This is a winner for Apple...the first three companies to have a billion users were Google, Yahoo and Facebook (not sure if that's the correct order) and they all harvest data.
In fact, 90% of the data harvested has been harvested in the last 2 years.
I hope Apple can make all our devices anonymous to these unscrupulous companies.
Best.
You're honestly suggesting that Apple partners with unscrupulous companies, at least until it no longer benefits them? Wow....
Hmmmm...I guess I am. The world's not perfect. But I prefer Apple's approach over Facebook's.
Facebook and Google are a lot more insidious than you may think.
I remember Stevo saying Facebook's conditions were "onerous."
Pretty strong word, don't you think?
Best.
In an ideal world, I'd like Apple to put out a beta Instagram/facebook-like service (Social), buy Duck, Duck Go (Search), and buy Sprint (Mobile USA), a beta YouTube-type (video)...and just make them better as time goes by as only Apple can do!
Don’t worry, GG is just deliberately not bringing up the fact that Cook explicitly addressed the question about partnering with Google; Apple products provide means to limit the data Google and others get and track. He just didn’t want the facts to get in the way of a good narrative.
Oh, so Apple had no choice but to partner (and still does) with Google? Or is it Google willing to give them more pieces of silver which makes being "unscrupulous" more palatable and good for Apple's bottom line? Or is it that Apple doesn't really see a big issue with Google anyway beyond competing in some areas?
Obviously if Google is paying Apple several billion for default search services then Apple is "allowing" them enough access to you and yours to make the investment worthwhile, collecting 10's of $B's more than that in targeted ad revenue. From "you". Your iPhone using friends. Your iPhone using neighbors. Don't let your good facts get in the way either Radar.
So since you'd like to be involved in the conversation then perhaps hazard an answer to some of those questions. They require a little more consideration than you're giving it.
Oh my, heh... given my understanding about how Apple's lame photo sharing solutions work (by default, even?), I can actually see how this kind of thing (and others) could happen. Just turn it all off, and hope some day a real photo management solution comes along from someone.
I assume you're just trolling, but I'm going to ask a serious question. Is there a better solution on another platform? Does any other platform offer desktop, cloud, and mobile apps that sync images and edits between them?
Indeed he is a troll
Geez Louise...
Wasn't someone pointing out forum rules earlier today?
No, I didn’t.
Nice job trimming out the crazy posts I replied to, leaving just my reply. Gold star.
As your bolded segments, I don’t believe the forum rules say “no swearing”. If so I’d expect them to use a text swap on saving as MR does.
That is a brilliant ad, and a great play on the Vegas slogan. No doubt this is going to piss off a lot of people.
No, it's quite wrong actually.
There are many people that take photos while doing naughty things, only to have it pop up on the Apple TV screen saver at home a few seconds later.
Did you say at home? Did you forget to say this is under the user’s control? But... sorry that happened to you.
Oh my, heh... given my understanding about how Apple's lame photo sharing solutions work (by default, even?), I can actually see how this kind of thing (and others) could happen. Just turn it all off, and hope some day a real photo management solution comes along from someone.
I assume you're just trolling, but I'm going to ask a serious question. Is there a better solution on another platform? Does any other platform offer desktop, cloud, and mobile apps that sync images and edits between them?
Indeed he is a troll, of the old timer “Apple used to be better in my day!” sort. Ignoring that today’s Apple ships to far more customers and the devices are far more capable. These types are eager to hunt for any perceived indicators or slippage so they can validate that “things were better, then”. It’s a disorder of some sort.
Oh please, that's ridiculous. He didn't say anything about the good ol' days. In fact, I think this may be the first time I've seen cgWerks post anything remotely critical of Apple.
Sorry, I’ve read his post history longer than you. It’s indeed accurate to summarize as “Apple used to be better back in my day!”, particularly about Macs.
Oh my, heh... given my understanding about how Apple's lame photo sharing solutions work (by default, even?), I can actually see how this kind of thing (and others) could happen. Just turn it all off, and hope some day a real photo management solution comes along from someone.
I assume you're just trolling, but I'm going to ask a serious question. Is there a better solution on another platform? Does any other platform offer desktop, cloud, and mobile apps that sync images and edits between them?
Indeed he is a troll
Geez Louise...
Wasn't someone pointing out forum rules earlier today?
No, I didn’t.
Nice job trimming out the crazy posts I replied to, leaving just my reply. Gold star.
As your bolded segments, I don’t believe the forum rules say “no swearing”. If so I’d expect them to use a text swap on saving as MR does.
That is a brilliant ad, and a great play on the Vegas slogan. No doubt this is going to piss off a lot of people.
No, it's quite wrong actually.
There are many people that take photos while doing naughty things, only to have it pop up on the Apple TV screen saver at home a few seconds later.
Did you say at home? Did you forget to say this is under the user’s control? But... sorry that happened to you.
Oh my, heh... given my understanding about how Apple's lame photo sharing solutions work (by default, even?), I can actually see how this kind of thing (and others) could happen. Just turn it all off, and hope some day a real photo management solution comes along from someone.
I assume you're just trolling, but I'm going to ask a serious question. Is there a better solution on another platform? Does any other platform offer desktop, cloud, and mobile apps that sync images and edits between them?
Indeed he is a troll, of the old timer “Apple used to be better in my day!” sort. Ignoring that today’s Apple ships to far more customers and the devices are far more capable. These types are eager to hunt for any perceived indicators or slippage so they can validate that “things were better, then”. It’s a disorder of some sort.
Oh please, that's ridiculous. He didn't say anything about the good ol' days. In fact, I think this may be the first time I've seen cgWerks post anything remotely critical of Apple.
Sorry, I’ve read his post history longer than you. It’s indeed accurate to summarize as “Apple used to be better back in my day!”, particularly about Macs.
According to him, you're right. Apparently I've just not seen those posts. I stand corrected.
[...] Just like the rest of the MSM, the vast majority of people are simply clueless about how fake most of the news is.
Like most good tales, that sentiment grew from a grain of truth but is 99% bullshit. Please don't help chip away one of the few remaining means of holding to account those with power.
I spent twenty of the last twenty-one years doing sound for the Vancouver affiliate of a national TV network. I was technical so i wasn't directly involved in the journalism side, but we were shoulder-to-shoulder in the same physical space so it was impossible not to see how they do their jobs. I can tell you first hand the idea that "most" or even a significant portion of the news is fake is utter nonsense.
On rare occasions something slips through. Usually it's something relatively minor, but once every few years it's something like Bloomberg's spy chip story. It's not because the local reporter is seizing an opportunity to boost ratings though. It's because newsrooms are under so much financial pressure they simply don't have the resources to recheck every source and re-interview every subject in the original story. Their defence of this practice is half crap, half valid. The crap part is that instead of conceding that their conditions leave them vulnerable to perpetuating misinformation, they claim "We didn't say it, we're just reporting what Bloomberg said." Weak. The valid part is that the biggest exposés usually begin with some seemingly questionable accusation that lacks details, but through continued reporting leads to others coming forward with more information. Since misinformation constitutes only a tiny fraction of any reputable newsroom's body of work, it's worth risking that (as long as it's later corrected) in order to make sure real issues are uncovered.
There are obviously exceptions -- in my opinion neither Fox News or CNN practice reputable journalism anymore -- but there are countless other sources doing good work every day. Their contribution should not be dismissed just because a couple biggies are more interested in partisan politics than responsible reporting.
Sometimes the reporting is factually correct but doesn't give enough attention to a significant detail. That doesn't make the story FAKE, though. It's still true, it just isn't completely thorough. On that basis I urge consumers to be critical listeners, and if a story is important to you, follow up with other sources as well. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater by dismissing news as "fake" just because not every story gets the full documentary treatment. By far, the vast majority of what you read and hear from mainstream media is accurate and balanced. Certainly much, much more so than what you'll get from so-called "alternative media."
StrangeDays said: Sorry, I’ve read his post history longer than you. It’s indeed accurate to summarize as “Apple used to be better back in my day!”, particularly about Macs.
Yes, I've expressed similar sentiments to that in the past... and I'll stand by them and back them up. Or course, it isn't universally true. Apple's phones are considerably better today then 20 years ago. And, happily, they have upped their game again on Mac hardware a bit.
lorin schultz said: Like most good tales, that sentiment grew from a grain of truth but is 99% bullshit. Please don't help chip away one of the few remaining means of holding to account those with power.
...
There are obviously exceptions -- in my opinion neither Fox News or CNN practice reputable journalism anymore -- but there are countless other sources doing good work every day. Their contribution should not be dismissed just because a couple biggies are more interested in partisan politics than responsible reporting.
...
Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater by dismissing news as "fake" just because not every story gets the full documentary treatment. By far, the vast majority of what you read and hear from mainstream media is accurate and balanced. Certainly much, much more so than what you'll get from so-called "alternative media."
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Maybe it's different with more localized media, but since they often repeat the national media on non-local stuff, they are often involved as well. I'm not talking about the sports scores or the obituaries, etc. I'm not even talking about some exact percentage of all the news in total. But, there is enough that it's hard to know what to trust and what not to. (And, interesting on what is being reported and what is being bypassed.)
And, if this is the last means for holding those in power accountable, then we're screwed. They precisely don't do so because the advertisers hold the power.
I listen to a few podcasts that critique the MSM and US gov't, and they can fill dozens of hours each week with examples of important mistakes, propaganda, outright deception, purposeful out of context distortion, and protecting the hands that feed them.
I'd actually say it is opposite. Independent journalism, including podcasters and bloggers, gaining grass-roots audiences, might just be the last hope hold the powerful to account. The MSM is actually the problem, as too many blindly follow them and write off the podcasters as conspiracy theorists.
On what basis do you -- CAN you -- disagree? What qualifies you to make that assessment? What knowledge do you have of reporting practices and media conditions that informs your opinion? Unless you've actually sat in the room and done the job, what could you possibly know about how mainstream media does and doesn't work? You don't GET to disagree, the same way you don't get to dispute climate science, sans any credentials in the field, just because you don't "believe" it or it doesn't "feel" true.
I'd actually say it is opposite. Independent journalism, including podcasters and bloggers, gaining grass-roots audiences, might just be the last hope hold the powerful to account. The MSM is actually the problem, as too many blindly follow them and write off the podcasters as conspiracy theorists.
I could not disagree more. Independents have neither the pressure nor the regulation that compel fair and balanced reporting. We see it all the time in the tech media, including (maybe especially) from AI's own Dilger. Opinion and ego presented as fact. Niche outlets are almost invariably founded by individuals with an axe to grind. Even those whose motives are pure are forced by budget pressures to hire kids who can't even form a grammatically correct sentence, much less critically assess the validity of an interview subject's narrative. Worst of all, none of the small outlets have a big enough audience for their stories to create any kind of ripple in public awareness or sentiment.
You're letting frustration cloud your judgement of reality. Mainstream media is flawed, but not anywhere even NEAR to the degree we see from 21st Century Pop Nouveau News. I understand your frustration with the lack of nuance and detail in mainstream reporting, but lacking depth does not make a story "fake." Just because you don't like or agree with what you hear on the news doesn't mean it's not true.
lorin schultz said: On what basis do you -- CAN you -- disagree? What qualifies you to make that assessment? What knowledge do you have of reporting practices and media conditions that informs your opinion? Unless you've actually sat in the room and done the job, what could you possibly know about how mainstream media does and doesn't work? You don't GET to disagree, the same way you don't get to dispute climate science, sans any credentials in the field, just because you don't "believe" it or it doesn't "feel" true.
What qualifies me? Logic and common sense.
For example, I listen to a podcast that critiques the MSM, and hear about something the MSM reported that was false. I go check it out, and sure enough, if was. Or, I listen to something the MSM reports on... go check it out, and it's wrong. Or, I listen to an audio/video clip reported on the MSM, and go check the original source, and find they've taken it far out of context (often via careful editing, sometimes splicing), or worse, actually changed the clip (that's happened a few times). Or, I listen to a podcast where they point out all the subtle additions of sound effects and music underlying clips to play with the emotions or over-hype something, etc.
Or, I listen carefully to the wording (most viewers/listeners zoom over) and realize that often the sources for a particular piece are some social media account, a made-up non-credible source, some other media outlet with no basis, or it comes right from a government funded propaganda outlet (designed to pump out propaganda). No disclosure, no fact-checking effort, etc.
I don't have to be a journalist with experience in the news room to recognize how bad this is.
And, sorry you're also wrong that someone without credentials in the field can't make judgements on what expert witnesses are reporting. Ever been on a jury? Experts are pretty much tossed out in jury selection... AND, you'll find expert witnesses testifying for/against a particular area of their expertise based on the same set of data, and guess who gets to decide? (I think there is an actual logical fallacy you're committing with your view on this.)
lorin schultz said: I could not disagree more. Independents have neither the pressure nor the regulation that compel fair and balanced reporting. We see it all the time in the tech media, including (maybe especially) from AI's own Dilger. Opinion and ego presented as fact. Niche outlets are almost invariably founded by individuals with an axe to grind. Even those whose motives are pure are forced by budget pressures to hire kids who can't even form a grammatically correct sentence, much less critically assess the validity of an interview subject's narrative. Worst of all, none of the small outlets have a big enough audience for their stories to create any kind of ripple in public awareness or sentiment.
You're letting frustration cloud your judgement of reality. Mainstream media is flawed, but not anywhere even NEAR to the degree we see from 21st Century Pop Nouveau News. I understand your frustration with the lack of nuance and detail in mainstream reporting, but lacking depth does not make a story "fake." Just because you don't like or agree with what you hear on the news doesn't mean it's not true.
The problem here, is that you're assuming (maybe, unfortunately, correctly too often) that people listening to the MSM, or independents, are incapable of critical thought... AND that the MSM is going to be fair, balanced, etc. Neither are the case, and so much as the former might be the case, we can fix that with education (some critical thinking and logic classes).
The idea that we should have some kind of official media that everyone should just blindly trust... I can't even begin to express how bad that is!
I agree that the reach might be smaller for most independent outlets. They also have less resources. They probably have less training (though, is that good or bad?). The fact is, that the independents are doing a much better job than the MSM on a whole bunch of fronts. A great example is the Congressional Dish podcast. The host is reporting on stuff going on in Congress that the MSM isn't covering much at all. So... if you listen to the MSM, you're getting at best, nothing, at worst, a misleading view. If you listen to her, she might not have the political training of a White House journalist, but at least she's reporting on what is going on. (ie: what the MSM *should* be doing... and I doubt she'd have ever started, had the MSM been doing their job.)
lorin schultz said: ... he just bought a loaded up Mac mini and a Blackmagic eGPU and has been sharing his experiences with them. ...
Just an update... (I can't recall what thread we originally were talking about this on.)
I finally got it all working in Bootcamp, though it wasn't exactly straight-forward. I'm going to write-up some notes in a thread over at eGPU.io and probably create a blog article/YouTube video about it. I repeated it and it went well, though you do have to do a couple hard-shutdowns, both on Windows and macOS, which I hate doing. It didn't seem to have caused any issues, though, and now smoothly switches between environments.
Comments
Or is it Google willing to give them more pieces of silver which makes being "unscrupulous" more palatable and good for Apple's bottom line?
Or is it that Apple doesn't really see a big issue with Google anyway beyond competing in some areas?
Obviously if Google is paying Apple several billion for default search services then Apple is "allowing" them enough access to you and yours to make the investment worthwhile, collecting 10's of $B's more than that in targeted ad revenue. From "you". Your iPhone using friends. Your iPhone using neighbors. Don't let your good facts get in the way either Radar.
So since you'd like to be involved in the conversation then perhaps hazard an answer to some of those questions. They require a little more consideration than you're giving it.
...and as for Facebook? That's a whole 'nuther thing. What was the rationale for that one if Facebook is so insidious?
https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/19/apple_releases_mountain_lion_1082_with_facebook_integration
https://techcrunch.com/2012/06/11/facebook-apple-wwdc/
Nice job trimming out the crazy posts I replied to, leaving just my reply. Gold star.
As your bolded segments, I don’t believe the forum rules say “no swearing”. If so I’d expect them to use a text swap on saving as MR does.
Sorry, I’ve read his post history longer than you. It’s indeed accurate to summarize as “Apple used to be better back in my day!”, particularly about Macs.
Minimally Rule 2, Rule 6 and Rule 8...
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/184333/appleinsiders-updated-commenting-guidelines/p1
I'd guess that most members haven't actually read them and end up surprised when a post of theirs disappears.
I spent twenty of the last twenty-one years doing sound for the Vancouver affiliate of a national TV network. I was technical so i wasn't directly involved in the journalism side, but we were shoulder-to-shoulder in the same physical space so it was impossible not to see how they do their jobs. I can tell you first hand the idea that "most" or even a significant portion of the news is fake is utter nonsense.
On rare occasions something slips through. Usually it's something relatively minor, but once every few years it's something like Bloomberg's spy chip story. It's not because the local reporter is seizing an opportunity to boost ratings though. It's because newsrooms are under so much financial pressure they simply don't have the resources to recheck every source and re-interview every subject in the original story. Their defence of this practice is half crap, half valid. The crap part is that instead of conceding that their conditions leave them vulnerable to perpetuating misinformation, they claim "We didn't say it, we're just reporting what Bloomberg said." Weak. The valid part is that the biggest exposés usually begin with some seemingly questionable accusation that lacks details, but through continued reporting leads to others coming forward with more information. Since misinformation constitutes only a tiny fraction of any reputable newsroom's body of work, it's worth risking that (as long as it's later corrected) in order to make sure real issues are uncovered.
There are obviously exceptions -- in my opinion neither Fox News or CNN practice reputable journalism anymore -- but there are countless other sources doing good work every day. Their contribution should not be dismissed just because a couple biggies are more interested in partisan politics than responsible reporting.
Sometimes the reporting is factually correct but doesn't give enough attention to a significant detail. That doesn't make the story FAKE, though. It's still true, it just isn't completely thorough. On that basis I urge consumers to be critical listeners, and if a story is important to you, follow up with other sources as well. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater by dismissing news as "fake" just because not every story gets the full documentary treatment. By far, the vast majority of what you read and hear from mainstream media is accurate and balanced. Certainly much, much more so than what you'll get from so-called "alternative media."
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Maybe it's different with more localized media, but since they often repeat the national media on non-local stuff, they are often involved as well. I'm not talking about the sports scores or the obituaries, etc. I'm not even talking about some exact percentage of all the news in total. But, there is enough that it's hard to know what to trust and what not to. (And, interesting on what is being reported and what is being bypassed.)
And, if this is the last means for holding those in power accountable, then we're screwed. They precisely don't do so because the advertisers hold the power.
I listen to a few podcasts that critique the MSM and US gov't, and they can fill dozens of hours each week with examples of important mistakes, propaganda, outright deception, purposeful out of context distortion, and protecting the hands that feed them.
I'd actually say it is opposite. Independent journalism, including podcasters and bloggers, gaining grass-roots audiences, might just be the last hope hold the powerful to account. The MSM is actually the problem, as too many blindly follow them and write off the podcasters as conspiracy theorists.
I could not disagree more. Independents have neither the pressure nor the regulation that compel fair and balanced reporting. We see it all the time in the tech media, including (maybe especially) from AI's own Dilger. Opinion and ego presented as fact. Niche outlets are almost invariably founded by individuals with an axe to grind. Even those whose motives are pure are forced by budget pressures to hire kids who can't even form a grammatically correct sentence, much less critically assess the validity of an interview subject's narrative. Worst of all, none of the small outlets have a big enough audience for their stories to create any kind of ripple in public awareness or sentiment.
You're letting frustration cloud your judgement of reality. Mainstream media is flawed, but not anywhere even NEAR to the degree we see from 21st Century Pop Nouveau News. I understand your frustration with the lack of nuance and detail in mainstream reporting, but lacking depth does not make a story "fake." Just because you don't like or agree with what you hear on the news doesn't mean it's not true.
For example, I listen to a podcast that critiques the MSM, and hear about something the MSM reported that was false. I go check it out, and sure enough, if was. Or, I listen to something the MSM reports on... go check it out, and it's wrong. Or, I listen to an audio/video clip reported on the MSM, and go check the original source, and find they've taken it far out of context (often via careful editing, sometimes splicing), or worse, actually changed the clip (that's happened a few times). Or, I listen to a podcast where they point out all the subtle additions of sound effects and music underlying clips to play with the emotions or over-hype something, etc.
Or, I listen carefully to the wording (most viewers/listeners zoom over) and realize that often the sources for a particular piece are some social media account, a made-up non-credible source, some other media outlet with no basis, or it comes right from a government funded propaganda outlet (designed to pump out propaganda). No disclosure, no fact-checking effort, etc.
I don't have to be a journalist with experience in the news room to recognize how bad this is.
And, sorry you're also wrong that someone without credentials in the field can't make judgements on what expert witnesses are reporting. Ever been on a jury? Experts are pretty much tossed out in jury selection... AND, you'll find expert witnesses testifying for/against a particular area of their expertise based on the same set of data, and guess who gets to decide? (I think there is an actual logical fallacy you're committing with your view on this.)
The problem here, is that you're assuming (maybe, unfortunately, correctly too often) that people listening to the MSM, or independents, are incapable of critical thought... AND that the MSM is going to be fair, balanced, etc. Neither are the case, and so much as the former might be the case, we can fix that with education (some critical thinking and logic classes).
The idea that we should have some kind of official media that everyone should just blindly trust... I can't even begin to express how bad that is!
I agree that the reach might be smaller for most independent outlets. They also have less resources. They probably have less training (though, is that good or bad?). The fact is, that the independents are doing a much better job than the MSM on a whole bunch of fronts. A great example is the Congressional Dish podcast. The host is reporting on stuff going on in Congress that the MSM isn't covering much at all. So... if you listen to the MSM, you're getting at best, nothing, at worst, a misleading view. If you listen to her, she might not have the political training of a White House journalist, but at least she's reporting on what is going on. (ie: what the MSM *should* be doing... and I doubt she'd have ever started, had the MSM been doing their job.)
I finally got it all working in Bootcamp, though it wasn't exactly straight-forward. I'm going to write-up some notes in a thread over at eGPU.io and probably create a blog article/YouTube video about it. I repeated it and it went well, though you do have to do a couple hard-shutdowns, both on Windows and macOS, which I hate doing. It didn't seem to have caused any issues, though, and now smoothly switches between environments.