Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (108988)	2/12/2011 2:58:39 PM
From: Cogito	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213184

One addendum to my previous post. I doubt there are any manufacturers who do make iAccessories without participating in the Apple MFi program, since doing so gives them access to technical specifications and connector parts they would otherwise have to re-engineer on their own. And of course, they'd have to re-engineer the parts without violating Apple's patents. Hardly worth the effort.

To: Cogito who wrote (108988)	2/12/2011 10:02:56 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213184

Here's the scoop from Apple: developer.apple.com Apple has no mechanism for forcing anyone to participate in the program if they don't want to. Of course they do. It is call a "court of law". Meanwhile, on the USB thing, we're kind of both right. No, we aren't. The Wiki article states essentially what I told you. Intel was one of a number of organizations who jointly developed USB. But this doesn't really make any difference. The point I was making is that APPL charges to connect to their devices. Intel, MSFT, and others who sell products to the general public usually don't. This is the difference between "open" systems and closed architectures.