avon b7

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

beowulfschmidt said:

If they had said, "ATT is fine, but Apple has to follow the same rules, so since you didn't, we're fining you," that would have been pretty legit.

Instead they said, "ATT is fine, nothing wrong with it.  But we're going to fine you anyway.  Because we can, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it."

The Reuters article is a little clearer on that point. 

"Coeuré told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling.

The compliance process could take some time, he added, because Apple was waiting for rulings on regulators in Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania who are also investigating the ATT tool."

https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-antitrust-regulator-fines-apple-150-million-euros-over-privacy-tool-2025-03-31/

On the size of the fine, that was also tackled head on (it was proportional):

"We apply competition law in an apolitical manner," Benoit Coeure told a press conference."

While maximum fines can be up to 10% of global revenue (and it's global as a dissuasory measure), the fines still have to be proportional and take into account other factors such as reincidence. 

Like everything else the EU and Eropean countries do, this is like a bad joke. "We didn't say what you needed to do, but, because you didn't do what we wanted, we're fining you."

That's like deciding you want a low speed limit, not setting or posting it, then fining "speeders" for being over the limit by whatever amount you want them to be. Europe and the EU no longer operate under the rule of law, they operate under the whims of the "regulators".

Each EU member state has to transpose EU law into its own national laws. As a result, there can be different requirements across different member states but all of them comply with EU legislation. 

This case is France specific but Apple knows it could fall foul to other member state requirements. It could come up with a compliance effort that satisfies everyone. 

That means waiting for other rulings to be made and that is exactly what my quoted text says.

It's not a joke. 

The French ruling makes it clear that Apple exempted itself from the application of ATT for its own apps. 

ATT itself was not a problem. Apple's implementation was (in the view of the regulator). 

MplsP said:

one potential issue/question that I haven't seen answered is how much Apple is paying in patent royalties to QC for their C1 modem. Given QC's cellular patent portfolio it's unlikely Apple could produce a competitive modem without licensing at least some patents. Even if they're covered under FRAND there's still a 'reasonable' fee. If Apple were to put the modem in every MBP then they would likely have to pay a fee for each device, unless they could somehow get an agreement to only pay for the modems in use.

This is the Huawei part of the pie Apple is paying for:

"The event also saw Huawei announcing royalty rates for 4G and 5G handsets, Wi-Fi 6 devices, and Internet of Things (IoT) products, all areas where Huawei is a top SEP owner. The rate caps for 4G and 5G handsets are US$1.5 per unit and US$2.5 per unit, respectively. Huawei’s royalty rate for Wi-Fi 6 consumer devices, meanwhile, is US$0.5 per unit. For IoT, the rate for IoT-Centric devices is one percent of the net selling price, capped at US$0.75, while the rate for IoT-Enhanced devices ranges from US$0.3 to US$1 per unit."

https://www.huawei.com/en/news/2023/7/ipr-innovation-horizon#:~:text=The rate caps for 4G,is US$0.5 per unit.

beowulfschmidt said:

If they had said, "ATT is fine, but Apple has to follow the same rules, so since you didn't, we're fining you," that would have been pretty legit.

Instead they said, "ATT is fine, nothing wrong with it.  But we're going to fine you anyway.  Because we can, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it."

The Reuters article is a little clearer on that point. 

"Coeuré told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling.

The compliance process could take some time, he added, because Apple was waiting for rulings on regulators in Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania who are also investigating the ATT tool."

https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-antitrust-regulator-fines-apple-150-million-euros-over-privacy-tool-2025-03-31/

On the size of the fine, that was also tackled head on (it was proportional):

"We apply competition law in an apolitical manner," Benoit Coeure told a press conference."

While maximum fines can be up to 10% of global revenue (and it's global as a dissuasory measure), the fines still have to be proportional and take into account other factors such as reincidence. 

danox said:

godofbiscuitssf said:

melgross said:

Rogue01 said:

Will it be a live keynote, or another awful cringe-worthy video?  Maybe they will be apologizing for Apple Intelligence instead of trying to push out more half-baked features.  They already blundered with Siri, unless they try and do damage control and more promises of features that won't be ready with iOS 19.

I miss the days when Apple released new software and the features they previewed at WWDC were actually in the release version.  Instead all we get are 'coming soon' and then 'maybe next year'.  I stopped watching the videos because they were nothing more than reading press releases and spec sheets.

The videos are much better than the live presentations. Those tended to ramble and took much longer. Well, I remember that Apple was criticized for trying to get everything in the first release. Be more like Google and Microsoft people would say, and release features when they’re ready and don’t rush them out for an announcement.  Give me a break!

You are definitely in the minority on that one. Live with audience is the sweet spot.  You know those are as scripted and likely even more practiced (you don’t have multiple takes available) than the prerecorded ones.  And the feedback from the audience gives presenters an idea of what the relative interest levels are.  And that can carry forward through the year.   

And yet all the me-too, copycat companies are terrible at it. The most important thing in any presentation is to actually have something (a product) that is a step ahead of the competition, having that product is probably as important as the presentation introducing the iMac, OSX, iPod, iPhone, and the iPad all which were huge leaps forward at the time in comparison to the competition.

You definitely don't need anything that is a step ahead of the competition. 

All you need is something to present.

And let's be honest, a lot of what Apple has presented at WWDC over the last few years (especially the noteworthy features) have been Apple's take on Android/HarmonyOS ideas/features from years ago.

And sometimes those changes have been like 180º turns in direction. Years of stubborn refusal to give users customisation options have been abandoned and now customisation is a major consumer facing feature. 

TBH, they are moves in the right direction IMO. 

I wonder if the departure of Ives had something to do with these changes or if there are simply more people with sway now who are able to push these things through. 

This makes a lot of sense if only because this technology has been in use on folding phones since 2019 (with the same claimed 2.5 times stronger than titanium specs) and, later, on smartwatches (and things like Tesla door lock casings).

Things took off when Eontec bought into Liquidmetal and both companies were able to pool their strengths.

I believe Liquidmetal was limited to parts of less than 100g whereas Eontec was able to produce parts beyond that limit.