NotTheFirstDaniel

I'm still trying to figure out how Apple is a monopoly, in the form of the word that would force them to be regulated (51% doesn't equal monopoly). As far as we know, Apple doesn't do anything to disrupt sales of competing phones. The average Joe has an equal chance at picking an Android Phone, an iPhone, or any other phone that was available. What would make Apple an abusive monopoly would be if they had back alley talks with the likes of Verizon and T-Mobile, for instance, that meant paying them billions of dollars to favor iPhones over competitors. But Apple isn't abusing their market power to prevent competitors from competing with them. If someone chooses an iPhone over an Android phone, that's their own choice, and they assume all the positives and negatives of the platform and vice versa.  There are no roadblocks placed by the other platform to make it harder to pick.
 
And yes, in my eyes, Microsoft was different. In the 90s, with Wintel, good luck finding a system off the shelf that didn't have Windows or an Intel CPU. Microsoft and Intel colluded in a way that Apple in the modern day hasn't, especially since Apple keeps to themselves and doesn't allow their OS to run on other devices. That's the big difference, in my opinion, between Microsoft in the 90s and Apple today. In the 90s, Microsoft worked with Intel to make sure that if you bought a computer, you would have to pick between an Intel box running Microsoft Windows and an Intel box running Microsoft Windows. This broke down all the way to OEM incentives to keep Intel and Windows standard. One OEM Linux box and all the incentives were gone. Apple isn't doing that, and so isn't Google. You have the freedom to pick between any phone, and the OEMs have the freedom to not use Android if they so choose. You're not in a situation where Apple is paying OEMs to keep iOS on their phones. 
 
I also don't get the term "Apple has a monopoly over the App Store". It's like saying "Amazon has a monopoly over the Amazon Web Store" or "Walmart has a monopoly over Walmart Retail". It's completely redundant. Of course Apple has a monopoly over the App Store, they built the platform, iOS, and decided, before any of this was that profitable and was guaranteed to work, that the App Store would be the only method of getting apps on the iPhone. That was iOS's shtick. That if you went with the iPhone, you would be giving up a great deal of control for a curated experience, and that if you went with Android, you would be given the keys to almost every door in the OS, but that you assumed the risks of this freedom as well. This is part of the reason Apple is in this market position. They didn't grow this big and then decide to lock everything down. Part of the reason they grew this big is because they locked everything down.
 
And also, at the end of the day, you do not own the software and the code of iOS. That's why my opinions on a matter such as this and right-to-repair are different. You own the physical hardware of the device, and so you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to it. Since you are only licensing iOS, you are beholden to Apple's rules, which is why, in my opinion. Apple should be forced to open the UEFI of iDevices to allow 3rd party operating systems. You own the chip and the embedded read only firmware that's on it. You should have the ability to deny Apple's TOS and use another operating system. But that's not the argument for today...
 
My [realistic] opinions on this are that Apple doesn't have to open iOS to sideloading or 3rd party app stores, and that they have the right to charge a flat fee on all commissions made via the App Store (e.g downloading an app or starting a subscription via the App Store), whether that be a 10% cut or a 30% cut. But, Apple isn't responsible for the purchases made after the fact. If I'm buying an In App Purchase, I'm buying it because of the developer of the app, not because of Apple. Apple, in my opinion, should not be the only option in purchasing IAPs. I feel like Apple should offer their service, but it should neither be mandatory nor the only provider allowed. If an app developer chooses to add "Pay with Apple" or whatever they would call it, Apple should charge a fee in line with other payment providers, so ~3%, since they are helping the App developer make a sale, but the consumer would have the choice not to use it. I feel like that's the best compromise between both sides, even though it could make the hellhole of Freemium games get even worse.
 
But my judgment may just be clouded due to the motives of the plaintiff. The judge could've ruled that Apple would've been forced to allow 3rd Party IAPs and to reinstate Epic's dev account, but this wouldn't have been a "win for developers and consumers" unless Epic was allowed to put their 3rd Party store on iOS, something that most developer's have no want or care for. It's one thing if this suit was Developers v. Apple, but it's Epic V. Apple, and I don't think that a private company such as Epic has the right to weasel it's way into putting a 3rd party storefront on someone else's platform, especially since Epic did none of the work building the platform in the first place.

I'm still trying to figure out how Apple is a monopoly, in the form of the word that would force them to be regulated (51% doesn't equal monopoly). As far as we know, Apple doesn't do anything to disrupt sales of competing phones. The average Joe has an equal chance at picking an Android Phone, an iPhone, or any other phone that was available. What would make Apple an abusive monopoly would be if they had back alley talks with the likes of Verizon and T-Mobile, for instance, that meant paying them billions of dollars to favor iPhones over competitors. But Apple isn't abusing their market power to prevent competitors from competing with them. If someone chooses an iPhone over an Android phone, that's their own choice, and they assume all the positives and negatives of the platform and vice versa.  There are no roadblocks placed by the other platform to make it harder to pick.
 
And yes, in my eyes, Microsoft was different. In the 90s, with Wintel, good luck finding a system off the shelf that didn't have Windows or an Intel CPU. Microsoft and Intel colluded in a way that Apple in the modern day hasn't, especially since Apple keeps to themselves and doesn't allow their OS to run on other devices. That's the big difference, in my opinion, between Microsoft in the 90s and Apple today. In the 90s, Microsoft worked with Intel to make sure that if you bought a computer, you would have to pick between an Intel box running Microsoft Windows and an Intel box running Microsoft Windows. This broke down all the way to OEM incentives to keep Intel and Windows standard. One OEM Linux box and all the incentives were gone. Apple isn't doing that, and so isn't Google. You have the freedom to pick between any phone, and the OEMs have the freedom to not use Android if they so choose. You're not in a situation where Apple is paying OEMs to keep iOS on their phones. 
 
I also don't get the term "Apple has a monopoly over the App Store". It's like saying "Amazon has a monopoly over the Amazon Web Store" or "Walmart has a monopoly over Walmart Retail". It's completely redundant. Of course Apple has a monopoly over the App Store, they built the platform, iOS, and decided, before any of this was that profitable and was guaranteed to work, that the App Store would be the only method of getting apps on the iPhone. That was iOS's shtick. That if you went with the iPhone, you would be giving up a great deal of control for a curated experience, and that if you went with Android, you would be given the keys to almost every door in the OS, but that you assumed the risks of this freedom as well. This is part of the reason Apple is in this market position. They didn't grow this big and then decide to lock everything down. Part of the reason they grew this big is because they locked everything down.
 
And also, at the end of the day, you do not own the software and the code of iOS. That's why my opinions on a matter such as this and right-to-repair are different. You own the physical hardware of the device, and so you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to it. Since you are only licensing iOS, you are beholden to Apple's rules, which is why, in my opinion. Apple should be forced to open the UEFI of iDevices to allow 3rd party operating systems. You own the chip and the embedded read only firmware that's on it. You should have the ability to deny Apple's TOS and use another operating system. But that's not the argument for today...
 
My [realistic] opinions on this are that Apple doesn't have to open iOS to sideloading or 3rd party app stores, and that they have the right to charge a flat fee on all commissions made via the App Store (e.g downloading an app or starting a subscription via the App Store), whether that be a 10% cut or a 30% cut. But, Apple isn't responsible for the purchases made after the fact. If I'm buying an In App Purchase, I'm buying it because of the developer of the app, not because of Apple. Apple, in my opinion, should not be the only option in purchasing IAPs. I feel like Apple should offer their service, but it should neither be mandatory nor the only provider allowed. If an app developer chooses to add "Pay with Apple" or whatever they would call it, Apple should charge a fee in line with other payment providers, so ~3%, since they are helping the App developer make a sale, but the consumer would have the choice not to use it. I feel like that's the best compromise between both sides, even though it could make the hellhole of Freemium games get even worse.
 
But my judgment may just be clouded due to the motives of the plaintiff. The judge could've ruled that Apple would've been forced to allow 3rd Party IAPs and to reinstate Epic's dev account, but this wouldn't have been a "win for developers and consumers" unless Epic was allowed to put their 3rd Party store on iOS, something that most developer's have no want or care for. It's one thing if this suit was Developers v. Apple, but it's Epic V. Apple, and I don't think that a private company such as Epic has the right to weasel it's way into putting a 3rd party storefront on someone else's platform, especially since Epic did none of the work building the platform in the first place.

I'm still trying to figure out how Apple is a monopoly, in the form of the word that would force them to be regulated (51% doesn't equal monopoly). As far as we know, Apple doesn't do anything to disrupt sales of competing phones. The average Joe has an equal chance at picking an Android Phone, an iPhone, or any other phone that was available. What would make Apple an abusive monopoly would be if they had back alley talks with the likes of Verizon and T-Mobile, for instance, that meant paying them billions of dollars to favor iPhones over competitors. But Apple isn't abusing their market power to prevent competitors from competing with them. If someone chooses an iPhone over an Android phone, that's their own choice, and they assume all the positives and negatives of the platform and vice versa.  There are no roadblocks placed by the other platform to make it harder to pick.
 
And yes, in my eyes, Microsoft was different. In the 90s, with Wintel, good luck finding a system off the shelf that didn't have Windows or an Intel CPU. Microsoft and Intel colluded in a way that Apple in the modern day hasn't, especially since Apple keeps to themselves and doesn't allow their OS to run on other devices. That's the big difference, in my opinion, between Microsoft in the 90s and Apple today. In the 90s, Microsoft worked with Intel to make sure that if you bought a computer, you would have to pick between an Intel box running Microsoft Windows and an Intel box running Microsoft Windows. This broke down all the way to OEM incentives to keep Intel and Windows standard. One OEM Linux box and all the incentives were gone. Apple isn't doing that, and so isn't Google. You have the freedom to pick between any phone, and the OEMs have the freedom to not use Android if they so choose. You're not in a situation where Apple is paying OEMs to keep iOS on their phones. 
 
I also don't get the term "Apple has a monopoly over the App Store". It's like saying "Amazon has a monopoly over the Amazon Web Store" or "Walmart has a monopoly over Walmart Retail". It's completely redundant. Of course Apple has a monopoly over the App Store, they built the platform, iOS, and decided, before any of this was that profitable and was guaranteed to work, that the App Store would be the only method of getting apps on the iPhone. That was iOS's shtick. That if you went with the iPhone, you would be giving up a great deal of control for a curated experience, and that if you went with Android, you would be given the keys to almost every door in the OS, but that you assumed the risks of this freedom as well. This is part of the reason Apple is in this market position. They didn't grow this big and then decide to lock everything down. Part of the reason they grew this big is because they locked everything down.
 
And also, at the end of the day, you do not own the software and the code of iOS. That's why my opinions on a matter such as this and right-to-repair are different. You own the physical hardware of the device, and so you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to it. Since you are only licensing iOS, you are beholden to Apple's rules, which is why, in my opinion. Apple should be forced to open the UEFI of iDevices to allow 3rd party operating systems. You own the chip and the embedded read only firmware that's on it. You should have the ability to deny Apple's TOS and use another operating system. But that's not the argument for today...
 
My [realistic] opinions on this are that Apple doesn't have to open iOS to sideloading or 3rd party app stores, and that they have the right to charge a flat fee on all commissions made via the App Store (e.g downloading an app or starting a subscription via the App Store), whether that be a 10% cut or a 30% cut. But, Apple isn't responsible for the purchases made after the fact. If I'm buying an In App Purchase, I'm buying it because of the developer of the app, not because of Apple. Apple, in my opinion, should not be the only option in purchasing IAPs. I feel like Apple should offer their service, but it should neither be mandatory nor the only provider allowed. If an app developer chooses to add "Pay with Apple" or whatever they would call it, Apple should charge a fee in line with other payment providers, so ~3%, since they are helping the App developer make a sale, but the consumer would have the choice not to use it. I feel like that's the best compromise between both sides, even though it could make the hellhole of Freemium games get even worse.
 
But my judgment may just be clouded due to the motives of the plaintiff. The judge could've ruled that Apple would've been forced to allow 3rd Party IAPs and to reinstate Epic's dev account, but this wouldn't have been a "win for developers and consumers" unless Epic was allowed to put their 3rd Party store on iOS, something that most developer's have no want or care for. It's one thing if this suit was Developers v. Apple, but it's Epic V. Apple, and I don't think that a private company such as Epic has the right to weasel it's way into putting a 3rd party storefront on someone else's platform, especially since Epic did none of the work building the platform in the first place.

I'm still trying to figure out how Apple is a monopoly, in the form of the word that would force them to be regulated (51% doesn't equal monopoly). As far as we know, Apple doesn't do anything to disrupt sales of competing phones. The average Joe has an equal chance at picking an Android Phone, an iPhone, or any other phone that was available. What would make Apple an abusive monopoly would be if they had back alley talks with the likes of Verizon and T-Mobile, for instance, that meant paying them billions of dollars to favor iPhones over competitors. But Apple isn't abusing their market power to prevent competitors from competing with them. If someone chooses an iPhone over an Android phone, that's their own choice, and they assume all the positives and negatives of the platform and vice versa.  There are no roadblocks placed by the other platform to make it harder to pick.
 
And yes, in my eyes, Microsoft was different. In the 90s, with Wintel, good luck finding a system off the shelf that didn't have Windows or an Intel CPU. Microsoft and Intel colluded in a way that Apple in the modern day hasn't, especially since Apple keeps to themselves and doesn't allow their OS to run on other devices. That's the big difference, in my opinion, between Microsoft in the 90s and Apple today. In the 90s, Microsoft worked with Intel to make sure that if you bought a computer, you would have to pick between an Intel box running Microsoft Windows and an Intel box running Microsoft Windows. This broke down all the way to OEM incentives to keep Intel and Windows standard. One OEM Linux box and all the incentives were gone. Apple isn't doing that, and so isn't Google. You have the freedom to pick between any phone, and the OEMs have the freedom to not use Android if they so choose. You're not in a situation where Apple is paying OEMs to keep iOS on their phones. 
 
I also don't get the term "Apple has a monopoly over the App Store". It's like saying "Amazon has a monopoly over the Amazon Web Store" or "Walmart has a monopoly over Walmart Retail". It's completely redundant. Of course Apple has a monopoly over the App Store, they built the platform, iOS, and decided, before any of this was that profitable and was guaranteed to work, that the App Store would be the only method of getting apps on the iPhone. That was iOS's shtick. That if you went with the iPhone, you would be giving up a great deal of control for a curated experience, and that if you went with Android, you would be given the keys to almost every door in the OS, but that you assumed the risks of this freedom as well. This is part of the reason Apple is in this market position. They didn't grow this big and then decide to lock everything down. Part of the reason they grew this big is because they locked everything down.
 
And also, at the end of the day, you do not own the software and the code of iOS. That's why my opinions on a matter such as this and right-to-repair are different. You own the physical hardware of the device, and so you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to it. Since you are only licensing iOS, you are beholden to Apple's rules, which is why, in my opinion. Apple should be forced to open the UEFI of iDevices to allow 3rd party operating systems. You own the chip and the embedded read only firmware that's on it. You should have the ability to deny Apple's TOS and use another operating system. But that's not the argument for today...
 
My [realistic] opinions on this are that Apple doesn't have to open iOS to sideloading or 3rd party app stores, and that they have the right to charge a flat fee on all commissions made via the App Store (e.g downloading an app or starting a subscription via the App Store), whether that be a 10% cut or a 30% cut. But, Apple isn't responsible for the purchases made after the fact. If I'm buying an In App Purchase, I'm buying it because of the developer of the app, not because of Apple. Apple, in my opinion, should not be the only option in purchasing IAPs. I feel like Apple should offer their service, but it should neither be mandatory nor the only provider allowed. If an app developer chooses to add "Pay with Apple" or whatever they would call it, Apple should charge a fee in line with other payment providers, so ~3%, since they are helping the App developer make a sale, but the consumer would have the choice not to use it. I feel like that's the best compromise between both sides, even though it could make the hellhole of Freemium games get even worse.
 
But my judgment may just be clouded due to the motives of the plaintiff. The judge could've ruled that Apple would've been forced to allow 3rd Party IAPs and to reinstate Epic's dev account, but this wouldn't have been a "win for developers and consumers" unless Epic was allowed to put their 3rd Party store on iOS, something that most developer's have no want or care for. It's one thing if this suit was Developers v. Apple, but it's Epic V. Apple, and I don't think that a private company such as Epic has the right to weasel it's way into putting a 3rd party storefront on someone else's platform, especially since Epic did none of the work building the platform in the first place.

Ah yes, legal proceedings against a company and individuals for sexual assault that even resulted in someone taking their own life is such a "woke" thing to be upset about right? We should just ignore things "in the past" and "move on" and not worry about bringing justice because "woke people" will win right?

Unless the summary doesn't cover it, it doesn't look like the Chinese government itself is asking/requiring the use of facial recognition to track children playing games. They could be, I wouldn't put it past them, they've done similar stuff in the past, but at least the way the summary is worded, it looks like Tencent is going above and beyond what is required.
 
They could've just done an age check, or even ask for ID. I mean at the point where you're tracking with facial recognition, you could pretty much ask for anything and have it be less severe.
 
I'm not going to talk about how badly this can go (One of the best implementations/versions of facial recognition on consumer hardware is Face ID, and that barely recognizes me based off of a reference. Imagine being labeled a child because you're matched with what the software engineer thinks is a child), or the moral implications of this system, they speak for themselves. I'm just wondering why children are being "forced" to play games within a certain period of time by legislation. That's the responsibility of the parent, not a government. If a parent can't parent correctly and lets their 8 year old child play video games until 3 in the morning, that's the parent's fault...

Summary
In a video directed towards Louis Rossmann, Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple, spells out his grievances against Apple specifically about their stance against Right to Repair. Wozniak, a subscriber of Rossmann's, recalls Apple's success in the early days with the Apple II, claiming that Apple wouldn't be as successful as it is today without the openness of the Apple II and it's architecture. Back in the day, Wozniak would go as far as to include a schematic in the box of every Apple II. 
 
He ends the video with the statement "Is it your computer, or is it some company's computer? It's time to start doing the right things."
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
I don't know if this belongs in general discussion or if this belongs in tech news. If a mod wants to move it to general discussion, I'll completely understand, but I thought that since this is tech, and technically "news" (A person like this supporting right to repair in the way he called out Apple should be news), I'd post it here.
 
First of all, the irony. It's just funny how the co-founder of Apple is calling out Apple decades later for not respecting the repair industry. But Woz has always been a quaint man in my opinion. He never saw dollar signs, he saw fun and joy out of his products. That's what, in my opinion, makes him so wholesome. Someone who actually cares about the industry, and isn't in it for the money, fame, or power.
 
Hopefully this, including with the awaiting directive from the POTUS, puts the Right to Repair movement in the mainstream, enough for people to donate to the cause, and enough to make it a direct ballot initiative. That's what we want. That's the fastest and easiest way to pass something as big as a Right to Repair Act. With big names like the POTUS and the literal inventor of one of the most successful computer lines ever being in support of Right to Repair, maybe millionaire donors will donate to the cause, because from what I hear, direct ballot initiatives cost a lot of money especially when you are dealing with the biggest names in technology, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, who can afford to spend billions lobbying against it.
 
Sources
Steve Wozniak Supports the Right to Repair Movement (gizmodo.com)
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak is a right to repair advocate | AppleInsider
 

Why the hell are people MORE worried about the fact Audacity is collecting data such as User country (could possibly inform decisions on language localization), non-fatal error codes (you know, to make stuff easier for people who don't know how to correct/bypass them if they pop up a lot), User OS and Version (right because if 0.1% of people are using Audacity on Windows Vista, why the hell should any budget be reallocated to supporting it) and processor in use (because who knows there could be a trend where a specific error/bug is present in X or Y processor/processor architecture. If the M1 version of Audacity has an error the Intel one doesn't, then wouldn't it be great to know the difference was the processor) than how apps like Facebook and Instagram are quite literally creating a digital fingerprint on you? This shouldn't be taking up any space in the privacy argument since not only is it completely optional, its disabled by default!
 
The outrage is due to the word "Russia". Had Audacity been collecting this data and storing it in the US/Canada or somewhere in the European Union, there wouldn't be any outrage.
An entire fork of a project to remove like what, 5 lines of code that were disabled by default in the first place? Is there a bigger example of being overdramatic?

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

Summary
In a video directed towards Louis Rossmann, Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple, spells out his grievances against Apple specifically about their stance against Right to Repair. Wozniak, a subscriber of Rossmann's, recalls Apple's success in the early days with the Apple II, claiming that Apple wouldn't be as successful as it is today without the openness of the Apple II and it's architecture. Back in the day, Wozniak would go as far as to include a schematic in the box of every Apple II. 
 
He ends the video with the statement "Is it your computer, or is it some company's computer? It's time to start doing the right things."
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
I don't know if this belongs in general discussion or if this belongs in tech news. If a mod wants to move it to general discussion, I'll completely understand, but I thought that since this is tech, and technically "news" (A person like this supporting right to repair in the way he called out Apple should be news), I'd post it here.
 
First of all, the irony. It's just funny how the co-founder of Apple is calling out Apple decades later for not respecting the repair industry. But Woz has always been a quaint man in my opinion. He never saw dollar signs, he saw fun and joy out of his products. That's what, in my opinion, makes him so wholesome. Someone who actually cares about the industry, and isn't in it for the money, fame, or power.
 
Hopefully this, including with the awaiting directive from the POTUS, puts the Right to Repair movement in the mainstream, enough for people to donate to the cause, and enough to make it a direct ballot initiative. That's what we want. That's the fastest and easiest way to pass something as big as a Right to Repair Act. With big names like the POTUS and the literal inventor of one of the most successful computer lines ever being in support of Right to Repair, maybe millionaire donors will donate to the cause, because from what I hear, direct ballot initiatives cost a lot of money especially when you are dealing with the biggest names in technology, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, who can afford to spend billions lobbying against it.
 
Sources
Steve Wozniak Supports the Right to Repair Movement (gizmodo.com)
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak is a right to repair advocate | AppleInsider
 

Summary
In a video directed towards Louis Rossmann, Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple, spells out his grievances against Apple specifically about their stance against Right to Repair. Wozniak, a subscriber of Rossmann's, recalls Apple's success in the early days with the Apple II, claiming that Apple wouldn't be as successful as it is today without the openness of the Apple II and it's architecture. Back in the day, Wozniak would go as far as to include a schematic in the box of every Apple II. 
 
He ends the video with the statement "Is it your computer, or is it some company's computer? It's time to start doing the right things."
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
I don't know if this belongs in general discussion or if this belongs in tech news. If a mod wants to move it to general discussion, I'll completely understand, but I thought that since this is tech, and technically "news" (A person like this supporting right to repair in the way he called out Apple should be news), I'd post it here.
 
First of all, the irony. It's just funny how the co-founder of Apple is calling out Apple decades later for not respecting the repair industry. But Woz has always been a quaint man in my opinion. He never saw dollar signs, he saw fun and joy out of his products. That's what, in my opinion, makes him so wholesome. Someone who actually cares about the industry, and isn't in it for the money, fame, or power.
 
Hopefully this, including with the awaiting directive from the POTUS, puts the Right to Repair movement in the mainstream, enough for people to donate to the cause, and enough to make it a direct ballot initiative. That's what we want. That's the fastest and easiest way to pass something as big as a Right to Repair Act. With big names like the POTUS and the literal inventor of one of the most successful computer lines ever being in support of Right to Repair, maybe millionaire donors will donate to the cause, because from what I hear, direct ballot initiatives cost a lot of money especially when you are dealing with the biggest names in technology, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, who can afford to spend billions lobbying against it.
 
Sources
Steve Wozniak Supports the Right to Repair Movement (gizmodo.com)
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak is a right to repair advocate | AppleInsider
 

Summary
In a video directed towards Louis Rossmann, Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple, spells out his grievances against Apple specifically about their stance against Right to Repair. Wozniak, a subscriber of Rossmann's, recalls Apple's success in the early days with the Apple II, claiming that Apple wouldn't be as successful as it is today without the openness of the Apple II and it's architecture. Back in the day, Wozniak would go as far as to include a schematic in the box of every Apple II. 
 
He ends the video with the statement "Is it your computer, or is it some company's computer? It's time to start doing the right things."
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
I don't know if this belongs in general discussion or if this belongs in tech news. If a mod wants to move it to general discussion, I'll completely understand, but I thought that since this is tech, and technically "news" (A person like this supporting right to repair in the way he called out Apple should be news), I'd post it here.
 
First of all, the irony. It's just funny how the co-founder of Apple is calling out Apple decades later for not respecting the repair industry. But Woz has always been a quaint man in my opinion. He never saw dollar signs, he saw fun and joy out of his products. That's what, in my opinion, makes him so wholesome. Someone who actually cares about the industry, and isn't in it for the money, fame, or power.
 
Hopefully this, including with the awaiting directive from the POTUS, puts the Right to Repair movement in the mainstream, enough for people to donate to the cause, and enough to make it a direct ballot initiative. That's what we want. That's the fastest and easiest way to pass something as big as a Right to Repair Act. With big names like the POTUS and the literal inventor of one of the most successful computer lines ever being in support of Right to Repair, maybe millionaire donors will donate to the cause, because from what I hear, direct ballot initiatives cost a lot of money especially when you are dealing with the biggest names in technology, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, who can afford to spend billions lobbying against it.
 
Sources
Steve Wozniak Supports the Right to Repair Movement (gizmodo.com)
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak is a right to repair advocate | AppleInsider
 

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

Unless the summary doesn't cover it, it doesn't look like the Chinese government itself is asking/requiring the use of facial recognition to track children playing games. They could be, I wouldn't put it past them, they've done similar stuff in the past, but at least the way the summary is worded, it looks like Tencent is going above and beyond what is required.
 
They could've just done an age check, or even ask for ID. I mean at the point where you're tracking with facial recognition, you could pretty much ask for anything and have it be less severe.
 
I'm not going to talk about how badly this can go (One of the best implementations/versions of facial recognition on consumer hardware is Face ID, and that barely recognizes me based off of a reference. Imagine being labeled a child because you're matched with what the software engineer thinks is a child), or the moral implications of this system, they speak for themselves. I'm just wondering why children are being "forced" to play games within a certain period of time by legislation. That's the responsibility of the parent, not a government. If a parent can't parent correctly and lets their 8 year old child play video games until 3 in the morning, that's the parent's fault...

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

The decision has been made to lock this topic as the subject matter is simultaneously too close to politics and is inevitable that discussion will end up more about that than a technology discussion. However I encourage all to read this and the article and be informed about it as much as possible.

Summary
President Biden will, in the coming days, order the FTC to create new rules that focus on Right to Repair. This comes after large amounts of complaints from farmers about how John Deere is anti-repair.
 
While this order will most likely be directed towards farmers, it could have a ripple effect in other industries, such as the smartphone industry, where companies like Samsung, and especially Apple, use their power to stop 3rd party repair, in some cases leading to degraded software experiences as punishment for daring to not repair your device through a 1st party service.
 
The White House believes that this will create more economic competition and drive wages up for the average American Worker.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
Honestly, I think it's great that more and more people are pushing the idea of Right to Repair to the mainstream. I mean, how much more mainstream do you get than the POTUS? Someone who, granted, lacks a lot in power, but makes up in influence. I mean, an order to the FTC isn't the same as getting it passed through both houses of Congress and signed (at least I think so I may be wrong about this), but it's a step in the right direction.
 
I just hope that the fact that a high-ranking politician mentioned Right to Repair doesn't turn the Right to Repair issue into an "Us vs. Them" issue, as happens time and time again in American Politics. Hopefully this issue can stay neutral, with all parties in favor of it, not to get too political.
 
Sources
President Biden will order the FTC to draft 'right to repair' rules | Engadget

Why the hell are people MORE worried about the fact Audacity is collecting data such as User country (could possibly inform decisions on language localization), non-fatal error codes (you know, to make stuff easier for people who don't know how to correct/bypass them if they pop up a lot), User OS and Version (right because if 0.1% of people are using Audacity on Windows Vista, why the hell should any budget be reallocated to supporting it) and processor in use (because who knows there could be a trend where a specific error/bug is present in X or Y processor/processor architecture. If the M1 version of Audacity has an error the Intel one doesn't, then wouldn't it be great to know the difference was the processor) than how apps like Facebook and Instagram are quite literally creating a digital fingerprint on you? This shouldn't be taking up any space in the privacy argument since not only is it completely optional, its disabled by default!
 
The outrage is due to the word "Russia". Had Audacity been collecting this data and storing it in the US/Canada or somewhere in the European Union, there wouldn't be any outrage.
An entire fork of a project to remove like what, 5 lines of code that were disabled by default in the first place? Is there a bigger example of being overdramatic?

Why the hell are people MORE worried about the fact Audacity is collecting data such as User country (could possibly inform decisions on language localization), non-fatal error codes (you know, to make stuff easier for people who don't know how to correct/bypass them if they pop up a lot), User OS and Version (right because if 0.1% of people are using Audacity on Windows Vista, why the hell should any budget be reallocated to supporting it) and processor in use (because who knows there could be a trend where a specific error/bug is present in X or Y processor/processor architecture. If the M1 version of Audacity has an error the Intel one doesn't, then wouldn't it be great to know the difference was the processor) than how apps like Facebook and Instagram are quite literally creating a digital fingerprint on you? This shouldn't be taking up any space in the privacy argument since not only is it completely optional, its disabled by default!
 
The outrage is due to the word "Russia". Had Audacity been collecting this data and storing it in the US/Canada or somewhere in the European Union, there wouldn't be any outrage.
An entire fork of a project to remove like what, 5 lines of code that were disabled by default in the first place? Is there a bigger example of being overdramatic?

That and they could just... direct it to a euro/US server and then send it onwards, cloaking it's Russian destination.
 
This whole "Russia/China" digital data scare tactic is just propaganda to make sure we all know who the "enemy" is.
 
In reality, the US and UK are spying just as much as Russia is - they're all being dickheads to humanity.