avon b7

There have long been rumours about differing opinions between him and others at Apple on AI/Siri.

It's possible that those differences were linked to foundational problems and that he preferred a clean sweep approach and there was pushback. Who knows! 

My guess is that Apple just didn't have the manpower to get its projects to port on time. Some were left to sink with bits salvaged (Titan maybe) and others hit stormy seas along the way.

If he has been moved off his project it's possible that a few months from now, when things settle, he'll announce he's leaving and then move on. 

I'm sure we'll hear more about what went on at Apple around the time ChatGPT hit the market and the all hands meetings that happened. I'm convinced that Apple (for whatever reason) just didn't see all this coming so soon.

Yes you are both right, Huawei and Honor are on third gen silicon carbon batteries and using them in folding phones, too . I believe they are currently at 1.5/2mm thick. They have been compared to credit card thickness. 

It's one of the reasons that their folding phones are incredibly thin when unfolded. 

I have a Plex Pass but Plex can be really finicky on the core stuff.

I use it every day but there's no way even a moderately computer literate user can keep tabs on what it is supposed to do (often presented in language akin to 'it's magic, you can't go wrong').

I don't know what went wrong with Alexa integration for example even though that was announced ages ago. Then again even Alexa sometimes has trouble finding my Amazon Music playlists. 

For a system that is network dependent it really needs something like Apple's old Airport Utility to setup and troubleshoot network issues for people who don't have time to break their brains to find a glitch hidden deep in the server settings. 

davidw said:

kkqd1337 said:

I don't understand the horror here?

I think the EU's position is perfectly reasonable and sensible. 

Why shouldn't all manufacturers of peripheries such as Digital Watches / Headphones have the same access to the iPhone as Apple's own Watch/headphones?

Or are we suggesting anyone wanting to make a competing Apple Watch should just go and make their own phone to go with it?

You are aware that there are other smartwatches and headphones for the iPhone, than just the Apple Watch and Apple brand headphones .... right?

https://www.wareable.com/apple/best-apple-watch-alternatives-ios-smartwatch-950

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?id=pcat17071&st=over+the+ear+headphones+for+iphone

In case you don't understand, it's not about access to the iPhone, but access to Apple Intellectual Property (IP) in both the Watch and iPhone, IP that gives the Apple Watch a competitive edge. IP that Apple invested 10's of millions of dollars, if not billions, in RD.

Ask yourself this, why can't we make money selling fancy $20 (Fortnite Bucks) virtual outfits to Epic Games Fortnite players? Are we suggesting that anyone wanting to compete with Epic in selling virtual outfits to customers playing games by Epic Games, develop our own games? You bet that hows it works. Fortnite is Epic Games IP. Nearly all develop countries hands the IP owner a monopoly in the ways they can monetize their IP. Google chose to make their IP (Android) Open Source. Thus (with limits) available for free to use and modify. Apple IP (iOS, Watch OS, iPadOS, etc.) are not Open Source (nor Public Domain) and solely belongs to Apple and only runs on Apple devices . They can charge for the use of their IP to recover the cost of RD or should be able to limit its availability, to give Apple products a competitive advantage. 

Or an anti-competitive edge!

That is the whole reason for all of this. 

There is no problem with IP. There is a problem with how it used to degrade the experience of competing products.

IP is everywhere. A lot of it is provided completely free. You know, printing involves IP! 

One of the MAJOR design considerations at the birth of OS X was that no software would be allowed to speak to hardware directly. OS X would be the literal gatekeeper and that (at least on paper) brought system stability. It's all IP. 

Music playback is IP. 
Video playback is IP. 
Text and image display is IP. 

Wi-Fi isn't an Apple thing. Apple is paying royalties to implement it. Other people's IP. So are other manufacturers. Limiting the experience for devices from third party vendors is anti-competitive and that is how the EC sees it.

The same applies to 'pairing' and the seven other areas that the EC has taken issue with.

Interoperability is a huge issue in competition terms and the EU is rightly pushing for a more level playing field and I will go out on a limb here and say that other areas around the world are likely to follow suit and implement similar requirements.

No one is telling Apple to open its IP to the world. The requirements is very limited and absolutely necessary. 

Nothing will be exposed. As stated in the texts from the EC, there have been several technical meetings between all parties (developers included) since December.

Apple will open hooks into iOS for developers to use. Those APIs (as part of the EC requirements) must be sufficiently well documented for developers use without problems. 

There is nothing unreasonable in the requirements and they are very well supported throughout the EU. 

It's very possible that similar requirements will be passed in the US at some point too. 

This is the exact same kind of approach as Apple would use if it were presenting the exact same functionality of its own free will (although in that scenario it would be trying to get a commission into the deal). 

Up to now though, it has chosen not to do that and that approach has led to a degraded experience for other manufacturers. 

Apple's claims to the general public are always the same (security, privacy and whatnot) but it is marketing. 

Behind closed doors they have even said the words 'lock in' internally. They are fully aware of the limitations they impose and the advantages they provide to its own products in detriment to others. 

Now, and with the relevant laws in hand, they are being required to change. 

We will see the same tone used when the new batteries directive comes into effect. Or design for repair. 

They used it prior to having to allow third party app stores too.