關於 acquisition 2020 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

กรณีศึกษา ดีลซื้อกิจการ ครั้งใหญ่สุดของ Apple /โดย ลงทุนแมน
หากเราพูดถึงดีลการซื้อกิจการระดับแสนล้าน ของบริษัทเทคโนโลยียักษ์ใหญ่ในโลก

Microsoft ซื้อแพลตฟอร์มจัดหางาน LinkedIn 8.3 แสนล้านบาท
Facebook ซื้อแอปพลิเคชันแช็ต WhatsApp 6.1 แสนล้านบาท
Amazon ซื้อค้าปลีกรายใหญ่ Whole Foods Market 4.4 แสนล้านบาท
Google ซื้อกิจการ Motorola Mobility 4.0 แสนล้านบาท

ดีลธุรกิจระดับแสนล้านที่กล่าวมา ล้วนกลายเป็นส่วนสำคัญที่เข้ามาเติมเต็มบริษัทเทคโนโลยี
ให้มีประสิทธิภาพและมีบริการที่ครอบคลุมขึ้น

แต่ในรายชื่อที่ว่ามานี้ ยังไม่มีชื่อของ Apple บริษัทที่มีมูลค่ามากที่สุดในโลก
ที่มีมูลค่าบริษัท 71.2 ล้านล้านบาท นั่นก็เพราะว่ากิจการที่บริษัท
ซื้อเข้ามาแพงที่สุดกลับมีมูลค่าไม่แพงมากนัก

โดยบริษัทที่ว่านั้น Apple ได้เข้าซื้อกิจการไปตั้งแต่ปี 2014 หรือราว 7 ปีก่อน
ด้วยมูลค่าเพียง 3 พันล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐหรือราว 9.5 หมื่นล้านบาท
แล้วบริษัทแห่งนั้น คือบริษัทอะไร ?
ลงทุนแมนจะเล่าให้ฟัง
╔═══════════╗
Blockdit เป็นแพลตฟอร์ม สำหรับนักอ่าน และนักเขียน
ที่มีผู้ใช้งาน 1 ล้านคน ลองใช้แพลตฟอร์มนี้เพื่อได้ไอเดียใหม่ๆ
แล้วอาจพบว่าสังคมนี้เหมาะกับคนเช่นคุณ
Blockdit. Ideas Happen. Blockdit.com/download
╚═══════════╝
การเข้าซื้อกิจการที่มีมูลค่าสูงสุดของ Apple คือ บริษัทผลิตหูฟังที่มีชื่อว่า “Beats Electronics”

Beats Electronics เป็นบริษัทที่ขายผลิตภัณฑ์ที่เกี่ยวกับเครื่องเสียง
โดยผลิตภัณฑ์หลัก คือหูฟังและลำโพง
ซึ่งปัจจุบันดำเนินธุรกิจอยู่ภายใต้บริษัท Apple เป็นที่เรียบร้อย

Beats หรือ Beats by Dr. Dre มีที่มาจากแรปเปอร์ชาวอเมริกัน Andre Romelle Young
ที่ในปี 2006 เขากับ Jimmy Iovine ผู้บริหารค่ายเพลงชื่อดัง
ได้ร่วมกันก่อตั้งบริษัท Beats Electronics

โดยต้องการเป็นผู้ผลิตหูฟังระดับพรีเมียมและได้ทำการเปิดตัว หูฟัง อันแรกในปี 2008

แต่เส้นทางกลับไม่ง่ายอย่างที่พวกเขาคิด
แม้สินค้าจะมีคุณภาพดี แต่ด้วยความที่คนยังไม่รู้จักแบรนด์
และราคาที่แพงถึง 10,500 บาท หูฟังรุ่นแรกที่ผลิตออกมาจึงไม่ประสบความสำเร็จเท่าไรนัก

จุดเริ่มต้นของ Beats เริ่มขึ้นจากการที่บริษัททำการตลาดผ่านแบรนด์หรือศิลปินที่มีชื่อเสียง

- ในช่วงปี 2009 Beats เปิดตัวหูฟัง Heartbeats โดยมี Lady Gaga ร่วมออกแบบและเป็นพรีเซนเตอร์ โดยเป็นหูฟังแบบ In-ear ที่เน้นความเป็นแฟชั่น

- ปลายปี 2009 ร่วมมือกับ HP โดย HP ทำการเปิดตัว Envy 15 โน้ตบุ๊กที่มาพร้อมกับระบบเสียงจาก Beats ซึ่งเป็นรุ่น Limited Edition โดยปุ่ม “B” ถูกเปลี่ยนเป็นสัญลักษณ์โลโก Beats

- ปี 2012 ได้ร่วมมือกับ Chrysler ซึ่งเป็นบริษัทผลิตรถยนต์ของสหรัฐอเมริกา เปิดตัวรถยนต์รุ่น 300S ซึ่งมีระบบเสียงจาก Beats

- ปี 2012 เช่นเดียวกัน ได้ทำการแจกหูฟังให้กับนักกีฬาทีมชาติอังกฤษ ในการแข่งขันโอลิมปิกที่กรุงลอนดอน เพื่อให้มีภาพของนักกีฬากำลังใส่หูฟังของ Beats ที่ถูกถ่ายทอดไปทั่วโลก

หลังจากการทำการตลาดอย่างหนัก ทำให้คนเริ่มรู้จักแบรนด์ Beats และเป็นที่ยอมรับมากขึ้น
จนในปี 2012 ส่วนแบ่งการตลาดของ Beats ในตลาดหูฟังระดับพรีเมียมสูงถึง 64%

แต่จุดเปลี่ยนสำคัญของ Beats เกิดขึ้นเมื่อปี 2012 คือการเข้าซื้อกิจการ MOG ซึ่งเป็นบริษัทที่ให้บริการแพลตฟอร์มสตรีมมิงเพลง โดยมีสาเหตุการเข้าซื้อก็เพราะว่าทางบริษัทสามารถนำองค์ความรู้ของ MOG เพื่อมาพัฒนาเป็นของตัวเอง

และแล้วต้นปี 2014 “Beats Music” ก็ได้เปิดตัวอย่างเป็นทางการ
ซึ่งหลังจากเปิดตัวได้ 3 เดือน มีผู้ใช้งานสูงถึง 110,000 ราย

ณ จุดนี้เองที่ไปเข้าตา Apple
เนื่องจากในตอนนั้น iTunes ของ Apple ไม่สามารถสู้กับทาง Spotify ได้เลย
Beats Music จึงเป็นเหมือนคำตอบที่ Apple กำลังตามหา

ในปีเดียวกันนั้นเอง Apple จึงตัดสินใจซื้อกิจการ Beats Electronics ทั้งหมดด้วยมูลค่า 9.5 หมื่นล้านบาท ซึ่งถือเป็นการเข้าซื้อกิจการที่มูลค่ามากที่สุดของ Apple ตั้งแต่อดีตจนถึงปัจจุบันเลยทีเดียว

คำถามที่ตามมาก็คือ Apple ซื้อ Beats ไป ได้อะไรกลับมาบ้าง ?

เหตุผลที่ Apple ตัดสินใจลงทุนด้วยจำนวนเงินขนาดนี้
ทาง Eddy Cue รองประธานอาวุโสด้านอินเทอร์เน็ตและการบริการของ Apple
ได้ให้เหตุผลแบ่งเป็น 2 ข้อหลัก ๆ ออกเป็น

1. ความสามารถของ Dr. Dre และ Jimmy Iovine

Beats Electronics เกิดขึ้นจากการรวมตัวของ Dr. Dre และ Jimmy Iovine
ซึ่งคนหนึ่งเป็นนักร้องแรปเปอร์ที่ประสบความสำเร็จ อีกคนมีประสบการณ์ด้านดนตรี

ทั้งสองมีความเข้าใจโลกของเพลง เข้าใจว่าผู้คนต้องการฟังอะไร ฟังอย่างไร และฟังในรูปแบบไหน
จึงไม่แปลกใจเลยที่บริษัทเติบโตและมีรายได้สูงถึง 37,692 ล้านบาท ภายในระยะเวลาเพียง 8 ปี

การที่ได้ผู้เชี่ยวชาญเกี่ยวกับดนตรีเข้ามาร่วมทีม
จะทำให้ธุรกิจใหม่ของ Apple มีความเข้าใจและเลือกที่จะพัฒนา
ผลิตภัณฑ์ได้ตรงตามความต้องการของผู้บริโภคมากขึ้น

2. ผลิตภัณฑ์และองค์ความรู้ของ Beats

- แบรนด์หูฟัง Beats ที่มีฐานลูกค้าอยู่ในกลุ่มระดับพรีเมียม
ซึ่งระดับนี้ก็อยู่ในกลุ่มเดียวกันกับผู้ใช้งานผลิตภัณฑ์ของ Apple

- Beats Music คืออีกตัวแปรสำคัญที่ทำให้ Apple ตัดสินใจในครั้งนี้
เพราะต้องการองค์ความรู้เพื่อนำมาพัฒนาสตรีมมิงของตัวเอง
ซึ่งปัจจุบันพัฒนามาเป็น “Apple Music” นั่นเอง

นอกเหนือจากเหตุผลที่ทางรองประธานอาวุโสได้ให้เหตุผลไว้
อีกเรื่องที่ Apple ได้จาก Beats ก็น่าจะเป็นเทคโนโลยีในการพัฒนาหูฟัง
ที่ทางบริษัทได้รุกเข้าสู่ตลาดหูฟังอย่างเต็มตัวครั้งแรกในปี 2016 กับ AirPods
หลังจากการเข้าซื้อกิจการเพียง 2 ปี

ก่อนที่จะปล่อยผลิตภัณฑ์ในกลุ่มนี้เพิ่มขึ้นอีก ไม่ว่าจะเป็น AirPods หรือ AirPods Max
รวมถึงล่าสุด ที่มีการนำแบรนด์ Beats ไปพัฒนาสินค้ากลุ่ม True Wireless เพิ่มเติม

ปัจจุบัน Apple กลายมาเป็นบริษัทที่แม้จะไม่ได้เป็นบริษัทผู้ผลิตหูฟัง
แต่มีส่วนแบ่งการตลาดหูฟังประเภท True Wireless สูงที่สุดในโลก
โดยในปี 2020 Apple มีส่วนแบ่งในธุรกิจดังกล่าวมากถึง 31%

จากตรงนี้ ก็คงปฏิเสธไม่ได้ว่า Beats เองได้กลายมาเป็นส่วนสำคัญ
ที่ทำให้ Apple ประสบความสำเร็จในผลิตภัณฑ์กลุ่มหูฟังรวมถึงการพัฒนาบริการสตรีมมิง

แม้ว่ามูลค่ากิจการที่ Apple จ่ายให้กับ Beats เหมือนว่าจะน้อยกว่า
เมื่อเทียบกับการเข้าซื้อกิจการของบริษัทเทคโนโลยียักษ์ใหญ่อื่นพอสมควร

แต่ถ้าพูดถึงความคุ้มค่าแล้ว Beats ก็เรียกได้ว่าเป็นหนึ่งในดีลการเข้าซื้อกิจการที่ประสบความสำเร็จไม่แพ้ดีลไหนในโลก เลยทีเดียว..
╔═══════════╗
Blockdit เป็นแพลตฟอร์ม สำหรับนักอ่าน และนักเขียน
ที่มีผู้ใช้งาน 1 ล้านคน ลองใช้แพลตฟอร์มนี้เพื่อได้ไอเดียใหม่ๆ
แล้วอาจพบว่าสังคมนี้เหมาะกับคนเช่นคุณ
Blockdit. Ideas Happen. Blockdit.com/download
╚═══════════╝
ติดตามลงทุนแมนได้ที่
Website - longtunman.com
Blockdit - blockdit.com/longtunman
Facebook - facebook.com/longtunman
Twitter - twitter.com/longtunman
Instagram - instagram.com/longtunman
Line - page.line.me/longtunman
YouTube - youtube.com/longtunman
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/4jz0qVn1AL7tRMHiTvMbZH
Apple Podcasts - podcasts.apple.com/th/podcast/ลงท-นแมน/id1543162829
Soundcloud - soundcloud.com/longtunman
References:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beats_Electronics
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beats_Music
-https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2018/03/08/dr-dres-3-billion-monster-the-secret-history-of-beats-3-kings-book-excerpt/?sh=37bf6d4c258d
-https://www.macthai.com/2014/05/27/history-of-beats-electronics-before-apple-acquisition/
-https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-beats-brief-history-20140528-story.html
-https://medium.com/macoclock/why-did-apple-buy-beats-for-3-2-billion-92d3a5cab764
-https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS71812687520120321
-https://www.automotiverhythms.com/chrysler-a-beats-by-dr-dre-partner/
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Iovine
-https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/beats-by-dre-marketing-analysis-7363.php
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple
-https://www.statista.com/statistics/325991/beats-music/

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

[News] Square Enix ออกโรงโต้! ข่าวลือที่ว่ากำลังมีบริษัทอื่น สนใจเข้ามาซื้อกิจการนั้น "ไม่เป็นความจริง"
.
เมื่อเร็วๆ นี้มีรายงานของ CTFN (ผ่านทาง Bloomberg Japan) ที่ระบุว่า Square Enix บริษัทพัฒนาเกมอันเป็นที่รู้จักดีในผลงานเกม Final Fantasy กำลังตกเป็นเป้าหมายของบริษัทใหญ่หลายแห่งที่กำลังสนใจที่จะเข้ามาซื้อบริษัทเพื่อควบรวมกิจการ
.
ซึ่งทาง CTFN ไม่ได้เปิดเผยชื่อของบริษัทที่สนใจจะเข้ามาควบรวมกิจการกับทาง Square Enix แต่ก็มีสื่อต่างๆ ออกมาให้ความเห็นว่า อาจจะเป็น Sony ที่มีความสัมพันธ์อย่างยาวนานกับทาง Square Enix
.
อย่างไรก็ตาม ทาง Square Enix ได้ออกมาโต้ข่าวลือ ด้วยการออกแถลงการณ์ยืนยันว่า รายงานดังกล่าวของทาง Bloomberg ไม่ได้อิงมาจากการประกาศใดๆ จากทาง Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd. และพวกเขาไม่คิดที่จะขายบริษัท หรือส่วนใดส่วนหนึ่งของธุรกิจของพวกเขา และไม่เคยได้รับข้อเสนอจากบริษัทภายนอกใดๆ เพื่อเข้ามาซื้อกิจการหรือส่วนใดส่วนหนึ่งของธุรกิจของพวกเขาอีกด้วย
.
Source: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/square-enix-is-reportedly-an-acquisition-target-for-multiple-interested-parties/
https://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/ir/pdf/20210416_01en.pdf
-------------------------------
แค่เติมเงินก็ได้ Steam Wallet แล้ว >> GetSteamWallet.com
-------------------------------
Humble Choice ประจำเดือน เม.ย. จ่าย $12 ประมาณ 360 บาท รับสตีมคีย์ Sniper Ghost Warrior Contracts, F1 2020, Shenmue 3 และอื่นๆ ดูที่นี่ - https://bit.ly/3pZKtBe

被譽為「空殼公司」的SPAC, 能夠幫你以最低虧本概率，獲取倍數回酬？真的那麼好康？

眾裡尋他千百度，
驀然回首，SPAC已經幫你選好值得投資的好公司？

全稱為 Special Purpose Acquisition Company 的 「SPAC」
是一種完全「沒有」任何的運營記錄
但卻承諾你在未來收購一家好公司
幫你賺錢的上市公司

這種只有在美國才有的公司
是通過IPO向大眾募集資金
在公司上市了之後
到市場上去找有潛能的公司合拼
換言之，就是幫助某些企業上市

在近年來受到了廣大股民喜愛，
這到底是什麼原因？
SPAC 的好處和壞處是什麼？
它又如何協助你用小資投資，換取最大收益？

趕緊點擊視頻，
這集滿滿的干貨，
要你最快速了解什麼是 SPAC！
.

【免費】我的獨家理財貼士
http://bit.ly/get-spark-financial-tips
.
【免費】股票投資工作坊 - 從0開始學股票
http://bit.ly/join-free-webinar-now
.

🔥點擊鏈接瞭解更多詳情或購買【價值思維學院】課程🔥
課程如下：
1.理財大藍圖
2.理財投資訓練營
3.理財投資訓練營+投資思維訓練營
https://valueinmind.co/zh/sparks/

.
我們需要你
向我們展現你不可多得的能力與實力
數不盡的各種公司福利就等你
點擊鏈接提交求職申請：https://valueinmind.co/join-us/
.
🔥【Etoro】Spark 投資組合和表現 🔥
http://bit.ly/31FPXEz
.
全世界都可以用

eToro申請鏈接
簡體
https://bit.ly/33uZMbm

繁體
https://bit.ly/2SHGw8v

英文
https://bit.ly/3hgADt3
.
免責聲明：
高波動性投資產品，您的交易存在風險。過往表現不能作為將來業績指標。
視頻中談及的內容僅作為教學目的，而非是一種投資建議。
.
👇更多相關影片👇
「YBB事件的觀點」
https://bit.ly/3y3YCSf
.
「新手投資股票10大誤區（下）-策略篇」
https://bit.ly/2SppICU
.
「新手投資股票10大誤區（上）」
https://bit.ly/3aQsmbi
.
⚡ Spark 的 Facebook 很熱閙
http://bit.ly/2X3Cgwr
.
⚡Spark 的 YouTube 很多教學
http://bit.ly/2KMqMvR
.
⚡Spark 的 Instagram 很多八卦
http://bit.ly/31YMLon
.
⚡理財交流站
http://bit.ly/finspark-group
.
⚡美股交易交流區
http://bit.ly/finspark-foreign-stocks

#SPAC #借殼上市 #理財投資

チャンネル登録はコチラ👇👇👇
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7B35r6aw6Pw625AyvmvrAQ

先日リクエストいただいていたので、Pixel関連のリーク情報をまとめてみました。ワクワクする端末が出て欲しいですね！皆さんはどれが気になっていますか？どんなPixelが出てきて欲しいですか？ぜひコメントで教えてください！
※この動画はあくまでリーク情報をまとめたものなので、100%実現が約束されるものではありません。一緒に妄想して楽しんでいただけると嬉しいです。

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
関連リンク
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
◆◆◆◆Pixel5a 5G関連◆◆◆◆
Jon Prosser氏のPixel 5a関連の主なTweet
https://twitter.com/jon_prosser/status/1380536151996559362
https://twitter.com/jon_prosser/status/1367844872892387330

Pixel5a 5Gに関する9to5Googleの記事
https://9to5google.com/2021/04/09/google-pixel-5a-5g-official/

@OnLeaksのPixel5aレンダリング画像
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VnaQq0eGI


◆◆◆◆Pixel5aPixel Watch関連◆◆◆◆Pixel5a
FRONT PAGE TECHチャンネル（Jon Prosser氏）のPixelWatchの動画
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xioX3XTRomM

fitbitの公式サイト
https://www.fitbit.com/jp/sense

fitbit買収に関するtechrunchの記事
https://jp.techcrunch.com/2021/01/16/2021-01-14-googles-fitbit-acquisition-is-official/


◆◆◆◆Pixel Buds関連◆◆◆◆
9to5GoogleのPixel Buds Aの記事
https://9to5google.com/2021/03/23/new-google-pixel-buds-incoming-fcc/
https://9to5google.com/2021/03/30/sources-google-pixel-buds-a/

GizmochinaのPixel Buds Aの記事
https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/04/08/google-pixel-buds-a-leaks-nest-mailing-list/

Dysonics買収に関するProtocolの記事
https://www.protocol.com/google-dysonics-acquisition-3d-audio


◆◆◆◆Pixel 6 / Pixel Fold関連◆◆◆◆
コードネームに関する９to5 GoogleのPixel の記事
https://9to5google.com/2020/08/05/google-pixel-foldable-leaked-document/
https://9to5google.com/2021/03/18/everything-google-pixel-5a-android-12-preview/

GoogleがOLEDパネルを発注したとするThe Elec の記事
http://www.thelec.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=2413

Jon Prosser氏 のPixel Fold のツイート
https://twitter.com/jon_prosser/status/1365060635453751297
Ross Yound氏のPixel Foldのツイート
https://twitter.com/DSCCRoss/status/1365077924089585664

Waqar KhanのPixelFoldのレンダリング動画
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egz2yn-Xts0&t=2s

Pixel6のインカメに関する９to5 Googleの記事
https://9to5google.com/2021/03/09/google-camera-tidbits-pixel-6-pixel-5a/

ベイヤーパターンに関するツイート
https://twitter.com/MishaalRahman/status/1381317547321085955

Whitechapelに関する9to5Googleの記事
https://9to5google.com/2021/04/02/pixel-6-google-gs101-whitechapel/

SONY Xperia 1 Ⅲ 発表会
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GAVRGNlzK4&t=1895s

OnePlus9 発表会
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-51Kc42hoQ&t=1004s

MI11Ulrta発表会
※公式の動画がなくなっていました
MIX FOLD発表会
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxl50_yktb0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
タイムスケジュール
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
00:00 オープニング
00:32 Pixel 5a 5G
02:19 Pixel Watch
04:10 Pixel Buds A
05:52 Pixel 6 / Pixel Fold
10:33 ぱぱのひとり妄想

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
このチャンネルの過去動画
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PIxel4aのレビュー動画
https://youtu.be/GFd2dZMEsnA

PixelBudsレビュー動画
https://youtu.be/jtYoOaTNo9k

Galaxy S21 Ultra
https://youtu.be/Q_VgO9rctMo

Galaxy S21 Ultra カメラ比較
https://youtu.be/qg-ioBi8bY8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SNS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
★Twitter★
https://twitter.com/papa_hitorigoto

★instagram★
https://www.instagram.com/papa_hitorigoto

★Mail★
papa_info@icloud.com

※お仕事のご依頼やお問い合わせはこちらまでお願い致します

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
機材・動画編集ソフト・音楽
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
★機材★
◆iPhone12ProMax
◆FUJIFILM X-T4
◆XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR
◆XF35mmF1.4 R
◆Shure SM58
◆EVO 4


★使用ソフト★
◆Adobe PremierePro CC
◆Adobe AfterEffects CC
◆Adobe Audition CC
◆Adobe Illustrator CC
◆Adobe Photoshop CC


★音楽★
https://artlst.io/​
https://www.epidemicsound.com/music/featured/

今日は月曜。ここ１週間分のAppleに関するニュースをアニメ「ミニオヤジ」を使ってまとめます。いよいよ明日から9月具体的なApple新製品って感じになっていますね。

＜引用させていただいたサイト＞

MacRumors
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/30/ipad-design-schematics-emerge/
https://www.91mobiles.com/hub/ipad-gen-8-2020-design-leak-exclusive/

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/28/apple-terminates-epic-games-developer-account/

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/28/refurbished-13-inch-macbook-pro-10th-gen/

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/27/iphone-12-no-charger-in-box-rumor/

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/27/apple-losing-share-wireless-earbuds-market/


https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/27/leak-ipad-air-touch-id-power-button-usb-c/
https://twitter.com/duanrui1205/status/1298842866962186240

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/apple-registers-apple-watches-and-ipads/

Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-27/apple-ceding-wireless-earbuds-market-share-even-as-airpods-grow
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-25/apple-plans-to-start-selling-online-in-india-next-month

9to5Mac
https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/27/youtube-starts-testing-native-picture-in-picture-feature-in-its-ios-app/
https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/30/imac-2020-lines-screen-glitch/

consomac
https://consomac.fr/news-13044-l-apple-watch-series-6-deja-reperee-en-russie.html
https://consomac.fr/news-13043-apple-enregistre-de-nouveaux-modeles-d-ipad.html

Apple
https://www.apple.com/jp/newsroom/2020/08/final-cut-pro-x-updated-with-significant-workflow-improvements/

Anandatech
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16024/tsmc-details-3nm-process-technology-details-full-node-scaling-for-2h22

Protcol
https://www.protocol.com/apple-vr-ar-spaces-acquisition

Twitter
https://twitter.com/DSCCRoss

撮影機材

・Panasonic Lumix GH5s
・Panasonic Lumix GH5
・Canon Power Shot G7X Mark II
・iPhone 11 Pro（Simフリー）
・iPhone 11（Simフリー）
・iPhone XS Max（Simフリー）
・iPhone X（Simフリー）
・iPadPro 11”（Simフリー）
・DJI OSMO Pocket
・Moment iPhone 外付けレンズ＆専用ケース

動画編集
Final Cut Pro X
Adobe Illustrator(スライド)
Adobe Photoshop(スライド）
Adobe Character Animator（アニメーション）
※チャンネル全般で使っているものであって動画によって機材アプリは違います。

#Apple
#iMac2020
#ニュースと噂

本編で使用した曲：Twin Musicomの「Italian Afternoon」はCreative Commons By Attribution License.（https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/）によりライセンス付与されています。
アーティスト： http://www.twinmusicom.org/