leavingthebigg

Reading through the comments it is easy to tell who is pro-Google. The pro-Google people, one person in particular, will try to convince others they have already given up their privacy and shouldn’t worry about Cellibrite can do. Even when Cellibrite cannot protect itself from being hacked, people will be told by the pro-Google camp, you’ve already given up your privacy, you don’t have anything to worry about from Cellibrite hackers. Admit you care about your privacy and the pro-Google camp will relentlessly try to convince you you’re safe since you’ve already given up your privacy. 

Carefully read ear through the comments again to notice the recurring “you’ve already given up your privacy” overture. I recommend you care about your privacy because it is your privacy. Ignore the loud few who want you to convince you’ve given up your privacy. If your privacy has already been lost the loud few wouldn’t be here trying to convince you there are other things to worry about. 

"We're very happy to have a multi-year supply agreement, and we're happy that we have a direct-license arrangement with Qualcomm which I know was important for both companies and so we feel good about the resolution."

This quote will be overlooked by nearly everyone. With a direct-license arrangement in place, none of Apple’s suppliers will be required to have an agreement with Qualcomm. None. This saves the suppliers and Apple a lot of money going forward. 

normm said:

Metriacanthosaurus said:

There has to be a system of checks and balances. The idea that Apple can do whatever it wants with its own platform isn’t good enough. That is just a copout and a way to circumvent fairness, openness, and possibly even the law. 

If you want to have a platform and pretend to make it available to everyone, it has to actually be available to everyone, without various anti competitive practices that prevent any one particular company or group or political ideology from exposure. Let the market handle it, not the whims of a few people in Cupertino. 

Clearly there's an issue if Apple lets an app be developed and used for several years, and then disallows it when they make their own version.  If Apple wants to be both a major platform owner and a participant, they should follow some basic rules about "platform neutrality".  It's true Apple isn't technically a monopoly, but they do have a 45% market share of smartphones in the US, and an effective monopoly on the high end of the market.  

I personally find some Apple policies obnoxious: ones that discourage big media companies from selling directly on iOS.  If a media company is big enough and popular enough that having their stuff helps sell iPhones, Apple shouldn't be taking a large cut. Not being able to buy digital media in the Kindle app or the Netflix app sucks.

Consider the possibility the developer decided to use undocumented APIs after being on the App Store for years. When Apple decided to not allow the app on the App Store the developer decided to not tell the truth. Instead the developer chose to file an antitrust lawsuit and go public with misleading information. The noise of monopoly gets louder and louder and louder until by a few in an attempt to destroy something good a lot of people enjoy. 

Are you really thinking big media is helping people buy iPhones? I don’t see big media breaking Google’s Play Store rules and flocking to sell directly to Android users. Time Warner has never offered me a free iPhone in return for subscribing to HBO. Disney has never offered me a free iPad for subscribing to ESPN. I do see people complaining when a media company chooses to not create an app or chooses to create a mediocre app for iPhone/iPad.

You and others claim you want the freedom to do whatever you want yet you choose to not buy Android products. Instead you choose to buy Apple products then complain. 

Netflix could drop its App Store app and return to pushing DVDs if it is unhappy with Apple’s rules. When Netflix was transitioning to digital, Netflix was all about Apple. When trying to meet Wall Street’s unsustainable financial expectations, Netflix decided Apple was a financial hindrance. 

The more I come to this site the more articles I see that are b*tch, b*tch, b*tch about anything or articles filled with half-truths purposely skewed to favor another company and/or to make people think Apple users are missing out on something Android users enjoying. 

Examples...

Epic doesn’t intend to sell to anyone, but after Jim Cramer suggests Apple buy the company, an article is written using a selected part of the Epic CEO’s words to make it look like Apple was spurned by a buyout offer. 

5G support of a modem that won’t be released until late 2019, has no infrastructure support from telephone carriers, resembles previous nightmarish communications upgrades is written to portray Apple as a laggard while others will provide experiences to be envious of. 

New hardware rumored by a “reliable” analyst gets reported then shortly afterwards a hit piece on current hardware is written/published. 

maciekskontakt said:

Was Qorvo in violation or was it pre-existing user? That is European patent - not USPTO. There is pre-existing user instance that can provide restarining order for patent holder. Was this determined?

According to previous reporting, Qualcomm’s lawyers wouldn’t agree to sealing Qorvo’s designs in Germany. This prevented Qorvo from providing the designs for review since Qualcomm’s lawyers couldn’t be trusted to not share the designs with Qualcomm’s engineers. 

If if I remember correctly, in the USA Qualcomm’s lawyers agreed to seal the information and Qorvo was exonerated from infringement.

My opinion is Qualcomm’s lawyers could let that happen again.