beautyspin

Apple is going to be forced, by these id1ots, to allow alternate app stores, wallets, etc.  I hope that every install and every invocation of an app from an alternative app store is preceded  with the warning "This app was not tested by Apple - do you want to proceed?"  Sort of like those super annoying cookie dialog you're forced to click through on every European web site.  But unlike those web sites, Apple users will still have the choice of only downloading/installing apps from the Apple App store.  That alone will keep most people from going to alternatives.


You must be kidding.

So, Apple vetted all these scam apps?

https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/84-dangerous-scam-apps-found-on-iphone-app-store-your-stealing-money-check-full-list-of-apps-71658128703429.html

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apples-app-store-approved-these-crypto-scam-apps-how-to-stay-safe

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/pig-butchering-scam-apps-sneak-into-apples-app-store-and-google-play/

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/25/chatgpt-scam-apps-mac-app-store/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/

The list goes on

9secondkox2 said:

Honestly, the ads SUCK. 

I it seems so ghetto. like something Microsoft or Google would do. not Apple at all. 

Of course Cook went for it. He is a great supply chain and numbers guy. But he’s not a customer culture guy. He really needed to listen to the people looking at it from customer perspective. 

Immediately Shooting down opposition is foolish. He needs to hear the ideas out. There are good reasons people oppose easy money and it has everything to do with quality, culture, and user experience. 

Keep Apple Apple. Don’t let it resemble the other trash tech companies. 

Hopefully we don’t start seeing ads in the OS or on Apples website in the future. 

mubaili said:

Apple could easily say any customer who pays for the iOS software can do whatever they want. It costs $499 initially and $99 updates.

n2itivguy said:

beautyspin said:

Marvin said:

crowley said:

Marvin said:

If the courts allowed every patent owner to do the same, the costs would eventually amount to far more than the cost of the entire product, which makes no sense.

Why not?  IP certainly has value, I don't see why it makes no sense for it to have more value than the assembly cost of the physical product.  For a technology product that's a composite of so many hardware and software elements and operating in an integrated network of assorted standards, the iPhone is very exposed to patents.  They'll just have to raise the price to accommodate the licensing.

Going forward they can raise the prices but not in retrospect. To allow a single company with a couple of patents to wipe out nearly all of a company's net profit in a region for a decade is crazy. There should be a time limit applied at least in retrospect such as no royalties 5 years or more back, 20% royalties 4 years back, 40% 3, 60% 2, 80% 1 and 100% going forward and they can decide if they agree to the terms.

Making a company pay full royalty rates they didn't agree to and didn't apply to their products at the time of sale is not a fair policy. An established business could operate for decades and some random patent troll emerges and bankrupts the company overnight over some trivial patents. One of their patents is for switching between 3G/4G and the slow 2G network and covers some basic algorithm to determine when to switch. That's not worth $7b and no company would agree to pay those rates, which is why Intel and Qualcomm didn't. Apple shouldn't then have to cover this when they only used chips made by those other companies.

Patent infringement should be applied to the companies who make the infringing components, that's Intel and Qualcomm in this case and patent owners shouldn't be allowed to apply their own made-up royalty rates retroactively that weren't agreed to by the infringing companies. What's to stop them saying $20 per device and then it's over $35b, that's a completely unworkable way to do business.

They infringed on patents that too not trivial design patents but necessary technological patents, they are paying the price. It is not only Apple that does research, every other company does it too and it costs them money. Using those technologies without paying licensing fees is thievary, whichever way you look at it. It wanted $40 dollars for five frivolous patents. https://www.slashgear.com/apple-demands-sky-high-samsung-patent-licensing-fee-11320242/. The five patents in question concern certain features around how unified search operates, slide-to-unlock, how phone numbers can be dialed by pressing them, auto-complete, and data sync. They got it coming. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they want to run away. Lol!

Again: NOT proven, and _Apple didn’t make the technology that’s being stated as being infringing on the said patents_. Just… smh. 

Hey, you — kid using that graphing calculator! Yeah, you owe me xx$₽¥€ because the one diode in there you had absolutely nothing to do with making, manufacturing and such (accusatory and not yet proven) infringes on something I didn’t have anything to do with either, but somehow was able to buy a (possibly generically written) patent we can now claim is ours. And for extra bullying, what you owe is all only calculated in an assumed/made up today’s amounts vs yester-year’s amounts applicable to any fees that may’ve been owed back then and appropriately adjusted through to present. Plus, all your life years are belong to us! Nyah! /s