elijahg

Apple is being absurd. The amount they will lose in sales likely amounts to more than the amount they'd have to pay to license the patents especially if you include the legal fees. They'd rather jilt their own customers than pay a fee for what appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry case - and in the future potentially sell watches with sub-par blood oxygen detection because they don't want to pay. I wonder if the non-blood oxygen watches will have the feature switched back on if Apple pays in the future, or if Apple can come up with a software workaround?

They rightfully got royally pissed off that Samsung ripped off the early iPhones so blatantly, but when they rip off someone else it's fine?

I have lost respect for Apple over this.

rob53 said:

Both of you are wrong. Beeper is hacking a Mac to get access. This is blatantly against Apple’s EULA agreement. People need to quit giving hackers a reason to have any product. 

You can put anything you like in an EULA. Doesn't necessarily make it legally binding nor enforceable. 

mark fearing said:

ktappe said:

hmurchison said:

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they 
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

The clones weren't inferior. I bought several PowerComputing units for my then employer and they worked great. They were faster at a lower price than Apple's Macs.

I’m sure it was different for different people but the design firm I was at back then bought two and they were an ongoing nightmare of compatibility issues. 

That was just classic MacOS in general. My "genuine" Macs running classic would crash several times a day.

hmurchison said:

Reminds of the conundrum the Pre - Jobsian Apple found themselves in with Clones. 

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they 
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings. 

What incentive does Apple have to allow a significant amount of vendors to leverage their distribution 
platform at minimal cost and reap the financial benefits outside of Apple's sphere? 

If they were inferior offerings how was it they were able to cannibalise Apple's sales?

A lot of the clones were excellent. That was the problem, they were faster, more feature-rich and cheaper than Apple's Macs. 

This is different. Apple's incentive to allow vendors to sell on the App Store is increased sales of iPhones. Besides, Apple distributes Facebook, X and a multitude of apps completely free, so why try and force this small developer to pay especially when they've already got another app through with the "reader" clause? And considering the amount of trash on the App Store - and as the dev points out, Google has heaps of apps that could all be mangled into one. Why did Apple allow Messenger to be separated from Facebook?

Every year we get "Siri will be better this year" rumours, which never actually come to anything meaningful. Maybe now everyone else is so far ahead of Apple, they might actually feel the need to make some attempt to catch up.