Except they haven't even been developing all the equipment - they've developed a big ass rocket that might get a capsule into orbit. They haven't developed one bolt of the hardware necessary to deorbit, land safely, and get out of the atmosphere back into orbit.
The problem with your argument: Apple doesn't license their OS to anyone. iPhones are Apple devices, manufactured for Apple by a contracted manufacturer. This is vastly different from an OEM that licenses the software.
Because Apple makes and markets the whole thing either through contract suppliers or in-house development, they don't have contracts with OEMs forcing those OEMs to do anything that is a potential violation of EU antitrust regulations.
The one point you have is about the forced use of the WebKit rendering engine, but because WebKit isn't a monopoly in any browser market (browser market share is measured across platforms), there is no monopoly to abuse. Don't like using WebKit? Apple has a minor market share in smartphones (at least, that's what people around here are always bleating about), so you are free to pick from the other >80% of handsets on the market.
1. Apple does not have a market share significant enough to exert pressure on other markets (e.g. a monopoly) 2. Apple is not using that monopoly they don't have (see #1) to exert pressure on other markets 3. Apple does not have OEMs that they have forced to use other Apple services (see #2) in order to get access to the Apple service with the significant market share that they don't have (again, see #1).
See where I'm going with this? You can't expect anti-trust action against someone that doesn't have a monopoly. Stop being a fandroid and recognize that Google is being a bad actor here, and explicitly running foul of anti-trust regulations in the EU.
And also don't declare me to be some Apple fan - I tossed my iPad in favor of an Nvidia Shield K1 and never looked back.
Well, being that the EU hasn't exactly been very buddy-buddy with Apple already, you think that if they weren't violating some regulation somewhere that they wouldn't go after Apple?
Just because you don't like the iPhone doesn't mean it is in violation of EU laws.
They actually did (incorrectly) include the measurement in the headline - it says "129C degrees" - according to our esteemed Slashdot editors, any water in that city is boiling off right now.
I always thought it was a bit weird to complain about sitting in traffic from SpaceX to LAX - even in horrible traffic it's only like 20 minutes - the two are barely 6 miles apart as the road goes. And if he was to dig some kind of tunnel, he'd have to go right under the stack interchange between the 405 and the 105, as well as a Metro line - I'd have to think that CalTrans might take issue with someone digging underneath the piers of a busy interchange like that...
Well, for one thing, dealerships tend to juice the hell out of people in their service departments. Even at the 'premium' brand.
I had one dealership quote me $800+ dollars to fix something I did in my driveway in 5 minutes with the OEM $70 part. I don't know why they are charging $14,600 an hour for labor and diagnostic time, but clearly they were. This is an example of why I don't want to be locked into "stealership" service.
Sure, if it's something major, or some kind of code update that requires specific equipment and so on, the dealership service department is the way to go, and I'll do that every time. But some kind of chickenshit warranty void because I had the gall to save hundreds of dollars that they are overcharging for a simple interior part R&I? Fuck you.
Kentucky is one of those states - at the Cincinnati airport, there are signs posted at TSA stating that a Kentucky driver license will no longer be valid ID for passing TSA checkpoints in 2018.
If all reaction times are reduced to nanoseconds with far more useful input than your two eyeballs and zero distractions, speed limits can be increased.
You do know that they aren't suspending laws about vehicular homicide and general liability with this, right? They're making a regulatory framework that allows you to have an autonomous vehicle that works properly, that doesn't stop at the state border and tell you it can't drive into Illinois* because Illinois doesn't have laws that allow it to drive you around.
If you never want to see a car that can drive itself, the best thing Congress could do to further your goals is to do nothing. Then we would end up with a patchwork of laws when every single state passes (or doesn't) varying laws making compliance impossible.
The action in Congress doesn't all of a sudden make autonomous cars work right, and it doesn't even define what "working right" is - it just allows the manufacturers to have a chance to succeed in the first place.
You're so used to being adversarial that you've already tagged me as having some skin in this particular game other than being a United States Citizen. Why would I fear "loose-ing" any more than anyone else? And what exactly would I be loose-ing anyway? I'm not up for nomination for the bench. I'm not bringing a case in front of the bench. I can't "loose" any more than the other 320 million Americans out there. So why are you assuming I have some kind of fear?
And where did anyone mention anything about increasing the number of Associate Justices? Sure, that would allow whatever President is currently in office to pack the court, but literally nobody is talking about increasing the number of seats except you.
There was only ever one trial for the one crime. It was just in a Federal court, with a United States Attorney prosecuting, rather than in a county court with a district attorney prosecuting.
Not double jeopardy at all. Nobody was ever prosecuted a second time for the same crime unless a mistrial was declared.
How can he pack the court when there was only one vacancy, which is now filled? I don't see any of the liberal-leaning justices retiring in the next 3.5 years. Best that Trump could hope for, is the untimely death of one of the elder associate justices (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg). However, I would hope that he would have the common sense to not pack the court and instead keep the balance - other than a few decisions, the current balance has served the country quite well.
I never said that there is protection against libel and slander. In fact, there's well known holes carved in protected speech for just those occurrences. However, it's on the accuser to prove the libel or slander, and those charges have very specific meanings.
It's on this litigious company to make the charge. This shit will never see trial - it's going to be dismissed well before it ever gets there.
He doesn't 'get away' with anything - there is no requirement to be neutral. If there was, it would make for some interesting first amendment case law - it's very established that the government cannot censor opinion, but are you suggesting there should be some requirement to compulsory speech that the writers, editors, and on-screen talent don't agree with? And if you present it as an editorial opinion, you get to "get away" without being compelled to do this?
That's complete nonsense.
Usually the punishment for a news organization that isn't neutral, is that they lose half the available audience. However, if there's anything we've learned from the Fox News / Breitbart / MSNBC / Daily Kos set, it's that neutrality really isn't that important, because you can just swerve farther from the middle to recoup any losses.
To reiterate succinctly: there's nothing to get away with, if there are no hard requirements.
Yeah, because techies hate challenging projects that advance the state of the art.
The regulation is part of the challenge. Prove it works on a private closed course. Convince the lawyers. The lawyers convince the politicians. The politicians change the laws and regulations.
All companies named Time Warner are not Time Warner Cable. In fact, Time Warner Cable isn't even Time Warner Cable anymore - it's "Spectrum" after their merger with Charter Communications.
Ridiculous reasoning. Cavemen painted on the walls without having a DMCA in place, copyright protection, or a mega-corporation offering them exclusive perpetual distribution rights contracts.
Culture will happen regardless of whatever nonsense motivations you put behind it. An artist doesn't stop being an artist because people that weren't going to buy the art anyway, in fact, don't buy their art.
Sorry, volume shipments means more, especially when the sell-through rate is very close to the shipments. Just shipping a shit ton of product to a reseller where it sits and rots doesn't count (Apple doesn't do this, but it's a trick used in the past to elevate reported sales numbers - Windows RT surface tablets come to mind here).
My point is that there are several metrics you could use for distinguishing "largest" - market cap is one, but it's not a very good one. Market cap is a multiple of stock price, and stock price is volatile and vulnerable to hype bubbles. It also takes into account the total assets of the corporation, and all business - does the mountain of cash that Apple is sitting on overseas really add anything to how many units they ship? How about real estate? Does that matter? Because it's certainly factored into market cap.
Unit shipments, market penetration, and market share are probably better metrics to use; and as I said before, unless you count phones in with everything else, Apple doesn't come up on top - not even second.
Include iPad all you want - iPad + Mac still doesn't beat Lenovo or HP. In Q2, Apple sold 8.92 million iPads, and 4.11 million Macs. Total of 13.03 million "computers". Note that my cited sources are hardly press that are unfriendly to Apple.
Lenovo sold 12.3 million PCs in around the same time period (and that's with HP taking the #1 spot), plus another 2.1 million tablets - hey, if you include iPad in Apple's numbers, you should also include Lenovo's tablets. That's a total of 14.4 million "computers".
13.03 million < 14.4 million. And Lenovo isn't even #1 in traditional PC sales - HP is with 13.1 million PCs sold - still more than Apple's combined Macs + tablets.
Yeah, I know - Apple makes more money than the other guys. You don't think some of that comes from the iPhone, do you? Or maybe the online services - I hear that iTunes is fairly popular. Or maybe software sales?
When you compare like numbers, Apple just doesn't hold the crown. And you know what? That's perfectly fine - they aren't looking to be #1 in market share, just the same as BMW and Mercedes aren't - selling a high quality product with a healthy margin on it has been Apple's business since the late 90s, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But let's not inflate them to be what they aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
And if Sears went bust? Where would you get goods from then?
Speaking of which, Sears is about to go bust...
They're left in the lurch, of course!
Except they haven't even been developing all the equipment - they've developed a big ass rocket that might get a capsule into orbit. They haven't developed one bolt of the hardware necessary to deorbit, land safely, and get out of the atmosphere back into orbit.
The problem with your argument: Apple doesn't license their OS to anyone. iPhones are Apple devices, manufactured for Apple by a contracted manufacturer. This is vastly different from an OEM that licenses the software.
Because Apple makes and markets the whole thing either through contract suppliers or in-house development, they don't have contracts with OEMs forcing those OEMs to do anything that is a potential violation of EU antitrust regulations.
The one point you have is about the forced use of the WebKit rendering engine, but because WebKit isn't a monopoly in any browser market (browser market share is measured across platforms), there is no monopoly to abuse. Don't like using WebKit? Apple has a minor market share in smartphones (at least, that's what people around here are always bleating about), so you are free to pick from the other >80% of handsets on the market.
Because:
1. Apple does not have a market share significant enough to exert pressure on other markets (e.g. a monopoly)
2. Apple is not using that monopoly they don't have (see #1) to exert pressure on other markets
3. Apple does not have OEMs that they have forced to use other Apple services (see #2) in order to get access to the Apple service with the significant market share that they don't have (again, see #1).
See where I'm going with this? You can't expect anti-trust action against someone that doesn't have a monopoly. Stop being a fandroid and recognize that Google is being a bad actor here, and explicitly running foul of anti-trust regulations in the EU.
And also don't declare me to be some Apple fan - I tossed my iPad in favor of an Nvidia Shield K1 and never looked back.
Well, being that the EU hasn't exactly been very buddy-buddy with Apple already, you think that if they weren't violating some regulation somewhere that they wouldn't go after Apple?
Just because you don't like the iPhone doesn't mean it is in violation of EU laws.
They actually did (incorrectly) include the measurement in the headline - it says "129C degrees" - according to our esteemed Slashdot editors, any water in that city is boiling off right now.
Now that's climate change!
I always thought it was a bit weird to complain about sitting in traffic from SpaceX to LAX - even in horrible traffic it's only like 20 minutes - the two are barely 6 miles apart as the road goes. And if he was to dig some kind of tunnel, he'd have to go right under the stack interchange between the 405 and the 105, as well as a Metro line - I'd have to think that CalTrans might take issue with someone digging underneath the piers of a busy interchange like that...
You still have to do them. Laws don't bend to logic.
Well, for one thing, dealerships tend to juice the hell out of people in their service departments. Even at the 'premium' brand.
I had one dealership quote me $800+ dollars to fix something I did in my driveway in 5 minutes with the OEM $70 part. I don't know why they are charging $14,600 an hour for labor and diagnostic time, but clearly they were. This is an example of why I don't want to be locked into "stealership" service.
Sure, if it's something major, or some kind of code update that requires specific equipment and so on, the dealership service department is the way to go, and I'll do that every time. But some kind of chickenshit warranty void because I had the gall to save hundreds of dollars that they are overcharging for a simple interior part R&I? Fuck you.
Kentucky is one of those states - at the Cincinnati airport, there are signs posted at TSA stating that a Kentucky driver license will no longer be valid ID for passing TSA checkpoints in 2018.
That should get interesting in about 6 months...
If all reaction times are reduced to nanoseconds with far more useful input than your two eyeballs and zero distractions, speed limits can be increased.
You do know that they aren't suspending laws about vehicular homicide and general liability with this, right? They're making a regulatory framework that allows you to have an autonomous vehicle that works properly, that doesn't stop at the state border and tell you it can't drive into Illinois* because Illinois doesn't have laws that allow it to drive you around.
If you never want to see a car that can drive itself, the best thing Congress could do to further your goals is to do nothing. Then we would end up with a patchwork of laws when every single state passes (or doesn't) varying laws making compliance impossible.
The action in Congress doesn't all of a sudden make autonomous cars work right, and it doesn't even define what "working right" is - it just allows the manufacturers to have a chance to succeed in the first place.
You're so used to being adversarial that you've already tagged me as having some skin in this particular game other than being a United States Citizen. Why would I fear "loose-ing" any more than anyone else? And what exactly would I be loose-ing anyway? I'm not up for nomination for the bench. I'm not bringing a case in front of the bench. I can't "loose" any more than the other 320 million Americans out there. So why are you assuming I have some kind of fear?
And where did anyone mention anything about increasing the number of Associate Justices? Sure, that would allow whatever President is currently in office to pack the court, but literally nobody is talking about increasing the number of seats except you.
There was only ever one trial for the one crime. It was just in a Federal court, with a United States Attorney prosecuting, rather than in a county court with a district attorney prosecuting.
Not double jeopardy at all. Nobody was ever prosecuted a second time for the same crime unless a mistrial was declared.
How can he pack the court when there was only one vacancy, which is now filled? I don't see any of the liberal-leaning justices retiring in the next 3.5 years. Best that Trump could hope for, is the untimely death of one of the elder associate justices (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg). However, I would hope that he would have the common sense to not pack the court and instead keep the balance - other than a few decisions, the current balance has served the country quite well.
You do know that you don't need to be a millionaire to buy an $80,000 vehicle, right?
More over, you know that Tesla is only a week or three away from launching the Model 3, which costs roughly half that, right?
I never said that there is protection against libel and slander. In fact, there's well known holes carved in protected speech for just those occurrences. However, it's on the accuser to prove the libel or slander, and those charges have very specific meanings.
It's on this litigious company to make the charge. This shit will never see trial - it's going to be dismissed well before it ever gets there.
He doesn't 'get away' with anything - there is no requirement to be neutral. If there was, it would make for some interesting first amendment case law - it's very established that the government cannot censor opinion, but are you suggesting there should be some requirement to compulsory speech that the writers, editors, and on-screen talent don't agree with? And if you present it as an editorial opinion, you get to "get away" without being compelled to do this?
That's complete nonsense.
Usually the punishment for a news organization that isn't neutral, is that they lose half the available audience. However, if there's anything we've learned from the Fox News / Breitbart / MSNBC / Daily Kos set, it's that neutrality really isn't that important, because you can just swerve farther from the middle to recoup any losses.
To reiterate succinctly: there's nothing to get away with, if there are no hard requirements.
Yeah, because techies hate challenging projects that advance the state of the art.
The regulation is part of the challenge. Prove it works on a private closed course. Convince the lawyers. The lawyers convince the politicians. The politicians change the laws and regulations.
But it all starts with making it work.
All companies named Time Warner are not Time Warner Cable. In fact, Time Warner Cable isn't even Time Warner Cable anymore - it's "Spectrum" after their merger with Charter Communications.
Ridiculous reasoning. Cavemen painted on the walls without having a DMCA in place, copyright protection, or a mega-corporation offering them exclusive perpetual distribution rights contracts.
Culture will happen regardless of whatever nonsense motivations you put behind it. An artist doesn't stop being an artist because people that weren't going to buy the art anyway, in fact, don't buy their art.
Horrible troll. 0/10.
Go back to Reddit. You aren't wanted here.
I work with Apple stuff every day, but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of decisions they make. I never liked the taste of Kool-aid.
Sorry, volume shipments means more, especially when the sell-through rate is very close to the shipments. Just shipping a shit ton of product to a reseller where it sits and rots doesn't count (Apple doesn't do this, but it's a trick used in the past to elevate reported sales numbers - Windows RT surface tablets come to mind here).
My point is that there are several metrics you could use for distinguishing "largest" - market cap is one, but it's not a very good one. Market cap is a multiple of stock price, and stock price is volatile and vulnerable to hype bubbles. It also takes into account the total assets of the corporation, and all business - does the mountain of cash that Apple is sitting on overseas really add anything to how many units they ship? How about real estate? Does that matter? Because it's certainly factored into market cap.
Unit shipments, market penetration, and market share are probably better metrics to use; and as I said before, unless you count phones in with everything else, Apple doesn't come up on top - not even second.
Include iPad all you want - iPad + Mac still doesn't beat Lenovo or HP. In Q2, Apple sold 8.92 million iPads, and 4.11 million Macs. Total of 13.03 million "computers". Note that my cited sources are hardly press that are unfriendly to Apple.
Lenovo sold 12.3 million PCs in around the same time period (and that's with HP taking the #1 spot), plus another 2.1 million tablets - hey, if you include iPad in Apple's numbers, you should also include Lenovo's tablets. That's a total of 14.4 million "computers".
13.03 million < 14.4 million. And Lenovo isn't even #1 in traditional PC sales - HP is with 13.1 million PCs sold - still more than Apple's combined Macs + tablets.
Yeah, I know - Apple makes more money than the other guys. You don't think some of that comes from the iPhone, do you? Or maybe the online services - I hear that iTunes is fairly popular. Or maybe software sales?
When you compare like numbers, Apple just doesn't hold the crown. And you know what? That's perfectly fine - they aren't looking to be #1 in market share, just the same as BMW and Mercedes aren't - selling a high quality product with a healthy margin on it has been Apple's business since the late 90s, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But let's not inflate them to be what they aren't.