davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 163
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,335
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,053
Reactions
-
Apple will crush the DoJ in court if Garland sticks with outdated arguments
Hreb said:
The difference is that if you wanted, and you licensed RCS from GSMA, you could develop your own RCS messenger on top of AOSP and put it on your Android device. Google won't let you distribute your app on the Google Play Store, but they won't stop you from doing whatever you want outside of the Play Store. Nor will Samsung or OnePlus or Motorola. If you have an iPhone, you really don't even have that option.davidw said:Hreb said:Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.Why should that be a problem? Only Google (Messages) is allowed to use RCS on Android. No third party messaging service is allowed to bring RCS to Android, except Samsung by way of a special deal with Google. So why should the DoJ blame Apple for not allowing any third party to bring RCS to the iPhone platform, when Google has not allowed any other messaging service to use RCS on Android? At lest not the proprietary Google RCS that most telecoms have already agreed to use.That is not correct. The RCS that Google is pushing the telecom to use is Google proprietary version of RCS. Which most of the telecoms have agreed to use. That can not be licensed out without Google permission. And it doesn't matter that developers that wants to bring (Universal Profile) RCS to Android don't have to use the Google Play Store to get their app on to Android. What matters is that Google has not yet released any API for RCS on Android. So there is no way for any developer to bring RCS to Android users unless Google releases the API to do so.RCS is an over 15 year old technology. Cross platform messaging services like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Signal, Telegram and others are using much better tech. The only reason for RCS is to replace SMS (and MME) that is still the messaging standard for telecoms. Which is about the only messaging protocol that it's better than. Even if a message service wants to use Universal Profile RCS, they might be able to so, but it won't work for sending or receiving messages from the telecoms that are using Google RCS. The RCS message would just default to SMS.Not 100% sure about this, but If a developer develop their own RCS app on top of AOSP, wouldn't that mean that in order for others use it, they would need to install that version of the Android fork? In other words, the app would not work on Samsung phones because Samsung phones are not using the version of Android fork that you developed your RCS app on top of. Now, this can be done by a phone maker like Huawei, that might want to use Universal Profile RCS for a messaging service for all the Huawei phone users. But they would not be able to message any other Android phones. Much like iMessage on iPhones.So for a developer that wants to have an app that uses RCS, to work on all Android phones, Google would need to release the API to do so. And they haven't yet. But if Apple gets Universal Profile RCS working on iPhones, then Google might be forced to release the API so other developers can use Universal Profile RCS to message iPhone users.And then we have this .....
-
Apple will crush the DoJ in court if Garland sticks with outdated arguments
Hreb said:Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.Why should that be a problem? Only Google (Messages) is allowed to use RCS on Android. No third party messaging service is allowed to bring RCS to Android, except Samsung by way of a special deal with Google. So why should the DoJ blame Apple for not allowing any third party to bring RCS to the iPhone platform, when Google has not allowed any other messaging service to use RCS on Android? At lest not the proprietary Google RCS that most telecoms have already agreed to use.
-
Apple will crush the DoJ in court if Garland sticks with outdated arguments
avon b7 said:
"The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging"davidw said:nubus said:
Well.. it is in an interview with Greg Joswiak from Apple that they worked 10 years against EU on this:coolfactor said:
Apple never promised USB-C for 10 years. What nonsense it that?Apple+EU has been a disaster for years. Apple spent 10 years on promising before finally being forced to USB-C. Now EU has had enough with politicians hitting Apple in several ways causing disruptions to hardware and software. Apple is taking a beating every week.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-will-get-usb-c-charging-as-apple-says-it-will-comply-with-eu-law/
As the article also states it all started in 2009 when Apple signed a proposal for using a common charger to reduce e-waste (EN/IEC 6268). Obviously Apple never delivered on that but allowed other companies to sell dongles so that users could connect to the common charger. That is not how e-waste is reduced. So - either 10 or 15 years.Apple only converted to USB-C after the EU passed the law in 2022 and companies affect have until the end of 2024 to comply. Apple never promised to use USB-C ....... 10 years ago. And they never promised to use USB Micro 15 years ago. That's all in your imagination because of the way you twist the facts or a reading comprehension problem.The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging. Which Apple did, rather than to replace their 30pin connector. There was no way that USB Micro connector can replace all the functions of their 30 pin connector. And it would make absolutely no sense to add a USB Micro port on iPhones, just for charging. Apple would not have signed the agreement if it meant replacing the port on iPhones with a USB Micro or USB-C.The agreement also allowed for innovation. Telecom were not restricted from using better developed technology. This allowed for the standard to change from USB Micro to USB-C. If it weren't for this, USB-Micro would still be the standard. In 2009, Apple already had plans to replace their nearly 10 year old 30 pin connector with their Lightening connector, in 2012. Two years before USB-C specs were finalized. iPhones with Lightning connectors were probably already being designed in 2009, for release 2 to 3 years out. And the Lightening connector adhere to the USB charging standards and any USB Micro charger (with the correct adapter), can be used to charge iPhones and iPads.In wasn't until 2022, that the EU mandated that all mobile devices use a USB-C port. Until then, the agreement signed by most of the telecoms in 2009, only required that mobile devices use a USB charger (with either a Micro or C connector) for charging. No where did the 2009 agreement state that the port on the device must be a USB Micro or USB-C. This agreement was to standardize the charger, not the port on the device. As long as the device adopt the USB charging standard, the port on the device didn't matter, so long as it could be adapted to use a standard USB Micro (and later USB -C.) charger. By 2022, the lightening was already 10 years old technology and falling way behind USB3.2 specs. Apple probably already had plans on using USB-C but had to move up their plans because of the new EU law that passed in 2022.
'Malicious Compliance' jumps to mind here. LOL.
The MoU didn't only concern the charger. Most of the texts from the period used the term 'common interface' and specifically mentioned micro-USB.
Putting a dongle into the equation does not really cut it and Apple never helped resolve the problem the EU wanted to tackle.
The MoU in no way shape or form meant that today we would have been stuck with micro-USB.
Fast forward to now and we have legislation as a direct result of industry not doing enough.
The directive is up for review in four years to see how it is progressing and perhaps take on the subject of wireless charging.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_09_301And who is to say that a 30 pin connector with a USB Micro dongle is not a USB Micro interface? You? LOL The 30 pin device can use the same USB Micro charger. And that's all that matters.Well the EU allowed Apple to supply the dongle and considered it in compliance with the MoU. If you think it was "malicious compliance", what does that say about the EU? Why would they allow it if they thought it was "malicious compliance"? If the EU considered Apple in compliance, then who cares what you think? LOLAnd think about it. Isn't it less e-waste for Apple to supply a dongle so their users can use both the older original 30 Pin (or Lightening) charger and also the newer USB Micro (or USB-C) charger. Rather than to change the port on their device to render the older chargers obsolete? There were a lot of Apple users that complained about having to carry the dongle but would you really rather have them throw away their old charger and buy a new one, so they don't have to carry the dongle?One of the biggest generator of e-waste was the including of a charger with every new mobile device purchase. Chargers that most buyers didn't need. Apple was one of the first company to stop supplying a charger with each new purchase. And Apple did this worldwide, not just in the EU. And Apple got flak for it in some countries.Of course it wasn't enough. That's because in 2014, the standard was changed to USB-C and consumers began throwing away their USB Micro chargers. Then faster charging became a thing a few years later and guess what? Older USB-C chargers and cables ended up as e-waste, as consumers went out to buy newer USB-C chargers and cables, for faster charging and some newer phones required it. And not to mention that laptops are now using USB-C for charging and require an even higher wattage USB-C charger that the standard mobile device USB-C chargers can't handle. The only way to end the ever increasing e-waste from chargers is to top innovating and use the same charger for as long as possible. Otherwise the EU is legislating just for the sake of legislating.And you can't blame Apple for not using USB-C port on their devices, (even if that's all you want to do), for the EU not meeting any set criteria for the reduction in charger e-Waste. Since 2014 and the adoption of USB-C standard, Apple devices still used the Lightening port.This means that all this time, Apple users kept their lightening chargers. If Apple had converted to USB-C port, then there would have been a surge in lightening charges as e-waste. Don't you think?Apple managed to use the same 30PIN connector and charger for 10 years before they switched to Lightening and still managed to use the same Lightening charger (abet a higher wattage one for iPads) for another 10 years, before now switching to USB-C. That was a better track record than the EU with their USB Micro charger standard that lasted about 5 years and then their USB-C charger standard that is still evolving and changing due to innovation in charging.To this day, a 12 year old lightening charger can still be use to charge the newest iPhone. It might take a few hours more to fully charge from 20% but it's still works and no problem when charging overnight. In fact, it a known fact that the slower the charging, that longer the battery life. Thus reducing battery e-waste. A lightening charger should not be e-waste, if one still using an iPhone, unless it no longer works. But 5 years from now, lightening chargers will all become e-waste as older Apple devices using Lightening connectors begins to reach their end of life and all newer Apple device are using USB-C. Or what ever the standard is 5 years from now.And if you have any critical thinking skill, just how is the EU legislating that all devices must have a USB-C port, going to significantly reduce chargers e-waste? So far, every USB-C charger I've seen, comes with USB-C port on the charger and a cable with USB-C on both ends. This itself reduces charger e-waste significantly as one of the main reason why chargers get thrown away is because of a damaged cable that is built in to the charger. So now all that needs to be replaced is the cable. So what real difference in e-waste, does it make whether that cable have two USB-C ends or a USB-C and a Lightening end? It's only the detachable cable that is different. The USB-C charger is still the standard and can be used on any device with the right cable. In fact, one can use the same USB-C charger to charge an iPhone with Lightening, an Android phone with USB-C, headphones with USB-Micro and a camera li-ion battery charger with USB-Mini, all with the right cable. A cable that will most likely be damaged or lost, before it becomes useless and thrown away as e-waste.
-
Apple will crush the DoJ in court if Garland sticks with outdated arguments
here4this said:
Ah yes, Joe is incapable of stopping this issue from proceeding. Your point is certainly ignorant and the fact you continue to state that you do not have a political stance even though it is OBVIOUS who you are defending. Why is it that other issues that were “started two years into the Trump administration” were prevented/canceled by the current administration?Mike Wuerthele said:
This started two years into the Trump administration.Madbum said:Joe Biden needs to go. I am sorry but I am not usually political but this guy is ridiculousAnd then we have this…” Apple tried to make Apple Watch compatible with Android, and chose not to, as is its right. AppleInsider has confirmed that the company tried for years to make it work, but didn't want to compromise the product in doing so.”
Somehow this is OK? Let’s compare this to other products, shall we? Let’s say you purchased a TV, BUT in order for you to access all of the features you had to have an iPhone. “4K is only available to iOS”. Let’s go deeper…You purchase a vehicle and your tires are limited to 1,000 miles. In order to have the tires that have 10,000 miles you must purchase a special tool directly from the car manufacturer to change the tires, this tool only works for this specific model of vehicle. Yes, 1,000 miles isn’t bad but 10,000 is quite better.Shouldn’t a WATCH be compatible with the wearer regardless of the OS? It’s a WATCH. Imagine if Rolex decided that you have to have a Rolex phone to wear one of their watches.You not getting it. There is nothing wrong with any company developing a product than only works with one OS. How many software are for PC only? I can probably list a dozen games that are available on PC's and not available on Macs. How many games are PlayStation only? Should Apple be forced to license out iOS for other hardware makers? Otherwise they can be accused of having an "illegal monopoly" on devices that operate on iOS.If want to take advantage of the superior sharpness of a Nikkor lens ...... you have to buy a Nikon camera. Sure you might be able to buy an adapter that will allow you to mount a Nikkor lens on to other cameras but you're going to lose any auto aperture feature and maybe compromise on sharpness. And don't expect Nikon to make the adapter. And Nikon is not required to make Nikkor lenses that works on other cameras. But third party lens makers are allowed to make lenses for Nikon cameras. Sounds exactly like Apple with their Apple Watches and iPhones ...... doesn't it? And how long have Nikon (and other camera companies) been like this? Way before there was ever an Apple Computer, let alone iPhones and Apple Watches.Need an extra key (fob) for your Mercedes? Better be prepare to drive your Mercedes to a dealer and provide them with the registration and show some ID. It's going to cost about $150 for the key and another $300 to program it to your Mercedes. And it might take several days for the key to arrive at the dealership as Mercedes dealers don't keep blank keys in stock. For security reasons, they might have to be special order from Germany. (This includes cutting the metal key (if any) that only opens the door and trunk.) There is no other way to buy a key for a Mercedes, no way to re-program a used key and no way to buy a blank key. BMW and Porsche have about the same policy. Need a key for a Honda or Toyota? Depending on the model, one can most likely buy a blank from an auto locksmith for $100 or a used one on eBay for $50 and then program (or reprogram) it by sticking into the car ignition, entering your security PIN and go through a few easy steps. Mercedes, BMW and Porsche are like Apple and iOS. Honda and Toyota are like Android. Mercedes. BMW and Porsche takes security seriously. -
Apple will crush the DoJ in court if Garland sticks with outdated arguments
Kuminga said:
That is not true . There are Samsung and Huawei phones more expensive than IPhone. And the cheaper phones you are talking about use cheap components .tht said:
The inherent problem is that Apple makes too much profit. Owners of iPhones spend 2x to 4x more with their phones than competitors. Any remedy that does not change this will not be satisfactory to any of Apple’s competitors or developers.Hreb said:Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.The reasons for why Apple should be regulated is basically made up using novel judgements, which often doesn’t have to make sense. Remember, the DOJ has had 6 years to do this. It’s only in the past 3 to 6 months the DOJ has had any reasonable shot at declaring that Apple is a monopoly, and they still have to game it by saying “performance smartphones”. That’s barely wider than saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones.The inherent issue with SMS, MMS and RCS isn’t that Apple doesn’t implement them. It’s that no third party can access them. If Apple implements RCS, it doesn’t solve anything as they will not allow another messaging service to use it. Nothing will change if RCS only works with Apple Messages app.
3rd party messaging apps want to be SMS, MMS clients on the iPhone. They also want to be a client for phone calls too. There are obvious reasons why no consumer should ever want this ever. I repeat, you never ever want a 3rd party app to be a client for your phone, SMS, MMS nor RCS messages.If it truly was about RCS, an anti-trust suit against Apple is dumb shit way to remedy it. The gov’t can just have the FCC mandate that the GSMA RCS universal protocol be supported by all phones connected to US cellular networks. Within about a couple of years, every phone will support it. They don’t do that surely because it involves some company with good lobbyists losing a revenue stream somewhere.The USA gov’t can’t address robocalls which is a clear and present nuisance, if not outright danger, to every American with a phone number.
So by your logic, BMW cars cannot be more expensive than cheap some GM cars? Conversely, there are GM cars more expensive than BMWs?FYI- The price of the device is not always an indication on how much profit is made from its sale. The price of the device only matters when revenue is concern. I'm willing to bet that Apple makes much more profit from the sale of a $1000 iPhone than Samsung on the sale of their $2000 folding screen phone.Plus, how much profit do Samsung makes after the sale of of their mobile device, compare to how much Apple makes. For example, with Samsung, nearly all the profits made from the commission on IAP in games played on Samsung phones, goes to Google. While Apple gets the commission from the IAP in games played on iPhones.
