Last Active
  • Editorial: The big loser in the Apple - Qualcomm settlement isn't Intel, it's Android

    gatorguy said:

    ...and then Apple failed at that task, with none of that decided in this court case even tho that was a supposed goal and focus. Settled before it ever began. It all came down to money. That's actually a real issue with real effects. "Android the big loser because Apple and QC are back in a bromance" is a made-up one.  

    You do not know whether Apple failed or not.  The settlement the two companies reached may have addressed all of those issues, both in terms of the one-time payment (from disputes over past royalties & promises) as well as their future chip deals (potentially no double-dipping, etc).  I don't know either.  But given the fierceness Apple has always shown in its negotiations (some deals have been revealed after the fact)... if I were forced to place a bet regarding whether Apple took a chunk out of what Qualcomm was hoping for, I would bet "yes".

    OK, so you might say that even if my bet were correct, then Apple was only successful with regard to cash but not with regard to "being the hero" for the community against Qualcomm's licensing practices.  You don't know that either.  There are still several court cases brought by multiple governments against Qualcomm.  I also don't know, but my hunch is that by now there is little else Apple could reveal in those cases that they haven't already revealed.  So Apple has played its "hero card" about as far as it could go from that standpoint.

    The bottom line is that I believe Apple probably came out of this settlement with much nicer terms going forward (and potentially reduced payment for what occurred before) and that Qualcomm's licensing practices with many of their customers are still under the microscope and will possibly have to be revisited going forward.
  • Mark Zuckerberg calls Tim Cook's anti-Facebook retort 'glib,' defends ad-based model

    dewme said:
    Facebook is a content delivery company that charges advertisers to interleave their ads into the content. Facebook is essentially a "free" radio or television broadcast model with hundreds of millions of content provider channels, i.e., individuals who post on Facebook, and hundreds of millions of viewers, most of whom are also content providers. Using the radio/television analogy, Apple sells the radios and televisions and Facebook provides (some of) the content that gets played on the radios and television.
    But the problem is that Facebook does more than just present ads for other companies in their content.  They also provide access to their users' private information for targeted advertising.  This is where your analogy ends and the problems begin.
  • President Trump mentions Apple's pending US investment in State of the Union address

    ... the only way they could get even some Republicans to vote for it was to bribe them or threaten them.

    ... which is basically what "negotiation" in DC is: bribes and threats.

    So Trump only "negotiated" with the Republicans in Congress.  Since they are in the majority, that's all he needed to do.  It would have been a monumental waste of energy to negotiate with the Democrats, who are neither likely to meet him halfway nor are necessary to achieve his goal.
    tallest skilSpamSandwichanton zuykov
  • President Trump mentions Apple's pending US investment in State of the Union address

    Apple already said they’ll be hiring 20,000 people. What is the real problem here?
    No, not “hiring.”

    Apple said their investment would “create” 20,000 jobs.  They didn’t provide a breakout, but I imagine many of those jobs will be in the support community — app developers, construction workers for new facilities, etc. All good — I’m not belittling these —but many will not be “Apple hires.”
    That argument is exactly what several articles provided, but it is WRONG.  The quote from Apple also stated that the job creation would occur through hiring at US locations.  Go back and read the actual quote instead of just swallowing the conclusions of the authors that wrote about it later.

    Here is the quote:

    "Apple expects to invest over $30 billion in capital expenditures in the US over the next five years and create over 20,000 new jobs through hiring at existing campuses and opening a new one,” which will initially “house technical support for customers.”"
  • After speculative reports of slow sales, iPhone X is now said to be in the "high end of th...

    It seems to me the iPhone X has been a major success, however, I'll be honest; I would return my iPhone X for an iPhone 8 Plus right now if I could (without jumping through hoops).  I'm an Apple fan, and have used many of their products for many years.  For me, this is one of the first Apple products that has presented me with an overall downgraded experience versus the previous product.  I am not unhappy with the phone, but if I had the choice I'd switch back.  Of course, the iPhone X is excellent, and I love many things about it.  My main complaint, however, and the reason why I actually prefer the older design, is FaceID.  In my use case scenario I find FaceID far more of an annoyance versus TouchID.  When the situation is right, of course, FaceID works beautifully.  But I am talking about phone on the desk, laying in bed, not looking at the phone from the exact angle, etc.  In my use case scenario anyway, it's simply more inconvenient versus TouchID.   If the X had both TouchID and FaceID it would be near perfect.  Alas, I will keep my X until the next upgrade cycle.  If TouchID doesn't make a re-apperance on the next iPhone, then I'll go with the other design.  Just my two cents.
    I agree about FaceID vs TouchID 100%.

    But I wouldn't opt for the iPhone 8 Plus to get TouchID back.  I value the screen size vs footprint more than the difference between FaceID and TouchID.  Barely.

    If we could get TouchID back on a future version of iPhone X (or whatever it is called) I would be in hog heaven!