Last Active
  • Driver that plowed through Hingham Apple Store indicted for murder

    DAalseth said:
    sad to see this, but I never felt that it was accidental.  justice for the victims.
    I never thought it was deliberate. I’ve read too many cases of where someone huts the brake, but has their foot on the gas without realizing it. The car accelerates rather than stopping, and they panic. They push harder and harder on what they think is the brake and the car just goes faster. It’s not really that uncommon of an accident. 

    And no there will be no justice in this case. The people hit are still harmed. He will be punished for a stupid accident, not deliberate assault (and what will his spending ten years or so in jail going to do for the victims). Everyones lives will be ruined. Nobody will win.

    Not in this case. From another article, the driver told authorities that his right foot got stuck on the accelerator and he tried to stop by pressing the brake pedal with his left foot. Then no way would he had thought of trying to use his left foot to press on the brake pedal, if he already thought he was pressing it with his right foot.

    Not saying it proves he did this on purpose but negligence don't alleviate him of any responsibilities for causing the crash. 

    >Rein told police he was looking for an eyeglasses store at the shopping center when his right foot became stuck on the accelerator, according to court documents. He said he used his left foot to try to brake but couldn’t stop.<

  • Apple, Alphabet, Meta push back against US spy law

    gatorguy said:
    "...According to new research by VPN provider SurfShark, the US government makes the most requests for user data from Big Tech companies than any other jurisdiction in the world. The company analyzed data requests to Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft by “government agencies of 177 countries between 2013 and 2021.”

    The US came in first with 2,451,077 account requests, more than four times the number of Germany, the number two country on the list. In fact, the US made more requests than all of Europe, including the UK, which collectively came in under 2 million."

    "The report also sheds light on which companies comply the most versus which ones push back against requests. For all of its privacy-oriented marketing — “what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone” — Apple complies with data requests more than any other company, handing it over 82% of the time.

    In contrast, Meta complies 72% of the time, and Google does 71% of the time. Microsoft, on the other hand, pushes back the most among Big Tech companies, only handing data over 68% of the time."

    But the US have about 4x the population of Germany. Is that factored in? If not, then the US and Germany would be about the same in the number of government search request .... "per capita".
  • iPhones and Android devices get treated differently when retired

    I don't get the differentiation, allured to in the article that somebody 'owns' an iPhone , but an Android device merely 'used'

    Surely both devices are owned and used?

    Just saying.

    "Android" is not a phone. "Android" is a mobile OS. One don't "own" Android" but can own an "Android" phone like a Samsung or LG. Since the only phone that runs on iOS is an iPhone, iPhone owners and iOS users can be consider the same (when referring to mobile phones.) 
  • iPhone display orders decline 39% year-over-year

    jdw said:
    Funny what drives people to upgrade.  I am still on an iPhone 7.  My wife has the prior model SE, and upgraded to that from an iPhone 6.  And as much as I would like an iPhone 15 for a superior camera and more RAM (the lack of which I hate the most about the iPhone 7), most of the best feature will be reserved for the tablet sized models, which is a real travesty.  

    Some people don't want a larger sized phone, and certainly not most female iPhone lovers, and even many men here in Japan prefer a smaller phone too.  And yet, if you ask most people if they could do more with a vastly better camera or some of the fancy features that will be exclusive to the largest sized phones, they would say yes.  

    So Apple's moves are in the best interest of Apple only, and not really in the best interest of consumers.  A consumer oriented line would offer the same great feature set across a wide range of display sizes.

    Even with the "reality distortion field" in Apple DNA, Apple can not defy the laws of physics. More and/or better features, might require parts that needs more space, that iPhones with smaller displays don't have. A superior camera might require more room behind the lens and Apple is not going to try to decide on whether to make their iPhones with smaller displays thicker or the battery smaller, in order to put in the camera. Apple just assume leave it out and wait until technology can make that superior camera smaller. Or a brighter and sharper screen might require a bigger battery, that isn't possible to install on a small display iPhones, without making the iPhone thicker.  Apple is going to have to wait for a more energy efficient version of the screen or new battery technology to increase mAh, without increasing size. Then there's pricing. Apple do not want to price their models of iPhones too close together. Apple don't want a dozen of different models of iPhones with each priced a little more that the other, based on each having slightly more or better features. (other than upgrades in RAM or HD.) The smaller size iPhones with its lower cost, might be the main reasons why they are popular. Change either one and Apple could end up losing more customers (for their iPhones with smaller displays) than they gain.

    Ask the owners of the smaller iPhone if they want to have a better camera and of course they all would. But ask them if the want a better camera but at a higher price, with less battery life (or a little thicker.), then not all would want it.

    This is like wishing a Ford Focus with a 12 gallon gas tank, came with a bigger gas tank and thinking it's a travesty that Ford only put a 22 gallon gas tank on their full size pick up trucks. Sometimes, it's not a case of Ford not thinking in the best interest of their customers.
  • Spotify's HiFi tier is coming -- but not soon

    spheric said:
    melgross said:
    Spotify continues to generate losses. I’ve been saying for several years that the only companies that will be able to offer music streaming on a large scale will be companies that offer it as a service, as additive to their other, much larger businesses.
    This would be the final nail in the commoditisation of music. 

    In which bizarre universe is the logical business choice simply accepting that there is no way to make any money off streaming business model, and in consequence reducing it to a loss-leading add-on? I mean, rather than figuring that THE FUCKING BUSINESS MODEL DOESN'T WORK? 

    I'm slightly irate over this because at NO POINT in this (mis)judgement of business viability do the interests of those supplying the actual content ever enter into the equation. 

    Oh, so you've built a "business" around ripping us off and giving everything we make away, conditioned customers to expect access to everything for free or ad-free for price of three Starbucks coffees a month, and haven't figured out how to make a profit? 

    Well, now. I have this D-sub tie-line cable that would like a word with you. 

    One don't need to be in a bizarre universe to accept that the current music streaming model do not work, one can see than in our real universe. And the reasons for this are not out of this World.

    For one, music streaming providers are already paying 70% of their revenue from paying subscriptions, to the music industry. That amount doesn't change with the numbers of music their subscribers streams. The main selling point of a paid subscription is that its unlimited streams. Without unlimited streaming, hardly anyone would be paying for a subscription. Not even the price of single cup of Starbucks coffee.The more music a subscriber streams, the less the music industry gets per stream. It a revenue sharing model with the split being about 70/30. That's the way model works. Otherwise, if the providers actually had to pay per stream, they can easily end up paying all of (and more) of their subscription price to the music industry for subscribers that streams a lot of music. Apple would have to pay the music industry all $10 of the revenue from a subscriber, if they streamed 1000 songs per month, at $.01 per stream.

    Second, every big music streaming provider is offering nearly the same exact contents. If one provider needs to raise subscription prices to make a profit, then their current subscribers could just change providers and not lose anything in term of access to contents. (This is different from video streaming providers as they all offer different and original contents and a subscriber might be subscribing to more than one provider in order to get different contents. I doubt that many would pay for a subscription to both Spotify and Apple Music. That might only happen in a bizarre universe.) So a music streaming provider can't raise prices, even though it only cost 3 cups of Starbucks coffee to subscribe now. Unless they all raise prices at the same time and then both the US and EU will go after them for anti-trust violation under the collusion clause. The only real way for the music industry to make more revenue for their contents is for the streaming providers to attract more subscribers. And this is getting harder and harder to do. Specially with World wide inflation raising the cost of essential consumer goods and services.  And guess who's going to discontinue their music streaming service first? The ones that are streaming music the least, as they are the ones that will see paying for music streaming as non-essential and they are the ones that are most profitable to the music industry.

    This model wouldn't even work if all 615M current paying subscribers to a streaming music service were to sign up with just 1 of the current music streaming service. For sure the streaming service that got all the subscribers would be in a lot better shape (and a monopoly) but the music industry would see the same amount of revenue. It's going to take way more than 615M paying subscribers to make this model work for all involve, if raising the price of a subscription is not a viable choice.