13485

About

Username
13485
Joined
Visits
83
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
799
Badges
1
Posts
347

Reactions

519Like36Informative

  • Apple could be out $20 billion a year if Google loses DOJ antitrust case

    1348513485
    spheric said:
    As Microsoft found out both in the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case and the European case, "enabled by default" can absolutely constitute an antitrust issue, because the vast majority of users never ever touch their defaults. 

    It's weird how twenty years later, people are still perpetuating weird myths that have long been dispelled by actual (very expensive) court cases. 
    Are you both aware that the DOJ case, initially ruled against MS, was overturned on appeal? The actual settlement between DOJ and MS was much less onerous than the judge's overreaching decision.
    williamlondon

  • Heavy Apple Vision Pro leads Apple to lighten future headsets

    1348513485
    Apple store employee: "Better or worse? Better or worse?" as a customer gets fitted with the AVP v3.

    While I'm not sure of the broad appeal of using the AVP for work (from my own limited perspective), I can definitely see a device similar to this to create an "IMAX"-like tv - movie - planetarium viewing experience, and that might be the ultimate use for this.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra

  • Apple's 'Mother Nature' sketch was a complete dud, and didn't belong in the iPhone 15 even...

    1348513485
    I'm not sure how promoting their important environmental achievements is considered "virtue signaling" (which is apparently code for "I disagree with whatever that is"). Regardless, you can have the exceedingly dry product pitches that have been the norm since Jobs, or you can have a little creativity mixed in. The skit was OK, and it beats having Tim Cook read the same data in front of the camera.

    We all miss the showmanship of Steve Jobs, and, it must be said, his interaction with the live audience. These canned presentations, very well done though they are, are kind of boring, especially for an incremental product intro. 
    tht9secondkox2lotonesFileMakerFellerargonaut

  • Apple is working to reinvent the seatbelt for the Apple Car

    1348513485
    AppleZulu said:
    Stymyx said:
    JP234 said:
    ...The way to do that is to figure out a clever ignition lock-out that won't let the car start until the drive is actually buckled in, not sitting atop a seatbelt.
    I can tell you, Ford actually tried this in the '70's.  My dad's 1974 Ford Pinto had a "Seatbelt Interlock", which required the seatbelt to be attached before the engine would start.  And if the interlock failed, there was a button under the hood that you had to press in order to start the engine.  My dad was one of those types that refused to wear seatbelts.  Not smart, I know, but that's the way he was.  One day he learned how to defeat the interlock, by hooking the seatbelt buckle on the door handle lever.  Doing that pulled the belt out far enough to where the system thought the belt was attached, and the engine would start.

    Don't get me wrong.  I think not wearing a seatbelt is a stupid idea, and I personally choose to wear one.  But forcing people to wear one when they don't want to, that never works.  If they want to live dangerously, fine, let them.  If they don't, they're only endangering themselves.

    And that Ford Seatbelt Interlock?  It only lasted one model year.  By 1975, it was gone.
    In reality this is never true. A parent who 'opts' to voluntarily eject through the windshield in an auto accident is a devastating loss to the family involved, changing the trajectory of life for everyone else. A passenger who 'opts' to voluntarily flop around in the back seat in a rollover accident, severing their spine in the process, projects the immense costs of their flippant decision on everyone else in the family and/or to others beyond, through taxes and insurance costs required to support that person if they survive. So no, choosing to get in a car and ride around without using available safety restraints is not an independent, libertarian personal choice. It is the externalization of an immense potential cost in trade for accommodating a perceived mild discomfort or impish offense taken at 'being told what to do.'
    There is also the promise of a contributory negligence finding which could bar the injured party from damages because of their negligence for not using required safety equipment. 
    gregoriusmwilliamlondon

  • Apple Wallet patent infringement suit heads to settlement conference

    1348513485
    Please educate yourself about patents. There is no requirement that a patent holder must make the item he/she invented, nor is there any provision that prevents the sale of a patent to anyone else, who is also not required to make the item. This is true all over the world. 

    Further, what’s it to you whether a patent owner is making the item, it’s still their limited monopoly property whether they never make it or make it 20 years later, or make one copy. If the patent is valid, it has value, like any property. If someone infringes you can go after them.

    If I own twenty houses, and you’re camping in one of them, I can go after you even if I was not using the house or any of my houses. This is not complicated. It’s not yours, it’s mine.

    Now the corrupted Texas judicial system and jury awards,  on the other hand, are indeed something to be upset about.
    williamlondonbeowulfschmidt