carnegie

NT$601.4 billion is a 5.6% YoY increase for Foxconn for November. That's the smallest YoY increase Foxconn has seen since March and its last 6 monthly YoY increases had all been above 20%. So while it's good that Foxconn saw growth in November, I wouldn't read too much into that when it comes to how well iPhones are selling relative to what had been been expected. (I, of course, am not suggesting that they aren't selling as well as had been expected.)

NY1822 said:

CNBC has been fumbling this story, maybe you can clarify some details. IOS 12 was released in September 2017. The iphone 8/ 8 Plus/ X were also released September 2017. Does this mean since they are shipping with IOS 12 they skirt the ban? So then this would only apply to the 6/ 6S/ 7 line?

Also, Apple is saying all models are still available for sale in China.

We'd need to see the text of these preliminary injunctions to know for sure what they cover. But my guess would be that Apple designed around the methods in question with iOS 12 (i.e. how the functions are achieved is somewhat different) such that iPhones sold with the latest iOS installed aren't blocked. That would be consistent with the wording of both Apple's and Qualcomm's statements, and with what we might have expected Apple to do in response to these actions being taken by Qualcomm.

Part of Apple's complaint (which has been echoed by a number of other parties) has been that Qualcomm had previoulsy refused to tell licensees what patents they were licensing. Qualcomm would just say, you have to pay us this much and it covers all the IP which you might need. Various regulatory bodies have told Qualcomm that it can't do that. And now Qualcomm is bringing up particular (non-SEP) patents to try to find leverage against Apple. So it's reasonable to think that Apple didn't realize it had been infringing on certain Qualcomm patents (assuming it had been) until Qualcomm recently brought those patents up.

SpamSandwich said:

carnegie said:

SpamSandwich said:

steven n. said:

As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me. 

Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple. 

This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.

Some of them did. Both the BSA / The Software Alliance and the ACT / The App Association filed briefs in support of Apple.

And I’m talking about individual developers, possibly even regular customers, filing briefs in support of Apple’s model.

That's part of what such associations are for, to advocate in the interests of members. I wouldn't expect individual app developers, especially small ones, to file briefs. For one thing, it costs money to do so.

SpamSandwich said:

steven n. said:

As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me. 

Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple. 

This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.

Some of them did. Both the BSA / The Software Alliance and the ACT / The App Association filed briefs in support of Apple.

crowley said:

I don't understand the overcharging angle.  Can someone who does maybe break it down into who has been overcharged for what and why that would be illegal?

The plaintiffs claim that they are paying an overcharge to Apple as a result of Apple's anticompetitive conduct, i.e. Apple not allowing developers to sell their apps in other ways. The plaintiffs' argument is that they are buying apps directly from Apple, not indirectly from app developers.