svanstrom

If decentralised solutions can't get any traction at all without active support from Apple they're not much of a solution to anything.

What's happening here is that instead of innovating themselves towards something functional they rather think that they already have the greatest thing ever, but are being persecuted by a society keeping them from liberating the people. (And that's about the honest ones; the rest just want to make easy money from fools believing the hype of cryptocurrencies or are paranoid and don't trust "money".)

Aaand… on a more technical note: These decentralised apps are a huge failure because everything about using them is a convoluted mess as far as the average consumer is concerned, so what those skimming money of cryptotransactions wants to do is to crack the App Store open such that they can provide the "decentralised" apps in a format that is basically that they run their own appstore within their own app, which they still want Apple to host for them.

That's not just about the money, but about the (lack of) usability and security for the Apple customer.

I absolutely support the work towards more decentralised solutions; but that doesn't mean that anyone yelling about decentralisation is owed a payday by existing traditional businesses.

FoodLover said:

svanstrom said:

FoodLover said:

Beats said:

Yup. When Apple patented the wraparound screen, Samsung (again) crapped out a product to beat them to market, It was called the Galaxy Edge and had no reason to exist. Meanwhile Apple used the tech for iPhones, Apple Watch and I believe Apple Park.
...
Really shows you the difference between the critical inventor and the sloppy copycat.

Fact check:

• 8th of January 2013: Samsung shows Youm concept which was the basis for Note Edge at CES 2013 (8th to 11th of January 2913). That device looks pretty similar o Note Edge.
• February 2013: the first time Apple reveals patents for wraparound displays

Hm, who copied from whom?

Reality check: Patents often take years going through the process before revealed.

Apple filed their wraparound display patent in 2011: https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/03/stunning-future-iphone-with-wraparound-display-revealed.html

Beats hat claimed that Samsung had copied the Note Edge idea from Samsung. So I proved that it was not correct. And you did not prove anything else: the patent was release after Samsung showcased it Edge concept. Before February 2013 there were not a single reference in the internet about any Apple patents. BTW: in the linked document Apple says that the inventor was someone else (not Apple), and mentions the number of another patent.

But we can play the game even further: the patent is from Q3 2011 while Samsung showcased its first flexible AMOLED display at CES 2011 (6-9 January 2011).

There is no game; just showing that you are a liar by intentionally misrepresenting facts when you cherrypick dates/years to fit your agenda.

FoodLover said:

Beats said:

Yup. When Apple patented the wraparound screen, Samsung (again) crapped out a product to beat them to market, It was called the Galaxy Edge and had no reason to exist. Meanwhile Apple used the tech for iPhones, Apple Watch and I believe Apple Park.
...
Really shows you the difference between the critical inventor and the sloppy copycat.

Fact check:

• 8th of January 2013: Samsung shows Youm concept which was the basis for Note Edge at CES 2013 (8th to 11th of January 2913). That device looks pretty similar o Note Edge.
• February 2013: the first time Apple reveals patents for wraparound displays

Hm, who copied from whom?

Reality check: Patents often take years going through the process before revealed.

Apple filed their wraparound display patent in 2011: https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/03/stunning-future-iphone-with-wraparound-display-revealed.html

cat52 said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

razorpit said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

SpamSandwich said:

There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.

Thankfully the world disagrees with this myopic mindset. 

Maybe yours does, but for the most part the real world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you or anyone else. It sounds harsh, but so is the real world. If “the world” cared you wouldn’t have the world you have.

I’ll wager I have seen a lot more of the world than you have and yes the consensus of people is that human rights are very real. 

Yeah, human rights is a big misnomer...

Should clean water be a human right?  I think all of us here would say 'yes', and yet there are plenty of places in Africa which still don't have clean water.

So @razorpit is correct I'm afraid, the world just doesn't give two f*cks.

You’re staring yourself blind at the things that still needs to be fixed; so you ignore all the things already fixed and improved. If your attitude was the main one the world would crash and burn in a week and a half. 

beowulfschmidt said:

GeorgeBMac said:

prismatics said:

As long as it serves shareholder interests.

Is that short term interests or long term?

Long term it serves them best to act based on the highest of principles.

U.S. law isn't really supportive of long-term benefits for publicly traded companies.  It's not precisely against long term goals, it just prioritizes them below short term, i.e. fiscal year, and sometimes even quarter, goals.

Long-term goals are actually less sensitive to what the laws are, from the perspective of a corporation; the problem is that short-term goals are the low hanging fruit for the people involved.

For instance, bosses are often given bonuses based on performance; which are measured continuously. Meaning that as a boss you want these quarter goals to absolutely shine, even if that means that the company will take a hit a decade from now.