neoncat

This must be very very hard for Apple, given their near-obsessive need to be recognized and adulated.

I love my Macs. They are essential tools for me and my business. Likewise, my iPhone and iPad would be hard to live without.

I'm also a gamer. I have a gaming PC, a Series X, and a Switch. I spend serious money on games (although none of it on any Apple platform). It's one hobby among many that I have, but one that brings me a lot of joy. I even have a few games I play competitively, having won money as part of a game team.

The difference in communities—players, developers, modders, streamers, etc.—between literally any other platform and Apple's is stark to a degree few realize, including Apple. Sure, encouraging developers to bring games to the Mac is great. Not going to criticize a bold first move. But this fawning press coverage about how Apple is taking gaming "seriously" is laugh-out-loud funny. Apple is finally paying the most basic attention to gaming. But that's just one step along a continuum that is miles long. Maybe that will make people who don't know any better think that the Mac is a "gaming platform." For the broader gaming community, it's not even worth a minute's consideration. 

muthuk_vanalingam said:

Looking at the top free iPhone apps from 4 to 10, do the people in this forum still believe that "Privacy" is a feature that is being actively used by the majority of the iPhone users? For those users who do value and use the Privacy feature, iPhone is the only option and there is simply no alterative option available to them.

Those who don't value their privacy (and looking at the top app usage, it seems to be a huge percentage of iPhone users fall into this category) - Wouldn't those users be better off financially by buying an Android phone at a much lower cost if they are NOT going to use the most-important differentiating feature from the other OS (except probably the niche users playing high-end games in their iphones)?

You're applying rationality to an irrational decision. "Privacy" is both a set of functions, and a marketing conceit. The functions, like any, exists for the (tiny) audience that needs or wants a specific capability and has fully identified that want. The bucket of functions exists for people to pick and choose from as their decisions and commitments dictate (sort of like the maxim of Microsoft Word: Everyone might agree that it's too complicated, but everyone's list of what to cut to make it more simple is different). 

Marketing, however, is a manipulation designed to sell products. Once the money has changed hands, the role of marketing is done. People are attracted by the idea of privacy (or the idea of better photographs, or the idea of advanced gaming, or any one of a number of ideas that Apple crafts and presents as if the only pathway to achieve that is through an Apple product), but the reality is any of these ideas requires an investment from the individual—in time, follow through, research, and so on.

And so here we are. Apple talks a lot about privacy, Apple offers the tools to privacy, but by and large people don't really care about privacy. Or at least, not to the extent that they're willing to give up the things that otherwise define how they use their device. It's marketing, to sell iPhones. As many as possible. Whatever it takes. 

tht said:

Seems to me Apple, Samsung and other OEMs can come down on both these case companies like a ton of bricks. They are making money off of these companies' IP. There are changes, like the heat pipes are removed, but these "photographs" are the value of the cases, and these case companies didn't really produce the "art". At best highly derivative works, but there is definitely a line there that they have crosses, imo.

Too much of a small fry for Apple and Samsung to bother, but glass houses.

The design of the motherboard can be copyrighted, or perhaps even trademarked. But the later, in particular, would apply narrowly to use in creating another motherboard. A photograph of a motherboard is not a derivative work, it is an original work that it, itself, can be copyrighted. They would have to take care to remove Apple's branding—for example, I assume that somewhere on the motherboard are Apple logos and the like. 10 seconds in Photoshop to remove those. 

The analogy would be that a recipe cannot be copyrighted. A specific presentation of that recipe can be, however. I cannot just copy wholesale your presentation of a recipe for delicious chocolate chip cookies, text and all. I can, however, take the list of ingredients and all the steps and re-present them with my own text and in my own medium without owing you credit.

Only responding to offer my full-throated support for the use of the word "imbroglio." Fun to say, fun to spell!