lowededwookie
About
- Username
- lowededwookie
- Joined
- Visits
- 192
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,136
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,206
Reactions
-
Bento breakdown: what Apple wants you to know about watchOS 11
I miss Bento. That was such a great database. Please bring it back ClarisWorks.
-
Tim Cook spills the beans on Apple Intelligence's use of OpenAI, and AI hallucinations
I feel the limiting of Apple Intelligence to iPhone 15 Pro and above is a temporary thing.
I think Apple have realised that getting people used to uploading data to Apple’s servers again is something people need to get used to and they’re using iPhone 15 Pro users to do that. Eventually it will be Apple server only tech for older phones and on device for every new phone from next year.
What I found interesting is that the servers Apple are using are their own. I suspect that’s because there’s now ridiculous power in their own machines now but also because the hardware security features and dedicated neural processors are the only way they could make it work safely.
This is super encouraging and I’m all for it. Apple is doing AI correctly as it always has been since iPhoto 09
-
iOS 18 RCS rollout coming in the fall to bridge Apple & Android messaging gap
Here's what I'm looking forward to with RCS - an end to carrier charging.
While most cell plans here in NZ offer unlimited text, there's still a few old plans that charge 20c per text. Even with free text plans, they still charge for MMS (the real reason texting to Android users gives them crappy images). Going RCS will basically screw over the cell providers which I'm all for.
-
Apple protests criticism that it's not complying with EU laws
I never said you said the DMA always existed. As you say, you said the rules exited beforehand. The DMA is just an amalgamation of something that already existed.avon b7 said:I didn't say the DMA rules have been around for years but that competition directives have been around for years. Along with other on e-waste, consumer protections etc.
Killing competition is done by not allowing it to exist. Most, if not all of Apple's changes have been a direct result of complaints, investigations or directives. Without those nothing would have changed and Apple likes to argue it has expenses to pay by providing frameworks, payment processing systems and whatnot but prefers to keep the actual numbers of the business conveniently shielded by a screen of corporate secrets which could damage its business interests.
Not allowing anyone to use NFC hardware was anti-competitive. Forcing anyone who wanted to use a wallet system to use Apple Pay was anti-competitive. As was not allowing third party app stores. As was anti-steering.
As for complying with EU law, Apple mostly has a good record but is far from totally clean. AppleCare has been a continuous problem for consumer protection bodies and multiple fines have been applied.
The Danes famously argued that an old iBook had a design flaw but Apple refused to accept the idea. That case went down the x-ray route and I believe ended up in court. Apple accepted the final ruling.
Their is no 'bias' in the EU system and many decisions go to appeal and are changed. That is why Apple went for years without getting slapped. It took complaints to really get the ball rolling. It doesn't mean what they were doing all those years actually adhered to laws.
There is no EU version of General Melchett overseeing the court processes as if Speckled Jim were in play. Although back in Brexit Blighty I would be surprised to see pigeons doing the messaging again.
The Irish Affair isn't over yet and never contemplated the whole period of Apple's sweetheart deal anyway. We'll have to wait for the outcome of that.
Apple had a multi billion dollar deal with the Chinese government too (until relatively recently).
My point still exists. If the rules already existed irrespective of the name, then Apple had to already be adhering to those laws in order to operate on the EU and yet it’s only now that Apple is being punished under the DMA.
This seems wrong because the DMA is a new thing but implements old rules which Apple obeyed. Then the EU created the DMA and charges Apple for failing to comply with this new made up set of rules with very minimal time for Apple to act and retroactively punished Apple.
[sarcasm]Seems legit to me[/sarcasm]Why has Apple won on appeal if it’s not doing the right thing? Surely if the EU has legal grounds Apple should have been pinged already and yet it hasn’t. This is my point.
It’s easy to side with the EU if you hate Apple but the courts don’t seem to be siding with the governments.
It’s no different in the States from what I’ve seen. But what do I know? I’m here at the bottom of the world in New Zealand watching the world above me seem to fall over itself to scam money out of successful people and companies.
We have a name for it. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome” and it’s a ugly trait and we here in New Zealand are the masters of it.
-
Apple protests criticism that it's not complying with EU laws
But Apple ISN’T killing competition. This is the thing people are so blind to see.avon b7 said:
That’s where competition comes in but if Apple is doing its part to eliminate competition something needs to change, hence what we currently have: DSA/DMA.AllM said:
Good exposition, - thanks! The problem with those initiatives, though, is that the manufacturers aren’t likely to shoulder the burden of increased expenses, and the product pricing itself is the one thing governments cannot explicitly regulate. So stuff is going to get even more expensive.avon b7 said:
I don't stick up for anyone. LOL.AllM said:
I still don’t understand why you keep stickin’ up for them politicians. They are mostly shortsighted, technologically illiterate, and only ever care about lining their pockets.avon b7 said:
If you've read through the text of the DSA/DMA you would quickly realise that sitting back and doing nothing to reign in the control gatekeepers would be mind boggling.teejay2012 said:The EU Commission is 'bound' to hear all complaints... thereby ensuring that they will be employed forever, as the complaints from the Ek's and Sweeney's will be just that.. forever. Frankly the bureaucracy that has become the EU is mind boggling.
Spotify, and literally anybody, can file complaints. Some of them may lead to formal investigations.
As for compliance, well, as we can see from this process, that is yet to be determined, which in itself, blows a huge hole in the arguments of some people who insisted that Apple had complied simply because the 7th March had gone by without protests from the EU.
The comments stated here from Apple legal are standard fare with claims of values (which are never detailed) and compliance but followed up with pure fluff like the consumer experience etc.
As I've said a few times already. We just have to wait and see now.
I can be very critical of policitians like, for example, anyone involved with Brexit, or those doing nothing to clean up UK rivers, or even my local policitians who once shut down a local welfare centre providing free meals to the needy during the month of August arguing there wasn't enough in the budget to cover operating costs while at the same time spending a quarter of a million euros on some sculptures for the beach.
There are good and bad politicians. There are good and bad decisions but, mostly, the EU has worked to benefit its citizens. The results are visible.
I'm writing this from a train sitting next to a giant sign explaining how much EU money was used to install an ATP system on my stretch of line. The air I breathe is cleaner thanks to EU regulations. I will be taking in a Rowenta heater (now in its third year) for repair under warranty next week. The parts needed for that repair will be available for at least 10 years. All thanks to the EU. For this heater in particular, parts will be available for 15 years.
If it ever needs to be repaired again and out of warranty the price has to be fair (again, thanks to the EU). Today that is a 26€ repair if I choose to go for a flat fee repair.
Last year I had to go for an emergency consultation on what turned out to be a torn retina. I ended up with argon laser shots to shore things up. All free.
The seawater that I swim in is tested daily and reports are posted weekly on display boards at the beach. Those are EU regulations.
I have micro, mini, temporary and fixed green points available to me for recycling e-waste (or any other waste that isn't organic, paper, glass, plastic...) . If I buy a large electrical appliance, the seller has to take the old one away if I have no other plans for it. All for free.
They are all the result of political decisions.
Most of the EU directives impacting Apple have been around for years. The DMA/DSA are simply efforts to bring legislation into line with current reality.
There is another big directive in the pipe concerning how long products should last but Apple can take a breather here. The first industry to be impacted by that will be the textile industry.
Something similar may pop up in the US but maybe Tim will decide to visit the White House more often and try to persuade government to not do that.
Spotify is claiming Apple is killing competition but it owns 56% of the music streaming sector with Apple down around 13%. How did Spotify get there? On Apple’s platform with Apple actively promoting it. How is that killing competition?
Now Spotify is so big it feels it needs special treatment. The problem here is that Apple won’t give it that special treatment because THAT is what kills competition. Apple treats Spotify the same as it treats a teenage developer because that KEEPS competition active.
So because Spotify can’t get its way on a platform Apple OWNS from start to finish, they lobby the EU to attack companies like Apple.
You claim that the DMA rules have been around for years but you also disregard the efforts Apple has done to adhere to those laws in order to continue to operate in the EU. If Apple had being doing wrong by EU law it would have been slammed by now if, as you say, those laws already existed.
The worst the EU has done was come at them with regards to having their European business run out of Ireland but Apple did no wrong there because it was in fact following the rules set out by the EU. Was it a loophole? Maybe, but it was 100% legal until the EU realised it wasn’t getting a bunch of money illegally. And it is illegal how the EU went after Irish based companies because the law allowed for businesses to base themselves in Ireland.
Im not saying everything the EU is doing is wrong, just that the EU isn’t doing a good job of going after actual people or businesses that are operating illegally.
The DMA exists not to bring EU law up to date but to try and swindle more money from overseas businesses to try and booster European companies who are all failing.
