- Last Active
I don't understand why this is being done for Mother's Day. Seems to imply either "drag mom along for a 1-mile excursion while you obtain this badge/achievement", or "spend your time on a 1-mile excursion so you obtain this badge/achievement, rather than spending that time with your mom or on the phone with her". Not the best day to have an "all about me, not about mom" achievement goal.
radarthekat said:Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food? And restaurants, for that matter. I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste. Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there? And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style. Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's? Maybe setup a booth there?
Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS? That they have only a license to use it? It's not their OS. They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware. But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS. IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.
The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time. Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software. You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters. Why? Because it is a safety issue. That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS.
Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly. Walled garden does not equal monopoly. Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!
gatorguy said:SpamSandwich said:When the reason for the sales appeal of the whole device to the consumer is stolen, what then?
It would've been a double-edged sword for Apple had it gone the other way: all these lawsuits against Apple for LTE, FaceTime, etc. patents would've been bad had it been the "based on entire profit" ruling and Apple lost or didn't settle those cases. So on the bright site, this will give Apple great leverage in the patent infringement suits brought against it, as "profits" relating to individual infringing components / software code would amount to mere pennies (perhaps even fractions of pennies) per device, give then many, many features/functions that make up the iPhone. Perhaps Apple will now go back to that FaceTime peer-to-peer patent holder and make an offer to license now under much more favorable terms, so that FaceTime could go back to the way it was in the iPhone 4 initially (peer-to-peer, no connection via Apple servers).
mike1 said:schlack said:slprescott said:I don't understand why Apple has two lines of headphones: Beats, Apple
I guess the answer is "brand loyalty" -- there are many people who like the Beats brand, and Apple wants to keep them in the family. But the purist in me says that Apple need to reconcile these overlapping product lines into a single (and single-branded) offering.
Just FYI, according to one reviewer who is pretty critical of Beats for their exaggerated bass, the BeatsX demo pair he tested were far less exaggerated than any other Beats headphone product he's tested.
linkman said:I do find it surprising that Apple keeps Samsung as a supplier for anything. I wouldn't continue to buy things from someone that keeps ripping me off.
Does Samsung make laptops? If so, we should expect them to have a Touch Bar running Tizen in 3... 2... 1.....