sdw2001

n2itivguy said:

Clear waste of taxpayer dollars letting this proceed. There are alternatives to iPhones and the App Store. Ridiculous. 

I don't agree.  There are alternatives to the iPhone, but not the App store if you're an iPhone user.  I'm not saying I agree it's an illegal monopoly (I lean towards thinking its not), but there is at least an argument there.  It's not ridiculous at all, or SCOTUS wouldn't have allowed it.  It means there is at least some substantial chance the plaintiffs will prevail.  

corrections said:

Kentfromohio said:

Apple saved music with iTunes because the ripping of music was a known illegal activity.  And the price worked out by Steve Jobs was a good price.  Ninety nine cents per song made sense versus being forced to buy full albums.  Win/win for customers and artists.

Magazines are so lame these days they can't be given away.  And that is when they do it legally online.  Most are political and their politics is very unattractive.  So who wants lame politics dressed up in a fancy graphical cover or with the NYT logo?  And Apple is likely to exclude political opinions it finds unacceptable, which means it will exclude what half the population wants.   I don't think Apple will exhibit a hearty appreciation of the wide open expression of ideas from across the spectrum. More likely it will be like Facebook and Twitter which censor voices that don't fit the liberal template.  If Apple does that with Apple News it will not be a big success or even a good product.

Wrong: File sharing wasn’t initially regarded as illegal. Also, when iTunes opened the labels were already trying to sell their songs on new forms of physical media and digital through stores from a Microsoft, Sony and on their own. 

Also, lots of magazines have great content that many people don’t see because they spend their free time scrolling through the Facebook feed of radical trash and outrage mongering. 

Apple doesn’t exclude political opinions. Voices espousing hatred and violence are not open expressions from across the spectrum. The are terrorism and deserve to be silenced. 

And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism. 

I'm not sure how old you are or what your perspective is on the events of 20 years ago, but it's different than mine.  By the time Apple started selling music through iTunes, file sharing was known to be illegal and widespread.  I went back and looked up some dates....Metallica sued Napster in March of 2000.  Others followed.  After being sued by the RIAA, Napster was shut down by court order in early 2001.  There were some attempts by the music industry to start selling online, but none reached even close to critical mass.   Ripping CD's was still frowned upon by the RIAA, though there wasn't much they could do about it (save Sony's pathetic attempt to prevent it).   In 2003, the iTunes Music Store debuted.  It was enormously successful because there was a market for reasonably priced, legal downloads.  The labels were way, way behind on this, and Apple filled the gap quickly.  

Magazines are dead.  Say it with me.  

Apple absolutely excludes political opinions.  Every platform does.  And sorry, but "hatred" (however that's defined) and "violence" are not terrorism and would be protected speech were it not for it being a private platform.  Advocating or inciting violence (directly) is illegal.  "Hate speech" is not.  You're going down a very dangerous road here when you advocate for silencing people.  Very dangerous.  

Quote:  "And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism."  

Oh boy.  First, Facebook and Twitter's discrimination against conservative views is well established and unquestionable.  They do not apply the same standards to all users of their platform.  They ban and shadow ban conservatives routinely while ignoring blatant violations of their rules by Leftists.  Secondly, I don't see how they are "recruiting" anyone into anything.  Any "right wing hate and rage" (like actual Nazis and KKK members for example) is exceptionally small, not just on social media but in the nation.  The KKK is estimated to have fewer than 3,600 members nationwide.  Third, Russia?  Are you kidding?  The Russians spent $100,000 in Facebook ads both before and after the 2016 election, supporting and opposing both parties' nominees.  The candidates and associated groups spent $2 billion.  Their goal was to sow chaos, and they succeeded.  If you actually think the Russians are running around spreading "right wing hate and rage," you might want to check your closet for monsters.  

I feel like this and the previous editorials really illustrate how the change at AI over the last decade.  It's one that I, quite frankly, don't like.  I joined AI in early 2000, pre-Pismo Powerbook and pre-2001 blackout.  For several years, AI was a place to get great hardware rumors, discussion, and even monumental political debates in Apple Outsider.  All that has changed.  There are few, if any, good rumors.  There are fewer real scoops on what's coming.  AO is gone, and the boards are policed heavily.  Articles with any political content usually have comments turned off.  AI has gone from an insurgent, true "insider" website to another cog in the corporate media machine.  We get breathy editorials, a constant barrage of "best price" ads dressed up like news stories, and a site that might as well be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple itself.  Unfortunate.  

I have a Qi charger we got free as a gift.  I use it with my iPhone X.  I really see no need to plunk down whatever they'll want for this product.  Even if you fully deplete your AirPods each day, you'd get 4-5 days of charges out of the case.  Jut plug it in and you're good.  

frankie said:

Of course he does.  He needs to take credit for anything to stoke his ego, even though all of this money was already earmarked to be spent on regular employees, etc in the first place. 

Where are the ACTUAL jobs?  From what I've read Apple will now spend HALF of what it did last year on taxes, which is already a joke.

I love Apple products but give me a break.

Love or hate Trump, you really can’t spin this in such a way that it didn’t have anything to do with the tax bill. And the tax bill is directly a result of Trump pushing for it.