anonymouse

apple ][ said:

MacPro said:

apple ][ said:

entropys said:

I just bought an MBP and an MBA, but I haven’t signed up to Apple TV plus yet. You only get one twelve month freebie, so I am waiting at least until December, maybe Christmas. You just know Apple will throw a tonne of new shows out in November 2020 to get people to continue with the service, but pay for it. 

It isn’t the money, it’s that I don’t like being manipulated so I want to broaden my options.

I got a new Apple TV 4k recently, so I activated the free 12 month trial right away, because I want to see what Apple TV is about right now, and not wait some months.

It's only 5 bucks a month and less than that too if somebody subscribes for a full year ($50), so in November 2020, I'll decide to either keep it or not, and the content will have drastically increased by that time I suppose.

What are the odds you'll but some new Apple product within 12 months?  I know I will.  Apple TV + will always be 'free' to all typical Apple customers for that reason I suspect.

The odds are high that I'll be buying some Apple product within the next 12 months, but the odds are also high that the promotion will have expired by then, since it's a time limited offer.

Yes, I don't think there's going to be perpetually free Apple TV+ as long as you buy a new device every year. I think it was a smart move to make it free for new device purchasers at launch, particularly since there is little content available at the moment. But most people won't complain too much about that since they aren't paying for it. However, I don't think the intention is for Apple TV+ to be a carrot driving device purchases, I think they expect to make a profit on it eventually with paid subscriptions. Obviously they hope many of the free subscribers will stick around to later pay, and many of them probably will, if they keep the content coming.

AppleInsider said:
[...]

There is the argument in some cases that a warrant could be denied due to the fourth and fifth amendments, such as the case in Idaho in May. A warrant to search a device of unknown ownership was considered as under the fourth amendment it would be lawful if it was "reasonable," namely if it didn't violate the person's constitutional rights, but the fifth protecting against self-incrimination meant the device could not be unlocked as it would identify the person as its owner, which also brought into play the fourth.

The alternative is for the police to employ hacking techniques, like the "GrayKey" tool from 2018 that some regional police forces used to access the contents of smartphones, but at a cost of thousands of dollars to license the technology.

Due to the expertise required, the unreliability of the techniques, and the cost, there is an increased pressure for law enforcement to get the suspect to unlock the smartphone, but the trouble with acquiring access due to current law is said to give more of an edge to criminals.

"It would have an extreme chilling effect on our ability to thoroughly investigate and bring many, many cases, including violent offenses," said Hillar Moore, district attorney for East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. "It would basically shut the door."

As pointed out above, this isn't really a dilemma. The very reason that certain rights were added to the Constitution was to restrict the ability of the government, including law enforcement, from violating individual privacy. If we throw out the 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments, among other constitutional protections, just to make the job easier for law enforcement, it would have an extreme chilling effect on Americans' ability to live lives free of the fear of unwarranted government intrusion as the founders intended. The use of "hacking techniques" without a warrant is also a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, otherwise it's no different that obtaining evidence through the use of burglar's tools to illegally enter a home.

However, forcing an individual to unlock their phone is clearly a violation of 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination. I would even go so far as to argue that the use of "hacking tools" to unlock or decrypt phones, and other devices or documents, is inherently a 5th Amendment violation as there is a reasonable expectation that locked and encrypted devices and documents are essentially private in the same way that one's thoughts are. If that makes life difficult for law enforcement, so be it. The founders  did not, nor did subsequent generations of lawmakers, include a clause or amendment that waives individual rights to privacy or self incrimination in cases where that makes life difficult for law enforcement.

Mike Wuerthele said:

ItsDeCia said:

While she’s at it, why not prevent Apple from selling their own accessories in their retail stores too? Since other brands are there, we wouldn’t want Apple to have a competitive advantage in their own store or anything. Smh

Given the proposal, and that Amazon couldn't sell Amazon Essentials anymore, this is a possibility.

I don't think she's actually thought this through. This proposal, as presented so far, would affect pretty much every large retailer in the US who sells white label products -- i.e., products made by a third party for the retailer and uniquely labeled for them. This is Warren's main problem: she doesn't really think through the details of things. There are businesses that exist only for (or at least by) making these white label products. This would effectively put all these companies out of business and their employees out of jobs.

While I agree that some of these companies present a real threat to our society, clearly there are unintended consequences of this proposal that make it untenable. Simplistic, headline grabbing proposals are not what we need. What we need are ideas that are thoughtfully developed and directly address the problems.

Mike Wuerthele said:

anonymouse said:

AppleInsider said:

On Friday, Democratic Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren advocated for breaking up major tech companies with large services, specifically naming Amazon, Facebook, and Google -- but Apple fits in the targeted category as well.

[...]

"Platform utilities" subject to mandated break-up would be defined as "companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties."

According to the Washington Post story on this, "Her plan primarily targets companies with annual revenue over $90 million," -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/08/sen-elizabeth-warren-unveils-plan-break-up-amazon-facebook-google-ambitious-campaign-pledge/ -- which is substantially less than $25 Billion. What source are you using for the $25 Billion figure?

Warren's Medium post.

Based on Warren's Medium post, it appears to be a bit more nuanced than represented by AI (or WAPO). There appear to be multiple level of revenue with different rules -- >= $25B, >= $90MM && < $25B and < $90MM.

Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as “platform utilities.”
These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties.
For smaller companies (those with annual global revenue of between $90 million and $25 billion), their platform utilities would be required to meet the same standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users, but would not be required to structurally separate from any participant on the platform.

So,

• < $90MM, anything goes
• >= $90MM && < $25B, regulation but not separation
  
• >= $25B, separation
  

I'm haven't fully formed an opinion on how "good" or "bad" Warrens proposal is, although, it would be quite a departure in antitrust law to base regulations on revenue rather than market control, I think. 

Dave Kap said:

You should have done more research into the reason...


https://daringfireball.net/linked/2019/01/23/shot-on-iphone-no-prize

For those who don't want to click on the link:

"@gruber BTW, I heard from a “friend” at Apple who said, “Another reason why this isn’t a contest with prizes? Legal. There are a whole other set of rules if Apple offers prizes and those rules differ from country to country. This way, Apple doesn’t have to worry about it.” Makes sense."

-- https://twitter.com/ShawnKing/status/1088207363297894400