NinjaMan

viclauyyc said:

Why not just pass a law that makes the commenters pay 70% of the damage and the forum companies pay 30%?

In fact, I think the anonymity of internet is kinda bad thing. So much hatful and damaging thing had been committed because of that. They should pass a law that make people use their real identity, or at least only one identity for all internet activities. It is not like NSA don’t know who we are and what we did last night.

what you're asking for would be a violation of free speech because you would be punishing the individual who made the comment. The other issue is who determines the appropriateness of the comment? There are easy things like direct calls for violence but things like hate speech are judgement calls and very subjective - just take what we're seeing now, you can look all across twitter and facebook and see hateful speech towards white people (with suggestions of violence) going unpunished and even at time celebrated but say something like you disagree with kneeling during the anthem or question the looting that took place during protests and you're attacked as a racist. No one really wants to support the idea of applying equitable standards towards hate speech. I don't doubt that even now that someone will read this comment and think I'm just a bitter caucasian which is absolutely hysterical....

magman1979 said:

Sounds like Sweeneydick and Co have found themselves the perfect shyster judge for their needs, hopefully Apple can put him in his place, and if things don't go well, take it all the way to the Supreme Court!

or maybe Apple is just wrong and there's a court out there that's willing to look past all of the money and power that Apple has and will still hold them accountable. Unless you're a legal expert that can squash the apparent crooked actions of this judge, then by all means volunteer you time to the Apple legal team who haven't been able to figure out the correct course of actions needed to stop the request. The Apple legal team isn't arguing the requirement to produce the document but saying that it's not easy to get and they need more time, but again, you should get on the team and help out this ailing company called Apple.

Beats had a bigger influence on Apple than originally thought - selling mediocre headphones at an absurdly high price. Kudos on the review!

glennh said:

Let me put it plain and simple for all. It’s Apple Shareholders’ Store and Platform.

Shareholder expect the management to generate profits. Since Apple owns the store, they do not have to let anyone else in their store which exist to generate profit from their platform. Just because they are better at generating “ginormous” amounts of cash,  that by itself does not give anyone the “RIGHT” to be in their store. 

I have not seen a single developer or anyone else spend a single penny when it comes to paying for Apple’s various yearly development, legal, contractors, patent, and employees cost. These costs are not cheap and shareholders expect the management to recover these costs. 

Apple unlike most companies give a lot of other people and companies a free ride in respect to above listed cost. With that said helping  the little guy/gal out is a good thing to do. But letting a million plus dollar corporations ride for free “ain’t” a thing I am prepared to forgive as an Apple shareholder.

 The current 15 to 30 per cent is a bargain to what should be a higher  rate for using Apple “privately owned” platform and gaining access to the platform customers. The last time I checked I do not think Macy’s has ever given Nordstrom equal access to its stores, customers or products. Nor has either one of them let someone display or sell a product in their stores for just 15 to 30 percent or for FREE! 

Not seen a single developer spend a single penny on Apple's cost? What do you think the 30% Apple takes is for? Are you suggesting that in addition to the 30% (now 15% in some cases) that developers should make additional contributions? Perhaps they should hold a YouTube telethon to raise money for the charity that is the Apple App Store?

If you don't think there's profit built into the 15% - 30% you're crazy and you really have no idea how much money some of these apps really make...Candy Crush alone could support all of Apple's costs and more than likely still make them a profit. 

GeorgeBMac said:

Personally I don't see any difference between searching a cell phone versus searching a file cabinet or somebody's house or desk.

Every country has rules and laws in place over legal searches and how and when they can be done (some are looser than others).

I suspect the biggest challenges here in the U.S. are:
-- Many police don't seem to want to go through those procedures and instead prefer to grab the phone and search it on their own 'authority"

-- It seems that often, when police do take a phone to search it the owner never gets it back.   That happened to a mentally ill patient of mine:  police took her phone and it just "disappeared" into the ether somewhere.   When she returned to the station to reclaim it all she got was run around.

-- Those objecting the most to it are probably those who are doing something wrong -- like tax cheats, pimps, drug dealers and other scum.

the Police can't and won't just search phones on their own "authority" unless there's cause such as someone pointing an individual out and saying that they were just taking pictures of their child which probably still wouldn't be enough and even then the accused would have to unlock their phone for the search to be conducted. Any evidence procured during an unlawful search would immediately get thrown out of court so the cops are not going to risk it...unlike an illegal search of a vehicle, it would be a lot harder for a cop to play the 'plain sight' card. 

And what was the purpose of noting the mental condition of a patient during your point? Seems pretty unprofessional whether or not anyone here could actually figure out who the individual is...

I do agree somewhat around the point of the people most upset by this...you could fit every police station in America with one of these devices and there is a 0.01% chance it would ever be used on the average person.