avon b7

About

Username
avon b7
Joined
Visits
114
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
12,655
Badges
2
Posts
8,327

Reactions

6.4KLike380Dislike1.2KInformative

  • President Trump lashes out at China for violating new trade agreement

    avon b7avon b7
    More utter nonsense.

    Just two days after agreeing to begin talks, the US was shooting itself in the foot again. 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/19/china-us-trade-tariffs-chip-huawei.html

    And amazingly the BIS was live updating the 'guidance' document on the web to alter the wording. Quite literally! 

    Instead of drafting, checking, approving and then publishing the guidance they were modifying the file before the eyes of the onlooking world and, to this day, and this is utterly astonishing, they haven't corrected the spelling mistake on the chip list (which only includes three entries!). 

    "Ascent"? 

    https://www.bis.gov/media/1575

    kiowawatiredskillswatto_cobra

  • Apple rumored to release iOS 26 at WWDC, instead of iOS 19

    avon b7avon b7
    A great move. Common sense all round even if the name might actually refer to the following year. Unification is good as long as they don't screw things up like they did with System 7.5.3. That was nuts for a time. 
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • Apple has a month to comply with EU antisteering mandate, or get fined again

    avon b7avon b7
    Marvin said:
    avon b7 said:
    "Apple's "good faith efforts to engage" with the European Commission."

    I think this takes the biscuit.

    It's fine for Apple to disagree with the EU but to 'comply' with a requirement that expressly goes against anti-steering tactics by imposing a seperate system that effectively imposes the same financial burden on developers under a different name is not engaging in good faith efforts.

    Apple is really earning itself a bad name here. 
    Apple is still entitled to a commission when a link is used.

    A law that requires Apple to allow free linking to outside payments undermines the entire App Store business model.

    This would be like a government deciding that Amazon is so big that nobody can realistically compete with them so they should be forced to allow people to list products on Amazon that link to their own stores without paying Amazon anything.

    These arguments have been justified due to Apple having exclusive control of the platform but in the EU they already allowed 3rd party stores and they allow certain companies to operate exclusively controlled stores.

    It's the biggest companies that are trying to take advantage of this. Microsoft owns Minecraft and Candy Crush, they could drop in-app purchases, link out to a Microsoft payment portal to topup coins in their accounts. Apple has to curate 1.5 billion customers and direct their traffic to Microsoft games without receiving anything in return. That's not a justified ruling.

    If they want to make a fairer ruling to make the system more competitive like lower fees so be it but destroying their business model entirely is not the way to go about it and just serves as another example of technologically illiterate public officials wrecking businesses. They have no right to dictate to a company that they should offer a service to competing billion-dollar companies for free. It's high time the EU Commission had some 3rd party oversight because their interference in business is getting way out of control. Handling B2C issues is fair enough like data privacy concerns but they have no right to pick winners in B2B issues.
    From the resolution:

    "The New Business Terms do not comply with Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU)
    2022/1925

    (57) The Commission finds that Apple, with the New Business Terms, does not comply
    with Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925, since those terms (i) restrict the app
    developers’ ability to communicate and promote offers in the app regardless of
    whether, for that purpose, they use the App Store; and (ii) do not allow app
    developers to conclude contracts “free of charge” and instead impose a fee for  steered transactions, without merely seeking a remuneration for facilitating the initial
    acquisition of the end user by the app developer. The Commission’s reasoning in
    support of each of these findings are set out in the subsections below

    ..."

    Like I said, Apple is free to disagree but this is clear 'malicious compliance' to my mind and doubling down on the practice won't do it any favours. 

    Whether we like the law, think it is unfair or is detrimental to Apple's business model or don't agree with the reasoning, isn't the point here. 

    As for the 'business model' itself, Apple is lucky this regulation didn't pre-date it's current setup as in that case it would have never existed in its clearly anti-competition state in the first place. Apple has had an easy multi-billion dollar ride up to now.

    It laughed all the way to the bank (and into the Paradise Papers). 

    Now things will have to change, but I can understand why Apple does not want things to change. 

    haluksdanoxtiredskills

  • Nothing CEO takes shots at Apple, ludicrously says that apps are going away

    avon b7avon b7
    Chock_Mossley said:
    MassiveAttack said:
    He is right. Apple is not as innovative as Apple was before. 
    Apple Intelligence = Apple Incompetence. 

    But will Nothing still be around in 7 ~ 10 years? 
    I dunno.
    It’s not like EVERY OTHER tech company’s first attempts at AI haven’t been dumpsters fires. They held off on what they did, because they didn’t want a put a glue on pizza debacle. That said, I’m fine if they never release it. AI is a smoke show that isn’t going to get much better than it is now and it’s all based on stealing from others
    You'd have to define 'dumpster fire'. 

    Perplexity Pro has suited my needs very well. AI in language translation, NLP, NLG, image/video creation/manipulation is amazing and constantly improving. 

    LLM's in industry are having a massive impact on almost everything they touch (with the huge exception of customer service Chatbots). 


    dewmewatto_cobra

  • Apple has a month to comply with EU antisteering mandate, or get fined again

    avon b7avon b7
    "Apple's "good faith efforts to engage" with the European Commission."

    I think this takes the biscuit.

    It's fine for Apple to disagree with the EU but to 'comply' with a requirement that expressly goes against anti-steering tactics by imposing a seperate system that effectively imposes the same financial burden on developers under a different name is not engaging in good faith efforts.

    Apple is really earning itself a bad name here. 
    muthuk_vanalingamOferhalukstiredskills