Last Active
  • Court rules man must be given access to husband's iCloud photos

    rob53 said:
    clexman said:
    rob53 said:
    We’re talking about family so why wouldn’t each of them have written down essential account information and stored them in a safe? If they had the surviving spouse would have been able to access the deceased Apple ID.

    it’s not Apple’s responsibility to do this. Forcing Apple to do it sets a bad precedent for other types of access by police and others. 
    Considering that writing passwords down is not recommended, it doesn't seem that not having them written down is surprising. My wife forgets her passwords all the time and has to reset them. I don't remember all of them.
    Actually, writing down and protecting your Apple ID password is recommended. Apple no longer retains any way to recover that password so it makes sense to save it somehow. Put it in a safe or safety deposit box. Just don’t write it on a sticky and put it on the back of your keyboard. 
    Dude, there’s a recovery process to reset for any AppleID.  Two-factor, security questions, etc.  You just have to prove you are you which is hard when you aren’t you or if you’ve assumed room temperature.
  • Court rules man must be given access to husband's iCloud photos

    WmH said:
    Something is amiss here, why did they not have photo library or iCloud library shared if they were married, passwords shared, the other husband should have all the photos between the two, no court order given or needed. Get down to the real reason!!!
    Apple does not offer a shared photo library and anyone who doesn't also have a Mac may not have it locally stored.  

    I recently went through this with a parent passing and Apple was helpful and a specialist guided me through the process.  We had to follow state procedures to get the court issue the order/permission. Each state handles digital property management in their own way.  Some don't even offer it in a Will.  Also there is no probate when there is a surviving spouse in community property states so there's no legal documents associated with passing digital property.

    Good on Apple for protecting property and privacy.  
  • Qualcomm pushed for iPhone exclusivity in response to $1B incentive payment demand, CEO sa...

    Hmm...I am not sure why AI is presenting this (the incentive payment) as some kind of a bribe that Apple offered Qualcomm. Going by Florian Mueller's article on, it appears to be the other way around!

    That is, Qualcomm had a habit of negotiating incentive payments from device makers in return for strategic favours. So, there's really no wrinkle in the FTC case, as suggested by AI. Instead, it's one of four issues related to Qualcomm's conduct that are being investigated. To quote:


    For the FTC, Jennifer Milici outlined the four key issues surrounding Qualcomm's conduct that the FTC is tackling (let's not forget that some other aspects are at issue in Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego, where a trial will start on April 15), which are interrelated as she also explained:

    • the "no license-no chips" policy;
    • incentive payments (for a brief explanation, those incentives effectively reduce patent licensing fees in exchange for doing Qualcomm some strategically-relevant favors);
    • the refusal to license rival chipset makers (note that Judge Koh's summary judgment in this context was based on contractual obligations, while the focus at this trial is now on an antitrust duty to deal); and
    • past exclusive arrangements with Apple.

    We all know Florian Mueller is paid by Apple and has been Apple support for so many years. His blog is biased and has no credibility.
    What a dumb statement. Even if that were true — although you don’t provide a shred of evidence — that’s like saying, since Mollenkopf is paid by Qualcomm, we shouldn’t believe anything he says. 

    Incidentally then, how do we know you’re not being paid by Qualcomm?
    Trolling or it's meant as satire.  Look at the poster's name and it was his/her/its first post.
  • Amazon, Super Micro executives join Apple's call to retract Bloomberg spy chip story

    tzeshan said:
     The federal agency that regulates media should act now. 
    Hahah!  I’m picking up the saracasm....   I do think Bloomberg is in danger of affecting the landscape.   Freedoms of the press, like speech, were intended for political speech directed at government to prevent tyranny.   I hope Apple, Amazon, others don’t let this story go.  
  • Amazon, Super Micro executives join Apple's call to retract Bloomberg spy chip story

    I don’t see anything influencing Bloomberg into publishing tangible evidence until this impacts their bottom line.  If they stick to their guns, we could see some changes to libel laws or SEC & FTC access to confidential sources and data.
    News agencies are often seduced into reporting rumors.  Bloomberg is usually better than this.

    Damages are easily quantified in the stock price plunge.  We’re talking about 100s of millions.  I don’t see how Bloomberg can “stick to there guns”.  This was supposedly a year long investigation by them that ended in a bombshell report.  They must have planned follow up articles.  The fact we’re getting crickets is damning.  I assume what we’re seeing is already covered by libel laws, but they’re generally ignored when it’s about companies.  A complete retraction seems logical and would probably be good enough for everyone but Super Micro.  

    Bloomberg is probably also looking at a fine by the agencies.  They generally give slaps on wrists...
    I hope this doesn’t come to new laws with government involvement in a free press.  I hope the free market is enough to change the trajectory that Bloomberg (and others) have chosen.