davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,763
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,197
Reactions
-
Latest App Store crypto lawsuit tries to blame Apple for bad user decisions
mikethemartian said:How could she install it if it wasn’t a link to the legitimate version? She is in the US.There was no "illegitimate" version. The version in the Apple App and Google Play app stores is the one that turned out to be the scam version. But that doesn't mean that Swiftcrypt was doing anything illegal, that Apple or Google should had known about, before or at the time the Swiftcrypt app was available in their app stores. After 10's of thousands of downloads, there were no reports of users losing their crypto currency, that Apple or Google could had used as a warning.If there was a legitimate version of a Swiftcrypt app and some how Apple allowed a pirated or fake version or a version with a very similar name and logo into their app store, then I can see how Apple could be held responsible for any monetary loss by users installing the "illegitimate" version from the Apple App Store.Without any warning signs, there's no way for Apple to know that Swiftcrypt would turn out to be an app that would end up scamming users out of their crypto currency. If Apple could predict that, then they would not had allow Epic Games Fortnight in their app store because as it turned out, Epic Games also scammed Fortnight players out of their money.Apple can't win. Apple for the longest time did not allow any crypto currency apps in their app store. And people complained about how Apple was abusing their App Store "monopoly" by not allowing third party app stores and side loading, so iPhones users that wants to use crytpo currency apps can install them. But it seems after high demand from their users Apple had a change of heart and started allowing crypto currency apps in their App Store and this is their reward.To quote Robert Maccall (played by Denzell Washington) from The Equalizer ........ "you pray for rain, you gotta deal with the mud too."
-
Apple appeals against EU mandate that it freely share its technology
chelin said:
Tell that to car or appliance makers.. all industries are regulated wherever they arerob53 said:Apple owns its products not the EU. The EU has no right to dictate to Apple how its products operate. As I’ve said before, the EU has every right to build their own platforms but it’s obvious they don’t have the ability or talent to design and manufacture anything people, including those in EU countries, want. It’s time to boycott everything made in the EU but I’m not so sure there’s actually anything they make I really want.Being "regulated" is not the same as forcing car and appliance makers to share their IP with their competitors in order to meet government regulations. There is a big difference between "regulating" industries for the safety and benefit of consumers and forcing companies to share their IP with their competitors that can't innovate on their own.The EU is not using the DMA to "regulate" industries. They are using the DMA as a license to steal from the most innovative US companies and giving it to the less innovative EU companies. In the name of "leveling the playing field".If the EU pass regulation in their auto industry stating that all gas autos must get 50 MPG (in city driving) in the next 3 years, without increasing emissions and only Mercedes were to meet that deadline by coming up with technology that allows their gas autos to get 50 MPG (in city driving), without sacrificing safety, horsepower or increasing emissions, would the EU force Mercedes to allow BMW and Porches to use their patented technology without compensating Mercedes? Or force Mercedes, at their cost, to adapt their technology to BMW and Porches engines? Just because you (and a few other clueless here) thinks that's what "regulating" an industry means and allows the government to do this?But if it were GM or Ford that came up with that technology, I can see the EU forcing GM and Ford to share that technology with EU auto makers like Mercedes, BMW, Porches, VW, etc. All the EU have to do to pass some BS act that makes the biggest US auto makers ........ "gatekeepers".Should the EU force Apple to use Android OS with their iPhones, so that iPhones are 100% interoperable with the 75% of the mobile phones made by the other phone makers?
-
Law firm sees opportunity to sue over Apple delaying Siri improvements
Javert24601 said:
Maybe Apple should not have advertised a feature that they couldn't/were not able to deliver. Apple was desperate to "appear" relevant on AI and needed to maintain sales because they had nothing to offer. So, they *lied* about "upcoming" features. I upgraded thinking that an improved Siri was around the corner. Apple chose violence. In the end, there is nothing special about iPhone 16 that wasn't in iPhone 15. It was all BS! I could have saved my money and bought iPhone 17 with more built in memory and (probably) the features that were promised for iPhone 16. Apple should pay multiple billions of dollars in fines/civil penalties for lying to its consumers. Tim Cook should be fired for what Apple did and because he didn't hold anyone accountable for what happened. All he has done is some reshuffling of leadership responsibilities. Oh, please! That is such a weak ass "leadership" move.9secondkox2 said:Stupidest thing I e ever heard. There’s no “improvement” button just sitting on a desk somewhere being criminally neglected.No one is forced legally to make the best product out there. If so, Google and Microsoft wouldn’t exist.Frivolous lawsuit.Sometimes something just doesn’t work out - especially when you’re trying to do things ethically and not spying on your users all the time.Siri with Apple Intelligence was not advertised as a feature on an iPhone 16. Siri with Apple Intelligence is software not hardware. Siri with Apple Intelligence is a feature of iOS 18. And iOS 18 was first released with the iPhone 16. The iPhone 16 was not priced anymore for having Siri with Apple Intelligence. The license to use iOS is free, with the purchase or ownership of Apple devices. In fact, an iPhone 15 Pro (with the A17 CPU) also got Siri with Apple Intelligence, for free, with an update to iOS 18.1.For sure, Siri with Apple Intelligence has so far not lived up to what was promised (advertised) but if every software developer had to pay fines of multiple billions of dollars for not delivering features that was promised with their software, Microsoft would have been out of business a long time ago.Besides, this lawsuit is not about you. A consumer that didn't think of waiting until the feature they wanted was available and functioning on an iPhone 16, before upgrading to one. Why did you upgrade to an iPhone 16 before the feature you wanted was available on an iPhone 16? You had the chance to get a full refund within the return window, when you booted up the iPhone 16 you purchased and found out Siri wasn't functioning like what you expected.This lawsuit is about the AAPL investors and share holders. The claim is that many AAPL investors bought (or didn't sell as planned) shares of AAPL when Cook announced (advertised) Siri with Apple Intelligence. Even though Cook (nor Apple, Inc.) never made any claim of AAPL going up because Siri with Apple Intelligence will drive up sales of iPhone 16, many analyst might had used it as one of many reasons to upgrade AAPL. So this law firm wants to cash in on AAPL share price dropping by claiming the drop is the result of Apple not delivering Siri with Apple Intelligence as promised and what was promised might be delayed until next year. But nearly every AAPL share holders knows why their shares of AAPL has dropped in the past several months and it's not because of Siri with Apple Intelligence not yet living up to what was promised.Any investor buying shares of AAPL with the hopes of AAPL going up based on the announcement of Siri with Apple Intelligence with iOS 18, would be like you buying an iPhone 16 even though the feature you wanted was not yet available and functioning on an iPhone 16. Not a wise purchase. But if the investors don't sell their shares, AAPL will eventually go back up to be worth more that what they paid for them and if you hang on to your iPhone 16, eventually Siri will function as you wanted with a free iOS update.
-
Epic Games says Apple has blocked 'Fortnite' from the App Store worldwide
shywizard said:Can someone tell me if/why Apple has to let Epic games on Apple's App Store?
1. Can't Apple pick/choose what software companies are allowed on Apple's App Store? Is Apple legally forced to host everyone's apps?
2. Epic has an alternatives now with 3rd party App Stores. So again, why shoudl Apple be forced into hosting Epic games?
Anyone know the law on Question 1 & 2 above?As for #2...... my understanding, (and it may not be correct), it's not that Apple banned Epic Games or "Fortnite", from the Apple App Store(s). It's that Apple cancelled Epic Games Apple Developers account,( the one that cost $99 for single users and $299 for enterprise), when they violated Apple App Store policies. Which means that Epic no longer have a valid license to develop apps for iOS and have them available on iOS. Without an Apple Developer account and its various certificates, Epic can not host any iOS software in the Apple App Store or any third party iOS app stores. One needs a valid Apple Developers account with its certificates, in order to sign any iOS apps that is to be installed on any Apple devices. In short, unless one jailbreak their iPhone, there's no way to install any iOS apps by Epic Games.And AFAIK, Apple can refuse to give Epic Games an Apple Developers account. Or At least a license to develop apps for iOS. Epic still have some sort of Apple Developer account as they are still allowed to have their "Unreal Engine" on Apple devices. And they are lucky to still have that account.Any one know for sure that Epic Games do not have any iOS apps available in the Apple App Store? Or was "Fortnite" the only one they ever had?
-
Apple to buy back $100 billion in stock, raise dividend by 4%
mark fearing said:Stock buy backs were rightly illegal up until the old nut Reagan made them okay. It is stock manipulation on the way into and out of the process. Here's hoping some day rational thought will prevail again since it did at one time.Buy backs are not "stock manipulation". The reason why buy backs were illegal before 1981 was because a company doing buy backs could easily manipulate the stock price, when doing their buy backs. Which is why the SEC came up with Rule 10b-18 in 1981. Rule 10b-18 set up some grounds rules on how buy backs must be done, so to limit the ability for companies to manipulate stock prices with their buy back trades. Rule 10b-18 is the reason why buy backs are no longer illegal as far as "stock manipulation" is concern.A company stock gong up after they announce a $100M buy back because of investors that likes the idea of buy backs and buying more shares, that is not "stock manipulation". That is no different than if a company announced that they will buy out an innovative company for $100M and investors liking that idea, driving the price up by buying more shares. It would be a form of "stock manipulation" if the company did not go through with the buy back, after announcing a $100M buy back.The reason why the SEC made buy backs illegal before 1981 was because a company would have been able to easily affect (manipulate) their stock prices during the trading day, by buying back some shares at every dip. Thus preventing the stock price from dropping any further. Or bidding up the price by asking above independent market prices and then buying back at that higher price. And they can do this with every buy back trade they make. But Rule 10b-18 changed all that. With buy backs, a company can only go through 1 broker and all the shares purchased back can not be higher than the highest independent bid. Plus there's a limit to how many shares they can buy back per trading day and trades can not be done toward the beginning or end of the trading day, where share prices are most affected by a large purchase. After market trades can not be higher than the day closing price.Now Rule 10b-18 only protects a company from being accused of "stock manipulation", so long as the buy back followed all the rules. There can be other irregularities with the buy backs that the SEC can look into, but "stock manipulation will not be one of them. Insider trading would be one of the common "irregularities". Using government tax relief funds for buybacks, incurring debt to fund buy backs and timing buybacks to align with executives selling vested shares, are others. But none of these constitute "stock manipulation" under SEC trading laws.Stock buy backs are one of the best ways for publicly traded companies to return excess profits back to its rightful owners ..... its shareholders.
