39 karma · joined August 1, 2013
It's their goal to do whatever it takes to compete aggressively and if openness can win them PR, they'll do it, but it isn't a goal in itself.
There's no point being the maintainer of an Operating System that can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support, especially when I'm getting the blame for something that I don't have authority to fix myself and that I had anticipated and escalated more than 6 months ahead.
So much for all that noise from Google about 'openness'. The detractors were right.
Apple asserted a design patent that protects the overall appearance of the iPhone - the 'trade dress'. Rounded corners are one of many attributes that describe the appearance of the iPhone. If you copy enough attributes - as the court ruled that Samsung did, you have copied the appearance.
Taking a single element out of context is a lie that Samsung originated, designed to give the appearance that Apple attempted to protect a ridiculously broad concept which the documents show that they did not do.
My other points still stand.
The gyro for parallax is only turned on when the screen is on.
The rest of your comment is pretty much tinfoil.
It's public facing precisely because people are concerned about this kind of data collection. This way you can make an informed choice about what apps can see about you and what to send to apple.
- Whether this information is collected at all - which specific apps can access it - whether apple can receive an anonymized copy of it to improve their maps
The data is stored securely on your device and you can see it delete it.
What more control do you want?
Apple is also taking a serious beating from Obama's DOJ. So clearly not 'a favorite' of the governments.
Incidentally - for those suggesting that Apple should get a taste of its own medicine, what on earth are you talking about? Since when did Apple have competitors products banned?
If Apple is forced to sell Amazon's books, Amazon should be forced to sell Apple's books on the e-ink Kindle.
The argument that Apple did something wrong therefore a destructive remedy is justified is absurd because it harms consumers even further by damaging the competitive market even more.
Apple has clearly overreached, but this kind of remedy is not about restoring competition.
Will they require Amazon to allow Apple to provide their own store for the e-ink Kindles too?
Your proposal implies that killing civilians should earn you a seat at the negotiating table.
They stopped their attacks when their demands were met.
I fail to see what you are advocating other than giving in to terrorism.
That outcome also included dead British cabinet ministers, civilians and infrastructure and decades of fear and hatred.
mikeash said it was ok not to defend so hard against terrorism because the outcome was good. I was refuting that.