Quick Takes: Apple Hires a Latin TV Head, New Owner of Reserve Strap Plans to Sue Apple, and More

[25ghosts]

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.

First off, attacking employees, following guidelines set by employers, riding a bus to get to work to let their employers know that they are dissatisfied with their business decisions is downright stupid and coward.

Second... News positing about terrorists like this wont make anything stop. They'll feel like hero's and continue on and as the news and media keep reporting about it, they'll spark other people to do the same once they enter a state of frustration. Take the school shootings. 100% executed by frustrated and sick people with zero imagination. If they had any, they would use it and never enter in to such a state. I'd say that 90% of those lacking utterly any imagination would have never used a gun at school to channel their frustration. They might have shot a neighbour (Bad enough) or themselves but the media made school shootings really popular by literally featuring the perpetrators as dangerous heroes, given them a VOICE, and that world wide. Thus sparking this trend.

Now they'll set a new trend for frustrated individuals... Don't file bug reports or give the vendors feedback thus being a part of the solution, just attack the personal of any company whose business policy you do not agree with. If you do so, we'll give you national coverage and make sure that you're heard !!!!

 

[Mac 128]

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.

Once I buy something, I couldn't care less about Apple's wishes. They clearly don't wish people would blend their iPhones, but it's really not up to them. Changing the hardware functionality after I buy something, is really not OK, whether a documented feature or not. Apple clearly thinks the headphone jack is redundant, and they wish all customers would use Lightning or Bluetooth headphones. It's one thing to remove them from future products, but it would be another to disable the ones built into existing devices, or change the way they work to discourage an entire industry built up around using the headphone jack for non-audio accessories, because they don't wish it to be used like that. Whose device is it anyway?

 

[jlc1978]

Why are they broadcasting the tactical details of the CHP operation? It's like: "Hey vandals, guess how we're going to catch you? We're going to BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

Like just keep your mouths shut until they're caught.

Flip side is the "Should I shoot at that bus? It maybe a decoy..." train of thought.
[doublepost=1520184296][/doublepost]

Yet large companies spend millions a year to write open source software

Which is a fraction of what is spent on proprietary software; and in some cases although the software is open source it is not readily usable by a potential competitor due to other factors such as specially designed hardware, etc. In the cases they use of OSS is cheaper because they save some development costs overall and the software is not the main product they sell. In addition, some companies do OSS development but do not share the results because they do not distribute it outside their company.

Companies also let some of their patents be used free of charge but the wholesale removal of licensing fees and sharing of patents is not very likely for the reasons the OP mentioned.
[doublepost=1520184719][/doublepost]

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.

Except that it was not a port whose specs were public but rather designed for Apple to run diagnostics. It could well be charging via the port risked damaging the watch or producing other undesirable effects so Apple nixed it. If you don't want a manufacturer to alter any features simply do not upgrade.

 

[corebeliefs]

CHP probably announced it, don't think MacRumors broke an "undercover" news story.

I didn't think MacRumors spilled the beans, lol. It seems like someone in government always wants credit for solving a problem, even if it's to announce covert measures.

As far as thinking that decoy buses will deter someone from shooting, I'll see you that logic and raise you. The people doing this could stop shooting until the decoy program ends (we'll probably hear about that in the news, too) and then start back up again.

If the decoy buses were actually a secret, then maybe law enforcement on the buses could see the where they're being fired from. It seemed to be the reason for decoy buses.

 

[AtomicGrog]

Wisewear as a company is disgruntled their bands never fluorished, which they filed for Chapter 11 and now there out seeking money from Apple for something they have no grounds on. Their Products never flourished because there is not a large enough of a market that would want specific bands of what they are offering and they likely have very little marketing, which most consumers did not know of.

Not sure I agree with the 'not enough of a market statement', early devices were being charged daily.. extending that would have been a winner. The rest i agree with 100%

 

[44267547]

Not sure I agree with the 'not enough of a market statement',

Genuinely curious, how many individuals do you know or are aware of that actually own or purchase any bands from Wisewear? I’m guessing by many. Those types of bands are very niche and had zero marketing, therefore there’s likely not enough of a market for that specific band, given the plethora of third-party bands and Apples OEM bands. They likely wouldn’t survive anyway even if they could fully utilize the diagnostic port.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

In that particular case, if Apple detects a device connecting through USB that says loud and clearly "I AM AN IPOD", but isn't one, is highly suspicious. We all know how difficult security is - this is a situation where Apple should absolutely not allow any connection to the device. You hast _MUST_ assume something nefarious is going on.

 

[AtomicGrog]

Genuinely curious, how many individuals do you know or are aware of that actually own or purchase any bands from Wisewear?

I don't know anyone who has one of these bands, from what I can tell they never were available in Australia.

That doesn't detract from the thought that there's a market for a watch band with a battery capability though, I still feel doubling/trebling the life of a watch (for example a series 3 LTE) would be a good outcome for those who dont want to be hampered with an expected 1 hour voice call limitation.

 

[AdonisSMU]

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.

Read the fine print. If the watch blew up on people's wrists and what not Apple would be responsible. Apple never advertised the link on the watching being capable of power transmission. Why should they be responsible for maintaining that? Why should they be responsible for maintaining something that was never a feature to begin with? A business can add/remove whatever features on their products they want to. Consumers can decide if they still want to purchase the products.

 

[jlc1978]

Read the fine print. If the watch blew up on people's wrists and what not Apple would be responsible. Apple never advertised the link on the watching being capable of power transmission. Why should they be responsible for maintaining that? Why should they be responsible for maintaining something that was never a feature to begin with?

While I agree with you I would caveat this statement:

A business can add/remove whatever features on their products they want to. Consumers can decide if they still want to purchase the products.

thusly:

"A business can add/remove features in future products when they want to. Consumers can decide if they still want to purchase the products. In the case of existing products, they can add features if they want but shouldn't be able to lessen the advertised (or generally accepted as expected) functionality, since the consumer paid for a device expecting a certain level of performance, without acceptance by teh consumer prior to implementing the change. Functionality not advertised such as proprietary ports not used for normal operation, hidden menus, code that is discovered to allow add-ons or modifications via hacks, etc., can be modified whenever the manufacturer wants."

 

[Vjosullivan]

Was it a good idea to announce that decoy buses are being used?

Yes. The primary goal is to prevent more shootings. The secondary goal is to catch the miscreant. Announcing the decoys may achieve the first goal on its own. If it doesn't, it won't prejudice the second goal.

If you reverse the goals then you're doing nothing to prevent more shootings. You actually need more shootings to occur and hope that at least one of them will target the decoy.

 

[prasand]

/s

because hunting without the chase, isn't as fun. So warn them, and let them run.

"Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot."

 

[barthrh]

Read the fine print. If the watch blew up on people's wrists and what not Apple would be responsible. Apple never advertised the link on the watching being capable of power transmission. Why should they be responsible for maintaining that? Why should they be responsible for maintaining something that was never a feature to begin with? A business can add/remove whatever features on their products they want to. Consumers can decide if they still want to purchase the products.

Precisely. This port was never intended for 3rd party use. They did not take anything away, they are just preventing misuse that may cause injury and would certainly result in them being sued. Of all the possible uses of that port that would make Apple nervous, charging has to be #1. Badly designed 3rd party chargers toast all kinds of devices. Fortunately, they are rarely attached to you. If this port were the primary way that the devices are charged (like a lightning port), then I could imagine that some form of case existed.

I can't help but wonder if they acquired the technology (after it was crippled) with the sole intent or suing Apple.

 

[corebeliefs]

Yes. The primary goal is to prevent more shootings. The secondary goal is to catch the miscreant. Announcing the decoys may achieve the first goal on its own. If it doesn't, it won't prejudice the second goal.

If you reverse the goals then you're doing nothing to prevent more shootings. You actually need more shootings to occur and hope that at least one of them will target the decoy.

Catching the people shooting the buses will prevent shootings. It's the goal of law enforcement.

 

[Gasu E.]

Was it a good idea to announce that decoy buses are being used?

If they're indistinguishable from the real ones? Absolutely!

 

[Mac 128]

Read the fine print. If the watch blew up on people's wrists and what not Apple would be responsible. Apple never advertised the link on the watching being capable of power transmission. Why should they be responsible for maintaining that? Why should they be responsible for maintaining something that was never a feature to begin with? A business can add/remove whatever features on their products they want to. Consumers can decide if they still want to purchase the products.

You are exactly right -- a business can add/remove whatever features on their products they want to -- just not after I buy it, without my permission. I don't know what fine print you are referring to, but once I buy something, I expect it to always function exactly the way it did when I bought it, whether used as intended by the manufacturer or not. Smart devices have changed the definition of ownership. That's the point here for me.
[doublepost=1520313791][/doublepost]

Precisely. This port was never intended for 3rd party use. They did not take anything away, they are just preventing misuse that may cause injury and would certainly result in them being sued. Of all the possible uses of that port that would make Apple nervous, charging has to be #1. Badly designed 3rd party chargers toast all kinds of devices. Fortunately, they are rarely attached to you. If this port were the primary way that the devices are charged (like a lightning port), then I could imagine that some form of case existed.

Sure, anybody can sue Apple at any time for any reason, including for their own misuse of a device. But if the watch explodes due to a poorly designed charger, the maker of that charger is on the line as well, and probably the stores that sold them too. From the minute that port was discovered, the possibility of expansion devices has been widely discussed, a fact of which Apple was surely not unaware. That Apple let such a "hazard" persist as long as they did, suggests they weren't that concerned with it, despite the glaring liability you point out it represents (also unlikely to have escaped Apple's attention), since they presumably could just as easily have disabled it at any time, or at a minimum with the subsequent generations. But they didn't. They let it persist until a viable product started gaining traction in the marketplace, challenging Apple's own products, and then not only did they remove it from future products sold, but to products already owned by customers. It's a wonder the customers didn't sue Apple too, for modifying a product they already owned without their permission.

I can't help but wonder if they acquired the technology (after it was crippled) with the sole intent or suing Apple.

On this I agree. I wouldn't put it past them, or any company for that matter, including Apple.

 

[macduke]

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.

Did HP do that too? I remember when Palm was doing that and Apple kept pushing out new versions of iTunes to block them. I almost used that as an example, lol.

I've always been amazed that ModBook, Inc. can still keep making the ModBook Pro, but from what I can gather they buy the hardware outright before converting it so Apple doesn't really care. And we already know how little Apple cares about what's going on with Macs in general anyway.