elijahg

I wonder if it will be smart enough to access the various iCloud-linked data like calendars, reminders and iMessage without the owner's iPhone connected to the network. At the moment, HomePods complain that they can't access the iPhone. There is no reason HomePod and Apple Watch Siri can't forward requests to ChatGPT either, rather than "i found some results on the web" for anything but the most basic queries.

HomeKit needs more power as well - Home Assistant has the power but usability is poor. The automations in HomeKit are too basic; I have lights that are on low at night and when activity is detected they raise to be brighter. But there is no option to return to previous brightness/scene, they can either stay on at max, or turn off. You can sort of do it with shortcuts, but its a faff.

So make a really thin phone, make it thicker than a standard one by adding a fat case, but still have less battery than the standard thickness phone??? Why?! 

12% seems like rather a lot for what appears to be nothing more than a payment processor.  Why not use Paypal which is something like 1.5%?

foregoneconclusion said:

elijahg said: I'm not saying there is a law around it, but anticompetitive behaviour is very opinionated and it would be much easier for Valve to justify that they "need" that profit to operate and invest than Apple can. This is especially true when you consider the lock-in, when the alternative requires the expenditure in the form of purchasing a different device.

The quote from the court is saying that 30% commission is too high relative to the intellectual property involved which = iPhone hardware + iOS + App Store. That's multiple IP developments versus the app developer that has a single IP development...their app. So the single IP developer gets 70% and the multiple IP developer gets 30%. I'm just saying that I don't follow how that is interpreted as supracompetitive. 

I agree, not really sure why the court used IP as a reason. It's not really anything to do with that.

foregoneconclusion said:

elijahg said: I suspect if the 30% commission was Apple's only major source of profit, like the commission on the Steam store is Valve's only real source of profit, the outcome would have been  different. 

What would that be based on though? Is there a law that limits profit margins based on how many different profit margins you generate? That has always seemed nebulous at best.

I'm not saying there is a law around it, but anticompetitive behaviour is very opinionated and it would be much easier for Valve to justify that they "need" that profit to operate and invest than Apple can. This is especially true when you consider the lock-in, when the alternative requires the expenditure in the form of purchasing a different device.