genovelle

sdw2001 said:

williamlondon said:

"the DIA had adopted the belief that the rules didn't apply to commercial data that the government purchases"

Scary to imagine how many *other* laws are broken using this exact form of mental gymnastics.

Well, the thing is that they are probably correct.  Not many gymnastics required.  If it's commercially available product, they can probably use it.  Whether or not it could be used in a criminal trial is another matter.  I'm not saying I agree with it.

That being said, the government is prohibited from using a private company to do that which it is not allowed.  Let's say the FBI wants to tap your phone, but doesn't want to get a warrant of any kind. They can't hire Bob's Phone Tapping service to do it for them.  Of course, they get around this by using things like national security letters and the FISA court improperly.  

ihatescreennames said:

I’m curious to know how users of Down Dog first discovered that app. It was either through the App Store or via the website for Down Dog. To be clear, I realize people could have learned about it through word of mouth or seen an article that mentioned or something else of that nature, but any of those would either push someone to the App Store or a web search.

If they discovered through the App Store then shouldn’t Down Dog count that as a user gained via the App Store and the benefits it provides and be happy to pay 30% as a commission or finder’s fee or what have you? If the app was discovered via their website why does the CEO think it’s such a burden for customers to go back to their website?  

Not to mention, I get emails with discount codes from businesses ALL THE TIME!  Guess what. Mother’s Day is right around the corner. Just since Sunday I’ve gotten emails from at least 3 businesses touting products with a discount code for Mother’s Day gifts. That’s just this week. One of them is from a photographer we use for family photos a few times a year. The discount works for photo products they offer through a third-party that, wait for it, gets a cut of the sale! 

None of what Sweeney, et al, are complaining about is unique to the particular situation they are complaining about.

InspiredCode said:

Apple may win this round, but it feels like Apple should try to get in front of antitrust issues before it is too late.

The bi-partisan coalition of senators on the antitrust committee think the approximately 80% profit margins on AppStore fees is evidence of rent seeking and want to regulate the store. With the Biden administration also onboard, it feels like it is just a matter of time. The fact that Apple provides services seems to be a major reason regulators do not want to treat them like a game store.

Other parties are preparing their own antitrust trials in both the US and the EU that I think may have stronger cases. I’m not pro-regulation, so I would really like to see Apple get in front of this on their own terms. If they fail to, I hope the least blunt instrument as possible is used to regulate the store.

lkrupp said:

Sarcastically, the law will not be involved here. It’s a matter of public opinion in that if you are big and wealthy you MUST be exploiting your customers. If the government is going to regulate prices and profits that's a recipe for disaster. Some here in these forums want Apple to be regulated as a public utility. Apple would have to apply for and prove the necessity of any price increase just like the power/gas/water company. Here in Illinois we have a CUB (Citizen’s Utility Board) who unfailingly opposes every single rate increase the utility companies petition for. Never once has CUB been on board with a rate increase. They always accuse the utilities of mismanagement and greed at rate hearings and demand rate decreases... every damn time.

Is this what you people want for the tech industry? 

dominikhoffmann said:

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

I have to side with tnet-primary on this. Even the wording of the headline indicates an intent to ridicule the man for the inclusion of the definite article. For perspective, the man is in his mid-70s and could be some of you guys’ great-grandfather. For most of his career he probably had a secretary handling the technology of communication, like typewriters, faxes, telex and such. Not being as savvy technologically doesn’t make him a clown nor dumb.

He could probably run rings around any of you in matters of the law, especially criminal law.