1STnTENDERBITS

pscooter63 said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

Wait.  In your effort to escape Windows you {checks notes} come to an article about a Windows tablet... just to {checks notes again} complain about a single article on a site filled with articles about Apple?  That makes sooo much sense considering you could have, I don't know, read one of the other articles on the site.  

My comment was about editorial decisions, not the article per se.  I guess that subtlety flew right past you.

Silence implies assent... the same impetus that prompted your response.  Guess you’re not that different from me after all?

By the way, I’m one of the Likes on Mike’s reply.  The very first, in fact.

Didn't really find much in your original comment that could be described as subtle.  Hyperbolic maybe with the "fan"-tastic MicrosoftOutsider, but not subtle. Silence tends to imply indifference to me.  Annoyance was my impetus.  The way your comment was written, it may have been yours as well.  Regardless of inspiration, ignoring the article would have kept you happy and out of this discourse.  So there is that.

pscooter63 said:

So... MicrosoftOutsider now?

With all due respect to Mike (whose content is generally great), there are dozens of places that already provide review content like this.

I am forced to use a Windows machine at work.  AI used to be my escape from all that.

Wait.  In your effort to escape Windows you {checks notes} come to an article about a Windows tablet... just to {checks notes again} complain about a single article on a site filled with articles about Apple?  That makes sooo much sense considering you could have, I don't know, read one of the other articles on the site.  

It's like you're complaining about getting sick from riding roller coasters while in line to ride a roller coaster.  Don't ride the roller coaster.  Don't read the article and your respite from Windows remains intact.

ronn said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

ronn said:

gatorguy said:

red oak said:

wanderso said:

Seems that Apple might have wanted to wait a few more weeks to settle. 

It will take many months to work through the appeals process.  And the outcome is not guaranteed.  Apple needed the chips now 

But as long as the FTC wins at the end, it will not matter.   The contract will get torn up 

I don't see that happening. 

Doesn't the ruling mandate that:

"...Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software."

Which could give Apple a leg up on redoing the contract.

Negotiate - From a go-forward perspective.  Renegotiate - if terms were negotiated under bad faith and threats.  There's nothing available that says Apple and QC negotiated their agreement under bad faith or threats.  In fact, there's a fair contingent of AI forum members who insist it was Apple negotiating from a position of strength so the conditions for renegotiation weren't really present.  We don't know so we can't assume.  Regardless, that excerpt you quoted does not mandate renegotiation.

Everything in Koh's ruling points to Qualcomm operating under bad faith. Hell, she stopped just short of calling Q's witnesses/executive perjurers. They lost on nearly every count and she mandated government oversight for a period of seven years. The parties are holding the contract close to their vests, so no one can say with definitive proof who won. But given the previous worldwide rulings against Qualcomm, this outcome and the upcoming German trials, Qualcomm will be in a world of hurt.

You seem to be equating her opinion of Qualcomm's overall actions with those of Qualcomm's actions regarding their settlement with Apple.   Renegotiation would occur if the perceived injured party wants to renegotiate.  There's nothing that says Apple would even want to do so or find advantage in doing so.

welshdog said:

Obviously "driving rooms" means extremely large interior spaces where cars can be driven safe from prying eyes. Not a difficult thing to do, but an expensive one from the standpoint of utilization of real estate square footage. Of course if you own the building then costs moving forward are lower since you aren't paying a building lease.

How did you come to that conclusion?  Afaik, "drive room" is a term made up by the analyst Irwin.  Further, he said it was battery tech related.  More so, he expands to battery tech and drive systems... hence "drive room" as in propulsion mechanisms.  Simply from a space utilization perspective, a big room to drive in doesn't make any sense.  A test mule disguised as another brand is infinitely more sensible, done all the time, and accomplishes the goal of secrecy with the added bonus of real world driving data.

Latko said:

corrections said:

Latko said:

The minimal distinction between Apple and the “evel” data collectors is that Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data.
That is, you as an individual still exist, but only under a cumbersome id (instead of your name) that others may very well relate to your name via usage patterns - even while Apple won’t.
So that distinction is MINIMAL to ZERO, further in the value chain.
So - contrary to what the article suggests - Apple IS collecting data on users collectively and selling TONS of aggeregate data to enable spying purposes.

Sorry, No

Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data = false

Digitaltrends.com on Apple:
” the company does use your data to sell targeted ads based on your activity in the News and App Store apps. You can actually see what information Apple is using here by going to Settings, Privacy, then Advertising. ... Apple will send you your data in chunks, up to 25GB.
may 23 2018”

Not to defend DED, but that quote from Digitialtrends does not support your assertion.  You said: "...Apple collects and sells aggregate, anonymized data."  That's not true at all.  Apple does sell ad spaced based on anonymized, aggregated data.  They don't sell the data.  The advertisers have no idea who you are.  If we are going to represent facts, we need to represent facts factually.  Selling data (as you claimed) and selling ad space based on data is not a distinction without a difference.  Those are two entirely different things.  The fact that Apple collects and uses data for targeted advertising is not a secret.  They tell you they do it.  They tell you here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 ; as well as in their overall privacy policy.  The problem is Apple uses privacy so effectively as a marketing tool, people far too often confuse and conflate their marketing with their actual policy.