davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
187
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,771
Badges
1
Posts
2,202

Reactions

2.4KLike45Dislike469Informative

  • EU hits back at Apple withholding Apple Intelligence from the region

    davidwdavidw
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said: It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply? 
    That's what they're doing: putting the new AI features on hold while they communicate with the EU per the DMA requirements. Note that Apple was in communication with the EU about the anti-steering changes in the DMA and now the EU is saying there's something wrong with what Apple did. 
    What was unnecessary was the need to make a fuss out of things. Totally unnecessary. 

    If they had simply asked and waited for a reply we wouldn't even be talking about this now. No one would have brought the question up in the first place. Vestager wouldn't have said anything. 

    But no, Apple decided to FUD things up. 

    That's their call but it's pretty foolish, petty and probably won't help in the bigger scheme of things. 

    Apple’s going for friction so... so be it. 


    Except these features are due to come out shortly and likely, these discussions won’t produce a resolution by that time. Apple is ensuring that the people in the EU have the right expectations when the next OSs are launched.
    Announced just this very month and not expected in the US until the end of the year and on a very limited range of devices. That isn't 'shortly' even for the US and things will be rolled out over time.

    It definitely isn't 'shortly' for the EU.

    These discussions should produce a quick result if Apple is upfront on everything. After all, the DSA/DMA have been enacted and now it is about compliance. 

    Will Apple be upfront, though? I very much doubt it. Just look at the 'core technology fee'.

    What is likely is that Apple will try the same 'malicious compliance' route it is already on so the EU will probably have to reserve judgement, wait for features to be deployed (that's Apple's decision) and then evaluate them.

    Has Apple actually published why (I mean, exactly why) it thinks it may be non-compliant?

    Of course it hasn't. That is the thing about FUD. If your goal is to truly inform and be transparent, then do it. Write a white paper on compliance difficulties. 



    Just because the US version was announced this month, doesn't mean that Apple just started to work on the US version this month. Most likely, Apple been working on releasing the US version and all the other countries versions, months ago and may have been working on it for over half a year. But with limited manpower, priority is first given to the US version. This doesn't mean that Apple is not already working on the versions for the other countries. It's just going to take longer until manpower is freed up after the US release. You actually think Apple is going to announce a product with a timeline, without some idea that it can be done in time?  And that Apple has not already been working on the other countries version, in some capacity, even with limited manpower?

    But unless the EU has already outlined to Apple exactly what is expected of Apple, (to be in compliance with the DMA), there would be no reason what-so-ever for Apple to even start working on an EU version and waste manpower on a version that might never be to release in the EU because of what the EU will require of them to be in compliance with the DMA. Apple have learned their lesson. Apple is not going to work on an EU version and later be told that it's not in compliance with the DMA. And then have the EU fine them. Apple is only going to start working on an EU version, only after the EU spells out exactly what being in compliance with the DMA entails. And even then, Apple gets to decide if they want to release an EU version. Apple shouldn't have to work on an  EU version and then later be told its not in compliance and then be told by the EU what needs to be changed in order to be in compliance.

    Right now, because the EU have not spelled out exactly what being in compliance means, Apple already knows that the EU version will be more delayed that all the other countries whose versions are most likely already being worked on. Even if the EU were to spell out to Apple today, on what being in compliance entails, Apple agrees to it and start working on the EU version tomorrow.

    It's all on the EU for being last in line to get the EU version, if Apple decides to release an EU version at all.  

    Only in the EU might a company be fined for being anti-competitive, for deciding not to compete. It's a wonder that the EU have not yet fined Apple for being anti-competitive because they chose not to develop a search engine, to compete with Google. And Microsoft and Facebook might have dodged a bullet by deciding to no longer compete in the mobile phone market, before there was a DMA. But it would had been OK for Nokia to decide not to keep competing with their Symbian mobile OS at any time, because Nokia is an EU company and not a gatekeeper under the DMA.
    watto_cobra

  • EU hits back at Apple withholding Apple Intelligence from the region

    davidwdavidw
    blastdoor said:
    blastdoor said:
    Every time I read one of these EU stories I try to think about what Apple should do to deal with this situation. It’s tempting to say Apple should just leave, but it doesn’t make sense to leave money on the table.

    They won't be leaving money on the table by pulling out of the EU. First, the EU is just a fraction of what Apple classifies as "Europe" (which includes the Middle East and at least parts, if not all, of Africa), and obviously doesn't include European countries not in the EU, such as the UK and Switzerland. The fines the EU is threatening far eclipse the value of the EU as a market. Second, if EU rules force Apple to cripple, compromise or otherwise dumb down their products, that makes them less competitive in the rest of the world. There is at this point almost no upside for Apple to release anything in the EU and plenty of downside, not to mention all the resources wasted "negotiating" with EU bureaucrats who are not acting in good faith and are making up the rules as the go and changing them retroactively.

    So, what exactly is the downside for Apple to simply pull out of the EU until there is a more favorable business climate there? I can't see any upside to staying at this point.
    I’ve read that the EU represents about 7% of Apple’s revenues. That’s almost $30 billion a year. I see no reason to walk away from that if you don’t have to. 

    Note that my suggestion to create a subsidiary is meant to create EU-specific (lobotomized) versions of apple products to meet the needs of Eurocrats. 

    The question is — can Apple make money selling lobotomized products? Since everyone else also has to sell lobotomized products in the EU, it’s possible that they can. But if it turns out they can’t, then sure — leave. But I think it makes sense to try first. 

    Companies that don’t try to do hard things end up like IBM — slowly leaving every market that seems too hard to fight for.
    IBM has a PE under 20, meaning it’s more profitable per share than Apple  

    "more profitable per share" is not the correct term. The correct term is that IBM stock might be undervalued if their P/E is lower than its sector average P/E.

    If the average P/E for the sector that IBM is in, is 25, then shares of IBM with a P/E of less than 20, is said to be sold at a discount or IBM shares are undervalued. But in the same sector, shares of Apple with a P/E of 32, might be considered overvalued. The P/E ratio is used to indicate the relative value of a company's share price in its sector, not the "profit per share".

    The price of the shares in the P/E ratio in no way indicate how many shares there are and thus no way to come up with "profit per share" by using it. There's no way to say that one's company stock is more profitable per share than another, just based on their P/E. What can be said is that the lower the P/E, the more percentage of the share price represents profit (E). EPS (earnings per share) uses the number of outstanding shares to come up with the "profit per share". The number of outstanding shares has no effect on a company's P/E.


    In the case of IBM vs AAPL, IBM share are more profitable, but not because IBM have a lower P/E than Apple. It's because IBM have a higher EPS than Apple. But when one uses IBM vs MSFT, MSFT have a P/E of 39 and EPS of $11.50 vs IBM P/E of 19.6 and EPS of $8.82. Microsoft P/E is twice that of IBM but MSFT shares are  25% "more profitable per share", than IBM with a P/E of 19.6.


    watto_cobra

  • EU hits back at Apple withholding Apple Intelligence from the region

    davidwdavidw
    This talk about the EU attacking American companies is rather silly. The EU legislation is targeting the behaviour of mobile OS strategies and when it comes to mobile phones on sale in the world, who are by far the main suppliers of mobile operating systems and associated apps? Google and Apple . Any European companies? No. So the companies affected by definition will be American ones. They are not targeted because they are American but because the ones who between them probably control 99% of such OSs in the world are American. 

    If this legislation extends to PC OSs then it’s the same thing - Apple and Microsoft … who also happen to be American. Are any European OSs offered for sale to any degree on computers in the world? No.

    It’s a bit of a persecution complex to see this from an “anti American” perspective as there are no EU companies against which to make a point of comparison.
    The DMA from the get go was drafted to only include the big 5 US tech. All the thresholds were established to exclude any other companies, especially the ones in the EU. The reason why there are no EU gatekeepers under the DMA is by design, not because there just happen to no EU companies being anti-competitive.



    “Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he said to the Financial Times. “But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European gatekeeper just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added.<

    There was a study done that analyzed how the EU arrived with the criteria and thresholds, that separates companies that are to be regulated by the DMA (Gatekeepers)  and those that aren't. And it was determined that the criteria and threshold appears to had been established, after the EU determined what companies they wanted to be regulated by the DMA (Gatekeepers). The study could not find any anti-competitive reasons why a company must have over certain market cap, over a certain amount of active monthly users, must operate 2 core platforms, etc., in order to fall under the DMA, except to exclude the ones that the EU don't want to fall under the DMA. The study could not find any research done by the EU to come up with these criteria and thresholds as the boundary for anti-competitiveness. The DMA was never meant to "level the playing field" in the EU. It's meant to give EU companies a home court advantage. 

    And this type of thinking by the EU didn't just happen with the DMA. This article is from 2007.


    >This strategy, it claims, will help European businesses beat their rivals abroad since it “works to the advantage of those already geared up to meet these standards”.<

    This was later labeled ...... "The Brussels Effect" in 2012.













    radarthekat9secondkox2williamlondonAzzbeowulfschmidtwatto_cobratht

  • Glued iPhone batteries may be a thing of the past, if this new tech works out

    davidwdavidw
    There is a reason why the battery in iPhones and iPads are "glued" down, that most here don't seem to realize. That is that the adhesive, which covers the whole backside of the battery, acts like thermal paste to help transfer the heat from the battery to the metal back cover. The back cover acts as a heat sink. Just like how thermal paste is applied between a CPU and the heat sink, to ensure as much contact as possible.

    There is also a very small gap, (at least on the ones I've replaced), between the top of the battery and the screen on top of it. This acts as a insulator to keep as much heat away from the back of the screen and more importantly, to provide enough space for normal expansion of the  battery when it heats up. Therefore, one do not want that expansion gap between the battery and the back cover or any gap there at all, caused by just putting a small amount of adhesive on the corners of the battery (to hold it down) so that it can be easily removed later.

    And if possible, when replacing the battery, one shouldn't just use any double sided tape but heat sink double side tape (they sell such a thing) when bonding the battery to the back cover. And the tape should cover the whole battery to ensure a complete bond. The very last thing one want to do is to use any adhesive that ends up acting like an insulator. (Which is why velcro is a no-no.)
     
    https://www.amazon.com/25Mx20mmx0-15mm-Adhesive-Performance-Thermally-Heatsink/dp/B0751GYD6N /ref=sr_1_2?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.vuZ8wI-bHDxR-RnUCevX5nGN1r9HBmsOSpS0LmTCCj28eheGdWn-TftGSY5q35FRGB5oFvliVoFrEmHIro_UXYt7bLobmGg_L7scdtbsdE9N1pGuS96deJ5EzMuV7XUuo1syF_WxRA2jf1biKPkjTjiO-4oKr0fVYjxsvufpKPVGUbfz9QFQp6FwGRvgf9geH1c7Pjx9G5rfDYf-qHY2QNYuhKcv3DZgq0U21IWZxL0.eepM9THFhEfI7AZ6NcEfXDhnFm6XHmwpM6kbCB31seM&dib_tag=se&keywords=double+sided+thermal+tape&qid=1719535955&sr=8-2

    One shouldn't be accusing Apple of unnecessarily making it difficult to replace the battery. But Apple do have a habit of over engineering a fix to a problem, where the fix might cause more of the problem later on, than the problem being fixed. 

    I just use a hairdryer to heat the back cover for about 30 seconds, to soften the adhesive and battery can be easily pried off. But it still requires the battery to bend quite a bit (when being pried out.) and therefore, I would never use that battery again in another device. Don't know what internal damage could have been caused by the bending.  Which is why I don't buy used iPhone or iPad batteries, even if the seller say that it's in excellent health. No telling how much bending occurred when it was removed.
    ForumPostbeowulfschmidthmlongcostompyhammeroftruthAlex1Nbluefire1watto_cobra

  • Apple Intelligence & iPhone mirroring aren't coming to EU because of the DMA

    davidwdavidw
    gatorguy said:
    LOL. The EU shooting itself in the foot with their nonsense. 
    Am I correct that China accounts for less Apple revenue than the EU? Last report I saw was China @15%.

    Apple seems eager enough to work within Chinese rules, agreeing to roll over on RCS, "that iPhone owners aren't demanding", giving access to Chinese user data to Chinese entities on Chinese-owned and operated servers with the keys to the kingdom in hand, even abandoning privacy (obviously not an Apple "core value"), all market requirements which are far more restrictive than anything the EU has mandated. But the EU is too demanding? 

    That's because China is not forcing Apple to use Google proprietary RCS. (AFAIK) Of course China government is not going to use RCS with E2EE. Notice that even in the US, Apple is not going to be adapting to Google proprietary RCS. Apple is going with the standard RCS and guess what, the mobile telecoms that wants to have RCS on iPhones must also adapt to the standard RCS, even if they were going to use Google proprietary RCS.

    And also notice that the China government, which also controls all the mobile networks in China, mandated that all mobile phones must be capable of receiving and sending RCS messages. AFAIK, China did not mandate that all messaging services must be able to receive and send RCS messages or be interoperable with RCS. So Apple could allow RCS messaging apps on China iPhones to be in compliance or incorporate RCS in iMessage. Like how they incorporate SMM in iMessage now.

    But iMessage itself will still be E2EE. China government still can not intercept and see iMessages in their servers. They don't need to. What China government is able to do is to have all their mobile carriers install apps in all the mobile phones of China citizens, that allows them to see all messaging, after it becomes unencrypted in the users phones. (And probably even before its sent.) They don't need to see the unencrypted messages in their servers. Apple and all the other phone makers, can't do anything about that. And neither can the citizens of China. But if you are a tourist visiting China and use your iPhone to iMessage someone back home, China still can not read that iMessage. 

    On the other hand, the EU is pushing for a ban on E2EE. So to be more like China. Will the EU citizens fight back? Or will they be like China citizens and accept what ever their government decides? 





    BTW- Once again, statistic is not your strong point. Revenue-wise, 15% of China smartphone market is much larger than 20% (or even 25%) of the EU smartphone market. China is a much larger pie to begin with. You need not look any where else but here, to know that China is Apple second largest smartphone market. And I'm sure it means in terms of revenue and not their market share. There are more than a handful of countries where Apple have more percentage of the market share, than the 15% in China.




    >To bring Apple Intelligence to its second-largest smartphone market, Apple is going to have to sign deals with local providers, but so far has had no luck.<



    nubustmaydewmewatto_cobra