larryjw

About

Username
larryjw
Joined
Visits
199
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,338
Badges
2
Posts
1,040
  • Big tech antitrust bill in danger, Chuck Schumer says

    I did a quick read of the House bill, and in my opinion, is quite the abomination. 

    It's way too broad, lacking any language indicating the exact behaviors which the proponents want to prohibit or allow. 

    This bill seems to have the sole purpose of swamping the judicial system with spurious lawsuits and making judges the sole arbiter of technology.  

    It takes little imagination to come up with an argument to sue the tech companies.

    Taking Apple as an example:

    (a)(1) , (2) would disallow Apple from "advantaging" their own OS and Xcode platform for development. How about not allowing Apple to develop their own hardware, like Apple Silicon (M1, M2). 

    Love (b)(3, (4). Use of non-public data. So, this would require my health data that Apple has collected or my financial data from Apple Pay to be given to other companies? Or my the fingerprint and face data Apple has collected? Or the data collected by my incoming and outgoing phone calls? Maybe Apple needs to share my Contacts and Calendar data? 

    I love (b)(8). interfering or restricting business user's pricing of its good and services. That's right out of Epic's playbook. 

    ********

    (a) Violation.—It shall be unlawful for a person operating a covered platform, in or affecting commerce, to engage in any conduct in connection with the operation of the covered platform that—

    (1) advantages the covered platform operator’s own products, services, or lines of business over those of another business user;

    (2) excludes or disadvantages the products, services, or lines of business of another business user relative to the covered platform operator’s own products, services, or lines of business; or

    (3) discriminates among similarly situated business users.

    (b) Other Discriminatory Conduct.—It shall be unlawful for a person operating a covered platform, in or affecting commerce, to—

    (1) restrict or impede the capacity of a business user to access or interoperate with the same platform, operating system, hardware and software features that are available to the covered platform operator’s own products, services, or lines of business;

    (2) condition access to the covered platform or preferred status or placement on the covered platform on the purchase or use of other products or services offered by the covered platform operator;

    (3) use non-public data obtained from or generated on the platform by the activities of a business user or its customers that is generated through an interaction with the business user’s products or services to offer or support the offering of the covered platform operator’s own products or services;

    (4) restrict or impede a business user from accessing data generated on the platform by the activities of the business user or its customers through an interaction with the business user’s products or services, such as contractual or technical restrictions that prevent the portability of such data by the business user to other systems or applications;

    (5) restrict or impede covered platform users from un-installing software applications that have been preinstalled on the covered platform or changing default settings that direct or steer covered platform users to products or services offered by the covered platform operator;

    (6) restrict or impede businesses users from communicating information or providing hyperlinks on the covered platform to covered platform users to facilitate business transactions;

    (7) in connection with any user interfaces, including search or ranking functionality offered by the covered platform, treat the covered platform operator’s own products, services, or lines of business more favorably than those of another business user;

    (8) interfere or restrict a business user’s pricing of its goods or services;

    (9) restrict or impede a business user, or a business user’s customers or users, from interoperating or connecting to any product or service; and

    (10) retaliate against any business user or covered platform user that raises concerns with any law enforcement authority about actual or potential violations of State or Federal law.

    MadbumtdknoxJP234JSR_FDEDkurai_kage
  • US finance regulator plans 'very careful look' at Apple Pay Later, similar services

    rob53 said:
    The biggest online Pay Later company has to be Pay Pal, not Apple Pay, so why aren't you including them in this article? Of course, every credit card company used on-line has always done this as their normal business.
    You are incorrect as to credit card companies. Loans by credit card companies are reported to the credit agencies. And, whether you agree with them or not, credit card companies have dispute resolution standards, consumers have protections.

    BNPL may not have late fee policies, return policies, dispute policies.

    CFPB points out that BNPL has similar markings to the old lay-away plans, but the difference are while layaway plans were typically used for the infrequent large purchases, BNPL encourages small quick purchases, ill-considered, encouraging accumulated debts. 

    Apple's offering is likely to be better than other systems as 1) their customer base is on the high end consumer, 2) they know a reasonable amount about their customers Apple debt level, 3) with the Apple Card, they dynamically keep their customers aware in the Wallet how much accumulating debt they have.

    I have no idea about the other BNPL companies: Affirm, AfterPay, Klarna, PayPal, Zip, but I doubt their users have the ability track their debt load. 
    doozydozencrowleybyronlwatto_cobra
  • Facebook expecting to fight Apple for metaverse dominance

    Facebook: Perpetual corporate adolescence. 

    Apple and Tim Cook are the adults here. 

    Not that I have any idea what the metaverse is. Just boys with their toys who want to play games all day? `
    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Colombia court bans 5G iPhones and iPads in Ericsson patent case

    I'm sure it will have some effect on Apple sales, but how much? Will they they confiscate iPhones purchased by individuals in Ecuador, Mexico, Panama and sent by postal? 

    My brief experience in Mexico and Peru is many people travel outside the country to purchase the items for family and friends. In Lima, the general process was to fly to Miami, pick the goods up there. You can buy anything you wanted from "street vendors". This was a long time ago under Fugimora. Large "flee" markets where exchanges frequent. 

    Does Apple have financial incentives?

    Anyway, I would guess Colombia has a thriving underground market -- as most South American countries do. They wouldn't have any economic support for most of the population but for the underground. 
    jukebox60killroywatto_cobra
  • Hollywood Critics Association Awards recognizes Apple TV+ as most nominated streaming serv...

    I'm no expert, but don't most movie distributors, including Apple, purchase movies and properties after they have been funded, filmed and finalized by private producers? If so, it's not really the distributor who should get the credit for all the awards.

    In the case of TV shows, it's probably just the pilot episodes that are funded privately, after which the producers shop around for a distributor to fund the whole season.
    No. 

    Not even close to true. Two minutes of research could have answered this for you. The vast majority of Apple TV+ content was funded, conceived, hired for, and supported from the very beginning by Apple.

    And so yes, it is Apple who should get the credit. Obviously.
    CODA was filmed summer 2019 and Apple purchased the rights to distribute it on January 30, 2021. That took me under two minutes of research. You've proven my point. THANKS! Apple didn't fund the production of CODA because the movie was filmed 18 months before Apple provided any money.

    After pondering why you were wrong, I think what you imagined was that I was thinking that most/all of Apple's products were filmed before Apple got involved. Go back and read my post again. I said "most companies purchase movies after they have been funded." I didn't say "ALL movies", I said "movies." And the fact that CODA was purchased after it was made proved my statement to be correct.
    You didn't have a point to begin with. Smugness about being "right" doesn't fit the facts. 

    "I'm no expert, but don't most movie distributors, including Apple, purchase ______ movies and properties ...."
     
    You had nothing to say. Missing qualification where an adjective phrase would might make this a statement which could render it true or false. (A statement by definition is some language which can have a value of true or false). 

    So, what fits in the blank spot? "most", "all", "some", "a few", ....  But, having not made a statement, you didn't say anything worth saying or responding to. So, someone filled in the missing blank and answered -- completing a thought which you never had.

    muthuk_vanalingamStrangeDaysstompyJaphey