Last Active
  • USB4 Version 2.0 to offer up to 80 Gbps data transfer

    spheric said:
    The point of version numbers is that they're fucking NUMBER VERSIONS. 

    USB 3 —> USB 3.1 —> USB 3.2 Gen 1 —> USB 3.1 Gen 2 —> USB 3.2 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 3 —> USB4 Version 2.0. 


    Go fuck yourself, USB Consortium. 

    (Sorry, do I seem angry? Yeah.)

    I kind of see what the USB Consortium has doing but the naming still sucks.  Should have been

    USB 3 —> USB 3.1 —> USB 3.2.1 —> USB 3.1.2 —> USB 3.2.2 —> USB 4.2 —> USB 4.3 —> USB 4.2.0. Simple and far more logical (still have some issues but it is better than what we got).

  • Apple XProtect is now proactive with periodic malware scans

    Endpoint protection services and software is an essential business that Apple is giving away to Microsoft and others.

    it is a glaring gaping hole in the Apple service portfolio and security services is currently MS fastest growing segment and one of the reasons Azure was not ignored in favour of AWS.

    A personal Microsoft 365 subscription includes Defender for MacOS.

    Apple releasing obsolete scanning features is not impressive for a company that has trust and privacy as part of the value prop.

    honestly - add another 5 dollars per month to AppleOne and include XDR like agents across the device family with iCloud as the management console. Ties well into the SMB push they are doing and MDM offering.

    Users of Apple devices not being targeted or at lower risk is not true. 

    This is a multi Billion dollar business in the waiting for Apple.
    I think that approach would hurt Apple’s brand. It would suggest that without this $5 service, their operating system is not safe, and you need to pony up dollars to make it safe. 
    By offering it for free, they make it part of their value proposition and focus on productivity and content services, aka turning your computer or phone into a “vending machine of services and products”.

    Heck, if you wanted to be overly cynical you could say Microsoft either purposely "crippled" their OS security just so they could sale this service or the programmers they have are so poorly skilled they can't figure out how to have such a security feature built into the OS.
  • Congress running out of time on its Big Tech antitrust bill

    DAalseth said:
    You know, I get the feeling that “Big Tech” is where the “Big Three” automakers were in 1962. Fat, abusive, turning out a decent if not great product, complacent. I just get a feeling that some little company will come out of nowhere and introduce a new way of doing things. Maybe a new phone OS, maybe a new online hang out, maybe a new way of putting customers and businesses together. I don’t know. If I did I’d be jumping all over it. But I get the feeling that for all the people who love Amazon, and gush over Android, or yes pine for the next Apple thing, there’s an undercurrent of discontent. Somebody is going to come in, be the next little upstart company that is “for the rest of us”. Someone will come in and drop the 21st century equivalent of the Toyota Corolla, or Honda Civic, or Apple II. When they do “big tech” will be caught completely flatfooted. They’ll disregard the little guy until one day they find that a lot of their customers, died in the wool Windows and Mac fans, hard core Android and iOS users have jumped ship for something better. 

    It’ll be the best thing that could happen to them.

    A changing marketplace is Operation Normal.  Intel was king of the PC world until they got complacent and proceeded to do a series of boneheaded moves that allowed AMD to make headway and then thanks to Intel producing an insanely buggy CPU Apple said 'screw it, we'll design our own based on that ARM CPU we have had in our iPhones and iPads'.  Now everybody and his brother either are on the ARM bandwagon or have announced they are getting on...even Intel (though Intel is still trying to hold on to the increasingly clunky x86 with a weird x86/ARM hybrid)

    I firmly believe if Sears had been run more intelligently they could have been Amazon.  Heck, Sears last general catalogue was in 1993; in 1994 Amazon (then Cadabra Inc) opened its doors.

  • Congress running out of time on its Big Tech antitrust bill

    Madbum said:
    Idiotic politicians with their idiotic bills

    Politicians have got to make a show of doing something...while actually doing nothing.
  • Apple reaping massive illegal profits from Apple Pay fees on card issuers, lawsuit claims

    davidw said:
    There is no Apple "monopoly". Under the Sherman Act, iOS can not be consider a "relevant market" on which a monopoly is determined. The "relevant market" can not be (or very rarely can be) narrowed down to a single brand.  The "relevant market" in this case would be "mobile devices" or at the least ... "mobile OS". And Apple Pay is not a monopoly  in either of those markets. Apple would have a monopoly with Apple Pay only if the iPhone had a monopoly in the mobile device market or iOS is a monopoly in the mobile OS market.

    Microsoft have a monopoly with Windows OS because MS Windows is on 80% of the World's desktop computers. Not because Microsoft have 100% of the Windows OS market.

    Just because one can only buy a Whopper at a BK, that doesn't mean BK, under the Sherman Act, have a monopoly with the Whopper. The "relevant market" would include all fast food burgers and not just the Whopper.  And BK is under no obligation to allow McDonalds to sell Big Macs in their BK diners, to compete with their Whoppers.    
    The thing is the California court already ruled Apple wasn't a monopoly as documented in Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21.  Heck Epic claimed Apple was a “lawful monopoly in the iOS app distribution market.” and Epic couldn't even prove such a market existed.

    "The threshold of market share for finding a prima facie case of monopoly power is
    generally no less than 65% market share. See Image Tech. Servs. II, 125 F.3d at 1206 (“Courts
    generally require a 65% market share to establish a prima facie case of market power.”); Hunt-
    Wesson, 627 F.2d at 924–25 (“market shares on the order of 60 percent to 70 percent have
    supported findings of monopoly power”).592 A more conservative threshold would require a
    market share of 70% or higher for monopoly power. See Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de
    Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 174 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Although there is no fixed percentage
    market share that conclusively resolves whether monopoly power exists, the Supreme Court has
    never found a party with less than 75% market share to have monopoly power. And we have
    observed that when monopolization has been found the defendant controlled seventy to one
    hundred percent of the relevant market.” (citations omitted)); Syufy Enters. v. Am. Multicinema,
    Inc., 793 F.2d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[A]s far as we know, neither the Supreme Court nor
    any other court has ever decided whether a market share as low as 60-69% is sufficient, standing
    alone, to sustain such a finding.”).

    "Apple does not have market power in the smartphone market. Rather Apple only has 15 percent of global market share in 2020."

    "Thus, the Court finds the relevant geographic market to be global."