A non-profit that owns a for-profit company is very well not realy non-profit.
All of the profit of the subsidiary goes to the nonprofit parent, in furtherance of its nonprofit mission. The subsidiary doesn't exist to make anybody rich but just to earn (taxable) income for the parent.
The whole concept of a parent company owning the foundation is fishy.
The non-profit foundation is the parent company. It has some taxable subsidiaries that, among other things, handle certain revenue-generating business deals.
Microsoft already was trying to leverage the popularity of Windows to make Windows Phone more popular but it didn’t work. Apple, meanwhile, licensed Microsoft Exchange for iPhone and basically established Microsoft’s entire product strategy under Nadella: providing high-margin services on whatever device people actually want to use.
Microsoft made a decent touchscreen Windows laptop, but that’s a niche within a shrinking market. I don’t think they did much to reinvent the category. It’s better, but it’s not a fundamentally different product than what was for sale 20 years ago.
In retrospect, I think there could have been ways we could have made it work by perhaps reinventing the category of computing between PCs, tablets, and phones.
I'm sorry but no, Microsoft was never going to be capable of reinventing any category of computing. They've never done it before and it's just not within their expertise. I think Nadella was right at the time to cut their losses. Windows Phone represented Microsoft's best efforts in that space and, while it had its fans, it just wasn't enough.
Meanwhile, they've done really well with their "apps and services on every platform" approach. How many millions of people use Outlook on their phone? How many apps are running their back end on Azure? Microsoft may have given up on an aspect of "mobile," but is still raking in piles of cash from what people actually do on mobile devices. Take the win where you can find it.
The article is based on vague claims from anonymous sources. If the claims about AI don’t make sense to begin with (and they don’t because Apple isn’t involved in any of the stuff that he might reasonably criticize), that doesn’t make me think they knew what they were talking about regarding China either. If the source is disreputable, who cares what they said? If you make two claims and one doesn’t pass the smell test, I’m not going to waste time entertaining what really happened regarding the second claim.
Let me put it another way: there are too many real, verifiable outrageous things going on in the world for me to get my pitchfork out for something as weak on sourcing and details as this. Business agreements end for lots of reasons, and often a combination. People often have an axe to grind, especially if they were somehow involved in a deal that went south. This isn’t nearly enough for me to make any judgment.
It’s a good line in what is otherwise a very, very bad SCOTUS decision that a for-profit corporation can ignore laws protecting female employees because of the corporation’s religious beliefs.
Even taken at its face value, this allegation is literally an example of freedom of the press in action. Freedom means the ability for a publisher to choose what they publish. That includes telling staff no.
It’s the same reason why Twitter had to agree to the sale to Elon Musk and why they had to force it. It was a terrible move overall but since Elon was buying all outstanding shares and taking it private, the board literally had no legal choice but to take it since he was offering well over market value.
It was put to an actual shareholder vote. The individual shareholders voted yes because he was overpaying. The board was fundamentally irrelevant.
I’m seeing a lot of anonymous quotes and assumptions but not a lot of verifiable facts. Sure, creative differences may have existed, but did any meaningful number of people watch the show? Even in online communities dedicated to Apple TV specifically I can’t recall seeing anything other than perfunctory mentions. Nobody ever actually talked about this show. I feel like the show was probably already on thin ice with a questionable ROI, and some likely not terribly sensational disagreement pushed it over the edge. Makes more sense than Apple caring what he says about AI, since they’ve pointedly avoided the embarrassing hype train, and clearly aren’t going to engage in the sort of exploitative “all of your documents are now our training corpus” nonsense that he’s likely to actually criticize.
Google and Samsung had to build and rollout safety features because Apple didn’t care for Android users.
The feature needs to be built into the operating system. Apple and Google worked together on a specification for unwanted trackers that's now built into Android.
Apple got into search years ago, though. If you search in Safari, Apple will provide a single top result (if it has one) above your selected search engine results. Search for a famous person from history and you'll most likely get a Wikipedia link at the top with the picture and small excerpt. This is powered by Apple's own search engine. It's not limited to Wikipedia either but is powered by their Applebot web crawler. If you want to be able to see more than one result, you can use the Spotlight search by swiping down on the home screen. Depending on your search term you'll have a Websites section with multiple results from their search engine.
What Apple doesn't offer is a web page for you to access their search engine. Even without it, though, many millions of people have been using Apple's search engine for years now, clicking on the results usually without even realizing that's where it came from.