Samsung was quick to crow about Galaxy S8 pre-orders, but it was easy to be skeptical without real numbers to back up the bragging. Flash forward a few weeks, though, and it’s a different story. The company now reports that it has sold 5 million Galaxy S8 and S8 Plus devices worldwide since its April 21st debut — not bad for less than a month on the market, and only in a limited number of countries. It’s not certain which model was the most popular, though the regular S8’s lower price helps its chances.
It’s hard to say how this stacks up to the Galaxy S7, although Samsung had noted that pre-orders were up 30 percent compared to a year ago. And other manufacturers? That’s tricky when most tend not to divulge model-specific data to avoid tipping their hand to competitors. The closest you get is Apple. It reported selling 50.8 million iPhones last quarter (about 16.9 million per month), but it’s not certain how many of those were iPhone 7 and 7 Plus units, let alone how many of them sold in April. Without directly comparable figures, it’d be difficult to declare a sales leader in high-end phones.
As it is, Samsung is likely less concerned about raw numbers and more about its bottom line. In that sense, the S8 could easily be a success. Samsung racked up record operating profit in the quarter before the S8 stared shipping (albeit mainly on the back of chip sales), and the phone’s strong early showing is only bound to help.
Source: The Investor, ZDNet
Engadget RSS Feed
The Qualcomm vs. Apple licensing squabble had already gotten messy with lawsuits flying in both directions, but a report by Bloomberg says things could go to the next level soon. That’s because according to sources, Qualcomm plans to ask the ITC to block Apple from importing its phones from where they’re built in Asia to the US, ahead of new devices that we’re anticipating in the fall. We don’t know if it could be successful, although Qualcomm holds a number of patents in the space and Apple stopped making payments while the dispute is ongoing.
Qualcomm has cut its revenue outlook by $ 500 million because of the anticipated lack of licensing fees, so this is no small matter. It claims its patented technology is crucial to the iPhone even as it’s being manufactured by someone else, while Apple disagrees. We don’t know if there’s any chance the ITC will side with Qualcomm and actually ban any devices, but the threat puts billions of dollars in iPhone sales at risk.
Engadget RSS Feed
Uber is no stranger to trouble, but it may have landed in some especially hot water two years ago. New York Times sources claim that Apple CEO Tim Cook held a face-to-face meeting in early 2015 to call out Uber’s Travis Kalanick (and threaten to remove his app from the App Store) after learning that Uber was not only violating iOS app privacy guidelines, but was trying to cover it up. Reportedly, the ridesharing outfit had been “fingerprinting” iPhones with permanent identities so that it could prevent drivers from cheating by creating fake accounts and accepting rides from these bogus customers. The IDs would last even after the app was deleted or the entire phone was wiped. While this helped keep drivers honest, it was clearly a privacy violation — and it was made worse by Uber’s bid to hide the tracking from App Store reviewers.
Reportedly, Kalanick told staff to “obfuscate” the Uber app’s fingerprinting code for anyone operating from Apple’s current headquarters in Cupertino. As far as the people at Infinite Loop could see, it was business as usual. However, the trick didn’t work for long. Apple workers outside of the headquarters eventually spotted the shady behavior, leading to the meeting with Kalanick. The approach isn’t that uncommon for Uber (it recently admitted that it used location-based techniques to fool regulators), but it’s particularly brazen given the risk of being dropped from the App Store and losing millions of customers.
Apple isn’t commenting on the meeting with Cook, and we’ve reached out to Uber for its take on the allegations. However, it’s safe to say that Uber would like to leave an issue like this in the past. The company is trying to turn a corner, and Kalanick himself is looking for a second-in-command to keep his boundary-pushing tendencies in check. This revelation certainly won’t help matters, though. It reinforces the notion that Uber is all too willing to break rules in the name of money, even if it’s motivated by honest concerns like fraud.
Update: Uber has responded to Engadget, and maintains that its staff “absolutely do not” track individual users after they’ve deleted the app. The company adds that fingerprinting is a “typical way” of preventing people from using stolen phones for joyrides, and otherwise thwarting “known bad actors.” You can read the full statement below. It’s good to hear that the company isn’t tracking people, but the heart of the story revolves around hardware fingerprints — those still violated Apple’s privacy guidelines, even if Uber couldn’t definitively associate phones with specific customers.
“We absolutely do not track individual users or their location if they’ve deleted the app. As the New York Times story notes towards the very end, this is a typical way to prevent fraudsters from loading Uber onto a stolen phone, putting in a stolen credit card, taking an expensive ride and then wiping the phone—over and over again. Similar techniques are also used for detecting and blocking suspicious logins to protect our users’ accounts. Being able to recognize known bad actors when they try to get back onto our network is an important security measure for both Uber and our users.”
Source: New York Times
Engadget RSS Feed
For years, Apple and Qualcomm have worked together on technology that’ goes inside your iPhone and iPad. Qualcomm specifically handles a lot of the modem chips that connect devices to cellular or WiFi networks, and are crucial to any mobile hardware. Since Apple needed a lot of chips, Qualcomm supplied them, and everything seemed good — until January when Apple filed a $ 1 billion lawsuit claiming Qualcomm charged royalties on tech it had nothing to do with, and then followed up with two antitrust lawsuits in China. Tonight, Qualcomm has responded with a lawsuit of its own (you can grab the 139 page PDF here), claiming that Apple is in the wrong, and has breached its contract with the company.
Among a number of accusations, Qualcomm chose to highlight charges claiming that Apple “Chose not to utilize the full performance of Qualcomm’s modem chips in its iPhone 7, misrepresented the performance disparity between iPhones using Qualcomm modems and those using competitor-supplied modems; and
Threatened Qualcomm in an attempt to prevent it from making any public comparisons about the superior performance of the Qualcomm-powered iPhones.”
Further along in the document, it also says:
Qualcomm has been relieved of its obligation to make Cooperation Agreement payments to Apple because, among other reasons, Apple has misled government agencies around the world about Qualcomm’s business practices in order to induce regulatory proceedings against Qualcomm. As merely one example, on August 17, 2016, Apple told the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) that “Apple has yet to add a [second chipset] supplier because of Qualcomm’s exclusionary conduct”. But when Apple made that statement to the KFTC, it already had added Intel as a second baseband chip supplier and had purchased Intel chips to incorporate in the iPhone 7, which was only a few weeks away from its September release. Apple already knew that every iPhone 7 offered for sale in Korea would incorporate an Intel chip, not a Qualcomm chip. Apple’s statement to the KFTC was false
Apple started using Intel modems in some versions of the iPhone 7 in 2016. Qualcomm also claims that Apple encouraged regulatory attacks, and interfered with agreements it has with the companies that manufacture iPads and iPhones.
Engadget RSS Feed
When iPhone owners hoping for a cheap screen repair started getting the notorious, phone-bricking Error 53 message last year, the company claimed it was a security measure meant to protect customers from potentially malicious third-party Touch ID sensors. An iOS patch eventually alleviated bricking issues, but some consumer rights advocates still aren’t pleased with Apple’s lack of transparency. This week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced it will be taking legal action against Apple for allegedly making “false, misleading, or deceptive representations about consumers’ rights” under Australian law.
According to a statement released today, the ACCC looked into the Error 53 reports and found that Apple “appears to have routinely refused to look at or service consumers’ defective devices if a consumer had previously had the device repaired by a third party repairer, even where that repair was unrelated to the fault.” In other words: it is illegal under Australian Consumer Law for Apple to disqualify your iPhone for future repairs just because you got your screen fixed at a mall kiosk.
Meanwhile, in the US, at least five states (Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Massachusetts and New York) have introduced “right to repair” bills that would give small businesses and third-party repair services more freedom to buy replacement parts or get access to official repair manuals for everything from smartphones to large appliances and tractors. Combine that growing right-to-repair support in the US with the ACCC’s new lawsuit in Australian and it seems Apple’s walled garden of repairs could be slowly be forced to open up its gates.
Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Engadget RSS Feed
To mark 10 years of metal and glass slabs, Apple is expected to debut an ultra high-end version of the iPhone alongside its next scheduled update. According to a report from Fast Company, Tim Cook and company will likely roll out three new phones this year: the incremental iPhone 7S in the 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch sizes, as well as a slightly larger, even more expensive 5.8-inch iPhone 8 with an edgeless OLED display and a few completely new features.
To really play up the 10th anniversary bit, Apple may even call the new flagship model the “iPhone X,” and the price is expected to shoot up past the $ 1,000 mark. That’s not too far-fetched by Apple’s standards, considering a maxed-out iPhone 7 Plus already costs $ 969 unlocked. We’ve heard rumors of an OLED iPhone before, but Fast Company‘s sources seem to confirm its existence. They higher-end screen alone is expected to cost Apple twice as much as the LCD displays it currently uses and with only Samsung’s OLEDs meeting Apple’s strict tolerances, the company is reportedly hogging up manufacturing capacity as well. There’s also a chance the iPhone 8/iPhone X will eliminate physical buttons entirely by incorporating the Home button into the screen itself and replacing the side buttons with touch-sensitive inlays in a metal frame with a glass back.
Probably the most interesting rumor about the next-generation iPhone, however, is Apple’s partnership with Lumentum. According to Fast Company‘s sources, Apple plans to incorporate Lumentum’s 3D-sensing technology into the flagship phone in some way — which could mean anything from better camera performance to advanced augmented reality features or even a facial recognition system that could supplement Touch ID. Of course, these features are just rumors at this point, so take them with a big lick of salt for now.
Source: Fast Company
Engadget RSS Feed
Apple is in court once again. This time, the company is part of an anti-trust lawsuit over the strict limitations over where users can buy iOS applications. Specifically, the requirement that all apps be purchased through the Cupertino company’s App Store. The suit alleges that by not allowing customers to buy apps from third-party services, Apple was price fixing and that customers could sue as a result, according to Bloomberg.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because this was originally filed back in 2011. Apple’s defense is that it isn’t directly selling software to consumers, but that its 30 percent cut of an app’s price amounts to renting space on its digital storefront, Reuters writes.
The US Appeals Court thinks otherwise. “Apple’s analogy is unconvincing,” it said. “In the case before us, third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their own stores.”
Currently, the suit covers apps purchased from 2007 to 2013. Attorney Mark Rifkin says that while the case hasn’t hit class-action status yet he might expand the scope of it to anyone who’s bought iPhone apps to this day. All of which could cost Apple a boatload of cash; “hundreds of millions” of dollars in damages by Bloomberg‘s estimate.
Rifkin says that if the court sides with users that Apple should let people buy apps from anywhere they desire, a move that could lower the price on apps. However, that doesn’t take into account that third-party app stores (and folks with jail-broken iPhones) often have to contend with rafts of malware, or the risk of compromising their phones and security.
Engadget RSS Feed
The University of Calgary has become the latest victim in a recent string of ransomware attacks. According to a statement released Wednesday morning, University computer systems were affected for 10 days while the IT team worked to remedy the issue. Ultimately, the University paid around $ 16,000 ($ 20,000 Canadian) to recover its data, with no guarantee that it was even possible to restore it.
“Ransomware attacks and the payment of ransoms are becoming increasingly common around the world,” the University’s VP of Finance and Services Linda Dalgetty wrote in her statement. “The university is now in the process of assessing and evaluating the decryption keys. The actual process of decryption is time-consuming and must be performed with care. It is important to note that decryption keys do not automatically restore all systems or guarantee the recovery of all data. A great deal of work is still required by IT to ensure all affected systems are operational again, and this process will take time.”
The University also says it is working with Calgary Police to investigate the hack, although other such investigations have come up empty handed in the past. Regarding the payment, Dalgetty told the Globe and Mail, “We are conducting world class research daily and we don’t know what we don’t know in terms of who’s been impacted and the last thing we want to do is lose someone’s life’s work.” (That’s work like building neurochips out of silicon and human brain cells, or creating one-handed iPhone gestures, by the way.)
In another recent case, Kansas Heart Hospital paid “a small amount” in ransom money, only to have the hacker turn around and ask for even more cash. In May, a ransomware attack on the United States Congress was thankfully averted. And on one, slightly reassuring note and the hackers behind the original “uncrackable” TeslaCrypt ransomware virus released the keys that would allow anyone affected to retrieve their data.
Engadget RSS Feed