tech_traveller

About

Username
tech_traveller
Joined
Visits
12
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
226
Badges
0
Posts
46

Reactions

56Like34Informative

  • Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals

    tech_travellertech_traveller
    foregoneconclusion said:
    carnegie said:

    foregoneconclusion said:
    godofbiscuitssf said:
    So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
    The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only. 
    foregoneconclusion said:
    flydog said:
    So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
    The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only. 
    What? No. Wrong!

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf

    "The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems."

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/supreme-court-rejects-apples-request-for-epic-app-store-review#

    So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals.
    The injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies applies nationwide even though it's based on violation of California law.
    That doesn't make any sense. You don't extrapolate state laws to cover the entire country. You can say CA has the right to enforce the law because there isn't a federal law regarding anti-steering that takes precedence. 
    The other states should follow soon, since all 50 of them ganged up to extort money from Google in a recent play store case.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra

  • Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals

    tech_travellertech_traveller
    Good, SCOTUS shouldn't get involved everytime there is a dispute among companies.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra

  • Apple says it can take pulse oximetry out of Apple Watch -- but shouldn't have to

    tech_travellertech_traveller
    igorsky said:
    My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with?  Ridiculous. 
    You would be aghast to find out the kind of things that get patented. Apple too has its fair share of ridiculous patents.
    jas9940domiwilliamlondondewmegrandact73

  • Apple overtakes Samsung in global smartphone shipments across 2023

    tech_travellertech_traveller
    I predict that this number will keep on growing.

    Android has too much of a negative annotation at this point, to sell in the premium space.

    However, if Google actually plays their cards right the Pixel should be able to keep on increasing in market share and dethrone Samsung eventually, at least in the premium space. The Pixel software is the only thing that comes close to iOS in optimisation and fluidity.

    Also, the market has repeatedly shown that it cares as much about brand value as tech features. Samsung making cheap devices dilutes that brand value. Few people (unless they are tech nerds) are going to buy Samsung devices when they are able to afford premium products.
    radarthekattmaywatto_cobrajony0

  • Beeper Mini users find Macs banned from iMessage network

    tech_travellertech_traveller
    the1maximus said:
    bobolicious said:

     ... could Apple just support the app and concept in the interest of its paying customers ...?
    Most people using Beeper Mini are Android users so therefore not paying customers. Those who do own a Mac are in breach of the EULA for their Apple IDs being used in ways to “hack” the iMessage network.  With that Apple has absolutely no obligation to support the app, the concept or those who use their Apple IDs in breach of their EULA. Their Macs are still fully functional, their Apple IDs still allow them to do everything except access iMessage. 

    This is exactly the same as Nintendo not supporting homebrew, or banning people/consoles from using their services. The console is still functional to play physical games, but they can’t buy/download a digital game or play their friends online, because they breached their EULA.  
    EULA depends upon whether the courts allows Apple to screw over Mac owners because Apple fears that they would lose ecosystem lock-in.
    williamlondonelijahg