randominternetperson

This is a topic I actually know something about (with professional certifications).

I'm not kidding when I say that it's literally impossible for a large organization to be indisputably 100% compliant with GDPR.  It is a massive law with very strict rules and extremely broad scope.  The copy of the GDPR on my desk is over 200 (small) pages.

This is a regulation about the processing of personal data.

Personal data is defined as "any information related to an identified or identifiable natural person [meaning, not corporations] ... who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more specific factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person."

"Processing" means "any operation ... which is performed on personal data, ... such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction."  [i.e., any conceivable thing that can be done with or to data.]

Following these definitions are 100 pages of proscriptions about what organization shall and shall not do when "processing" personal data.  For example Article 6 says "Processing [of personal data] shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies..."  This is followed by a short list of 6 justifications, the broadest of which is "[Where] processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the [company] or third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data."

So let's parse this for a minute.  Personal data is literally anything about a person that can theoretically be identified (this includes web logs that include IP addresses for example).  In order to retain or do anything with this data it must be "necessary" for some valid business purpose.  So a simple decision to keep web logs for, say two years, for analytic purposes could theoretically be litigated as a violation of "data minimisation" rules, for example.

So having said all this, it's not a terrible law and it's "heart" is in the right place, but news that a particular organization is accusing anyone of violating GDPR is about as meaningful as me complaining that you violated a driving law last year.  It would be easy to find a justification to bring a case about any company that processes data about Europeans.  Without specifics such a charge is completely meaningless.

Here's a useful exercise.  Grab a piece of paper and a ruler.  Draw a 10-inch line using the ruler.  Now at the mid-point of the line, mark a point half a millimeter to the left or right of the line.  Now make a triangle out of this by connecting the two ends of the original line to the new dot.  Even if you used a fine point mechanical pencil (.5mm or .3mm), to draw these lines, there is no "daylight" inside this triangle.  Now hold the paper up to your eye, looking down the line.  You will see the "bend" even though for all intents and purposes, there is no bend.  If someone gets an iPad with this level of "bend" and wants to return it, that says more about them than Apple.

And if they have more of a bend then that, then Apple considers that defective.  There is no story here.

1STnTENDERBITS said:

racerhomie3 said:

mikethemartian said:

Maybe the case meets that spec when it is milled but gets deformed during the rest of the assembly process?

What are you even talking about. Return the thing if it appears bent to you.Why is this something you have to tell people.

Why are you repeatedly saying "just return it"?  I think everyone here knows to return it if it bent.  But you seem hell bent (intented) on trying to down play the issue.  People hold Apple to higher standards because Apple holds themselves to higher standards.  They're responses to this issue, thus far don't reflect a high standard.  It smacks of legalese.  
It's pretty obvious some of the bending is beyond 400 microns.  That's not explained by "tolerances".  The issue should be addressed properly so that people have confidence in the products they're buying.  "Return 'til you get a good one" isn't the solution.

That's not "pretty obvious" at all.

The statement says that the tolerances are 400 microns.  That's an interesting fact.  If you get one that is off by more than 400 microns then Apple considers it defective, just like they would if you get one that has a screen that doesn't work.  They ship millions of devices; some will be defective.  Now we know where that line is.  We have no data about what percentage of new iPod pros are > 400 microns versus 100-399 microns versus <99 microns (none are 0 microns).  Without data, we have no idea if this is a problem or the typical internet mountain out of a molehill.

christopher126 said:

urashid said:

Kudos to Williamson County commissioners but is $16 million dollars over 15 years really an incensitve for Apple?  It seems to me that the money will be a lot more meaningful to the residents of the county.  Or is it just to show good faith / commitment?

I take your point...it seems this is the way these things work now.

The richest company in the world getting a $41 million incentive from money taken out of education, infrastructure, etc., from the good people of Williamson County. Hmmmmmm. Not cool! 

These "tax incentives" aren't a check Williamson County is writing to Apple.  They are discounts on taxes that Apple will be paying--money Williamson County wouldn't have if Apple weren't going there.  Obviously WC would be better off if Apple made exactly the same decision without any sweeteners, but clearly the county officials believes that these incentives were worth it.

gatorguy said:

randominternetperson said:

foregoneconclusion said:

gatorguy said:

It is bad for society generally and, I strongly believe, illegal for Apple to have crafted App Store rules such that it can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population."

The problem with that argument from Ben Thompson is that all other software marketplaces operate the same way as Apple, regardless of whether it's digital or a physical copy. There is a markup charged regardless, and it's usually in the 25-30% range. Buying a physical copy of a new console game from Amazon? You're paying a significant markup. Buying a digital copy of a new console game from the PS4 store? You're paying a significant markup. It's pretty obvious that having choices for where you get the software hasn't actually eliminated this type of practice. Apple's approach is standard for the entire industry. So are the plaintiffs in this particular case actually going to get relief from markups if they won? No. They'll just get a greater range of stores that charge the same markup.

Right.  And that's why the Illinois Brick case is important.  That case says that the someone indirectly harmed by a monopolists actions can't sue, only the directly impacted party can.  In this case, Apple argues that they aren't the one's charging the consumers, they are charging the developers.  If the developers are harmed by this, they should sue.  The end users shouldn't be able to sue because Apple isn't directly charging the consumer the 30%.  If Apple wins this argument, then they get the easy case to make, showing that they aren't using their market power to charge a "supracompetative" fee for selling developers' apps.

Unfortunately for Apple, a number of the justices don't see Apple as the indirect party since the consumer has a direct purchasing relationship with Apple.  This kinda makes sense, Apple is the intermediary between the developer and the consumer, so it's tricky to argue that the developer is the middle man.  (The argument is that the developer sets the price, so the chain of "harm" goes from Apple to the developer (in the form of the 30%) to the consumer (in the form of passed-on price increases).)

Back in 2016 Apple themselves put forth the notion that they are more than an intermediary. As Ben Thompson points out if you actually read his IMO well-considered narrative:

Apple's Luca Maestri: 

Each quarter, we report results for our Services category, which includes revenue from iTunes, the App Store, AppleCare, iCloud, Apple Pay, licensing, and some other items. Today, we would like to highlight the major drivers of growth in this category, which we have summarized on page three of our supplemental material. The vast majority of the services we provide to our customers, for instance, apps, movies and TV shows, are tied to our installed base of devices, rather than to current quarter sales.

For some of these services, such as content, we recognize revenue based on transaction value. For some of the services, such as the App Store, we share a portion of the value of each transaction with the app developer and only recognize revenue on the portion that we keep. To fully comprehend the scale of the services that we are delivering to our installed base and how fast this business is growing, we look at purchases in addition to revenue. When we aggregate the purchase value of services tied to our installed base during fiscal 2015, it adds up to more than $31 billion. That’s an increase of 23% over fiscal 2014.

" (Ben Thompson quoted) First off, it is striking that when Apple was facing one of its most challenging years in the stock market, its first response was to basically make the plaintiff’s point in Apple v Pepper: suddenly the company wanted to recognize all of the App Revenue, “a portion” of which is shared with developers. That sounds like a company in the middle!

Secondly, though, the reason Apple wanted to include all app revenue is that the “Services Narrative” has always been first and foremost the App Store narrative. Apple makes a huge amount of money, with massive profit margins, by virtue of its monopolistic control of the App Store. It doesn’t make the games or the productivity applications or the digital content; it simply skims of 30%, and not because its purchasing experience is better, but because it is the only choice."

As an aside but perhaps more important in Mr. Thompson's view:

...it seems incredibly worrisome to me anytime any company predicates its growth story on rent-seeking: it’s not that the growth isn’t real, but rather that the pursuit is corrosive on whatever it was that made the company great in the first place. That is a particularly large concern for Apple: the company has always succeeded by being the best; how does the company maintain that edge when its executives are more concerned with harvesting profits from other companies’ innovations?

Ok, now I've actually read his well-considered narrative.  On the last point, he's mischaracterizing what Apple (Luca Maestri) said.  Here's what Apple said: "For some of the services, such as the App Store, we share a portion of the value of each transaction with the app developer and only recognize revenue on the portion that we keep."  And from that Thompson says "the company wanted to recognize all of the App Revenue" (and he says this twice).  Where does Apple say that they ever intended too count all the revenue let along that they wanted to do so?  They are just saying that they do recognize the 30% they get as revenue.  Duh.  What else should they do?  No recognize the revenue?  If Apple were a real retailer, they would, in fact, recognize all the revenue and then net out the cost of goods sold.  That's what Walmart does, that was Amazon does, that's what retailers do.  That's not what Apple does for the App Store.

Also, a point that gets overlooked here (e.g.,  It doesn’t make the games or the productivity applications or the digital content; it simply skims of 30%, and not because its purchasing experience is better, but because it is the only choice.) is that Apple does a lot more than provide a store front to earn its 30%.  Everything in the App Store is build on top of the iOS APIs that Apple developed.  If you count the lines of code that go into any app in the App Store (or use any other measure of investment), for the typical app, the vast majority of the IP that makes the app was developed by Apple.  This goes from the (now considered) basic functionality of scrolling lists to cutting edge technology like ARKit.  Apple doesn't (directly) charge a dime for this.  The 30% is one way Apple recoups the cost of that investment.  If you could develop an iOS app using Xcode and all the iOS APIs and sell your app through some other channel, Apple would be well within their rights to charge a license fee for that IP.