avon b7

AppleZulu said:

It's also interesting to ponder the implications of imposing a tariff on a specific product designed by a specific American company but manufactured abroad, while not imposing the same tariff on competing products from, say a Korean company. What exactly is such a policy supposed to be accomplishing? 

Exactly! 

Reading through this thread I was thinking about the very same issue right when I read your post.

It just makes no sense to punish Apple and single it out. 

I fear this may be some form of mental rambling that flashed across his mind and before he had time to really think it through, he was 'Truthing' it to the wider world.

Not sure how Lutnick or Bessent will be able to spin this one. 

Or will this 25% get 'paused' too? 

On another level, claiming Tim Cook was made aware of this some time ago does put him in a bit of a predicament. Perhaps he simply ignored Trumps petitions. 

canukstorm said:

avon b7 said:

My guess is a thin (very thin?) puck-like device with a thin (very thin?) LED strip around the base.

Brushed metal (caressible) or glass (lickable). 

Internal wireless connectivity (no ports) and using mics/speakers from other devices. 

Cloud processing plus subscription. Bingo! 

Honesty, the 'sci-fi dream' is what it's always been: AI with an interface of some kind. Ideally voice and a screen. That's it.

Would a humanoid robot be a plus? Yes for some situations, but if it's going to sell in hundreds of millions, I'll rule that option out.

Ha! Good find! But not thin enough! 

My guess is a thin (very thin?) puck-like device with a thin (very thin?) LED strip around the base.

Brushed metal (caressible) or glass (lickable). 

Internal wireless connectivity (no ports) and using mics/speakers from other devices. 

Cloud processing plus subscription. Bingo! 

Honesty, the 'sci-fi dream' is what it's always been: AI with an interface of some kind. Ideally voice and a screen. That's it.

Would a humanoid robot be a plus? Yes for some situations, but if it's going to sell in hundreds of millions, I'll rule that option out.

strongy said:

avon b7 said:

shywizard said:

I’ve asked this before, but nobody seems to answer.  I need someone to tell me why Apple legally (or doesn’t legally) has to host everyone on Apple’s App Store.   Can’t Apple decide it doesn’t want to host an app like Fortnite.  It’s Apple App Store after all.  So can Apple decode it doesn’t want to offer Fortnite ?

Sure if they host someone, they must provide external links for purchases to be made per the court order.    But I’m talking about the ability to decide which App are even on its store.  

Apple is on the hook for anti-competitive App Store practices around the world.

Singling out a company by not allowing it on the store (while simultaneously not allowing any other store to exist on iDevices) would really put Apple in hot water. 

do you need reminding that a court ruling allowed Apple to continue banning Epic Games and its subsidiaries from the App Store.

The question I was referring to had nothing to do with the US court ruling. 

The question was completely open:

"Can’t Apple decide it doesn’t want to host an app like Fortnite.  It’s Apple App Store after all."

The point was Apple deciding, not anyone else (courts included). 

shywizard said:

I’ve asked this before, but nobody seems to answer.  I need someone to tell me why Apple legally (or doesn’t legally) has to host everyone on Apple’s App Store.   Can’t Apple decide it doesn’t want to host an app like Fortnite.  It’s Apple App Store after all.  So can Apple decode it doesn’t want to offer Fortnite ?

Sure if they host someone, they must provide external links for purchases to be made per the court order.    But I’m talking about the ability to decide which App are even on its store.  

Apple is on the hook for anti-competitive App Store practices around the world.

Singling out a company by not allowing it on the store (while simultaneously not allowing any other store to exist on iDevices) would really put Apple in hot water.