FileMakerFeller

"Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the opposite."

What I'm struggling to comprehend is that the chip manufacturers were able to avoid paying these royalties, yet Apple is unable to achieve the same result. Apple surely has a defence relating to downstream product use; but if not, why not?

Is this case against Apple simply a matter of the patent holder squeezing the customer of its customers in order to get the money it is rightfully owed?

Remember that these numbers are from IDC, which has a poor record over the last few decades. So your surprise may simply be a reflection of the source's methodologies rather than the market realities.

Xed said:

I can't think of another human being alive that has directly affected as many lives for the better as Sir Berners-Lee.

That would be "Sir Timothy" or "Sir Tim" - the "Sir" title from a knighthood is used with the recipient's first name, not last name.

But I agree, his influence has been huge.

dysamoria said:

dormlock said:

Stuff like this slips the review process cause the developer used a remote configuration to turn off the features they don't want the reviewers to see. Once it passes review and is released they updated the config to turn them on. Maybe apple should consider a post release review process with a randomized time for check

Is this proven? It’s an interesting notion, as I was coming here to ask how Apple’s review process could possibly miss this, and what you said here is certainly a good answer if accurate.

It's exactly what Epic did to offer their "pay Epic directly" functionality.