anonymouse

gatorguy said:

KalMadda said:

I think people are being way too hard on Apple over this.  For all we know, it sounds like they actually did have these features most of the way completed, but ran into issues later in the process, and so now have to spend time repairing and reworking elements.  And the ads they ran were very clear that those features weren’t available yet.  Sometimes things come up and happen, I’d rather they spend the time to fix whatever issues they ran into with it then them rushing it out for release…

"If these features exist in any sort of working state at all, no one outside Apple has vouched for their existence, let alone for their quality....
 Why did Apple show these personalized Siri features at WWDC last year, and promise their arrival during the first year of Apple Intelligence? Why, for that matter, do they now claim to “anticipate rolling them out in the coming year” if they still currently do not exist in demonstratable form? And now they look so out of their depth, so in over their heads, that not only are they years behind the state-of-the-art in AI, but they don’t even know what they can ship or when.

Their headline features from nine months ago not only haven’t shipped but still haven’t even been demonstrated, which I, for one, now presume means they can’t be demonstrated because they don’t work."

Oh my god, hell has surely frozen over when I find myself agreeing with gatorguy.

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

It’s not chickening out. 

It’s doing the right thing. 

For once. 

In this case, the EU doing nothing is doing the right thing. 

The whole DMA fiasco needs to be reversed ASAP. 

This isn't about the EU or the DMA. 

Sure it is, the UK is just copycatting the EU on these issues.

But, it's hard not to see corrupt intent here from the UK "regulators" when they blithely accept, against all objective evidence, the word of Meta, et al. that they are being prevented from doing good for consumers by "not being allowed to innovate" with browser technology. First of all, consumers don't need (or probably want, if they were to actually think about it) innovation in rendering engines (HTML/CSS/DOM/Javascript). "Innovation" in rendering engines serves only one purpose and that purpose is anticompetitive — user and developer lock-in to a specific rendering engine. And, no, that is not what Apple is doing with WebKit, they follow standards and don't add "features" that make websites incompatible with other browsers. Secondly, the facile representation by these companies that they are in any way interested in improving the user experience is laughable; they are interested in improving their own experience in monetizing users, period. So, how do we explain this attack on user privacy, in both the EU and the UK, that is cloaked in terms like "competition" and "fairness" but seems to have no purpose other than to destroy privacy and pervert the concept of fairness?

The regulators in the UK, like those in the EU, are either so ignorant of these issues that they have no business regulating anything or they are so corrupt that they view their job as selling "regulation" to the highest bidder. Personally, I think it's a combination of both. But, the UK in particular have a track record of being anti-privacy in all regards, and the EU has a track record of hobbling US companies to benefit EU companies. It's not surprising that they are engaged in these blatant attempts to undermine privacy and competition, but it is particularly hypocritical of them to pretend they are doing the opposite.

Maybe they'll fix the camera too.

phillyfanatic09 said:

DAalseth said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

Xed said:

CheeseFreeze said:

beowulfschmidt said:

Apple could also just pull out of the UK entirely, fire all their UK employees, and stop buying UK goods and services.  I know they won't, but feck all fascist governments.

By that logic, they need to pull out of the USA immediately. 

Because Apple is in the US that means they should prop up fascism and a police state?

Not directed at you personally, but people need to learn what fascism is. Fascism is a type of authoritarianism but not authoritarianism is fascism. 

Fascism is a far-right system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

The U.K. is capitalist, and we can certainly argue that this would be a stringent movement control the rest of the definition doesn't fit at all. There U.K. isn't governed by the far-right, it isn't a dictatorship, there isn't violent suppression of opposition and the list goes on. So, yeah, not fascism at all 

“Agreed, the UK isn’t there. The US however…”

While what Trump is doing is disturbing, illegal and authoritarian, he is not a fascist. 

Experts on fascism — i.e., people who have studied fascism extensively and know exactly what it is and isn't — disagree with you. Here's one who changed his mind on the issue to declare that Trump is a fascist.

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652

9secondkox2 said:

Can you imagine pouring your heart, soul, and finances into developing a great resource, then fighting tooth and nail to get discovered by the masses, only to have the most popular company in the world copy you and obscure your effort,… that’s rough. 

Apple is supposed to be the ethical one of the much. At least buy them out. Sheesh. If you can spend 3.5 billion on a headphone company, you can buy out a little third party developer to enhance your wares. 

So Apple is never supposed to do anything that someone else has done before? Does that only apply to software, or hardware as well? Are the Mac, iPhone, Apple Watch unethical because there were other players in the market when they were released? Is it "unethical" that Apple released Safari, or Pages, Numbers, Keynote because someone was already doing that, or is that ok because of the size of the competition? If it's ok, exactly where is the line about when it's ok and when it isn't? What exactly are the criteria for when Apple is allowed to release a new HW product or app?

Is it unfortunate for the developer? Sure. but it's no different than any other business where some other company may "Sherlock" you. Being first (or third or fourth or ...) to market doesn't give you some sort of moral monopoly for that product.