flydog

neilm said:

Andrew_OSU said:

neilm said:

No mention of how this device gets its power. Presumably not from that Apple Watch charger that's inexplicably included in the photo.

It’s a doorbell.. it’s wired… it is powered off your existing doorbell wiring. 

Newsflash: here in the 21st century many doorbells are not wired. Amazing, right?

Many? How about few. While some people do add wireless doorbells, I’ve never heard of a home that lacked any doorbell wiring. In fact, it’s required under the international building code.

doggone said:

What is MR?  How would contact lenses work or even be powered?

The “prediction” is for contact lenses to be released within 20 years, which is the same as saying “if the technology existed,” which it doesn’t. 

80s_Apple_Guy said:

How can they regulate what is clearly interstate commerce? 

States can regulate most interstate commerce.

Jesus, does that really need to be stated?  Is that not obvious from being alive on the planet for more than 10 years?  

qwerty52 said:

This is ridiculous!
Why I have the feeling, that Arizona lawmakers just don’t know the difference between “Apple Store”  and “AppStore”. 

They only can put restrictions on a physically existing Apple Store in Arizona, but not on 
AppStore, which is a worlds virtual internet store. There isn’t such thing as only Arizona AppStore.
So Apple can always pool out world wide, all applications which  doesn’t respect the AppStore’s rules.
And what the lawmakers are doing now (while spending taxpayers money) is trying to smack hole in the water!

Wrong. Plenty of states, including Arizona, regulate activity that occurs purely over the internet. The most common are internet crimes such as transmitting child porn, fraud, and money laundering. States can collect taxes for activity that occurs purely over the internet. States also regulate advertising that occurs purely over the internet.  States can prohibit employment discrimination by companies that have no presence in their state and accept applications over the internet.  Online gambling is illegal in most states, including Arizona.

The fact that something occurs over the internet does not make is per se beyond the reach of a state. That is simply absurd on its face. 

The only plausible argument here is that there is a federal law that expressly preempts state law (no one has pointed to such a law) or that there is a conflct between state and federal law (the more likely scenario, but not one has articulated a cogent argument to support this is the case).

sdw2001 said:

As Mike said, this will be tied up in litigation for years. I personally think the law is idiotic. It’s unenforceable and probably unconstitutional for a whole host of reasons.  It seems to me it steps on the federal government‘s ability to regulate interstate commerce as well as anti-trust law.  The targeting of just two companies (obviously) is extremely problematic from a legal perspective.  We’ll see.  

I oppose the law too, but you can't name a single reason why this is "probably unconstitutional."