flydog

harry102 said:

It seems like the Judge doesn't fully understand how Apple limits rivals' opportunity to take a share from Apple, even though she mentioned it in this quote. Other cloud storage providers simply cannot offer the same integration as iCloud does. Say if Google offered a cheaper storage solution than apple with all the same functionality I am sure many would jump to it. And to be clear Google does offer cloud storage like google drive for instance, but does that integrate with Apple devices and let your store your imessages, device backups, icloud mail etc.

Alteratively does Apple provide an easy way to sync your ios device to a computer if I don't want to pay for iCloud. If I am in proximity to my Mac with my iPhone why can these two devices not sync between easy other automatically? 

The fact that you may prefer iCloud because it's better than the alternatives doesn't mean you are forced to buy it. 

And you can in fact backup your entire iPhone or iPad to any computer without purchasing iCloud. 

Another misleading headline to attract clicks. 

Lawsuit had nothing to do with how much Apple charges for iCloud, and even if plaintiffs had won, Apple would have zero incentive to lower iCloud storage prices. 

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Why don't they question all the lobby money they get?

Bunch of hypocrites. The reckoning its coming.

Fake news. It's illegal for a lobbyist to give direct payments or any kind of financial compensation to a legislator or government official.  Lobbyists can make campaign contributions via a PAC.  However, payments to inauguration committees are NOT campaign contributions, and are therefore not regulated with respect to who can make the contributions, how much can be donated, or the purpose of the contribution.  In addition, money can be funneled via intermediaries to the inauguration committee since there are no laws restricting foreign contributions.  

Another issue is that while campaign donations cannot be coordinated with a campaign, there are no such restrictions on funding an inaugural committee. A quid pro quo could be established so long as it doesn't cross the line into bribery, which requires payment for an official act. If the understanding is that the administration will "go easy" on the company donating, that is not a bribe or a violation of campaign laws.  This is called a "soft" quid pro quo.

Finally, in this case, the circumstances surrounding the contributions are sketchy at best given the timing, who is receiving the funds, the amount of money (especially compared to campaign contributions and prior funding of inaugural committees), and the existence of pending legal and regulatory action against these companies.  There really isn't any reason for these companies, some of which have been ardent opponents of the new administration to donate these sums short of looking to curry favor. 

kmarei said:

"TikTok is considered one of the leading sources of misinformation and disinformation"
It's also the only big social media platform the US government doesn't control...

we always talk about free competition
 But we don't really like it when the other team is winning now do we?

All cats can fly.

Adam is a cat.

Therefore, Adam can fly.

tht said:

Yes. Very nice.

In the back of my mind, I'm troubled that a set of chipmaking facilities is in the Phoenix area potentially for the next 20 to 40 years, but hopefully they understand they will need to manage water and climate issues in a good way.

Complete nonsense. Chip factories reuse over 80% of the water they use in manufacturing. All of Intel's fabs put together use less than 1/10th of a percent of all water in Arizona in exchange for a $9B economic impact.

Agriculture uses 70% of all water in exchange for a $30B economic impact. And if you were to close all foreign-owned alfalfa farms that provide zero economic benefit you could provide water to 100 new fabs.