ManyMacsAgo

booga said:

I believe they tried that. The crux of the matter appears to be that Qualcomm agreed to offer “FRAND” (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) Licensing terms in exchange for having their parents made part of the 4G standard. So you can’t really avoid all of them, assuming they’re valid. But then they turned around and tried to take a percentage of total device value as licensing. So if Apple offers a better screen or battery and charges more, Qualcomm expects more money too for the exact same part and function. Apple says that’s not fair, reasonable, and considering Apples unique place in the industry, not non-discriminatory either. Neither side will budge and it’s a fundamental difference of opinion. If Apple loses, all devices which implement any modern spec will become a minefield of patent percentages. Usually there isn’t that clear a bad guy, but here it’s pretty clear it’s Qualcomm acting against the industry and public good. Hopefully they lose soon and hard. 

Not only are the licensing terms not fair, reasonable nor non-discriminatory, but there is the whole "double-dipping" thing, which is what a lot of companies and governments around the world are disputing with Qualcomm, it's not just Apple disputing...

Essentially, Qualcomm wants to license BOTH the assembling company for the part (Foxconn, etc), AND the device company (Apple) for the same part. Normally, a license for a part covers its use in whatever it is put into. Apple accounts for licensing, and is good with that, but just once -- either Foxconn gets the bill and passes it onto Apple, or Apple gets the bill. But Qualcomm shouldn't be doing both.

Apple's complaint to Qualcomm about that was partly how Apple got some rebate from Qualcomm (but Apple had to "agree" to let Qualcomm be the exclusive supplier of modems as well). Then Qualcomm withdrew the rebates (1B per year) over Apple testifying in someone else's case against Qualcomm (in S Korea, I think).

ericthehalfbee said:

carnegie said:

ihatescreennames said:

Since iMessages are end-to-end encrypted can Apple really provide access to them if I don’t have an iCloud backup?

No. It can't provide the contents of such messages. 

But it will provide iMessage capability query logs pursuant to an 18 USC §2703(d) court order.

If you have selected to back up iMessages to iCloud, then Apple can provide the contents. What do you think happens when you get a new iPhone and do a restore from an iCloud backup? All your iMessages get restored as well.

If you're really concerned about security you wouldn't back anything up to iCloud and do local encrypted backups to your computer via iTunes. Just be aware that if you lose the password for your encrypted backup you lose your data. Apple can't recover an encrypted iTunes backup.

For me I have just about everything set to backup to iCloud. The convenience of having a continuous and up-to-date backup (plus having items shared between devices) far outweighs my worries that the police or other agency are going to ever need to read my iMessages.

The problem for Stone is not that he backed up to iCloud, but that he didn't choose for his backup to be encrypted. So, contrary to what you say above, my understanding is that an encrypted backup to iCloud is "Safe" for a user, because the encryption occurs on the phone, before being sent to the iCloud servers (unlike with Google, who encrypts your data for you once your data gets to their cloud, using a key that Google holds). Apple does not hold the key, your phone does; and this is how Apple likes it and wants it to remain.

So, yes, Apple can provide the "Content" from iCloud servers when requested, but my understanding is that the content itself may be gobbledy-gook to those looking at it, unless they have your unlocked phone to go with it. But if the iCloud backup is not encrypted by your phone, then it is plain and readable when that content is handed over.

So, you should be able to backup to iCloud with confidence of your content remaining private (ie, unreadable), if you have chosen encrypted backups.

In the case of the San Bernardino shooters, the content Apple handed over was encrypted and therefore useless to the FBI, so Apple was asked to also unlock the phones -- which Apple "can't" do, at least not without creating a general backdoor that compromises all Apple devices.

Thankfully, Apple uniquely remains unwilling to do this, though it gets constant pressure from all sorts of governments and agencies. In fact, Apple keeps working to keep third-party security companies from being able to "casually" unlock devices through brute-force tools (such as not allowing attached devices to access a phone without the owner inputting their unlock key).

MlorianFueller said:

We all know Florian Mueller is paid by Apple and has been Apple support for so many years. His blog is biased and has no credibility. The fact that FTC is getting testimony from Apple and other manufactures saying Qualcomm is a monopoly shows the flaw in the FTC case. Apple suing because of the price that has been previously agreed upon by Apple and come to know the only reason that both companies agreed to the deal is because Apple demanded a $1 billion "incentive payment" to secure the deal. Apple will and always eat alive their suppliers.

Oh, and btw - https://www.sullcrom.com/district-court-holds-that-frand-commitment-does-not-require-licensing-at-chip-level

Not sure that he is paid by Apple or overly biased. He seems to have agreed with most of Samsung's arguments and pro-Samsung rulings in the Apple v Samsung case.

lenn said:

Although I think Bloomberg is a hack publication like most are these days I also believe that Apple is doing everything it can to spin it's financials to look as profitable as possible. Remember Cook is a financial guy, not an inventor like Jobs' was. His job is to always present Apple in the most favorable light with regards to financial health.  And don't forgot all those leaches at the stock market that believe everything Bloomberg and other's right and then panic like little school girls and dump 100s of millions of shares. Plenty of blame to go around.

There is no "spinning" being done, nor any necessary. Apple's financials are rock solid. It's their stock that is volatile, not their financials. "To look as profitable as possible"? Apple makes virtually all the profit in the entire industry. And in watches, and much of the profit of the PC industry (especially if iPads are included).

Apple has long revealed much more detail, much more transparently than other tech companies. And Apple's guidance figures have been so, so accurate year in, year out.

The stock gets manipulated whatever Apple does, so they have stopped reporting actual unit numbers (like everyone else, who have never reported unit numbers). Let's have some (any) unit numbers from Samsung, Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

You can learn more about the strength of Apple's financials on Asymco, where Horace Dediu provides great analysis over a number of years: http://asymco.com

AppleInsider said:

The interview concluded with Ive saying what keeps him up at night is the divisiveness in the U.S. amongst the citizenry, which has intensified as of late. He declined to elaborate on the matter.

Spoken like a true Englishman. That would keep me up at night, too, if I lived in the US again as I have done for different periods in the past.