RPRNA

Search results for: “Google”

  • Apple Watch Bands are safe, says Apple, amid lawsuit

    Apple Watch Bands are safe, says Apple, amid lawsuit

    Apple has reassured consumers that its Apple Watch bands are “safe to wear,” following a lawsuit claiming some bands contain harmful “forever chemicals,” known as PFAS.

    Apple’s Statement:

    Apple Watch bands are completely safe for everyone to wear. We conduct our own tests and also involve independent labs to check our materials thoroughly, including those used in our watch bands.

    Apple also mentioned that they go beyond what the law requires to ensure their products and manufacturing processes are free from dangerous chemicals.

    Phasing Out PFAS:

    Despite confirming the safety of current bands, Apple is actively working to eliminate PFAS from all its products. In a statement from November 2022, Apple outlined their plan:

    We began by looking at the most common PFAS used in our products – fluoropolymers. Although our tests show these are safe for users, we’re expanding our efforts to include all manufacturing stages. We aim to eliminate all PFAS, understanding it’s a complex process that needs careful consideration to find effective, safe alternatives.

    This transition will take time as we catalog PFAS use, develop new materials that perform just as well, and ensure these alternatives are not harmful themselves.

    The Lawsuit:

    The lawsuit references a study which found high levels of PFAS in some smartwatch bands, suggesting these chemicals could be absorbed through the skin leading to health issues. This study included brands like Apple, Nike, Fitbit, and Google, though it didn’t name specific bands.

    When asked about which specific Apple Watch bands might contain PFAS, Apple did not provide an immediate response. The lawsuit aims to include anyone in the U.S. who bought a Sport Band, Nike Sport Band, or Ocean Band for an Apple Watch.

    The case awaits a judicial decision on whether it can proceed as a class action.

  • Samsung’s New Galaxy S25: Borrowing over a dozen iPhone traits, claims Macworld

    Samsung’s New Galaxy S25: Borrowing over a dozen iPhone traits, claims Macworld

    Macworld argues that Samsung’s latest Galaxy S25 has taken inspiration from over a dozen iPhone features. From the phone’s sleek, straight-edged design to how its AI assistant displays, Samsung seems to have borrowed quite a bit from Apple.

    Macworld’s Mahmoud Itani highlights this, starting with the AI features. The Galaxy S25 has integrated AI similar to Apple’s, allowing users to connect with third-party chatbots like Google Gemini, just as Apple does with ChatGPT in its system. When activating Gemini on the Galaxy S25, users see a text box with a colorful, glowing border, which looks a lot like Siri’s interface on iPhones. Additionally, the text selection tool in Samsung’s phone mimics Apple’s Writing Tools, offering options to proofread or transform text into tables.

    Itani goes on to mention other features like the ability to record and summarize calls, perform natural language searches in the photo gallery, and a photo editing tool that resembles Apple’s Image Playground. There’s also a new feature similar to Apple’s Live Activities, called the Now Bar, and enhanced audio features for video recording akin to Apple’s cinematic audio.

    9to5Mac’s Viewpoint
    It’s clear that Samsung often looks to Apple for inspiration. Their strategy seems to involve quickly bringing to market features similar to those rumored or leaked for upcoming iPhones, aiming to beat Apple to the punch. However, Apple isn’t innocent of copying either, as both companies tend to adopt similar technologies once they’re mainstream.

    Ultimately, this mutual borrowing is beneficial. The competitive pressure drives each company to innovate and perfect their offerings, leading to better products for consumers.

  • Apple Watch Bands might have harmful chemicals, lawsuit claims

    Apple Watch Bands might have harmful chemicals, lawsuit claims

    A lawsuit filed in a California court this week targets Apple, alleging that the company did not tell customers about dangerous chemicals in some of their Apple Watch bands.

    The lawsuit suggests that Apple promotes the watch as good for health and fitness, but fails to mention that certain bands might be harmful. According to the legal document, a study recently found high levels of substances called “forever chemicals” or PFAS in some smartwatch bands. These chemicals can soak into the skin and might cause health issues over time.

    PFAS are used in synthetic rubber to prevent the bands from getting dirty or discolored by sweat or grime.

    Although the study didn’t name specific brands, it tested bands from companies like Apple, Nike, Fitbit, and Google. The lawsuit points out that among these, some expensive bands, including those from Apple, had significant amounts of PFAS. The lawsuit is aimed at anyone in the U.S. who bought a Sport Band, Nike Sport Band, or Ocean Band for their Apple Watch.

    Apple has not yet commented on these allegations. A judge will decide if this lawsuit can move forward.

    This situation highlights the importance of transparency in product materials, especially when items are marketed for health and daily use. Consumers deserve to know what they’re wearing, particularly when it’s something as close to the body as a smartwatch band.

  • Trump criticizes EU over fines on Apple and other US tech companies

    Trump criticizes EU over fines on Apple and other US tech companies

    Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump has voiced strong disapproval of the European Union (EU) for imposing hefty fines on American tech giants like Apple, Google, and Facebook.

    US President Labels EU Actions as “Taxation”

    Speaking virtually at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump accused the EU of unfairly targeting major US companies. He described the fines as a “form of taxation” against American businesses, expressing frustration with the EU’s regulatory measures.

    Trump stated, “They’ve taken $15 or $16 billion from Apple, billions from Google, and now they’re after Facebook for even more. These are American companies, and what the EU is doing is wrong. In my view, it’s just another way of taxing them. We have serious complaints about the EU.”

    The Apple case Trump referred to centers around a lengthy legal dispute over taxes in Ireland. The EU ruled that Apple’s tax arrangement with Ireland violated its laws, forcing the tech giant to pay significant back taxes.

    Trump’s Broader Criticism of the EU

    Beyond tech companies, Trump criticized the EU’s broader economic policies, highlighting trade imbalances. He remarked, “The EU treats the US very unfairly. We’re dealing with hundreds of billions in trade deficits with them. No one is happy about it, and we’re going to take action.”

    Reactions and Implications

    Critics, however, were quick to point out Trump’s inconsistent stance. While he condemned the EU for regulating American firms, his own policies often focused on tariffs and trade measures against foreign businesses.

    These remarks signal potential challenges ahead for US tech companies operating in Europe. As the EU continues to scrutinize firms like Apple, Google, and Facebook, the friction between American leadership and European regulators could intensify.

    Trump’s statements also raise questions about how his administration might approach issues like App Store regulations and other matters affecting US tech firms in global markets.

  • iPhones with TikTok app sell for big bucks on eBay

    iPhones with TikTok app sell for big bucks on eBay

    People are selling old iPhones with TikTok already on them for lots of money on eBay. Some are even asking for up to $50,000! For example, someone listed an unlocked iPhone 12 Pro Max with TikTok for $50,000.

    Even though President Trump said companies wouldn’t get in trouble for not following the TikTok ban, big companies like Apple and Google are still not allowing TikTok in their app stores in the US.

    A Quick Update

    The US Supreme Court said yes to banning TikTok last Friday, and the ban started on January 19. TikTok was taken off the app stores on Sunday. Apple had to say they would follow the law. But then, Trump posted on social media that he would stop the ban when he became president again the next day, and he said companies could ignore the law without getting into trouble. So, TikTok came back online thanks to Bytedance, with Oracle, a US company, trusting Trump’s word.

    Trump then made an official statement saying the ban wouldn’t be enforced for 75 days, but lawyers said this might not be legal, meaning companies could still face huge fines of up to $850 billion. They also said Trump could change his mind if he didn’t like a company.

    eBay Listings for TikTok iPhones

    Wired noticed that some sellers on eBay are trying to make money by selling old phones with TikTok on them for much more than they are really worth.

    If you look up “TikTok phone” on eBay, you’ll find over 9,000 listings for phones from brands like Apple and Samsung, all with TikTok installed. Some listings are asking for $50,000, while many others are between $2,000 and $5,000.

    Luckily, it seems like most people aren’t paying these crazy prices. The phones with very high prices aren’t selling, and when they do sell, it’s often because buyers can offer a lower price through eBay’s “best offer” option.

    Here’s an interesting thing about these iPhones: if one user downloads apps using their Apple ID and then another user signs in with their own ID, the apps stay on the phone. But, if you ever reset your phone using your own iCloud backup, you’ll lose those apps.

    Source

  • UK Watchdog probes iPhone App Store dominance

    UK Watchdog probes iPhone App Store dominance

    The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has kicked off a thorough investigation into how mobile app stores operate, focusing on iPhone and Android systems.

    The study aims to look at whether Apple has too much control over the market and if they might be using this power in unfair ways. They’re checking how apps are sold to consumers and the rules developers have to follow to get their apps on the iPhone’s App Store.

    This investigation sounds a lot like what’s happening in the European Union, where they have rules to keep big tech companies in check.

    The CMA will look into how much competition exists between Apple and Google, including how hard it is for new companies to break into the market. They’ll check if Apple and Google are using their big influence over mobile operating systems to favor their own apps or limit choices in browsers. They’re also looking at the conditions app makers must agree to for their apps to appear in these stores.

    The investigation is set to wrap up by October 22, 2025. After that, we’ll know more about what might happen next. Possible outcomes could include penalties or changes in how these companies do business.

    In Europe, Apple was made to allow other app stores, let apps be downloaded from the internet, and give users more browser options. However, Apple also changed how they charge developers, which some big companies like Epic Games and Spotify say is still not fair. While the EU case continues, it’s likely Apple might use similar tactics when dealing with the CMA in the UK.

    Source

  • Samsung unveils super-thin Galaxy S25 Edge to compete with iPhone 17 Air

    Samsung unveils super-thin Galaxy S25 Edge to compete with iPhone 17 Air

    At the Unpacked 2025 event, Samsung announced the new Galaxy S25, S25+, and S25 Ultra. But they saved a big surprise for last: they teased the Galaxy S25 Edge, a super thin phone.

    Galaxy S25 Edge vs. iPhone 17 Air

    Reporters from 9to5Google were at the event and saw the teaser for the Galaxy S25 Edge. We don’t know much yet – like when it will come out or what it can do. People guess it might be available in April or May. We only know for sure that it’s called the Galaxy S25 Edge.

    A recent report says the Galaxy S25 Edge might be about 6.4mm thick. On the other hand, Apple’s upcoming iPhone 17 Air is rumored to be even thinner, at around 5.5mm.

    Samsung began working on the S25 Edge right after hearing about the iPhone 17 Air rumors last May, according to one report.

    Leaked images from SmartPrix show the S25 Edge will have three cameras on the back. The iPhone 17 Air, however, is expected to have just one 48MP camera in a long, bar-shaped design.

    In a chat with Bloomberg, TM Roh, who leads Samsung’s phone business, talked about the new S25 Edge. He said, “We’re putting the best tech from our Ultra model into a much thinner phone. People want great performance, amazing cameras, and smart AI, but they also want a phone that looks cool and stands out.”

    Roh added, “We want to make this phone cheaper than our Ultra models so more people can buy it.”

    This sneak peek at the Galaxy S25 Edge has certainly got everyone talking about how Samsung and Apple are racing to make the slimmest, most feature-packed phones.

  • TikTok’s Return to U.S. Screens: Navigating the new normal

    TikTok’s Return to U.S. Screens: Navigating the new normal

    In a rollercoaster of events, TikTok has made a comeback in the U.S., though not without its challenges. After going dark on Saturday night and being pulled from Apple’s App Store, the platform was up and running again by Sunday afternoon, following what TikTok called “necessary clarity” from President Trump.

    Here’s the scoop: despite its functionality being restored, TikTok isn’t back on the App Store. This means new users can’t download it, and existing users can’t update it. The ban, initiated by a law signed by President Biden in April 2024, required TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest within nine months or face a ban. That deadline hit on January 19, leading to a brief blackout of the app.

    However, thanks to an assurance from Trump, service providers like Oracle have continued supporting TikTok, risking hefty fines, while tech giants like Apple and Google remain cautious, not re-listing the app.

    For existing iPhone users, this means you can still use TikTok if you have it installed, but no new downloads or updates are available through the App Store. The app’s core functionalities are intact, including TikTok Shop, but new in-app purchases are off-limits, although web purchases remain accessible.

    With Trump’s recent inauguration, he’s hinted at a 90-day delay in enforcing the ban and proposed U.S. ownership in TikTok, signaling potential changes on the horizon. How ByteDance responds to this proposition will shape TikTok’s future in the U.S. market.

  • The TikTok Saga: Apple’s compliance and the shifting sands of digital sovereignty

    The TikTok Saga: Apple’s compliance and the shifting sands of digital sovereignty

    The digital landscape shifted dramatically this past weekend as Apple, in a move echoing the complexities of international relations and technological control, removed TikTok and other ByteDance-owned applications from its U.S. App Store. This action, far from being a simple business decision, is a direct consequence of escalating legislative measures aimed at addressing perceived national security concerns surrounding foreign-owned digital platforms. 

    The backdrop to this removal is the recently enacted “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” a piece of legislation that mandates the divestiture of ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok within the United States. Failure to comply, the law stipulates, would result in a complete ban of the platform within the country. With the deadline for compliance having arrived, companies like Apple and Google were left with little choice but to enforce the law, facing substantial penalties for non-compliance.

    Apple, in a publicly released statement, emphasized its commitment to adhering to the legal frameworks of the regions in which it operates. This statement underscores the delicate balance tech giants must maintain between global reach and local regulations. The removal of TikTok, along with other ByteDance applications such as CapCut and Hypic, was presented not as a matter of choice, but as a legal obligation. 

    The official statement from Apple clarifies the scope of the action: “Pursuant to the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, apps developed by ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiaries — including TikTok, CapCut, Lemon8, and others — will no longer be available for download or updates on the App Store for users in the United States starting January 19, 2025.” This statement serves as a clear confirmation of the legal impetus behind the removal. 

    The ramifications of this decision extend beyond mere app availability. Apple’s statement also addressed the implications for international visitors to the U.S. who may experience restricted functionality of ByteDance applications due to the newly implemented law. This detail highlights the far-reaching impact of the legislation, affecting not only U.S. citizens but also those traveling within the country. 

    For existing TikTok users in the United States, the impact was immediate. As of late Saturday, access to the app was effectively cut off, with TikTok itself acknowledging the “temporary unavailability” of the service within the U.S. While the app remains accessible and fully functional in other regions of the world, American users find themselves abruptly disconnected from the platform.  

    The timing of this event adds another layer of complexity to the situation. With the upcoming presidential inauguration scheduled for Monday, January 20th, rumors are circulating about a potential 90-day reprieve for TikTok.

    Whether this reprieve will materialize remains to be seen, and the long-term future of TikTok’s operation within the U.S. under ByteDance ownership hangs in the balance. The possibility of requiring a change in ownership to comply with U.S. regulations is a significant point of discussion, adding uncertainty to the platform’s future in the American market. 

    This situation is more than just a dispute over a social media app. It represents a broader conversation about digital sovereignty, national security, and the influence of foreign technology within domestic markets. The actions taken by the U.S. government and the subsequent compliance by companies like Apple set a precedent that could have significant implications for the future of global digital interactions.

    It raises important questions about the balance between national security concerns, free access to information, and the role of technology companies in navigating these complex issues. The TikTok saga is far from over, and its unfolding will undoubtedly continue to shape the discourse around technology, politics, and international relations.

  • Big Tech Fines: A drop in the ocean or a Wake-Up Call?

    Big Tech Fines: A drop in the ocean or a Wake-Up Call?

    The world of technology is constantly evolving, pushing boundaries and shaping our modern lives. However, this rapid growth and influence haven’t come without scrutiny. Recent years have seen a surge in regulatory actions against major tech companies, resulting in billions of dollars in fines for various infractions, primarily related to antitrust and competition law violations. But the question remains: are these fines a significant deterrent, or merely a cost of doing business for these corporate giants?

    A recent analysis of tech fines paints a stark picture. While the total sum of penalties levied against major tech players in 2024 reached a staggering $8.2 billion, a closer look reveals a different story. This seemingly enormous figure represents a mere fraction of these companies’ financial power. In fact, most of these tech behemoths could comfortably cover these fines within a matter of days or weeks using their free cash flow – the money left over after covering operating expenses and capital expenditures.

    Consider Apple, for example. The tech giant faced over $2.1 billion in fines last year, primarily for alleged antitrust violations. While this number sounds substantial, it represents just over a week’s worth of the company’s free cash flow. This means that Apple could theoretically pay off all its fines with less than eight days of earnings. This raises serious questions about the effectiveness of fines as a regulatory tool. If these penalties represent such a small portion of a company’s resources, are they truly a deterrent against anti-competitive behavior?

    The analysis also highlighted other tech giants and their respective fine burdens. Google, facing nearly $3 billion in fines, could clear its debt in just over two weeks. Meta, with fines exceeding $1.4 billion, could do the same in under ten days. Even Amazon, despite facing a relatively smaller fine of around $57 million, could pay it off with less than a day’s worth of earnings. These figures underscore the immense financial power of these companies and cast doubt on the efficacy of the current fining system.

    The core issue lies in the disparity between the scale of the fines and the financial resources of the companies being fined. For most individuals or small businesses, a substantial fine can have a devastating impact. However, for these tech giants, billions of dollars can be absorbed with minimal disruption to their operations. This creates a situation where fines are perceived as a minor inconvenience rather than a serious consequence, potentially emboldening these companies to engage in practices that might otherwise be considered too risky.

    One of Apple’s largest fines stemmed from an EU ruling related to competition in the music streaming market. This case, and others like it, highlight concerns about these companies’ dominance and their potential to stifle innovation and competition. When the penalty for breaking competition laws amounts to a negligible portion of a company’s earnings, the incentive to comply with these laws diminishes significantly.

    Experts and industry observers have voiced concerns about this issue, arguing that regulators need to adopt a more impactful approach. The current system of fines, while well-intentioned, fails to address the underlying problem: the immense financial disparity between regulators and the companies they regulate. Some suggest that regulators should explore alternative measures, such as imposing stricter operational restrictions, breaking up monopolies, or even pursuing criminal charges against executives in cases of egregious misconduct.

    The goal of regulation should not be simply to generate revenue through fines, but rather to ensure a fair and competitive marketplace. If fines are not acting as a sufficient deterrent, it’s time for regulators to re-evaluate their strategies and find more effective ways to hold these powerful companies accountable. The future of innovation and competition may depend on it. Creating an environment where all companies, regardless of size, can thrive is crucial. This requires strong competition legislation and, more importantly, robust enforcement. Without it, the current system risks becoming a mere slap on the wrist for the world’s most powerful tech companies.

More posts