davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 185
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,741
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,184
Reactions
-
Epic Games is annoyed UK regulator isn't working harder to enable third-party app stores
There's no third party app stores allowed in the US, but yet Fortnight is once again available in the Apple App Store. I'm sure it's not for charity on Sweeney part. So if Loony Tune Sweeney don't want to make Fortnight available in the UK (on iOS). it's on him. Trying to blame Fortnight not being in the UK (on iOS) on Apple or the UK CMA, is plain stupid.Fortnight on iOS still made Epic Games hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion dollars) when it was in the Apple App Store paying Apple's commission and before Sweeney stupid move to violate his Apple App Store contract, that got Fortnight kicked out. It's one thing for Sweeney to be greedy and not want to pay Apple their due commission in order to make more profit. But it's just plain stupid for Sweeney to not want to greatly profit at all from selling virtual items with an over 90% margin (not counting scamming his customers), even if he has to pay the commission. Loony Tune Sweeney is the classic case that proves ........ you can't fix stupid.
-
FTC 'Click to Cancel' rule that was annoying some services cancelled by the courts
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Apple "one click to cancel" feature, only with subscriptions paid for using one's iTunes account (Apple account) and not necessarily with any subscription apps in the Apple App Store? Apple have no way to force developers to have "one click to cancel" with their apps in the Apple App store, when payment is done using the developers own payment systems, on their own websites. There, Apple have no way of knowing what payment method (CC, Debit, gift card, PayPal, Bitcoin, etc.) the subscribers used for payment.If I recall, it's Apple that is doing the actual stop payment when payment is done using an iTunes account, no matter what payment method was used in the account (CC, Debit, gift card, cash balance, etc.) And developers have to agree to this if they want their apps in the Apple App Store. If the payment is not made using iTunes account, then the subscribers would have to log on to their account on the developers (publishers) websites to cancel from there or deal with their CC, bank, PayPal, etc. to stop payment. (This is where the FTC "one click to cancel" rule would had helped Apple App Store customers.)The same is true for refunds. If an app purchaser (that paid for an app with their iTunes account) wants a refund, Apple will do the refunding immediately and then go after the developer to get paid back. Usually by deducting the cost of the refund directly from the developers account. Which is one of the reasons why payment to developers for purchases are held in the developers Apple account for up to 21 days, before they get to transfer it to their own accounts. (Like how a bank will hold payment for a check until it clears.)
-
Apple Watch blood oxygen ban should never have been put in place, and Apple wants it overt...
onemoreone said:
I guarantee that the Chinese companies aren’t paying Masimo a single cent, since Masimo has no way to sue them in China to stop them.Most likely these China smartwatch companies are paying Masimo a small licensing fee for the use of their patents, as a form of ...... "go away money".Your guarantee is worthless.This from 2002, but it shows that even back then, Masimo is not ignoring the China market.>Irvine, California, December 19, 2002, Masimo, the innovator of motion and low perfusion-tolerant pulse oximetry technology, announced today that it has formed a strategic alliance with leading Chinese medical device manufacturer, Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd. (Mindray) of Shenzhen, China. Mindray, the largest domestic manufacturer of patient monitoring products in China, will incorporate Masimo SET® motion and low perfusion tolerant pulse oximetry as its primary pulse oximetry technology for its patient monitoring products.<
-
Apple tells EU to forget about getting all the new iOS 26 features
avon b7 said:
Nope! And if you had read up on why that requirement was put into place, you would know full well that the EU had tried for decades to harmonise the situation.missile man said:
If you believe in free markets and no fraud is occurring, please tell how the EU setting a USB-C standard is a good thing. Shouldn’t companies be free to provide options. If the customers feel ripped off, they’ll buy an Erickson or Nokia. Oh wait, that didn’t work out too well. Did Apple cheat or just out compete? Since the EU has mandated USB-C, how will we ever get anything better? Oh yeah, the old Soviet model, what ever the government mandates is for the good of the people! Do you remember the US government mandating Windows for all us Government computers? How well did that work out? Innovation?sloth77 said:I voted Remain in the UK back in 2016. But as an Apple user, I can't say hand-on-heart that I would do so now, with the shenanigans the EU is pulling with Apple.
It is a shame, as some of the EU regulations have been decent - like the USB-C support.
The requirement was due to fragmentation in charging options (and goes far beyond phones BTW).You are giving the EU way too much credit (surprise!, surprise! surprise!) for fixing the fragmentation that existed with mobile phone chargers, pre-iPhone. Apple and Google deserves most of the credit, not some memorandum that mandated the use of a USB Micro port (by 2012) in 2010.Before the iPhone (2007), most mobile phones owners did not need to be sync their "dumb" phone with a computer. Back then, syncing to a computer was mainly use for importing and editing contact info, without having to use the small number pad on the phone. Therefore most phones back then had a syncing port and a separate charging port. And the most common syncing cable had a serial DB9 interface on the computer end. Guess what a DB9 interface don't support? Charging.But soon after the release of the iPhone, mobile phone companies were scrambling to catch up. And the fastest way was to use the free Open Source mobile OS from Google .... Android. And what did Android already support? The USB interface for data syncing and charging. So there was no longer a need to have a separate charge port on their mobile phones. By the time the EU charger memorandum was signed in 2010, by nearly all the mobile phone makers, the fragmentation of phone chargers was already fixing itself. All Android phones were already using either USB Mini or the newer USB Micro interface. With nearly all of them using USB Micro, before adopting USB C when it came out in 2015,Apple also signed the memorandum and did not violate any of its mandates. Though many here think they did with them using their Lightning interface, instead of USB. With-in the memorandum, was a cause that allowed any mobile phone makers to adopt an interface that had better technology than the USB Micro (at the time). And it had to be more than just size of the port. Apple 30 pin dock connector and then Lightning, had far better tech than what USB Micro can offer. It is this clause that allowed for mobile phones makers to adopt USB C. If it weren't for this clause, Android phones would still be using USB Micro. Which was the standard set at the time the memorandum was adopted. The EU did not want to limit innovation by forcing mobile phone makers to adopt a standard whose interface was technologically inferior, to what was available or possible.Lightning remained better technology than USB C with USB 1 protocol. USB C with USB 2 protocol mostly caught up with Lightning but Lightning still had its advantages. It wasn't until USB C with USB 3 protocol that Lightning began to show its age. Apple could no longer claim that Lightning was better technology than USB C. But still, a lot of the tech advantages of USB C with USB 3 protocol were for computers. It still took a year or two for hardware on mobile devices and mobile network, to evolve and benefit from those advantages. By this time, Apple had already planned to move on from Lightning. USB C had already been adopted on Apple high end iPads. Rumor had it that the iPhone would fully adopt USB C before 2026. But because of the EU, Apple adopted USB C about year earlier than they planned.As for E-waste, Apple stopped supplying a charger with their iPhones back in 2020. Samsung soon followed about a year later, of course after making fun of iPhones no longer coming with a charger. (With most mobile phone makers following Apple lead more than 2 years later.) By the time the EU forced Apple to use the USB C port on their devices, a USB C charger could be used to charge an iPhone. Most iPhone users at the time were either re-using a Lightning charger they already had or they bought a USB C charger with a USB-C to Lightning cable. A USB C charger have a USB C port on the charger itself. One can use it to charge USB A, USB Mini, USB Micro and Apple Lightning devices, with the use of the compatible cable. (And one of high enough voltage and wattage, can also charge laptops.)The iPhone not having a USB C port was not causing any added E-waste. The E-waste being generated by the fragmentation of chargers on mobile phones, which was the main reason for the memorandum (2010), is with the charging brick. With most of them at the time, having an attached cable with a proprietary interface. Left alone, all mobile phones would had eventually adopted USB C, even without any EU memorandum to set USB C as the standard. Just like how they were all already migrating to the USB interface, before the memorandum (in 2010), thanks to Google offering for free ..... Android that supported USB and mobile phone companies having to make mobile phones that had to compete with Apple iPhones getting thinner and smarter. Natural competition and innovation would had taken care of chargers fragmentation (on mobile phones), soon enough.
-
J.P. Morgan trims Apple stock target to $230 citing iPhone & Services weaknesses
MassiveAttack said:It shows that Apple is and will always be an iPhone company. Their service growth is maybe 10% ~ 11%.
Their iPhones get uglier with 17 series.
Apple fails to convince consumers why they should upgrade their phones regularly. Their Apple Watch series have no major improvements. It is really a huge disappointment that Apple Watch X did not get any huge improvements for the 10th anniversay.
Siri is a fail. I bet Siri will not be ready next spring.
Apple Intelligence is rather Apple Incomeptence with Genmoji bulls*its.
In any departments, you get news about delays.
Tim Cook... Sure that he is still the right guy? His mismanagement needs to be punished.
I would not be surprised if AMZN and GOOG(L) surpasses AAPL sooner or later in terms of the market cap.
AAPL investors must be frustrated while NVDA, META, MSFT heading to ATH.
Tim Cook needs to step down. He makes Apple just.... rotten Apple.Why? Neither Nvidia, Meta or Microsoft competes with Apple. Nvidia makes chips catering to AI and Intel would a competitor. Meta main revenue comes from targeted ads and Google would be their main competitor. Microsoft main revenue stream is now from supplying IT software and infrastructure to corporations and they have become the new IBM. Apple do not sell the chips they make, have a significant amount of revenue from targeted ads or rely on generating revenue from supplying IT software and hardware that corporations needs. Their stocks rising have no affect on AAPL. The only frustration that AAPL investors might have is if they didn't invest in these stocks a years ago. Of course any investor would be frustrated for not investing in these stocks years ago. But many AAPL investors might also be investors of NVDA, META and MSFT in order to diversify their portfolio. After all, even if these stocks are in all in Tech, they compete in different sectors and not with themselves or Apple. There is no investment rule that say that if you invest in AAPL, you can't or shouldn't also invest in NVDA, META and MSFT.Not everyone in this forum is an investor in AAPL or even an investor at all. So there are probably just as many people here that are frustrated that didn't invest in NVDA, META and MSFT years ago, as there are non investors that are frustrated that they didn't buy stocks in AAPL.I hope you aren't giivng anyone advice on stocks investing because you sound like someone that don't know a thing about investing in stocks.
