I have trouble sorting out Tim Cook's privacy principals so frequently espoused in press releases, op-eds and quips to the press from Apple's business agenda oriented towards marketing their platform as "privacy friendly".
It'd go a long way towards taking Cook and Apple as sincere if Apple would, in great detail, share with us what data they collect on their users, how they use it, and what data they allow Apps to collect, and what if any strings they attach to that data (which I doubt they can enforce anyway).
Understand and control the personal information that you store with Apple
As part of our commitment to your privacy, we’re making it easier than ever for you to review and take control of the data that you store with Apple.
Data and privacy tools
We’ve introduced new data and privacy tools on your Apple ID account page. Sign in to your Apple ID account page on a Mac, PC, iPhone, or iPad. Then scroll down to Data & Privacy and select "Manage your data."
The complete set of self-service data and privacy tools is available to customers in over 240 countries around the world:
Get a copy of the data that you store with Apple that's associated with your Apple ID.
Deactivate your Apple ID temporarily.
Delete your Apple ID—and the data associated with it—permanently.
Request a correction to your personal data.
Additional privacy improvements
To ensure that we’re meeting our own high standards for protecting the data we store on your behalf, we’ve conducted a comprehensive review of the instances where we collect and hold your data. As a result, Apple products now include new and updated data and privacy statements that make it easier than ever to understand how Apple will use your personal information. We show you these statements before you sign in with your Apple ID or turn on any new features that use your data.
We’re proud of our commitment to privacy and will continue to apply our industry-leading, privacy-by-design standard to ensure that great experiences don’t come at the expense of your privacy and security. For more information, visit apple.com/privacy.
Having a case filed in FTC does not mean the charges are good; there is still due process in the world (or there used to be). I'll wait until there is a decision. Until then - it's really just Apple bitching about the terms, the same terms everyone else pays. And terms that are LESS onerous than Apple's own terms to use their IP.
And again you are ignoring that there already was a (preliminary) ruling in this very case 2 months ago, that Qualcomm had to license their patents to competing chip makers because their obvious disregard for anti trust law was so blatant. Stop being such a shill.
The licensing fee is actually 1.5% of MSRP of the device. Apple MSRP is huge, so the licensing fee is huge. If the phone sold for $20 on the Indian market, the same license for the same chip would be much lower.
That would be right if Qualcomm didn't also ask for a fixed fee per chip (even those not made by Qualcomm) on top of that.
I don't buy Apple products - you are correct. However, I design plenty of audio products for companies that do Apple-based products. Headphones, amplifiers, microphones, etc.
Let's say the Qualcomm chip cost $30. If the licencing fee is $7.5 per chip that means the chip really cost $37.5. Why does Qualcomm call it a licencing fee? It's simply the price of the chip.
The problem is that Apple buys their chips from Intel, not Qualcomm. Then Qualcomm says they owe them a license fees for the patents chip, and then a percentage from the sales price of the phone on top of that, for the same patents.
I haven't heard otherwise - Apple's never complained they are getting a different deal, just that they "pay too much". They've never asserted they are paying terms more than others - and the onus is on the accuser.
Well, you are right in so far that Apple doesn't explicitly say so. Because nobody but the different customers can actually tell what their deals are - at least when they don't buy Qualcomm chips. Explained here.
But of course that ignores that the FTC anti trust case against Qualcomm - the very case this article is about - alleges that Apple got a different deal than others and had to pay less for making Qualcomm their exclusive supplier. IOW, you are wrong, Qualcomm does not give everyone the same deal.
Sure, they'd all love to pay less! I'd love not to have to pay a $4 "license fee" to Apple
Stop lying. You keep insisting that you'd never buy something from Apple, so don't pretend you would so you cn whine about their prices. You lame little liar boy.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong by lying though.
Is it the same deal that other phone makers get? Then it's fair (Apple agreed to it right up front), reasonable (all others - dozens of them - pay it), and non-discriminatory (all others pay the same basic rate).
Is it though? Do you know because you shill for either company (well Qualcomm obviously)? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
I wouldn't consider that a monopoly, and if the phone OEMs prefer the Qualcomm chipsets then that's just because... maybe they are really better for that phone OEM's purposes?
Do you actually believe Samsung chooses to use a Qualcomm SoC over their own in their Galaxy Sx Smartphones in a few countries because they are better? What makes them better in that handful of countries?
The FTC has accused Qualcomm of operating a monopoly in wireless chips, forcing customers like Apple to work with it exclusively and charging excessive licensing fees for its technology.
Isn't that the intention of patents? They grant a limited-time monopoly (in exchange for the design details being made public).
Yeah, but then those pesky standards with their silly FRAND terms come in and ruin the racket. Companies with patents should be able to force other companies to license them even without standards that require them.
What? You don't think companies that specialize in a specific area are better at it than generalists? Enjoy the shittier Intel generalist modem on the current gen too.:)
Your point must be that a company that bought a the part of a company that specialized in wireless technology must make better wireless technology than one that became famous for their mail client.
PS: before you try to correct me: I know. The OP doesn't. That's why I am making fun of his argument. It's a joke. Get it yet?
If that is the only reason for the show, then that would be true.
Ooops, I forgot all about the booth babes, sorry.
I thought the show was to convince purchasing people that their stuff is going to be the Next Big Thing in the rapidly-approaching holiday shopping season. If that was really the reason, then whatever the media said wouldn't even count for anything.
You make it sound like the vast majority of the public makes their buying decision based on actually going to the show instead of getting the info from the media. We're not in the early 80s any more.
I'm not sure how they manage to get from "Looking more closely, neither Amazon, Apple nor Google has really introduced any new products themselves," all the way to "steal the show."
Or, to rephrase the entire story, "Burble burble burble PROMO burble burble CONSUME burble burble.fnord"
Errm, isn't getting all the press despite not even being at the show pretty close to the definition of "stealing the show"?
Slashdot Mirror
Probably. Apple tried to launch an ad network and it failed,
It failed because it wasn't giving advertisers "enough" user information.
I have trouble sorting out Tim Cook's privacy principals so frequently espoused in press releases, op-eds and quips to the press from Apple's business agenda oriented towards marketing their platform as "privacy friendly".
It'd go a long way towards taking Cook and Apple as sincere if Apple would, in great detail, share with us what data they collect on their users, how they use it, and what data they allow Apps to collect, and what if any strings they attach to that data (which I doubt they can enforce anyway).
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208501
Understand and control the personal information that you store with Apple
As part of our commitment to your privacy, we’re making it easier than ever for you to review and take control of the data that you store with Apple. Data and privacy tools
We’ve introduced new data and privacy tools on your Apple ID account page. Sign in to your Apple ID account page on a Mac, PC, iPhone, or iPad. Then scroll down to Data & Privacy and select "Manage your data."
The complete set of self-service data and privacy tools is available to customers in over 240 countries around the world:
Get a copy of the data that you store with Apple that's associated with your Apple ID. Deactivate your Apple ID temporarily. Delete your Apple ID—and the data associated with it—permanently. Request a correction to your personal data.
Additional privacy improvements
To ensure that we’re meeting our own high standards for protecting the data we store on your behalf, we’ve conducted a comprehensive review of the instances where we collect and hold your data. As a result, Apple products now include new and updated data and privacy statements that make it easier than ever to understand how Apple will use your personal information. We show you these statements before you sign in with your Apple ID or turn on any new features that use your data.
We’re proud of our commitment to privacy and will continue to apply our industry-leading, privacy-by-design standard to ensure that great experiences don’t come at the expense of your privacy and security. For more information, visit apple.com/privacy.
Having a case filed in FTC does not mean the charges are good; there is still due process in the world (or there used to be). I'll wait until there is a decision. Until then - it's really just Apple bitching about the terms, the same terms everyone else pays. And terms that are LESS onerous than Apple's own terms to use their IP.
And again you are ignoring that there already was a (preliminary) ruling in this very case 2 months ago, that Qualcomm had to license their patents to competing chip makers because their obvious disregard for anti trust law was so blatant. Stop being such a shill.
It has to, otherwise those patents can't be part of the 5G standard
Exactly, and that's why the FTC is suing Qualcomm, because they violate that principle (and then some). Haven't you been paying attention?
The licensing fee is actually 1.5% of MSRP of the device. Apple MSRP is huge, so the licensing fee is huge. If the phone sold for $20 on the Indian market, the same license for the same chip would be much lower.
That would be right if Qualcomm didn't also ask for a fixed fee per chip (even those not made by Qualcomm) on top of that.
I don't buy Apple products - you are correct. However, I design plenty of audio products for companies that do Apple-based products. Headphones, amplifiers, microphones, etc.
Please warn us which companies you work for.
The enormity of making your own 5G chipset is underappreciated I think.
First you need to licence all the necessary patents.
And that's where your arguments already fails spectacularly - because Qualcomm refuses to give out licenses to competing chip makers.
Let's say the Qualcomm chip cost $30. If the licencing fee is $7.5 per chip that means the chip really cost $37.5. Why does Qualcomm call it a licencing fee? It's simply the price of the chip.
The problem is that Apple buys their chips from Intel, not Qualcomm. Then Qualcomm says they owe them a license fees for the patents chip, and then a percentage from the sales price of the phone on top of that, for the same patents.
If Apple truly wants Qualcomm chip, they would have settled the lawsuit,
Which one? The one of the FTC against Qualcomm or the one by the Korean government against Qualcomm?
No, their supplier wants to charge them the same they charge all the other OEM's.
But Qualcomm isn't their supplier. They are the patent troll that double dips on their patents - hence the anti trust suit this article is about.
I haven't heard otherwise - Apple's never complained they are getting a different deal, just that they "pay too much". They've never asserted they are paying terms more than others - and the onus is on the accuser.
Well, you are right in so far that Apple doesn't explicitly say so. Because nobody but the different customers can actually tell what their deals are - at least when they don't buy Qualcomm chips. Explained here.
But of course that ignores that the FTC anti trust case against Qualcomm - the very case this article is about - alleges that Apple got a different deal than others and had to pay less for making Qualcomm their exclusive supplier. IOW, you are wrong, Qualcomm does not give everyone the same deal.
Sure, they'd all love to pay less! I'd love not to have to pay a $4 "license fee" to Apple
Stop lying. You keep insisting that you'd never buy something from Apple, so don't pretend you would so you cn whine about their prices. You lame little liar boy.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong by lying though.
Many people are sure.
Wow, poor Applel...that's liable to drain their cash reserves in about 50 million years.
Well, that would be 350 million US$ last quarter alone - many companies have literally killed for less.
Is it the same deal that other phone makers get? Then it's fair (Apple agreed to it right up front), reasonable (all others - dozens of them - pay it), and non-discriminatory (all others pay the same basic rate).
Is it though? Do you know because you shill for either company (well Qualcomm obviously)? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
I wouldn't consider that a monopoly, and if the phone OEMs prefer the Qualcomm chipsets then that's just because... maybe they are really better for that phone OEM's purposes?
Do you actually believe Samsung chooses to use a Qualcomm SoC over their own in their Galaxy Sx Smartphones in a few countries because they are better? What makes them better in that handful of countries?
So... Has any other phone maker complained about the payment to Qualcomm to the point of withholding payment?
No, for that they are are too afraid. But Samsung, Google, & others formally back Apple in legal dispute with Qualcomm
Apple pays for the qualcomm chips, like everyone else. But then has to pay qualcomm a patent license for using those qualcomm chips.
As a patent holder you can have any kind of license you want and change the rules any time you want.
As the owner of a standard essential patent, you (usually) can't.
Isn't that the intention of patents? They grant a limited-time monopoly (in exchange for the design details being made public).
Yeah, but then those pesky standards with their silly FRAND terms come in and ruin the racket. Companies with patents should be able to force other companies to license them even without standards that require them.
Apple charges the highest price hey can get away with
The difference is: Qualcomm asked for more than they could get away with. Whoops, there goes your billion dollar contract.
Yup, go ahead. Enjoy the inferior tech!
What? You don't think companies that specialize in a specific area are better at it than generalists? Enjoy the shittier Intel generalist modem on the current gen too. :)
Your point must be that a company that bought a the part of a company that specialized in wireless technology must make better wireless technology than one that became famous for their mail client.
PS: before you try to correct me: I know. The OP doesn't. That's why I am making fun of his argument. It's a joke. Get it yet?
If that is the only reason for the show, then that would be true.
Ooops, I forgot all about the booth babes, sorry.
I thought the show was to convince purchasing people that their stuff is going to be the Next Big Thing in the rapidly-approaching holiday shopping season. If that was really the reason, then whatever the media said wouldn't even count for anything.
You make it sound like the vast majority of the public makes their buying decision based on actually going to the show instead of getting the info from the media. We're not in the early 80s any more.
Apple *could* have
... included a 8" floppy in the iPad. The End.
The number of people who know or care about Azimov is a tiny sliver of humanity.
Yeah, just a little higher than those who even heard of Phillip K. Dick or Margaret Atwood.
Same old shit, in a new wrapper. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I'm not sure how they manage to get from "Looking more closely, neither Amazon, Apple nor Google has really introduced any new products themselves," all the way to "steal the show."
Or, to rephrase the entire story, "Burble burble burble PROMO burble burble CONSUME burble burble. fnord"
Errm, isn't getting all the press despite not even being at the show pretty close to the definition of "stealing the show"?