Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:"All your accounts are belong to us." (Score 1) 26

My assumption here, and I know what they say about assumptions, but I'm assuming this is about making sure they can collect fees on those apps that are sold in other parts of the world where they've been forced to allow apps loaded from outside the app store.

And that is the assumption you made. The article specifically mentions "affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries” accounts. The way I read it, if you owe Apple money, Apple is not asking Epic Game Store for the money. If you have multiple accounts, Apple is not limiting withdrawing from the main account. Banks have done this where overdrafts on checking gets pulled from savings or other accounts. I would assume if the amount owed exceeds money in all accounts, then Apple would use a third party debt collector.

Comment Re:"All your accounts are belong to us." (Score 1) 26

So, this is Apple saying that they can arbitrarily make up a number that they believe is a developer's income from an app, then charge them fees based on that vapor-based number, rather than charging based on actual revenue generated?

Where in the world did you read that Apple "can arbitrarily make up a number"? The article says that IF a developer owes Apple money, Apple can pull the funds not from the developer's primary account but other accounts the developer might have. For example if a developer has a separate account for two apps and one of them is in the red, Apple can withdraw money from the other account.

Comment A very loose interpretation of "debt collector" (Score 0) 26

If I read the article correctly, Apple will go after debt that a developer owes them by withdrawing from other accounts that developer might have. If the developer has "affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries" accounts, then Apple will get the money from them. How is that a debt collector again which is normally someone recovering debts for a third party?

Comment Re:Depressingly inevitable (Score 2) 146

The idea that one country can develop a technology that no other can, is as flawed as it is arrogant. And by refusing to sell advanced technology, the reasons to produce domestic alternatives get stepped up a gear - or several. Once you accept that a competitor or adversary has both the ability and the will to create technologies domestically, that they would be prohibited from purchasing, you have to accept that the originator has lost control. What is worse is the possibility that they might just make a better version than you have.

And no one said any of that. In the world today, the current EUV machines are made by one company in the world. It is ASML in the Netherlands. The US nor Japan produces them, and both countries have a long history with making lithography machines. The problem was the cost of R&D and the specific strategies to make EUV was successful only for one company. Making EUV machines is not an easy task that someone can do in their garage this weekend.

Can China copy everything ASML did? Sure. The issue is that it will take them a while to do so as part of the difficulty with EUV is that only very specific companies make the parts as EUV is on the cutting edge of technology. And as long as China is willing to spend huge amounts of money so that their machines are never profitable, they can do that.

Comment Re:That was fast (Score 2) 146

The issue is you have taken China's word they have actually accomplished what they said they did. Personally, I don't believe them until I have seen it. For example, China proclaimed a breakthrough when SMIC made the Kirin 9000 processor for the Huawei Mate 60 Pro in 2023. The chip was a 7nm chip which all the "naysayers" said China could never manufacture. Except it was made using DUV not EUV. No one ever said 7nm was not possible using DUV. The main reason EUV was used was the smaller size meant low yields as not to be profitable and practical if DUV was used.

So the claim that China has made 7nm chips was technically true.

Comment Re:Call me when... (Score 2) 42

It was probably minimally profitable even with the Xbox 360 hardware issues. Still Xbox was a small part of MS so there was not a lot of profit pressure on them. Then MS started acquiring major developers. Activision Blizzard was a $69B purchase alone. Now MS has more profit expectations of Xbox.

Comment Re:Call me when... (Score 1) 42

Except many actions of MS says otherwise. For example, MS and Asus just released their new gaming handheld Asus ROG Xbox Ally X. It does not play Xbox games. It plays PC games. MS has been telling the consumer that ”Everything is an Xbox" from smart phones to PCs.

Comment History repeating itself: Google Glass (Score 2) 154

Didn't all of these problems come up with Google Glass over ten years ago? In fact the term "Google Glasshole" was coined for people using Google Glass to record people who didn't want to be recorded. While it is legal to film in public, they did not seem to understand why people did not like it. This user seems to fit that mold.

Comment Re:Was it a Russian drone? (Score 4, Insightful) 145

Ukraine has more reason to attack it and blame Russia

That's like the situation where one of my neighbor's dogs pooped on my lawn. Which neighbor was it? Was it the one that I see conscientiously pick up their dog's poop every time on their walks. Or the neighbor that lets their dog roam around the neighborhood with no leash? Your argument would be the conscientious one did it to frame the other neighbor. Because . . .sympathy and support? I do not believe Europe needs any more justification for sympathy and support for Ukraine.

But of course it might be possible for a russian drone on its way to Kyiv to be misguided and hit the dome by accident.

Consider Russia indiscriminately attacks civilian targets, I would bet Russia hitting it by accident or on purpose. It is hard to know at this point.

Comment Re:Is margin arbitrarily larger than production co (Score 1) 45

No what that means is higher production costs do not necessarily map 1:1 to higher price in the end product in every instance. Sometimes the cost is eaten by the manufacturer in terms of profit. Sometimes the manufacturer can change the product to offset the increased cost. For example, cheaper materials, cheaper labor, etc. Now I am not saying they are good changes but that would be one way higher production cost is not passed onto the consumer directly in terms of price.

Comment Chip prices could also go up (Score 1) 45

While the article focuses specifically on memory prices, the AI boom could also cause PC CPU and GPU prices to go up which affects everyone. Currently fabrication at TSMC and Samsung are limited with companies like NVidia and AMD booking orders years in advance. To chase profits, NVidia and AMD will shift more of their orders to AI chips if they haven't already done so. That means fewer consumer CPUs and GPUs and thus higher prices for consumers as there may be shortages.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.

Working...