JWSC said:

foggyhill said:

There are many anti-trust laws in the EU and Qualcomm is certainly in a quasi monopoly position with regards to the communication chips

I’m no lawyer on either side of the Atlantic.  But I do know that in the US merely being a monopoly is not against the law.  Abusing that monopoly power is.  Don’t know about the EU.  And I don’t understand enough about the case against Qualcomm to be a particularly good judge.

Regardless of the nature of any particular law, I am more than happy to see laws enforced equally and fairly.  If Qualcomm did violate EU law then go get ‘em!  But the sometimes capricious doings of the EU (cough, Irish taxes, cough) make me uncomfortable and unsure that they are doing the right thing for the right reasons.

There is some information here:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

gatorguy said:

lkrupp said:

The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.

I agree. There's going to be a lot of "good enough's" diluting the uniqueness of Apple's FaceID. OnePlus has one of the first that properly works and it's also being made available to other Android devices running 7.x or better. Whatever they've done has apparently prevented simple stuff like a photo from fooling it. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bensin/2017/12/21/trying-to-fool-the-oneplus-5ts-scary-fast-face-unlock/#598f30d5b43e

A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff. 

He didn't say the devices were a collection of 'good enoughs. He said there would be enough 'good enoughs' to dilute FaceID's uniqueness. That doesn't make them knock-offs.

'Good enough' is what is driving the industry. People are choosing to pay less and get 'good enough' instead of high end features at a far higher cost. There's a lot of logic in that. 

I didn't say Gatorguy said it would be a collection of good-enoughs -- *I* said these android devices with collections of good-enoughs are the definition of knockoffs. What I inferred is that knockoffs are cheaper and less desirable. This is why Apple sells more and earns more on iPhones than the knockoffs do -- people care.

So no, good-enough is not driving the industry. Apple is, and that's why they reap the largest profit in the industry. And then your knockoffs put out shoddier implementations that lower-tier customers buy. If that's your bag, great. But don't confuse that for displacing Apple's model any time soon.

I didn't say you said Gatorguy said whatever. I quoted you quoting him and commented on your comment.

The phones that drove the market weren't knock-offs as you like to claim. A collection of good enoughs is not the definition of a knock-off.

They were cheaper but not less desirable at all. The complete opposite was true. They were the most desirable. They drove the market and it's one of the reasons Apple has its current spread at its current price points.

I have often linked to this article:

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/affordable-premium-smartphones-grew-49-annually-in-q1-2017/

The reason is that at the middle of last year (when the data became available) it tore down some of the constant claims here on the forums. That Android manufacturers were selling huge quantities of phones but they were simply trash at that bargain bucket end and that the premium end was some kind of oasis owned by Apple.

The research note painted a completely different picture. Both the premium end and the bottom end were contracting but affordable premium was exploding. 

Q2 and Q3 2017 saw Huawei overtake Apple in shipments. Q3 saw Apple jump back but when you look at the data it was by just 8 million units. Apple's share of profits was also in steady decline.

I'm speaking from memory on some of this but I've given all the links in other posts.

So, how did Apple react? It moved the puck closer to where the action was - even at the risk of hurting its own high end. A good move.

Devices with 'good enoughs' don't define knock-offs. They define knowing what consumers want and at what price.

StrangeDays said:

petri said:

macxpress said:

petri said:

Rayz2016 said:

cropr said:

sirlance99 said:

macxpress said:

Maybe Apple Technicians need better training on how to properly replace a battery. 

They are flooded with people replacing the battery now. Law of numbers dictate that this is bound to happen. 

Try dealing with a massive line of people pissed because they want a battery they don’t need replaced. It’s maddening right now. 

Apple has designed the iPhone in such a way that a battery replacement is difficult, even for a trained technician.  Apple has blundered by  being silent about the throttling.   So Apple is 100% responsible for the mess.  Don't blame the pissed customer for a so-called unnecessary battery replacement.  Your biased view is not in line with the facts

Since you don’t actually know what happened then your biased view also doesn’t line up with facts. 

That’s nonsense.  It’s a fact that Apple chose to make these batteries non user serviceable, it’s a fact that they glue them into the phones, and it’s a fact that the batteries they fit
have little if any protection against accidental twisting, bending, penetration etc, any of which could end up causing an explosion or fire - so yes Apple are responsible for the increased risk of events like these.  Apple are also responsible for implementing software slowdowns without telling anyone AND giving the user no indication in software either that their phones are being throttled OR that their batteries are healthy or unhealthy - hence creating this whole situation.  These are facts, no bias required.

Um the batteries are not glued into phones. They're held in with 3M Command strips. Its not like its superglued into the phone and you have to almost damage the battery in order to get it out.

You're also making a lot of assumptions in your post without facts to back them up, but you're so far to the left thinking Apple is totally in the wrong no matter what, it doesn't matter what anyone tells you. I guess Apple was better off to just let your phone die instantly...Yeah thats a better idea! 

They are adhesive strips.  Adhesive = glue, no matter how much of a pedant you want to be about it.  And yes you easily can damage the battery trying to get it out, if you’re not careful.  

No, glue is glue and tape is tape. They’re entirely different mechanisms with different attributes. The tape has no attribute that makes it prohibitively difficult to remove the battery as you imply with the mislabeled “fact”. Indeed, a glued in battery would make removing it difficult. Tape does not. It pulls right off. 

I doubt you’ve ever performed the job and that’s how we quickly identified your bullshit. 

Glue is an adhesive. Adhesive tape can be very difficult to remove if it is designed with that purpose. Likewise, glue can be very easy to remove if it is designed with that purpose.

"Glue is a substance that allows two surfaces to be bonded together. The term is commonly used interchangeably with adhesive”.

https://au.rs-online.com/web/generalDisplay.html?id=infozone&file=automation/adhesives-and-glues

StrangeDays said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

StrangeDays said:

still waiting for AI to publish this headline about Huawei and chinese security concerns:

AT&T Drops Huawei’s New Smartphone Amid Security Worries

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/business/att-huawei-mate-smartphone.html


...kinda seems like a big deal in mobile. 

Avon already wrote about it in one of the comments and asked few valid questions. The security worries did NOT prevent Huawei from selling the same phone via online channels in USA. Question is - why?

If they were selling directly online to US customers vs selling via ATT the difference seems obvious. If they have connections to the Chinese spy apparatus what do they care if they sell via online channels? But if ATT sells them and a problem arises in the future, it’s ATT’s liability and reputation at stake. 

That is clearly not the case.

AT&T references were popping up in Huawei firmware at the beginning of 2017. Then there were reports of extensive testing of the Kirin SoC with AT&T, followed by more and more rumours right up to Huawei when officials actually confirmed a deal days before CES.

Are you saying AT&T hadn't even considered the possibility of privacy/security in all that time?

AT&T and Huawei didn't get together for a Christmas lunch and  agree to partner and then sign an agreement on a napkin over a toast.

This was negotiated, planned and finalised and it would be ridiculous to even contemplate that discussions on the kind of problems you are pointing to didn't crop up in the earliest stage of negotiations, which were likely even before 2017.

You can bet your grandmother that AT&T had every eventuality covered and had ample protection hardwired into any agreement.

They would never have reached the situation that eventually played out if they could have held even remotely accountable for any problems.

Alternative theories? There are many, but your proposal isn't one of them.

In fact, it is absolutely impossible that spying, back doors or whatever were the cause. Simply because AT&T can't even use Huawei backbone equipment precisely because the government wouldn't allow it. And we know why even though no evidence was ever presented and Huawei has always defended itself. So implying they reached an agreement only to discover that something nasty had been discovered at the last minute is a case of barking up the wrong tree. Let me insist. That issue was probably one of the first things that got dealt with.

Ironically, and we can thank Snowden for this, if there is a risk of discovering something nasty on Huawei gear, it's probably more likely to be from the NSA. 

Oh yeah, technically, AT&T and Huawei never confirmed any deal so there is nothing to ponder. That's a little hard to swallow though.

xbit said:

Rayz2016 said:

Oh, and Apple’s claim that they pay every cent owed has just been proved. They found they owed more, and they coughed up. They didn’t drag our impoverished government through court, which they’re entitled to do. 

HMRC has a history of letting corporations off billions in tax to avoid going through the courts. It’s likely that $184 million was on the low side of what was actually owed.

Things have changed since I was at the Inland Revenue then. I managed some huge cases and we had to dig deep on all cases where the amount owed was substantial. Court action was never a concern to recover any amount legally due.

While I was there they even implemented the rule of sending all cheques over 1 million pounds directly to the bank of England by courier to avoid paying them into local accounts and losing interest on those amounts while the cheques cleared.

Of course, times have changed and attitudes might be different now. It's not even called the Inland Revenue now.