> It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number
Err 99 leases are common in lots of places. 99 years is a bit more than a lifetime so not many people care much about what happens afterwards. And it is a lot shorter than in perpetuity which would look bad for whoever is granting it.
> In England during the sixteenth century it was common practice to make leases for a term of three lives or a period of 99 years. It is presumed to be upon the theory that the lease should last thru three generations as it has been common practice to accept thirty-three years as the span of a single generation.
As I understand it the claimed trademark infringement is WPE saying they ‘provide WordPress hosting’. If they are successful can anyone built an opens source hosting business?
If WordPress won on the trademark infringement issue, it would be a fundamental rewriting of trademark law as it exists in the U.S. today.
Companies even competitors are allowed to use trademarks when they are making factual statements, like "we provide Wordpress hosting" as long as they make it clear that they are not the trademark holder (i.e., confusing customers). Even before they revamped their website, WP Engine was very clear about being a third party provider for hosting WordPress blogs. They weren't claiming to be the original WordPress, or the original WordPress hosting provider, or anything similar.
Based on Matt's voluminous posts yesterday, the concept of the law isn't really relevant to how he run's WordPress.org or Autommatic.
He admitted to violating labor laws and non-profit tax laws, and perpetuated several ongoing torts. He had a very productive day; it explains why he had to hire one of the most sadistic corporate lawyers in America.
I am not sure which way this will go, but WPE's website was using the word "WordPress" in every possible way before they 'cleaned it up' a few days ago. I am not sure whether it was trademark infringement, but they did seem to be leaning heavily on the trademarked term. I compared WPE's website to Dreamhost's (as I am familiar with the latter as a provider of hosting for WordPress-based websites), and the latter used the term far more sparingly.
I’m not a lawyer, but why would they remove uses of WordPress from their website right before suing Automattic if their position is that they weren’t violating the trademark?
Fair enough - I can see there are limits but the material in Automattic’s lawsuit didn’t seem that problematic. Not sure how the law can distinguish between ok and too much use of ‘WordPress’.
Like many here I suspect I care less about who wins the litigation than about the third parties - businesses, individuals and at least one major charity - who will have been affected by Matt’s and Automattic’s actions.
Where is the blog post about the affect this has had on them?
Your argument is that because the 4004 was built to power a calculator that disqualifies it as a microprocessor? Independent of the actual nature of the 4004 itself and its potential applications beyond its first intended use? Can’t see how that makes sense at all.
Your statement about Intel 'pushing back' the date to 1971 also makes little sense given Intel advertised [1] the 4004 as a CPU in Electronic News in Nov 1971.
Because of its purpose, Intel 4004 did not have many features that had been recognized as necessary already since the first automatic computers, for example the lack of logic operations, which was mentioned in the parent article.
Therefore I do not believe that it is possible to consider Intel 4004 as a general-purpose processor. It had only the features strictly necessary for the implementation of the Busicom calculator.
The idea to sell 4004 for other uses has appeared long after the design was finished, when Busicom did not want to pay for the chipset as much as Intel desired, so Intel decided to try to sell the chipset to other customers too, and then they thought to advertise it as a "CPU".
Moreover, it is debatable whether Intel 4004 can be considered as a monolithic processor, because 4004 was not really usable without the rest of the chipset, which provided some of the functions that are normally considered to belong into a processor.
The Intel 4004 4-bit "CPU" implemented less functions than the 4-bit TTL ALU 74181, which was general-purpose and which was the main alternative at that time for implementing a CPU, but it had the advantage of including many registers, because the MOS registers were much cheaper in die area than the TTL registers, and these included registers were the reason why a CPU implemented with the Intel 4004 chipset had a lower integrated circuit count than the equivalent implementation with MSI TTL ICs.
Intel's advertisement of 4004 being a CPU was just an advertisement of the same kind of Tesla having a "Full Self-Driving".
> Because of its purpose, Intel 4004 did not have many features that had been recognized as necessary already since the first automatic computers, for example the lack of logic operations, which was mentioned in the parent article.
So you're setting a range of instructions without which a device can't be considered a general-purpose computer even if the missing instructions can be recreated in software with instructions that do exist.
Sorry disagree with this completely, as does every definition I've ever seen.
No, logic operations aren't "recognized as necessary". For instance, the IBM 1401—the most popular computer of the early 1960s—did not have logic operations. (This was very annoying when I implemented Bitcoin mining on it.)
The reason that the 4004 is considered a CPU and the 74181 is not a CPU is that the 4004 contains the control logic, while the 74181 is only the ALU.
Of course, "microprocessor" and "CPU" are social constructs, not objective definitions. (For instance, bit-slice processors like the Am2901 were considered microprocessors in Russia.) So you can craft your own definition if you want to declare a particular processor first. cough MP944 cough
Otellini was not a dispassionate observer at the time he said this and there are very good reasons to believe that isn’t an accurate portrayal of what happened - including the fact that Otellini had just sold Intel’s smartphone SoC business and no x86 design was remotely suitable.
In fairness, the UK got a lot of 'opt-outs' which probably gave it a competitive advantage in certain areas.
I can think of one set of EU rules where the UK used its considerable influence to secure major changes to the original proposals only for UK regulation to limit the benefits of those changes.
Of course, those rules were later held up by the UK Govt as an example of where the UK could reap 'Brexit benefits'.
This should be a more widely used tactic. It keeps the experience onboard and possibly stops them from consulting for a competitor!
And it's probably better for the individual too. Going from having a role that takes up a huge amount of your life to zero in a short time probably isn't healthy for that person (or their family).
I disagree, it's really damaging to refuse to let go of the reins.
Bob Iger at Disney never really took succession seriously and then never really left which has left the company somewhat rudderless because the ship is now dependent on a person and not culture/policy.
I don't think Iger is comparable; all his groomed successors left before he did, so Chapek ended up with the hot potato to terrible results.
Apple has not lost a single potential successor to Tim Cook. And don't count Johnny Ive it's ridiculous to assume he could run that company. In 2004 maybe but certainly not the giant of 2024.
There's a lot of evidence... a century or more old.
The lack of recent evidence is inherent, it doesn't say we fixed it. But also we also changed enough stuff on the last century that blindly applying older lessons isn't a gainfully strategy.
I can think of a few cases where the crotchety old guy poured absolute shit on the new guys who came up with radical new theories that turned out to be correct. But in both cases (Linus Pauling with respect to quasicrystals, Eric Thompson with respect to Mayan script decipherment), the field moved on long before he died.
Since Steve Jobs died, Apple's valuation has gone up 10x and revenue about 4x. It stands to reason that a larger company would attract more antitrust scrutiny, but it's hard to blame the executives for that.
They’ve been going around demanding 30% of everyone’s revenue, no matter how tenuous the connection. And it’s getting them in trouble.
Sure 30% of smurfberries is fine. That’s their rule, who cares. And they have a rule it doesn’t apply to physical goods, which is why you can order stuff in the Amazon app.
But then they decided that people giving yoga lessons over the time during the lockdowns owed them 30%. And other apps that had been in the store for 15 years suddenly seemed to require 30% when they didn’t before. Want to sell e-books? You have to give Apple 30%. Now there isn’t 30% anywhere to give. But you have to. So saith Apple.
Instead of keeping their cut the same or even lowering it, they’ve been effectively increasing it by deciding their rules apply to more and more apps and services.
Which looks exactly like monopoly jacking up prices.
“Just don’t have an iPhone app” isn’t really viable at this point for a lot of businesses. It’s not 2008.
They didn’t actually need to do any of this. It’s not like they were going to collapse if they didn’t keep deciding to expand what was “theirs”.
And every single time they’ve gotten in a fight with a government they keep doubling down and getting in trouble. Instead of giving an inch they dig in until they’re ordered to give up 12 miles.
I like apple products. I’ve been using them forever. I do not like where the management has been going.
The 30% starts off as a publisher/retailer's slice of the fee, for which 30% isn't a bad fee. But Apple has extended its 30% take from "this is what we take for people who buy stuff on our store" to "this is what we take for any transactions within applications buy from our store." This is (very weakly!) justifiable if you're looking at microtransactions as buying-on-an-installment-plan, but Apple is going much further and demanding 30% on what's effectively regular credit card transactions.
And if people consider American credit cards' 3% fees to be borderline usurious, think how much outrage a credit card with 30% merchant fees would create. And that's basically what Apple is trying to push now, a credit card with 30% merchant fees. No wonder they're desperate to prohibit apps from telling people "you can buy it cheaper anywhere but Apple."
That’s a big cut, but it’s not exactly the same, because (for an example) credit card companies don’t have an automated and actual human team evaluating safety of and legitimacy for products sold.
So Apple is clearly vetting everybody on Patreon to make sure they're kosher, which is why they get a larger take of the money than Patreon does?
The 30% fee is cromulent when it's stuff that's clearly related to the app store activity. I'm not even that upset about charging a 30% fee on video game microtransactions. But the 30% fee is being charged on purchases made within app for content consumed outside of the app, which really starts to look a lot more like a 30% credit card transaction fee.
merchant providers don’t generally also handle customer service for the payments either, but that doesn’t entirely excuse apple’s behavior none the less
> credit card companies don’t have an automated and actual human team evaluating safety of and legitimacy for products sold.
Neither does Apple. They have a "review" process, but that's a far cry from actually providing real indemnity, and if they dont do that then its not worth the cost.
> “Just don’t have an iPhone app” isn’t really viable at this point for a lot of businesses. It’s not 2008.
Interestingly, the 2008 Steve Jobs advice "Just make web apps and have people point their iP{hone's browser at your thing" is actually workable advice for an awful lot of iOS apps these days.
(I'm super pissed at Patreon caving to Apple and giving Apple 30% of every payment I send to support artists/creators just because Patreon think they need an iPhone app. )
The problem comes when you want to have an accessory that connects with Bluetooth, or notifications that 100% work, or you want to maintain a sound connection even with the screen off.
Maybe doesn't apply to Firefox on iPhone, but firefox android at least can keep sound playing with the screen off. Does the mandatory webkit integration end up interfering with that? Not that Firefox has enough marketshare there to really help...
Apple Watch and AirPods as two product categories panned at launch which have become power houses. Vision Pro might get there after a couple generations, too early to tell.
Airpods' major appeal is the iPhone integration. To paraphrase Jobs, it's not a product it's a feature (or an accessory here), and the core of it is still the iPhone.
For comparison the original (wired) earplugs were popular, but not at the level of being a massive business. Apple had to kill the 3.5 jack ("courage") and turn the proprietary integration knob to 11 to have the airpods fly off the shelves.
A feature for your existing product that you can charge an extra $100-200 for and have it sell incredibly well might even be better than a distinct product.
Totally agree. I see the iCloud space upgrade the same way: it's the only standalone way to get a full phone backup, and it's surely a juicy business everybody would want for themselves.
I mean, AirPods is an accessory to the most successful computing platform in the world. It's a Fortune 500 company all on its own. Do not discount AirPods. People stick to iPhone because they love their AirPods. I sure do.
> People stick to iPhone because they love their AirPods.
Wow, I had the reverse course where I jumped off the iPhone train mainly because airPods were doing nothing for me compared to the competition (mainly Shokz), and I also wanted the 3.5 jack (and NFC as a bonus).
I still get that people can enjoy their airPod as a good product, but don't see it as massively better than Bose or Sony's product for instance if set in a vacuum, which makes the difference in market size extremely artificial to my eyes.
Let's look at it the other way around: what new categories did Jobs unveil? iPod, Apple Store, iPhone, Apple TV, iPad. Everything else was a remix. It's five things. People can point to four under Cook; Watch, AirPods, HomePod, Vision. Of course the company has slowed down, it's just normal but it's still innovative.
The point here is that the antitrust concerns are a natural consequences of them doing their job properly; with Apple becoming a bigger company - which is what is expected of them - it is quite natural that Apple will attract more scrutiny regarding their practices as a dominant player.
Their high level decisions and strategy created a desirable situation: Apple is bigger than ever. That situation has undesirable side effects, but overall the tradeoff is worth it.
It's what we call "rich people problem"; those are real problems - that need to be handled - but they are problems that "you wish to have" because it also means you solved a ton of other - more pressing - issues. And people don't usually look for "blame" in these situations.
There's an argument that Microsoft missed the whole mobile trend because of the antitrust trial and it's outcome, making them second guess potential moves.
IBM got rid of it's computer division as one of the many results of the antitrust case and it's now basically a consulting company with researchers as a side gig.
For any of these companies there was a path to keep making tremendous revenue without getting regulators on one's back, though it requires keeping producing competitive products.
As an example, LVMH is an ultra profitable group with a tentacular hold on its markets, but you don't see governments constantly suing them.
I'm not sure why you see getting struck down by whole governments to be some desirable "rich people problem".
I made a general point about wider application without commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded to me rather than commenting at the top level. Are companies in general heading toward antitrust issues?
I think it's true in general: keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas, but then it's a screwed situation anyway, as the whole succession plan is botched and you get the Disney drama.
On the other side, if the successors are decent but go in a direction the old guard doesn't approve of, it creates an overly tense and conflictual situation.
In Apple’s case the leadership learned a ton of important lessons from being the scrappy underdog that was always fighting to succeed.
And they shouldn’t forget those.
But those same ideas and strategies may not work as well when you’re the biggest company in the world (or close). So I think either they’re in the tension you describe at the end of your comment, or they’ve taught the new generation the old ways so they’re not trying to change things enough.
We're talking about high level executives who crushed whatever opposition they had
to get to the top of the pyramid.
They're of course good at collaboration as well, but they don't look to me like the type to enjoy someone watching over their shoulder and whispering advices to their ears.
You’re right you didn’t comment on Apple. That’s why I replied to you. Because while I think you’re correct in general in specific regard to Apple I think this is a bad strategy.
> It keeps the experience onboard and possibly stops them from consulting for a competitor!
This means the labor market is not operating correctly. For a company to be able to fork out a salary not for production but for protection you've done something really wrong in your monetary policy.
You’re assuming it’s just about pay when that’s not necessarily the case. Lots of loyalty in many cases but still want to stay involved. Push them out of the door and they will find something to do and that may be at a competitor.
That's precisely not how markets work. A TON of people work not at the highest paying job but at the job they feel most comfortable. That can include a myriad of reasons:
- Job is more fun
- Flexible working hours
- More fitting location
- Allow WFH
- More vacation days
- Gym/food/something available
- Ability to learn from colleagues.
etc etc.
If the world were as you describe the job market would be a feeding frenzy where everyone is aiming for the top job by salary.
those are all great reasons and I agree with them all.
Just to add one more data point, myself, I've never looked at switching jobs based on pay. I pretty much always just took the job that was offered. I'd eventually quit for random reasons (upset with the boss 3 times, company down sized twice, left to do my own thing twice, other...).
I never sat there at work thinking "hmmm, I wonder if there is a higher paying job somewhere".
That might be me just being stupid but since I can't see into the minds of anyone else I kind of assume it's same for lots of people.
> That's a non tangible item and it means people are finding excuses to avoid participating in the market.
> Your goal is to have lots of "somethings" being done. That's how your economy grows and new opportunities are created.
That's quite a slanted view of how people participate in a real labour market. Pay is the easy to quantify stuff but most humans tend to have more than just pay as a priority, among others:
- time required for work (vs time spent on private endeavours, family, friends, ...). A Family and/or a healthy social life is a goal for most people.
- location (you might prefer to live in certain places due to culture or QoL)
- company culture (ideally, you might like how and with whom you work)
Err 99 leases are common in lots of places. 99 years is a bit more than a lifetime so not many people care much about what happens afterwards. And it is a lot shorter than in perpetuity which would look bad for whoever is granting it.
reply