FileMakerFeller

MplsP said:

For those that have a hard time comprehending this - companies like Apple make hardware and also sell services. All this bill is doing is saying there has to be a modicum of separation between the two. It's not saying they can't offer their service, it's just saying they have to give other services an equal opportunity. Not sure what's so bad about that.

This whole situation feels like a clash of assumptions.

Apple is claiming, with justification, that because they make the whole widget and that is their unique selling point, forcing the company to allow others into the process as "equal" partners will damage their business. Apple works hard to integrate everything they do into a seamless, safe and secure experience for their customers, so they don't see what they provide as being able to be divided up into sets of functionality: Apple products are "more than the sum of their parts."

The legal system does not accept this concept as workable (hence the drama around the iPhone patents). Instead, everything is simply constructed from modular pieces, and these pieces eventually become commoditised. From the government's point of view, they are simply applying this concept to regulation because history shows that commoditisation of modular pieces results in purchase prices coming down, which is viewed as prima facie good for the consumer. Without a methodology for determining the price of the benefit gained by retaining an integrated system, there is no data to support that choice, which makes it more likely to be challenged, which means more effort to support it.

And it's a little murkier when you add in Apps and Services. These are clearly separate from the devices – extensions to the Apple ecosystem – so Apple's argument gets weaker here. But the App Store is a key part of the ecosystem, yet it is also separate from the devices. Who knows the full extent of the integration between Apple's devices, software, and systems? Who can therefore accurately predict the outcome of forcing a separation between them?

And the same applies to Microsoft, and Google: they claim to offer modular systems with interchangeable pieces, but isn't it funny how all the Office/Google Apps work so well together but aren't designed to work equally well with apps from other developers? And yet the Google Apps are "free" (big asterisk, mumble mumble data harvesting and analysis mumble advertising cough). Android is also "free" but, oh, guess what manufacturer, if you want it to be "real" Android then you have to have the Google Play Store and that costs money, plus you cannot then sell Android Open Source Project devices.

This is a nuanced issue, and governments have not, historically, dealt well with nuance - especially in the technology space.

Gosh. It's almost as though people have better things to spend their time on.

AppleInsider said:

It should be noted that firms like Strategy Analytics do not have insight into Apple's supply or retail chains and provide estimates based on independent research. The methodology, and more importantly results, of market research firms have been brought into question in the past, with Apple executives dismissing the data as largely incorrect.

But hey, that doesn't disqualify it from being an AI article.

Someone thinks this is patentable?

I fear for our society if this gets approved.

nicholfd said:

zoetmb said:

laytech said:

Im sure someone has commented above but no Face ID, surely not. Are we still logging in with finger print? Surely not.

So?  I prefer TouchID and I would prefer it on the iPhone as well.    It's easier to stick a finger over there than to have to stare at the camera and be recognized.   Especially on the phone in the car.    I HAVE to buy a new IPhone because I'm currently using an iPhone6 and a lot of the apps won't work anymore and it's bugging me that they won't restore TouchID until next year, so I'm going to be stuck without it. 

Sound like maybe you haven't used Face ID.  You don't have to "stare at the camera" - just a glance.  It's almost instantaneous.  Much faster than fingerprint for me.  The device is usually unlocked before my eyes see the open lock at the top of the screen.  I assume that when you "stick a finger over there", you then look at the device?  That same look would have it already unlocked, without you touching anything.  And for the phone in the car, I prefer to use Siri - no touching or looking anywhere.

And I wouldn't hold my breath "waiting until next year".  No one knows if Apple will ever return Touch ID.  Face ID is superior in almost all scenarios (and is proven more secure), so why return to something that is in general, inferior?

Siri requires the phone to be unlocked to do some things. Legislation in Australia says a phone must be secured in a recognised mount and if you look away from the road ahead (for any reason) and a collision occurs, you are at least partly at fault. You cannot handle the phone if the key is in the ignition (whether the engine is on or off).

I used to have my iPhone 6+ secured in a cup-holder mount and it was easy to locate it by touch, place my finger on the sensor to unlock or long-hold to trigger Siri (I don't use the "Hey, Siri" option). FaceID is nowhere near as convenient for that use case.