Soli

ouy97778 said:

Soli said:

Not unexpected, but that's a lot of whining over something small. If you don't want to have your app notarized then don't sign it.

Do you know for a fact that unsigned apps do not need to be notarized? It seems like it but I haven't seen any confirmation of this.

Also there is a lot of applications that are signed out there that will not work unless the developer decides to get it notarized and publish a new release.

I hope there is some kind of defaults override for users who know what they are doing.

• https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=06032019i

polymnia said:

one word: Screens.app

problem solved.

elijahg said:

zoetmb said:

If Apple is buying these companies in large part to acquire talent and staffing, I ask the question again that I've asked before:   what the hell are those tens of thousands of employees at Apple doing?    They don't produce that many products, most of the hardware updates are incremental, they still rely upon Intel for processors (although that might change in the future) and while their products are great in some respects, they're highly flawed in others.   They abandoned servers and network devices.   HomePod and AppleTV aren't exactly taking over the market.   They've had big problems with keyboards.   They seem to have abandoned their desire to produce a smart automobile.   They haven't made any obvious movies into AI and robotics, which I have always thought would be the future of Apple 10-15 years from now.   Siri still sucks.   Each new OS update decreases prior compatibility and seems filled with more bugs.    The long promised new MacPro still isn't here.   And their products (IMO) are far too expensive. 

Personally, I think Apple is making itself too large to manage effectively.    On a much smaller scale, I've seen this before.   I worked for a company that had over 100 developers working on an e-commerce project and little got accomplished.   We got rid of the contractors and knocked the staff down to 22 and because 22 people could be easily managed, far more was accomplished.   

Was the Beats acquisition really worth the $billions they paid?   Apple couldn't have instead produced headphones that competed with Beats and knocked them out of the market with superior marketing for far less money?    While Beats headphones are popular, it's not like they're actually any good.    They probably could have bought Sennheiser for a fraction of the cost or Grado for pocket change.   

I have to wonder that with the speed that Apple is acquiring these companies, how many of them are successfully integrated into Apple where Apple actually makes use of the tech.   If they're buying them just to acquire patents as a protection against lawsuits, that's another matter. 

With all of that cash and since Apple is emphasizing services because that's where the growth is, I also have to wonder if they shouldn't have attempted to buy 20th Century Fox (which went to Disney) or Warner (which went to AT&T).    

I agree completely with this, Apple's R&D has ballooned over the last 7 or 8 years, but have the products, innovation and relative revenue kept up with this? Not at all. It's now about $3.7 billion per quarter, whereas in 2006 just before the iPhone it was just or $190m per quarter. That's 20 times as much. Even since 2012 it has increased massively, from about $750m per quarter to the $3.7bn it is now. Where is all that money going? The HomePod couldn't possibly have absorbed that many billions to design, and if it did, something has gone badly wrong. The iPhone was completely new, everything from custom chips, to custom screen, chassis, software, OS, interface, everything. All that on $750m per year. And as you say, now even with Apple's $14bn per year R&D, they struggle to keep their Macs updated. Just throwing money and people at problems isn't a way to fix them, you need a small group of the very best people. Just look at the recent AI article on the design group, there's only a few people there and they produce some incredible designs, arguably the best the world has seen.

• 1984 — Mac
• 2001 — iPod (17 years) 
• 2007 — iPhone (6 years) 
• 2007 — Apple TV (6 months)
• 2010 — iPad (3 years)
• 2015 — Apple Watch (5 years)
• 2016 — AirPods (1 year)
• 2018 — HomePod (2 years)

GeorgeBMac said:

Soli said:

GeorgeBMac said:

THE primary rule remains:   "If they want in bad enough, they will.   The trick is to make it hard enough that they go after your neighbor instead."
...  That's sort of a take off on the joke that you don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend.

Too often it seems we think we can rely on having big locks (aka "13 character passwords") on things.   But, often better is:

1)  Security through obscurity
2)  Immediate notification (such as when a sign on is attempted or a new device connected or especially if there is an invalid attempt.)

For myself, I keep MAC authorization enabled so that, if I don't know your MAC address, you aren't getting in.

I appreciate your vigilance, but you should know that it's trivial to locate a valid MAC address as they are sent with each and every packet, and they are easily spoofable since they are a virtual representation of the BiA (burn-in address). It's effectively just a speedbump for any would be attacker, and one so small that they don't even have to slow down.

To WPA2's credit, this protocol has been going strong since its release in the mid-aughts, and without a successor that greatly increases protection it looks like it'll be used for many years to come.

As I said, there are no bullet proof security schemes.   If they want in bad enough, they will get in.   The trick is to make it hard enough that they go elsewhere for easier pickings.  Finding and spoofing a valid Mac address can be done, but it would be easier, quicker and cheaper to go pick on somebody else.