. But there is no reason why Apple would be willing to work such a joint effort for the benefit of Android users. 

Android owners don't even need it. Google Messages provides all the same privacy and security as iMessage, and outside of the US other cross-platform messaging services
are preferred over Apple or Google's. In the US it must be some weird "I wanna be like Apple" thing without having to buy the hardware. 

IMO all that matters is cross-platform privacy, and the security and features to match it. If a service resists offering it then I'd suggest finding a better one, assuming those things are important enough to give less weight to your choice of platform.  In much of the world platform doesn't matter like it does in the US. 

macxpress said:

chasm said:

macxpress said:

Or people are just greedy and think they deserve more. They already offer more than nearly any retailer out there. 

Perhaps you didn’t actually read the article? The staff concerns are around the treatment of disabled, neurodivergent, and chronically ill staff, as well as shift patterns, pay, and disciplinary processes.

Just because Apple Stores may (or may not) be a better gig than Walmart, doesn’t meet they can’t improve. Being a top Apple Store employee requires a HUGE range of technical skills PLUS excellent communication skills PLUS genuine enthusiasm for selling and customer relations, and much more. Such jobs should be well-paid, and employees well-treated.

Perhaps they're just exaggerating to get more than they deserve too? 

They're also paid quite well for their skillset. For more than any other retailer. If you don't like where you work you can always go some place else. Nobody is making them work there. 

Have you looked into what Apple UK store employees make? Unless you're in management or an Apple Genius it's not much, roughly what sales staff makes at other retail stores.

So no, not "far more than any other retailer", even if the stores themselves are far more profitable per square foot than most anyone else's. 

foregoneconclusion said:

"Apple and Google should be permitted to be transparent about the legal demands they receive, particularly from foreign governments," continued Senator Wyden's letter"

The legal part is what is important AND also what the media/politicians/corporations typically don't bother to provide much detail on. What are the laws being used to make the data requests? Is there a solid precedent for the data requests under those laws?

"For U.S. requests of push notifications and other non-content information, Google said it requires a court order subject to judicial oversight, not just a subpoena. With such orders, federal officials must persuade a judge that the requested data is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal probe."

According to Apple's Legal Process Guideline's they may accept the subpoena alone.