randominternetperson

Nonsense.  None of those is an example of "Sherlocking."

One cannot "Sherlock" a company the size of Google or even Zoom.  Also, creating an application in an existing, robust product space doesn't count.  Did Apple "Sherlock" all the other browsers when they introduced Safari?  (No; that's ridiculous.)  Finally, adding features to the OS or an application that are already well established in the marketplace doesn't count.

Nearly every example above if one where Apple is (finally) entering a market with lots of existing players or adding features that numerous other competitors already have.

The Zoom example is particularly silly.  FaceTime predates Zoom by years.  Is the notion that it's somehow unfair for Apple to keep it's products up to date once competitors come along?

rotateleftbyte said:

Quote

Quizzically, the Epic attorney also likened Apple's App Store to a scenario where if the iPhone was a car, Apple would take 30% of what the driver had to pay for gasoline.

This is a load of baloney. I don't pay Apple a bent penny when I use one of the Apps on my phone to pay for the charging of my car.  The charging company had my card details. They don't take 30% when I use Apple Pay on my iPhone even for Gas/Petrol.

I really hope that the Apple legal team objected to that statement. If they didn't then why not?

I'm pretty sure you can't object to anything in an opening statement (or at least the rules are very different).  The opening statement is just a way for both parties to provide context for the evidence and witnesses they will introduce. You can't object to stupid analogies unless it's used as part of questioning witnesses.

This would be a weird choice.  Losing 20% of the available pixels for every logo by including a border would be a dramatic change.  Basically every logo would get smaller (and a little less distinctive).  It might look nice in marketing materials, showing a nice elegant arrangement of icons, but usability would suffer.  I trust Apple isn't actually considering this.

Here's a bit from the WaPo article about this today:

A team from Boskalis, a Dutch firm specialized in salvaging, arrived at the canal Thursday, although one of its top officials warned removing the vessel could take “days to weeks.”

A team from the Boskalis subsidiary SMIT “spent the day doing inspections and doing calculations to assess the state of the vessel and a plan on how to refloat the vessel,” spokesman Martijn Schuttevaer told the AP. He did not offer a time frame.

The Suez Canal Authority said one idea the team discussed was scraping the bottom of the canal around the ship.

Boskalis chairman Peter Berdowski on Wednesday described the ship as “a very heavy whale on the beach.”

“The ship, with the weight it now has, can’t really be pulled free. You can forget it,” he told the Dutch current affairs program “Nieuwsuur.”

king editor the grate said:

Interesting. Seems like a coupla tugboats could free it, but what do Editorbs know.

When I read this article a couple of days ago, there were already half a dozen tugboats on the job.  

Also, "Ever Gleamy"?  Who thought that was a good name?