mjtomlin

auxio said:

sdw2001 said:

I do think requiring Apple to allow third party, out-of-app payments is the right thing to do.  Apple shouldn't be able to interfere in any other business transactions between the customer and a developer.  As recently confirmed, Apple will argue they should still get their cut of any App-related transaction.

The problem is that app developers will most certainly take advantage of this by making the app free to get on the app store, then use an out-of-app payment system to get any sort of functionality from it (basically move the entire app payment out of the App Store).

melgross said:

I wonder about the actual timing on this. Apple normally gets first production of new nodes and sub node advances, since they help finance it and are the largest customer. But this timing says that others will get 3nm first.

Marvin said:

AppleInsider said:

Backing up his previous claim that Apple will launch its first augmented reality headset at the end of 2022, Ming-Chi Kuo says it will be a standalone device.

Recent rumors have pointed to the first Apple AR headset being an accompaniment to the iPhone, much as the Apple Watch is. Specifically, it has been believed that the headset would offload most of its processing to the iPhone.

Now, however, in a note to investors, Kuo has said that the headset will have a main processor that is the equivalent of the M1. What's more, it will have a second processor that handles all sensor-related computing, for example with eye tracking and gaze detection.

Kuo further claims that the device will support a "comprehensive range of applications rather than specific applications." So rather than being, effectively, bespoke for certain AR purposes, it could perhaps enable a headset App Store.

"Apple's goal is to replace the iPhone with AR in ten years," continues Kuo, "representing the demand... [for headsets will] exceed at least one billion... in ten years."

If they can manage to get an M1-class chip in a standalone unit, that would be great but the iPhone has in the region of a 10Wh battery and that battery is too big to fit on a head wearable. Oculus Quest 2 has a 14Wh battery and that is a bulky unit. Airpods Max headphones use a 2.4Wh battery. I think realistically they'd be limited to 5Wh or less for a comfortable wearable.

Straps are commonly worn on glasses and it would be much more comfortable to fit processing hardware into the strap. That could be something different than a smartphone like a product similar to an Airpods Pro case and could even carry Airpods so they share the same battery.

crowley said:

lorca2770 said:

Let me see if I understand. If my fashion boutique categorizes all the people entering the store, passing by the racks of clothing, by age, look, style, by the location of where the trendy stuff is, by the lighting of the store, and how it influences the purchases, and on, and on. Then, make the proper arrangements and division of the potential of the clients browsing, purchasing, abandoning the stuff that they don’t like, what colours are more popular…, and I keep track of all the variations. Make a successful shop; and I refuse to share the information with the lazy guy across the hall. And, I grow because of my ingenuity, solutions, innovation, and as a result I leave the competition on the dust…, then, I am forced to share my data…?

Jayzzzuuuzzzzzz.

It's more like a shopping mall owner also running a store within the mall, and using its knowledge of how people move through the mall to the benefit of their store and the detriment of the other stores.  Or even changing the way the mall works to push people into its own store.

The problem is the platform owner, or company in a position of power, that is able to steer traffic and customer behaviour, and also being privy to a large amount of customer data, is able to use that to a competitive advantage in other, unrelated, or largely unrelated commercial activity.  Google uses its power in search to push its web browser, web applications, shopping, and other services.  Apple uses its power in operating systems and app stores to push its associated applications and services.  This kind of use of power is what antitrust is all about.

It's not much different from Microsoft pushing Internet Explorer in the 1990s, which they were convicted over, in the USA.

netrox said:

Don't see how it is even worth that much.