draenar

I change my watch band monthly and throw last month's in the wash.

This has worked great except for one Apple band, which was not colorfast and basically was ruined by the colors bleeding into each other.  No damage to my clothes, but the band was dead.  The cheap amazon bands have not had this problem - only one actual Apple purchase.

The FaceTime limitation sounds temporary, with changes of who is on screen by turning or moving your head changing the nine some day.

I expect there will be a lot of such items as engineers balance what can be done with a virtual world larger than the current POV.

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Removing Rosetta would be a disaster for Apple Silicon in any region. Rosetta is the technology that gives a customer confidence that their software will likely run on M1 Macs. If Apple removes it anywhere, everyone will wonder if their region is next. Watch as sales plummet. It could not only be the end of Apple Silicon, it could be the end of the Mac itself. If this is a patent dispute, Apple should fight it or pay.

It depends on when Apple does it.

Apple announced a two-year transition.  It's perfectly reasonable to tell developers that their software needs to run on Apple Silicon0 by that time.  This is a way to do that.  Once people's software runs on Apple Silicon without Rosetta, the implications for Apple Silicon will be minor at best.

It is possible that legal issues could hurry that, but by limiting it to markets where that happens faster than Apple plans, Apple can mitigate the damages until the transition is history.  

This is not Apple's first processor change, and I suspect they have plans for how to get through the difficulties.

crowley said:

dewme said:

"the tech giants would be forced to allow them in their digital storefronts"

That's some very scary Big Brother massively intrusive sh**. Would Walmart, Target, Kroger, etc., allow the government to force them to stock certain products on their shelves even if the retailer did not want to carry such products? 

Probably, yes.  I wouldn't be altogether surprised if some stores are obliged to sell some products that are unprofitable but socially beneficial as a condition of trading in some parts of the world.  It's won't be particularly onerous, these stores are very profitable.

If it's forcing the stocking of a dumb shooting game that teenagers play, that's still not particularly scary, it's just a bit pathetic that lawmakers think this is worthwhile.

There is little to no chance that the lawmakers introducing these bills see the issue of the app stores as worthwhile.  What they see as worthwhile are the campaign donations from Epic, Spotify and Basecamp and/or the threat from those companies and their flacks to support alternative candidates. 

The big question here will be what positions will the presidential candidates take.

If this becomes a public issue, the US public will stand up for the US, and the country will not cave.

If left to backroom politics, the story may be very different.