[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 38 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

You're leaving out the most import part. Class members are:

Individual persons who are United States residents and who own or owned an Apple iPhone 7 or 7 Plus between September 16, 2016 and January 3, 2023, and reported to Apple in the United States issues reflected in Apple’s records as Sound-Speaker, Sound-Microphone, Sound – Receiver, Unexpected Restart / Shutdown, or Power On – Device Unresponsive

Based on the amount of money allocated for the settlement, the class members represent significantly less than 1% of iPhone 7 owners.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I know that you can’t fire someone just for being a sex offender unless it directly interferes with work duties (in the US)

You can definitely fire someone for being a sex offender in the US. Outside of a few exceptions that probably don't apply in your case, you can also fire someone for being merely an accused sex offender.

You can also fire someone for laughing in a weird way, or wearing a color you don't like, or being born on a Monday when you don't like Mondays.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 35 points 9 months ago

The short version is that a lot of patents were issued in the 90s and early 2000s for "inventions" that actually already existed "but on a computer!" After a lot of legal wrangling the standards got stricter and these never-should-have-been issued patents have been systematically invalidated, though it's a one-at-a-time process. I think Masimo originally claimed infringement of a dozen patents. From memory, it's now down to two patents that have not been entirely invalidated, and I think even those have already been carved down to remove most of the claims. So basically there are two half-patents left to litigate and Apple thinks they can finish those off as well.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 42 points 9 months ago

No surprise here. Apple's position, which I expect they'll likely eventually prevail on, is that none of Masimo's relevant patents are valid and they should have never been issued. Why pay money to license an invalid patent?

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 37 points 10 months ago

This seems like an entirely academic, theoretical technique with literally zero real world risk, and without any path forward to ever turn it into a practical attack.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 35 points 11 months ago

Variety reports that De Niro’s accusations regarding censorship have been denied by “a source close to the film,” who instead claims the incident was a miscommunication. The insider alleges that multiple versions of the speech had been created, and that both Apple and the filmmakers were unaware that De Niro had not approved the final draft. We have reached out to Apple and the Gotham Film & Media Institute to clarify the situation.

I can't rule out a dumb employee trying to make a unilateral change to a speech almost nobody would have known about otherwise, but a miscommunication over multiple drafts certainly strikes me as highly plausible, and I can also understand why the filmmakers would have been encouraging a draft that was more focused on the film than tangential contemporary political issues.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The app is called Messages. The entire point of the article is to discuss iMessages versus SMS so I absolutely do think it’s important to get the distinction right in this case.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 46 points 1 year ago

She's built like a steakhouse, but she handles like a bistro.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s the same reason why Twitter had to agree to the sale to Elon Musk and why they had to force it. It was a terrible move overall but since Elon was buying all outstanding shares and taking it private, the board literally had no legal choice but to take it since he was offering well over market value.

It was put to an actual shareholder vote. The individual shareholders voted yes because he was overpaying. The board was fundamentally irrelevant.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 42 points 1 year ago

Uber was unsustainably underpriced in order to gain market share. Pricing is temporary; the core benefit as a consumer was always the ability to request one from anywhere using an app (where you also paid) and have them come directly to you instead of needing to hail one. Taxi companies added that ability and now everything is better. There's no reason why the approximate cost should vary much, outside of limited promotions. An Uber, a Lyft, and a taxi should cost roughly the same. Why wouldn't they? Perpetual VC-funded pricing wasn't what we were promised; the promise was convenient ordering and stress-free payments.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 42 points 1 year ago

The very simple version is that the newer versions support faster speeds.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago

But in case that wasn’t enough of an iPhone vibe for you, the other big update that comes with this public beta is that you can now put widgets on your desktop. Widgets! ... Now, this is neat. It also strikes me as one of those iOS carryovers that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense on a computer.

Is the writer even aware that Apple first introduced widgets in 1984 as "Desk Accessories"? This isn't an iOS thing that carried over to the Mac; it's a Mac thing that went through a lot of iterations over the years, migrated to iOS, and then came back to the Mac in a form that's almost exactly the same as when they were originally introduced decades ago.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

kirklennon

joined 1 year ago