corp1

As Winstoner71 noted, the Backbone one is another popular side-mounted controller option for the iPhone that turns it into a pseudo-Switch. The Razer Kishi is another.

I like the design of the Backbone One hardware, but I hate how its companion app tries to rope you into a subscription to their Backbone+ service, and I hate the text spam that Backbone sends you. They basically damaged a good controller by locking some of its functions behind a subscription, but there is no way I'm going to pay a monthly subscription fee to use a piece of hardware that I supposedly purchased. Backbone+ needs to go away. Maybe Microsoft will acquire Backbone and merge it into Xbox Game Pass or something. Then would make a bit more sense as a subscription service because you'd be getting access to a bunch of Xbox games, and you could use your Xbox gamertag, etc..

The Backbone also has a headphone jack, like the older GameVice controller for iPhone. (GameVice even tried, unsuccessfully, to sue Nintendo for violating patents on the Android-based Wikipad.)

An advantage of the GameSir is that you can potentially find a case that fits into the controller, while the Backbone doesn't seem to fit around a case.

...when I think about human rights, I don’t think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can’t see or to help a kid with autism, I don’t think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don’t think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view.

If you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock.

williamlondon said:

narwhal said:

They were smart to bail from Apple, and California employment laws prevent Apple from doing much about it.

Why? And what do California's labor laws have to do with it?

If they had equity in Nuvia then they may have enjoyed a huge buyout payday – probably vastly larger than the regular salary + bonus they'd have received if they'd stayed with Apple. That's likely the primary motivation to form Nuvia in the first place. It's potentially a second payday for staff who were originally part of PA Semi when it was acquired by Apple in 2008.

As I understand it, California law voids non-compete clauses (which Apple and many other companies attempt to use regardless of enforceability) in employment contracts. Anti-poaching arrangements are also illegal.

wonkothesane said:

Bizarre, how the individuals that crushed and stomped over the victims apparently are not on the liability radar. Ah, I see, more effort, less deep pockets… not worth the effort; and why share liability when there is the easy way.

Edit: fixed typo

Imagine a crowd of people packed in tightly. Suddenly a couple of them stumble or briefly lean on or grab onto the people in front of them, causing a whole line of people to lean or fall forward, applying hundreds of pounds of force to those at the front who are pressed against a metal fence or barrier. Whose fault is it?

A likely answer could be: the event staff who designed the venue and let it become unsafely crowded.

viclauyyc said:

Why sue Apple except for money grab?

Apple was streaming the concert online, the whole idea is so people don’t need to go to the concert. 

Why not sue the bus company because they give people ride to the concert. Or sue Coca-cola as they provide drink?

Part of it is certainly the "deep pockets" principle where plaintiffs will sue parties with the greatest ability to pay damages.

The tricky bit will be to show that Apple (along with the promoter, artist, venue, etc.) is liable, since Apple was streaming the event and could conceivably have paused it at any time for "technical difficulties."