yep. and charging via that port could perhaps damage it and render it useless for the intended uses
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quick Takes: Apple Hires a Latin TV Head, New Owner of Reserve Strap Plans to Sue Apple, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yep. and charging via that port could perhaps damage it and render it useless for the intended uses
No company has any obligation to maintain compatibility with 3rd party accessories. They bet the farm on future compatibility and lost. If they can sue then can iPhone case and cable makers sue, what about headphone makers who need the 3.5mm port. What a waste of resources pursuing this.
Yup. They do. And generally it benefits them somehow. And yet, we weren’t even talking about general open source. We were talking about “the big 5 tech companies” sharing specific accessibility features and codes.
All I was saying is if they shared amongst themselves, each one would no longer press the envelope of new technologies because those technologies are expensive. More money would slide over to patentable technologies. Not saying no one would ever advance the tech, it would just slow to stagnation in comparison.
Just think about it. Would amazon make Alexa codes available to Apple for the sake of accessibility? NO way. They are enjoying having the perceived upper hand and their products have benefited from it. If they shared with Apple (not that Apple would use it - because of their own privacy restraints) and Apple implemented it, they would be negatively impacted in areas outside of accessibility.
I wonder if they filed their lawsuit in East Texas? Apple usually loses in that one-horse area.
Yes, I think it's irresponsible of publications to advertise the details of an ongoing investigation. Seriously, I expect better of MacRumours, but they just can't pass up the page views, I guess.
Shades of the iMac mezzanine port, that apple watch thing.
Except that company didn't have the balls to sue. Balls.
Except that company didn't have the balls to sue. Balls.
I never said share everypatent idea. Nice of you to over generalize what I was stating vs focusing specifically on the idea I presented. By your presumption HealthKit should not exist nor the partnerships Apple has had with several universities and hospitals, that we're all seeing benefits from.
Sharing ideas does not preclude to erasing competition. Patents exist and yet STILL competition occurs. Sure one can say the wheel cannot be done better ... yet we have various modes of airplanes (propeller - front or rear, mounted on the wings, Jets - in always the same arrangement, vector engines). Reverse engineering has always been done and spawned new ideas and new levels of competition even with the existence of patents that restrict the exact same method. Medicine by your thoughts would never have evolved.
Bold in red: Windows vs Macintosh OS.
Look at what Windows could do in it's first 10 yrs vs what we had with Macintosh OS! Did this stop Apple from advancing? No. Did it stop Microsoft? RedHat or Suse hasn't stopped innovating even though Linux kernel is FREE and shared amongst so many competitors. They still make money.
The arrangement of how they present that technology is what makes them money.
Compare Microsoft Tablet business (WinCE based) and their original Smartphone platform v6/v6.5 (with all partner manufacturers: Casio, Compaq, HP, Fujitsu, NEC, etc) compared to 5yrs of Apple's iOS (iPhone and iPad). You'll notice 5 companies don't make ANY computers, smartphones, tablets and 1 was swallowed up by another (Compaq purchased by HP). NEC, Fujitsu & compaq make money by other means. Their efforts into smartphones have changed but it doesn't mean they don't still do research relative to those fields, who knows. Yet their still involved in computing in some way.
You're last sentence is exactly why I presented my idea in my earlier post.
If you take the time to look, you'll see that it's a TV news station that's broadcast the story, and if you look at that it's implied that CHP themselves have 'gone public' on their operation. Think about it, what do you want - the incidents to stop happening as soon as possible by whatever means (including providing an effective deterrent such as this story), or to keep trying to catch the perpetrators however long it takes and however many lives are being put at stake in the meantime?
Who knows, maybe CHP aren't even running decoy buses, but just putting this story out might be enough to stop the attacks.
That's right, but the business model there is making the software widely used and then charge thousands of dollars for support.
...but which will almost certainly be unwatchable regurgitation of the current culture.
Because people in the USA are growing ever more aware of what they are watching, and they are ever more switching off their TV/cable/box/satellite and avoiding movie theaters. Cultural poison works better on those who haven't woken up.
The future of TV/movies is in areas with captive audiences.
Exactly that. The company started a business, and went bankrupt because of something that Apple did. The question is whether it was something Apple was allowed to do or not. I think it is unlikely that any judge would say "Apple is not ever allowed to change this interface because it would hurt businesses that rely on it". However, if all that is left for the company is zero cash and a possible lawsuit, then it is absolutely fine to sell the business to someone who thinks "zero cash and a possible lawsuit" is worth something.
Assume a normal business that is doing its usual and profitable business. And they hired a plumber to fix the toilets who did rubbish work and they are suing him. If the business is sold, then obviously the buyer can continue suing the plumber. This is just the same here, only a bit more extreme.
[doublepost=1520082375][/doublepost]
The could announce decoy buses without actually ever using them, and that alone might reduce the number of attacks. At zero cost. UK police is actually using trucks on the motorways to have a chance to see what truck drivers are doing. Like drinking beer while reading the newspaper while texting on the phone while driving which you can't see from a normal police car.
[doublepost=1520082533][/doublepost]
Apple usually loses there? Could you give any specific examples?
[doublepost=1520082794][/doublepost]
That's daft. They should improve their programming _everywhere_. Hiring someone for Latin American programming isn't "focusing". It's part of improving programming everywhere.
Seems to me that at least PART of WiseWear's bankruptcy has to be due to profligate & unwise spending. They bought a company whose business had just fallen apart... hindsight's 20-20 but I wonder why they thought that was going to work out. Did they buy it, thinking, "Well if things don't work out, we can at least sue Apple"?
Who cares. Apple should be focusing on software or ecosystem. I'm not looking for the next Netflix with a limited although higher end audience. Youtube tv is pretty much the apple streaming service I wanted that allowed me to cut the cord. Can Apple do something similar for 35 a month? Probably not.
Nope. You're argument might hold water if Apple TURNED OFF the headphone jack on all of its lightning devices which already existed on current products. This would be a fair game if Apple had simply removed a port from future products, but that's not what they did. They disabled a port on existing devices which worked perfectly well up until that point.
In other words, Apple removed functionality from a device the customer purchased, advertised or not, after the customer owned it. That's pretty messed up, and I'm not sure why nobody cares that Apple has this power.
Imagine if Kuerig had been able to merely update the firmware of all existing coffee Brewers to reject anything but licensed K-Cups. It was bad enough that they built-in technology that required it for any new customers, though fair enough, but untenable if they had been able to prevent existing devices from working the way they always had!
The fact is, Apple is limiting what the customer can do with their device after they bought it. And that's kind of the point here.
They might have a thin case, but it's still there. Apple turning off a feature that they themselves might use would add merit to their case. There had to be *some* idea that the port would do what they were doing, and if that lead came from someone at Apple, they have an even stronger case. Someone had to tell them that this 'hidden' port could do that. Someone had to tell them how to get into the port. If ANY of that came from Apple, and Apple didn't discuss their use of that port prior to turning it off, their case seems stronger. I remember one of the issues with Microsoft, back before Bush43 had the case dropped, was Microsoft using exclusive API's for their programs that weren't open to other third party developers. Their software took advantage of special functionality being denied to their competitors, and they took action against developers that tried to use those API's. THAT was anti-competitive to a high degree. If Apple uses that port for charging, and told this company how to use it, then Apple just shut the port down, that too is anti-competitive. Even though Apple might not have a current product that exploits that feature. But stay tuned. If they liquidate, they are fighting over spilled milk, but could open a door for other companies to do the same, and probably with that very same IP.
California Highway Patrol to use decoy buses in hopes of catching Apple and Google shuttle attackers: A $10,000 reward is also being offered for information leading to the arrest of the person or people responsible.
I hope they catch those people responsible, and I hope Dick's Sporting stops selling pellet guns. Such a nuisance.
People, especially working people, shouldn't be afraid to move around freely.
I hope they catch those people responsible, and I hope Dick's Sporting stops selling pellet guns. Such a nuisance.
People, especially working people, shouldn't be afraid to move around freely.
It is super confusing. I can't tell where one article stops and the next begins.
CHP probably announced it, don't think MacRumors broke an "undercover" news story.
Not to sound flippant; but if cannot tell one where one article starts and the other ends-well, reading comprehension is the root of your problem.
How can anyone defend removing functionality in a software update? Remember when you could upgrade the processors on Macs using the cache or RAM slots? Obviously it was not the intended use of the connectors but Apple never killed support in an update and at least you could easily downgrade Mac software.
Let the users do what they want with their own devices. Same as with battery throttling, there is a legitimate reason for it but users should be allowed to choose for themselves. I can understand setting recommended defaults but there is no reason to be hostile towards power users who want to make their own choices and aftermarket upgrades.
Let the users do what they want with their own devices. Same as with battery throttling, there is a legitimate reason for it but users should be allowed to choose for themselves. I can understand setting recommended defaults but there is no reason to be hostile towards power users who want to make their own choices and aftermarket upgrades.
Honestly, it's amazing that Apple didn't immediately sue them, or at least put out a public statement about them. Reminds me of the time that HP made their music players pretend to be iPods. Yes - the way iPods identified themselves was "public" because it was using a general USB standard, but it was clearly as much against Apple's wishes as Hackintoshes.
@lowendlinux was just trying to find a crack in the thread where he could place his open source crusade banner. They always do.
It's the same "chip, chip, chippin' away" you get from militant vegans and ex-smokers. Equally annoying.
I had a go with an early prototype of the Soundscape technology about 18 months ago, and I was impressed then. Glad to see it's made it to release.