BittySon

About

Username
BittySon
Joined
Visits
56
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
131
Badges
0
Posts
76
  • FineWoven won't be missed, but it should be remembered

    Apple was convinced enough of its need to stop using leather that it went all out.”

    Oh please, just another virtue signal that went wide of the net.  How about offer Finewoven or another alternative to those who care and leather to those of us who are not idiots?
    beowulfschmidt
  • Microsoft blames European Commission for global CrowdStrike catastrophe

    Microsoft is absolutely correct as the EC has appeared to do everything that they can to degrade computing security in the pursuit of some antitrust agenda that only they can try to explain.  Microsoft’s error here is in complying, “going along to get along”.  Apple has been heroic in attempts to resist and has mostly done so although alternative app stores for iOS will likely prove as dangerous as Apple has suggested.  I just wonder how Europeans would feel if these companies simply abandoned these markets. The world cannot afford to let European threaten world security for a third time in a little over a century.
    williamlondondewmebaconstangwatto_cobraJanNL
  • Hey Calendar resubmitted with spiteful Apple history feature inspired by successful Kickst...

    Why anyone would install software from a man with the maturity level of tadpole is beyond me.
    auxiomagman1979williamlondonzeus423watto_cobra
  • Apple triumphant in Epic Games 'Fortnite' antitrust appeal

    davidw said:
    chasm said:
    For those who might be disappointed by the latest in a string of defeats for Epic:

    Take a really good, hard, objective look at what this company has done, said, and plans to do, along with who has controlling interest in it. Read the stories on this very site about how Epic was fined millions for shady behaviour wrt in-app purchases.

    I think you’ll find that that Epic is not the “freedom fighter” you might imagine it is.

    Likewise, the original judge in this case correctly ruled *against* Apple’s anti-steering provisions IMO, and since no court has overturned that ruling either, this case also stopped Apple from anti-competitive behaviour in that regard as well.
    The thing is that Federal Judge ruled that Apple "anti-steering" policy violated the CA Unfair Competition Law not any Federal anti-competition laws. First, it's questionable that this judgement can force Apple to adhere to the CA UCL, in every State. Each State have their own anti-competition laws that don't necessarily agree with other States anti-competition laws. This was one of complaints Apple addressed with their appeal. How can a Federal Judge force Apple to comply with a CA law, in every US State? It would be different if Apple anti-steering policies violated Federal anti-competition or anti-trust laws. So on the surface, Apple might only have to allow developers to inform customers of other method of payments (within their apps) or allow links to them, only in CA. 

    And second, the CA Unfair Competition Law is a vague catch-all law for when a company haven't been found to be violating any actual anti-trust or anti-competition laws, but the courts still thinks that the company behavior or practice is "unfair" to its competitors or consumers. The courts gets to decide what constitute "unfair".  There is no law that clearly states that Apple "anti-steering" policy is anti-competitive. 
    The Commerce Clause of the Constitution prevents state laws that restrict interstate commerce.  The Supremacy Clause obviates state laws entirely when they conflict with federal law.  California’s law is likely unconstitutional but also somewhat irrelevant as enforcement would also violate the Constitution.
    h2pwatto_cobra
  • Apple Watch glucose sensing up to seven years away from launch

    I believe that it will launch around the time they also miniaturize their quantum, fusion-powered chip.
    byronlbeowulfschmidt