Apple has patented a thing, they haven't made a thing. Let's be mad when they actually make a bad thing based on a patented thing. They hold a lot of patents for things that never see the light of day, and they like to keep their bases covered. It's dubious at best that they'd actually implement this when they're also attempting to make it so nobody except you is allowed to access your data--not even the authorities. It seems like they're willing to die on that hill; I doubt they're willing to die on this one, even if the patent exists.
Apple has to deal with patent trolls all the time. Sometimes they even deal with patent trolls on behalf of their developers.
We all know the system is busted; Apple is an old hand at fending off these garbage suits. What's ACTUALLY novel about this one is you know exactly who's suing them--it's not some faceless registered patent holding umbrella corp. with empty offices somewhere in Texas.
I use the XKCD word replacement extension. I've substituted 'cat' for 'car', and additionally, 'a woman named catherine' for 'a cat'. So this is how your comment was eventually translated, and it was amusing enough for me to include that preamble before posting:
"From a Liability perspective you're safer prioritizing overall minimization of loss of life. From a Sales perspective, who's going to buy a woman named catherine that's programmed to purposefully kill you under certain circumstances?"
The floppy should have been on its way out already, but Apple had to make the move. Why didn't PC manufacturers? The floppy drive WAS terrible, but people went INSANE when Apple stopped shipping with a floppy drive.
Which goes to show that sometimes good ideas are mainly visible with some time to sit and consider them.
A 3.5mm analogue jack can't do at least a couple things:
- Drive my higher end headphones without running through an amp - Communicate with the headphones (why? I don't know--Battery levels? Fitness? Noise cancelling?)
Look, it was a good standard. I suspect we'll still be using it here and there for a long time. But it doesn't mean it's perfect or necessary. Apple will ship both with new lightning earbuds and probably an adaptor in the box, and that'll be that. In 5 years, we'll probably wonder what we were all upset about.
Patel's list is terrible. Only one of his points stands up to any scrutiny, which is that it's absurd that Apple may well release a phone with headphones that can't plug into any of its own computers.
Patel's first point, that digital audio out means DRMed music is beyond asinine. The files on your phone are *already digital*. They could be DRMed right now.
Patel's last point--that nobody is asking for this--is probably his worst. Henry Ford said, "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they all would have said a faster horse." The world's progress is all based on things that nobody asked for.
Is this a good move by Apple? I don't know. *Maybe not*. But it's worth the attempt.
I wouldn't worry--I greatly suspect that AKG will make headphones with a lightning connector at some point.
But now part of the problem is that AKG won't just be responsible for the drivers and the fit, but the DAC as well. On the other hand, this all may be a great benefit for high-end headphones. They won't be limited by the puny amount of power that comes out of a 3.5mm jack.
Don't forget the zoning and safety requirements that hotels are forced to meet. There are going to be tonnes of additional costs associated with running a hotel.
I suppose the argument would be that AirBnB solves that problem and disrupts the old, expensive market, but I can't help but feel at least some of those requirements are there to serve some purpose.
Nope, the more you comment, the more I disagree with you.
First of all, buying a property involves risk. You cannot know the market in the future, so putting money into a residence with any expectation that you'll be able to make a profit or even break even on the deal is misguided. If you're doing it as a business decision, that's one thing, but one should never buy a primary residence with the expectation that things will go their way.
Second, there's an opportunity cost to taking all that money and pouring it into a fixed asset that (usually) represents the majority of your net worth. That money could be invested, and over the long term, the markets have been more reliable than the housing market.
Third, owning isn't cheap. I've owned a home and now I rent--owning is far and away more expensive, even in fairly inexpensive areas because the mortgage isn't your only cost. (In Canada, the interest on the mortgage isn't even deductible, and the interest rate you get usually has to be renegotiated every few years--huge differences from the American market.) Taxes and upkeep are always more than anyone gives them credit for. Rental upkeep is effectively zero for the renter.
Finally, you're not throwing money away when you rent, much as that often gets trotted out. You're paying for a service. While a person that buys a home is putting money into a sort of forced savings plan, if you run the numbers, it actually takes a fairly steep and consistent appreciation to beat someone that can take the difference between a rental cost and the price of owning and put that money in investments. (Whether or not renters do this is besides the point; owners don't make perfectly rational decisions either.) In my case, it would be literally impossible for me to own a home with all its associated costs and continue to put my partner through her PhD.
It's worth noting that not all owners of rental properties actually get to charge more than the cost of their mortgage and upkeep because they end up pricing themselves out of the market. In Vancouver, I suspect a lot of rental property owners are bleeding money because keeping up with their costs would mean renting to people who are already rich, and those people have the capacity to buy anyway. And that's where this dovetails into AirBnB--owners are listing properties on AirBnB instead of renting because they can make more money from it and keep up with their mortgage payments. And many people would say that's the market at work, and obviously they should be allowed. The problems are that a) housing is a right, and vacation rentals aren't; and b) the market is inflated far beyond anything that fundamentals could possibly support. Those properties aren't actually worth that much money, and they shouldn't have to play these weird tricks to stay on top of their payments. These high prices and high rents are destroying communities in Vancouver. People can't afford the rents or indeed, many properties are being bought and renovated purely as a store of value, with no intention of ever being lived in. That means local businesses have no traffic, because even though the properties around them are owned, there's nobody in them to buy their stuff. The service industry is being strained because workers have to live way the hell and gone because anything nearby is unaffordable...but why bother getting a crappy service job that doesn't pay much and requires a massive commute rather than the same crummy job but nearer to your exurb?
The problem is far beyond AirBnB at this point, but they're certainly not helping. They're coming around at exactly the wrong time for many cities, and that may prove costly to them in the near future. Cities just can't bear yet another strain on their housing situation, and cutting AirBnB out is much, much easier than most of the other solutions.
I'd rather just get the podcast versions of the shows. Unfortunately, there's too much to listen to. I've got, like, 10 episodes of Ideas in the queue.
That's bullshit, and I hope you came back to read this, because I'd like to point out that you're a bad person and you should feel bad.
1) There are plenty of people with merit that never get seen because our whole culture is structurally racist. We're immersed in it and don't even know it. You can find videos of little black girls explaining that dark skin is ugly and lighter skin is better. Darker black people face discrimination from lighter dark people--some of it is overt, some of it is subtle.
2) Sometimes you have to even a playing field because not everyone's opportunities are the same. This is why we put ramps in front of buildings for people in wheelchairs. On merit, they're the same as me, but they have a particular situation that we need to acknowledge, and so fairness dictates that we treat them slightly differently. That we go out of our way to make sure they're accounted for.
3) For anyone up on stage at an Apple event, they're there based on their position at Apple. For the movies, they're probably actors. There's no reason not to have a bunch of different kinds of people in that sort of promotional video. It doesn't have to do with percentage demographic, literally the thing they're trying to show is that everyone and anyone can use and enjoy their products. It's not just good from a social perspective, it makes a lot of sense from a marketing perspective.
The average user doesn't know what side-loading is. If you can figure out side-loading, you can figure out how to compile your own binaries in XCode and side-load them. This theoretical person that understands side-loading and wants to use it but can't work out how to download source and compile it is so rare as to be ignorable.
They are, those just aren't things that make the keynote. WWDC is a developer's conference, and most of the actual conference is sessions where the devs go to learn things about the OS.
For instance, Apple has introduced a new scalable file system. That wasn't in the keynote, but it's a technical detail that will definitely benefit everyone. But it's not something that anyone other than us nerds are going to care about.
Keep an eye on Ars Technica; I bet they'll have a list of interesting non-keynote things that will fit your bill.
Is there some problem with showcasing a lot of different people?
Like, those people all exist. Those people all have lives and buy things. I'm not sure what your issue is with having them in the commercials or videos or whatever. Is it really that galling to have every white dude and occasional woman replaced with another person that actually lives on this planet?
I can't stress enough that these are actual people and not a made-up fabrication of Apple's imagination. As actual, existing people, they should have every bit as much representation as anyone else. They're all just actors anyway, right?
There are limits to even the rights granted by various constitutions around the world. The easiest one to point out is free speech, since it's abrogated by governments all the time, and there is a recognition that there's no ABSOLUTE right to free speech. Uttering threats, libel, inciting violence--those aren't protected speech, despite you having a right to free speech.
The difference with owning guns is that it's WAY too late to just punish someone after they've bought an assault rifle and killed a bunch of people. You can't bring those people back or give them compensation for their lost lives. Indeed, even the 2nd amendment has limits, and that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
There are limits to buying fertiliser if you're on a watch list. I think adding guns to the list of things that should probably require a background check and some additional care while you're on a watch list is hardly onerous.
Being 'agnostic' is a short-hand for being unsure about God, but it's really an orthogonal term that should be used as a modifier on (a)theist.
An agnostic atheist is someone that doesn't believe in God, but can't be sure that one doesn't exist. A gnostic atheist is someone that KNOWS God doesn't exist.
An agnostic theist is someone that believes in God, but can't be sure that God exists. A gnostic theist is a person that KNOWS God exists.
Atheism tends to lean towards agnosticism naturally, since it's impossible to know. Theism tends to lean towards gnosticism naturally, because that's kind of how faith works.
How little goes to the creators? 70% goes to the creators, currently. 85% in the new scheme, after customers have stuck around for a year.
In return, app creators get hosting and payment services. For small developers, that surmounts a massive barrier to entry--trying to negotiate those payment systems on your own is terrible.
I've heard generally good things about this split, and the majority of complaints come from larger companies that might be able to do this stuff effectively on their own, but balk at paying the standard fee to Apple. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for Amazon-Comixology.
It sounds like you have trouble paying for people's work at all. But here's the thing: nobody cares and you won't be missed. You weren't paying ANYWAY.
I have a few apps that I immediately buy when they have to put out a new revision to fund their development. The one that comes to mind most immediately is tweetbot. I always buy the new version because I want them to make more of them and keep up with Twitter's API. That doesn't come for free. I will absolutely pay a subscription to that app to make sure that there's always a new version ready for me.
I also use an RSS reader called Newsify that I really like. They monetize by providing a subscription to a bunch of services that I have absolutely no interest in. I don't pay that subscription fee. But if they have a subscription option--say, $5/year--that I can pay that just makes sure they stick around and make changes to the app, I'll pay that.
I don't know why you have such trouble paying people for their honest hard work for applications that you actually use. The other option is to let them fill the app with ads, and we've seen how well that's been going for the web in general. No thanks.
I re-use passwords all the time. The problem is that people don't know an important password from an unimportant one.
Tumblr? MySpace? Forums? I use irrelevant, weak passwords. There's nothing there that I really care about. Even LinkedIn falls under that rubric--I'm not sure I'd care if someone else were getting that spam instead of me.
Some sites I prize a little more highly. They get a better password, maybe shared, maybe not.
Then there are sites that hold information that I'd rather keep to myself--credit card info, tax info, that sort of thing. They get a very strong password, often generated by my password manager.
Not all sites are created equal, so it's ridiculous to create a strong, unique password for all of them regardless of their actual importance.
The news cycle on/. is so slow sometimes. If you follow Apple news, you were hearing about this a few days ago, and YESTERDAY we already heard from Rene Ritchie claiming that this isn't happening.
So don't expect anything. And for those of you already mad at Apple for a product that hasn't been officially announced and is probably imaginary, calm thine tits. At least be mad at Apple for the stuff they ACTUALLY do, not the made up stuff that hasn't happened.
No, I don't. Mainly because fracking has wildly changed the equation, and is probably the cause of the dip in energy prices.
Because fracking operations were financed on debt, they keep pumping out oil despite the drop in price. As long as they can sell at even a meagre profit, they can finance their debt. Never mind that if they backed off a bit, prices might rebound some when stockpiles dropped--they can't. They don't have that kind of luxury, there are bills to pay.
But regardless, there has always been oil in the world, with or without Canada. The USA is a net oil EXPORTER now. We've never had any control over anything. It's not that we weren't successful, we've just never been a superpower. That word carries with it a lot more power than we've ever had.
Superpowers aren't reliant on external forces to maintain their superpower status--that's why they're superpowers.
The USSR and the USA were military superpowers--they were able to exert influence on an unbelievable scale. They had leverage in the form of nuclear weapons.
At no time did Canada have leverage over ANYTHING, as we can see by how badly our economy was hit when global oil prices dropped. We could not threaten to pull out of production--nobody would've cared. Someone else would've taken up the slack. We couldn't threaten to INCREASE production--that would just be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Superpowers aren't beholden to anyone. It was a stupid thing that was said by a stupid man in an attempt to gain leverage that never existed in an industry that he never controlled.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has patented a thing, they haven't made a thing. Let's be mad when they actually make a bad thing based on a patented thing. They hold a lot of patents for things that never see the light of day, and they like to keep their bases covered. It's dubious at best that they'd actually implement this when they're also attempting to make it so nobody except you is allowed to access your data--not even the authorities. It seems like they're willing to die on that hill; I doubt they're willing to die on this one, even if the patent exists.
Apple has to deal with patent trolls all the time. Sometimes they even deal with patent trolls on behalf of their developers.
We all know the system is busted; Apple is an old hand at fending off these garbage suits. What's ACTUALLY novel about this one is you know exactly who's suing them--it's not some faceless registered patent holding umbrella corp. with empty offices somewhere in Texas.
I use the XKCD word replacement extension. I've substituted 'cat' for 'car', and additionally, 'a woman named catherine' for 'a cat'. So this is how your comment was eventually translated, and it was amusing enough for me to include that preamble before posting:
"From a Liability perspective you're safer prioritizing overall minimization of loss of life.
From a Sales perspective, who's going to buy a woman named catherine that's programmed to purposefully kill you under certain circumstances?"
It's true either way!
The floppy should have been on its way out already, but Apple had to make the move. Why didn't PC manufacturers? The floppy drive WAS terrible, but people went INSANE when Apple stopped shipping with a floppy drive.
Which goes to show that sometimes good ideas are mainly visible with some time to sit and consider them.
A 3.5mm analogue jack can't do at least a couple things:
- Drive my higher end headphones without running through an amp
- Communicate with the headphones (why? I don't know--Battery levels? Fitness? Noise cancelling?)
Look, it was a good standard. I suspect we'll still be using it here and there for a long time. But it doesn't mean it's perfect or necessary. Apple will ship both with new lightning earbuds and probably an adaptor in the box, and that'll be that. In 5 years, we'll probably wonder what we were all upset about.
Patel's list is terrible. Only one of his points stands up to any scrutiny, which is that it's absurd that Apple may well release a phone with headphones that can't plug into any of its own computers.
Patel's first point, that digital audio out means DRMed music is beyond asinine. The files on your phone are *already digital*. They could be DRMed right now.
Patel's last point--that nobody is asking for this--is probably his worst. Henry Ford said, "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they all would have said a faster horse." The world's progress is all based on things that nobody asked for.
Is this a good move by Apple? I don't know. *Maybe not*. But it's worth the attempt.
I wouldn't worry--I greatly suspect that AKG will make headphones with a lightning connector at some point.
But now part of the problem is that AKG won't just be responsible for the drivers and the fit, but the DAC as well. On the other hand, this all may be a great benefit for high-end headphones. They won't be limited by the puny amount of power that comes out of a 3.5mm jack.
I currently use my iPhone on a dock. It passes audio out through the lightning port when I'm listening at the computer. The two aren't incompatible.
Don't forget the zoning and safety requirements that hotels are forced to meet. There are going to be tonnes of additional costs associated with running a hotel.
I suppose the argument would be that AirBnB solves that problem and disrupts the old, expensive market, but I can't help but feel at least some of those requirements are there to serve some purpose.
Nope, the more you comment, the more I disagree with you.
First of all, buying a property involves risk. You cannot know the market in the future, so putting money into a residence with any expectation that you'll be able to make a profit or even break even on the deal is misguided. If you're doing it as a business decision, that's one thing, but one should never buy a primary residence with the expectation that things will go their way.
Second, there's an opportunity cost to taking all that money and pouring it into a fixed asset that (usually) represents the majority of your net worth. That money could be invested, and over the long term, the markets have been more reliable than the housing market.
Third, owning isn't cheap. I've owned a home and now I rent--owning is far and away more expensive, even in fairly inexpensive areas because the mortgage isn't your only cost. (In Canada, the interest on the mortgage isn't even deductible, and the interest rate you get usually has to be renegotiated every few years--huge differences from the American market.) Taxes and upkeep are always more than anyone gives them credit for. Rental upkeep is effectively zero for the renter.
Finally, you're not throwing money away when you rent, much as that often gets trotted out. You're paying for a service. While a person that buys a home is putting money into a sort of forced savings plan, if you run the numbers, it actually takes a fairly steep and consistent appreciation to beat someone that can take the difference between a rental cost and the price of owning and put that money in investments. (Whether or not renters do this is besides the point; owners don't make perfectly rational decisions either.) In my case, it would be literally impossible for me to own a home with all its associated costs and continue to put my partner through her PhD.
It's worth noting that not all owners of rental properties actually get to charge more than the cost of their mortgage and upkeep because they end up pricing themselves out of the market. In Vancouver, I suspect a lot of rental property owners are bleeding money because keeping up with their costs would mean renting to people who are already rich, and those people have the capacity to buy anyway. And that's where this dovetails into AirBnB--owners are listing properties on AirBnB instead of renting because they can make more money from it and keep up with their mortgage payments. And many people would say that's the market at work, and obviously they should be allowed. The problems are that a) housing is a right, and vacation rentals aren't; and b) the market is inflated far beyond anything that fundamentals could possibly support. Those properties aren't actually worth that much money, and they shouldn't have to play these weird tricks to stay on top of their payments. These high prices and high rents are destroying communities in Vancouver. People can't afford the rents or indeed, many properties are being bought and renovated purely as a store of value, with no intention of ever being lived in. That means local businesses have no traffic, because even though the properties around them are owned, there's nobody in them to buy their stuff. The service industry is being strained because workers have to live way the hell and gone because anything nearby is unaffordable...but why bother getting a crappy service job that doesn't pay much and requires a massive commute rather than the same crummy job but nearer to your exurb?
The problem is far beyond AirBnB at this point, but they're certainly not helping. They're coming around at exactly the wrong time for many cities, and that may prove costly to them in the near future. Cities just can't bear yet another strain on their housing situation, and cutting AirBnB out is much, much easier than most of the other solutions.
I'd rather just get the podcast versions of the shows. Unfortunately, there's too much to listen to. I've got, like, 10 episodes of Ideas in the queue.
That's bullshit, and I hope you came back to read this, because I'd like to point out that you're a bad person and you should feel bad.
1) There are plenty of people with merit that never get seen because our whole culture is structurally racist. We're immersed in it and don't even know it. You can find videos of little black girls explaining that dark skin is ugly and lighter skin is better. Darker black people face discrimination from lighter dark people--some of it is overt, some of it is subtle.
2) Sometimes you have to even a playing field because not everyone's opportunities are the same. This is why we put ramps in front of buildings for people in wheelchairs. On merit, they're the same as me, but they have a particular situation that we need to acknowledge, and so fairness dictates that we treat them slightly differently. That we go out of our way to make sure they're accounted for.
3) For anyone up on stage at an Apple event, they're there based on their position at Apple. For the movies, they're probably actors. There's no reason not to have a bunch of different kinds of people in that sort of promotional video. It doesn't have to do with percentage demographic, literally the thing they're trying to show is that everyone and anyone can use and enjoy their products. It's not just good from a social perspective, it makes a lot of sense from a marketing perspective.
Yeah, but having white actors do the job isn't actually any better. May as well check some boxes while they're at it.
I know this is kind of a weird situation, but diversity matters even when it's this kind of dumb shit.
The average user doesn't know what side-loading is. If you can figure out side-loading, you can figure out how to compile your own binaries in XCode and side-load them. This theoretical person that understands side-loading and wants to use it but can't work out how to download source and compile it is so rare as to be ignorable.
They've introduced a new filesystem, apparently. It just wasn't mentioned in the keynote.
It really is crazy how long HFS+ lasted, though.
They are, those just aren't things that make the keynote. WWDC is a developer's conference, and most of the actual conference is sessions where the devs go to learn things about the OS.
For instance, Apple has introduced a new scalable file system. That wasn't in the keynote, but it's a technical detail that will definitely benefit everyone. But it's not something that anyone other than us nerds are going to care about.
Keep an eye on Ars Technica; I bet they'll have a list of interesting non-keynote things that will fit your bill.
Is there some problem with showcasing a lot of different people?
Like, those people all exist. Those people all have lives and buy things. I'm not sure what your issue is with having them in the commercials or videos or whatever. Is it really that galling to have every white dude and occasional woman replaced with another person that actually lives on this planet?
I can't stress enough that these are actual people and not a made-up fabrication of Apple's imagination. As actual, existing people, they should have every bit as much representation as anyone else. They're all just actors anyway, right?
This is an asinine defense, I'm sorry.
There are limits to even the rights granted by various constitutions around the world. The easiest one to point out is free speech, since it's abrogated by governments all the time, and there is a recognition that there's no ABSOLUTE right to free speech. Uttering threats, libel, inciting violence--those aren't protected speech, despite you having a right to free speech.
The difference with owning guns is that it's WAY too late to just punish someone after they've bought an assault rifle and killed a bunch of people. You can't bring those people back or give them compensation for their lost lives. Indeed, even the 2nd amendment has limits, and that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
There are limits to buying fertiliser if you're on a watch list. I think adding guns to the list of things that should probably require a background check and some additional care while you're on a watch list is hardly onerous.
Being 'agnostic' is a short-hand for being unsure about God, but it's really an orthogonal term that should be used as a modifier on (a)theist.
An agnostic atheist is someone that doesn't believe in God, but can't be sure that one doesn't exist. A gnostic atheist is someone that KNOWS God doesn't exist.
An agnostic theist is someone that believes in God, but can't be sure that God exists. A gnostic theist is a person that KNOWS God exists.
Atheism tends to lean towards agnosticism naturally, since it's impossible to know. Theism tends to lean towards gnosticism naturally, because that's kind of how faith works.
How little goes to the creators? 70% goes to the creators, currently. 85% in the new scheme, after customers have stuck around for a year.
In return, app creators get hosting and payment services. For small developers, that surmounts a massive barrier to entry--trying to negotiate those payment systems on your own is terrible.
I've heard generally good things about this split, and the majority of complaints come from larger companies that might be able to do this stuff effectively on their own, but balk at paying the standard fee to Apple. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for Amazon-Comixology.
It sounds like you have trouble paying for people's work at all. But here's the thing: nobody cares and you won't be missed. You weren't paying ANYWAY.
I have a few apps that I immediately buy when they have to put out a new revision to fund their development. The one that comes to mind most immediately is tweetbot. I always buy the new version because I want them to make more of them and keep up with Twitter's API. That doesn't come for free. I will absolutely pay a subscription to that app to make sure that there's always a new version ready for me.
I also use an RSS reader called Newsify that I really like. They monetize by providing a subscription to a bunch of services that I have absolutely no interest in. I don't pay that subscription fee. But if they have a subscription option--say, $5/year--that I can pay that just makes sure they stick around and make changes to the app, I'll pay that.
I don't know why you have such trouble paying people for their honest hard work for applications that you actually use. The other option is to let them fill the app with ads, and we've seen how well that's been going for the web in general. No thanks.
I re-use passwords all the time. The problem is that people don't know an important password from an unimportant one.
Tumblr? MySpace? Forums? I use irrelevant, weak passwords. There's nothing there that I really care about. Even LinkedIn falls under that rubric--I'm not sure I'd care if someone else were getting that spam instead of me.
Some sites I prize a little more highly. They get a better password, maybe shared, maybe not.
Then there are sites that hold information that I'd rather keep to myself--credit card info, tax info, that sort of thing. They get a very strong password, often generated by my password manager.
Not all sites are created equal, so it's ridiculous to create a strong, unique password for all of them regardless of their actual importance.
The news cycle on /. is so slow sometimes. If you follow Apple news, you were hearing about this a few days ago, and YESTERDAY we already heard from Rene Ritchie claiming that this isn't happening.
So don't expect anything. And for those of you already mad at Apple for a product that hasn't been officially announced and is probably imaginary, calm thine tits. At least be mad at Apple for the stuff they ACTUALLY do, not the made up stuff that hasn't happened.
No, I don't. Mainly because fracking has wildly changed the equation, and is probably the cause of the dip in energy prices.
Because fracking operations were financed on debt, they keep pumping out oil despite the drop in price. As long as they can sell at even a meagre profit, they can finance their debt. Never mind that if they backed off a bit, prices might rebound some when stockpiles dropped--they can't. They don't have that kind of luxury, there are bills to pay.
But regardless, there has always been oil in the world, with or without Canada. The USA is a net oil EXPORTER now. We've never had any control over anything. It's not that we weren't successful, we've just never been a superpower. That word carries with it a lot more power than we've ever had.
Superpowers aren't reliant on external forces to maintain their superpower status--that's why they're superpowers.
The USSR and the USA were military superpowers--they were able to exert influence on an unbelievable scale. They had leverage in the form of nuclear weapons.
At no time did Canada have leverage over ANYTHING, as we can see by how badly our economy was hit when global oil prices dropped. We could not threaten to pull out of production--nobody would've cared. Someone else would've taken up the slack. We couldn't threaten to INCREASE production--that would just be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Superpowers aren't beholden to anyone. It was a stupid thing that was said by a stupid man in an attempt to gain leverage that never existed in an industry that he never controlled.
I think the article and Samsung's legal record speaks for itself, frankly.