In this instance, the ToS already says they have the right to use the content. By adding the toggle, they're at least superficially restricting their own license to the content. That means they either implemented this toggle for the purpose of lying, or to keep streamers from leaving over AI. I'm not ruling out lying, but given the amount of backlash over it even being opt-out it seems plausible that that it was added to keep their "product" happy.

You could say the same about streamers paying Twitch to host them on the platform. If you're not paying for it, you're trading something for it. In this case, they give twitch a license to use the content.

I want to preface that I don't agree with how they implemented the toggle. However, as others have noted, it's not that straight forward. First, the terms of service have long given them the right to do things like this. Adding a toggle at all is a consideration, though I think a self-serving one. The controversy over AI is enough that not having an option would alienate streamers, likely more than currently.

As for suggesting they pay the streamers, you could argue things in reverse as well. The streamers are being hosted by Twitch, and not paying for it. Much like ads, this would be a form of compensation to Twitch for providing the platform. It's just an optional one.

I'm not entirely against ads, but the race to the bottom screwed it all up. You have to stack pages with them to earn anything meaningful. The ones that pay the best are the least desirable. If it was practical to force all ads into a relatively palatable structure, adblockers wouldn't be needed. I get that some people would still want to use them. I'm just saying they wouldn't be all but required.

And how does that stop the advertising to the AI, as is being discussed here?

Agree.

I understand that, if only at the concept level. I don't know if they do.

They do, however, also seem to be ignoring location(IP) anonymity. Sure, if it's a site you actually log in to you likely trust them to at least some extent. That doesn't mean you necessarily want them tracking your IP. Further, maybe the site doesn't have any real identifying info on you. Maybe you use an email alias and no real identifying info.

How do you define that? I'm not privy to how they have it all implemented. The first question would be whether Private Relay is even designed to signal that the passkey request sent to the credential service is flagged as private. The second would be whether the credential service is designed to be able to route through the proxy. I'm sure there are other possibilities to consider, but those are the big ones. If Private Relay isn't designed to signal the request as private, then a problem exists in Private Relay. In that context, Private Relay would be exposing it indirectly.

And who is the average consumer supposed to buy phones, tablets, and computers from? Google is guilty of supporting Trump. Microsoft is guilty of it as well. You could argue amounts and all that, but ultimately the average consumer has very little ability to avoid it.

Way to strawman this. It's relevant here because it's actually being discussed by the people in a position to take it to court. Very big difference between a pure hypothetical, and a real world debated potential case.

Again, you state opinion as fact.

The problem with this assertion is that there are credible grounds to consider Trump's actions as falling under the existing acts. Thus, we won't know if it does until it's decided by a court.

You say all that as if it's fact. Unless/until it's decided by a court, it's conjecture. There is enough going on to easily make a case, it'll just be a matter of if they do and who wins. That said, specifically in reference to insider trading, it doesn't fit the traditional definition.

While I don't have any personal knowledge of what Apple does/doesn't do behind the scene, the main reason for the iCloud backup stuff is to keep you tied to their ecosystem and buying products. They want to make it easier for you to buy a new phone, or computer, and just have it pick up where the old one left off.

Yes, but in the provided hypothetical they presented the only difference offered is price.

Sure, if they were offering different items. We don't have that here. One of the communications even suggested that they specialize:

Psychologically, one cent can make a big difference. Sure, in this instance, it isn't the difference of $2 vs $1.99. I do agree that it wouldn't be 100% of people. However, it would depend on the definition/interpretation of near. Most people aren't going to walk a block over $0.01, but the majority would pick the cheaper machine if they were next to each other. I also imagine many would walk the extra block, if it ultimately wasn't out of their way.

Functionally, there is little wrong with this offering. You're not paying more than the price of the phone. The final payment at the end is roughly equal to the trade-in value of the phone at the time. As such, opting to upgrade would function similarly to trading the phone in. It's not as good as some of the carrier upgrade options, but that isn't unique to Apple.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with this plan is the fact that you're locked into signing up for one of the big three post paid plans. The phone just isn't locked to the carrier. That said, Apple's previous upgrade offering had similar restrictions. It doesn't make the restriction better, it just shows it's not a new thing for them.

It's not bad, but it's also not great. The only people that can easily make use of it are likely to see comparable or better offers through their carrier.