How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
It seems to me it’s others turning a mole hill into a mountain. It’s almost like tech media and security researchers want people to be in a constant state of panic or freakout. It’s like when the news came out that Google was working with a big hospital system on analytics. Big freak out in tech media even though the number of people at Google working on this project was small and everything was HIPPA compliant.
The freak out for me was annoyance with Google once again having secretly collected medical data on millions of people without there knowledge or permission. Using HIPPA as an excuse to bypass people’s rights to know what is going on with their private data is wrong in my opinion. To make matters worse Google would have profited from the secret data collection.
On the Apple front, I knew a lot about UWB and how it could be used via the U1 chip for Location Services. This was announced in June 2019 and written about by AppleInsider once or twice. What I didn’t know was the regulations stipulating where the iPhone could not be. That was a surprise that could have been explained back in June 2019. So... Bad on Apple.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Under your absurd standard, Apple would need to disclose the existence of hundreds of thousands of background and service functions that are necessary for iOS to function, and which (as was the case here) are not used to spy or track users.
While we're at it, while not force Apple to release a hundred billions lines of source code so we can verify whether there is anything there that might be used to spy on us?
Just FYI, mobile phones were doing this for years before the iPhone ever existed. It's nothing new. Get a grip on reality.
Your hot taek is hyperbolic and ironically, a perfect example of what absurd really looks like. This is case specific. Apple highlights the granular control customers have over location services. It's not unreasonable to expect there not to have hidden caveats to that granularity. It was an unnecessary omission.
So you should probably 1. understand what you read and reply accordingly. 2. take a deep deep breath and ease up on the silly rhetoric. 3. at least have a modicum of understanding regarding the topic of the article. Based on your comment, you have absolutely no idea what we're all discussing.
Proof that you have no idea what you're talking about here:
Just FYI, mobile phones were doing this for years before the iPhone ever existed. It's nothing new. Get a grip on reality.
Since this is the case - according to your infinite wisdom- I'm sure you can point to one such phone. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah, who am I kidding. I know you lied and made up some nonsense. Apple is the first smartphone vendor to implement UWB tech in their smartphones and they only did it in 2019 with the 11 series. So maybe you should take your own advice and get a grip on reality.
I think the OP meant that cell phones has been giving away it's location, way before the iPhone came along. Not that cell phones were using UWB before the iPhone.
Just what do you think a cell phone pinging the nearest towers is doing? And that's been around way before the iPhone. Even when you're not using the phone, it will ping the nearest tower at regular intervals of non-use. It might be every 15 minute or every hour or every 2 hours or what ever the service provider program. But it will ping whether you know it or not, so long as the phone is powered on.
Now your service provider, who keeps this data, is not using this data in order to track you, but law enforcement can and have (with a court order). It's not as accurate as GPS but can show, that your phone at least, was in a certain area by way of tower triangulation. Could be within a square block or a square mile or a square 10 miles. It depends on how many towers are in the area.
Now why does your provider need for your cell phone to ping a tower every so often ...... so that when you have an incoming call, they don't have to search for your phone, every where they provide their service. They first search for your phone in the area where it was last used or where it last received a ping from your phone. The more often your phone pings a tower, the less time and effort, it takes for your provider to find your phone and make the connection.
If you drove from SF to LA in 6 hours, and the last call you made before arriving in LA, was in SF, your provider would be wasting their time looking for your phone in SF, 3 hours into your drive. Put if your phone was still on and pings a tower every 1/2 hour or so, while driving, they would know that you are no longer in SF and concentrate in the area where they received the last ping from your phone.
If your provider don't receive a ping from your phone after so many hours, it will assume that you are in an area with no reception or you turned off your phone and will then send the incoming call directly to voice mail. Your phone will always ping a tower if there's reception and will ping once it establishes a reception, after a period of no reception. So long as it's on. And will ping a tower every time you power on and off your phone, whether you used it or not.
Now back in the days before the iPhone, this data wasn't of interest to anyone but the providers and law enforcement. But now of days with the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, cell phone makers and other data mining businesses, using location data for marketing purpose is big money. Specially now that it has gotten infinity more accurate with GPS. And yet, no one seems to be making a big deal about service providers collecting location data for their own internal operational use, by way of cell constantly pinging towers ..... unless it involves Apple.
Service providers/Telcos were found to be selling location data. Don’t forget the Verizon Super Cookie that couldn’t be deleted and was used specifically for tracking. These are my only clarifications to your response that I quickly read.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Under your absurd standard, Apple would need to disclose the existence of hundreds of thousands of background and service functions that are necessary for iOS to function, and which (as was the case here) are not used to spy or track users.
While we're at it, while not force Apple to release a hundred billions lines of source code so we can verify whether there is anything there that might be used to spy on us?
Just FYI, mobile phones were doing this for years before the iPhone ever existed. It's nothing new. Get a grip on reality.
Your hot taek is hyperbolic and ironically, a perfect example of what absurd really looks like. This is case specific. Apple highlights the granular control customers have over location services. It's not unreasonable to expect there not to have hidden caveats to that granularity. It was an unnecessary omission.
So you should probably 1. understand what you read and reply accordingly. 2. take a deep deep breath and ease up on the silly rhetoric. 3. at least have a modicum of understanding regarding the topic of the article. Based on your comment, you have absolutely no idea what we're all discussing.
Proof that you have no idea what you're talking about here:
Just FYI, mobile phones were doing this for years before the iPhone ever existed. It's nothing new. Get a grip on reality.
Since this is the case - according to your infinite wisdom- I'm sure you can point to one such phone. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah, who am I kidding. I know you lied and made up some nonsense. Apple is the first smartphone vendor to implement UWB tech in their smartphones and they only did it in 2019 with the 11 series. So maybe you should take your own advice and get a grip on reality.
I think the OP meant that cell phones has been giving away it's location, way before the iPhone came along. Not that cell phones were using UWB before the iPhone.
Just what do you think a cell phone pinging the nearest towers is doing? And that's been around way before the iPhone. Even when you're not using the phone, it will ping the nearest tower at regular intervals of non-use. It might be every 15 minute or every hour or every 2 hours or what ever the service provider program. But it will ping whether you know it or not, so long as the phone is powered on.
Now your service provider, who keeps this data, is not using this data in order to track you, but law enforcement can and have (with a court order). It's not as accurate as GPS but can show, that your phone at least, was in a certain area by way of tower triangulation. Could be within a square block or a square mile or a square 10 miles. It depends on how many towers are in the area.
Now why does your provider need for your cell phone to ping a tower every so often ...... so that when you have an incoming call, they don't have to search for your phone, every where they provide their service. They first search for your phone in the area where it was last used or where it last received a ping from your phone. The more often your phone pings a tower, the less time and effort, it takes for your provider to find your phone and make the connection.
If you drove from SF to LA in 6 hours, and the last call you made before arriving in LA, was in SF, your provider would be wasting their time looking for your phone in SF, 3 hours into your drive. Put if your phone was still on and pings a tower every 1/2 hour or so, while driving, they would know that you are no longer in SF and concentrate in the area where they received the last ping from your phone.
If your provider don't receive a ping from your phone after so many hours, it will assume that you are in an area with no reception or you turned off your phone and will then send the incoming call directly to voice mail. Your phone will always ping a tower if there's reception and will ping once it establishes a reception, after a period of no reception. So long as it's on. And will ping a tower every time you power on and off your phone, whether you used it or not.
Now back in the days before the iPhone, this data wasn't of interest to anyone but the providers and law enforcement. But now of days with the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, cell phone makers and other data mining businesses, using location data for marketing purpose is big money. Specially now that it has gotten infinity more accurate with GPS. And yet, no one seems to be making a big deal about service providers collecting location data for their own internal operational use, by way of cell constantly pinging towers ..... unless it involves Apple.
I know exactly what he meant. . He didn't understand my comment. He didn't understand the topic. The iPhone isn't giving away it's location data. The UWB check doesn't leave the phone. That little nugget was the primary purpose of Apple's response. Had he read the article and understood the content instead of overreacting to my comment, he probably could have saved you a ton of off topic keystrokes.
Phil, did you read that article? I ask because you presented it as a counter argument to my assertion that Apple is the first smartphone vendor to implement UWB in a smartphone. The article doesn't counter my argument, it actually supports it. Respectfully, go back and read it. You will find Samsung did not implement UWB. Samsung allowed one of their phones to be used as a demo for Freescale's UWB prototypes. Execs from both companies call the project a product concept, with Samsung's EVP of R&D stating, "Adding Freescale's UWB to our cell phone for this demonstration, we have created a unique product concept that showcases the possibilities for next generation mobile/cellular products."
It was a product demo. Afaict, nothing ever came from it. To date, again afaict, Samsung still doesn't have a phone, smart or otherwise, that utilizes UWB. Pretty sure that's going to change though. https://www.engadget.com/2019/08/01/sony-and-samsung-resurrect-ultra-wideband-to-improve-location-tr/ Funny tidbit. The article ends with this nugget: "The technology is still a fair way off from consumer use, but it's already being leveraged in enterprise -- and particularly by the automotive sector..." Engadet article from Sept says fair way off from consumer use. Little less than 2 months later, Apple releases UWB tech for consumer use.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Under your absurd standard, Apple would need to disclose the existence of hundreds of thousands of background and service functions that are necessary for iOS to function, and which (as was the case here) are not used to spy or track users.
While we're at it, while not force Apple to release a hundred billions lines of source code so we can verify whether there is anything there that might be used to spy on us?
Just FYI, mobile phones were doing this for years before the iPhone ever existed. It's nothing new. Get a grip on reality.
Your hot taek is hyperbolic and ironically, a perfect example of what absurd really looks like. This is case specific. Apple highlights the granular control customers have over location services. It's not unreasonable to expect there not to have hidden caveats to that granularity. It was an unnecessary omission.
So you should probably 1. understand what you read and reply accordingly. 2. take a deep deep breath and ease up on the silly rhetoric. 3. at least have a modicum of understanding regarding the topic of the article. Based on your comment, you have absolutely no idea what we're all discussing.
Proof that you have no idea what you're talking about here:
Just FYI, mobile phones were doing this for years before the iPhone ever existed. It's nothing new. Get a grip on reality.
Since this is the case - according to your infinite wisdom- I'm sure you can point to one such phone. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah, who am I kidding. I know you lied and made up some nonsense. Apple is the first smartphone vendor to implement UWB tech in their smartphones and they only did it in 2019 with the 11 series. So maybe you should take your own advice and get a grip on reality.
I think the OP meant that cell phones has been giving away it's location, way before the iPhone came along. Not that cell phones were using UWB before the iPhone.
Just what do you think a cell phone pinging the nearest towers is doing? And that's been around way before the iPhone. Even when you're not using the phone, it will ping the nearest tower at regular intervals of non-use. It might be every 15 minute or every hour or every 2 hours or what ever the service provider program. But it will ping whether you know it or not, so long as the phone is powered on.
Now your service provider, who keeps this data, is not using this data in order to track you, but law enforcement can and have (with a court order). It's not as accurate as GPS but can show, that your phone at least, was in a certain area by way of tower triangulation. Could be within a square block or a square mile or a square 10 miles. It depends on how many towers are in the area.
Now why does your provider need for your cell phone to ping a tower every so often ...... so that when you have an incoming call, they don't have to search for your phone, every where they provide their service. They first search for your phone in the area where it was last used or where it last received a ping from your phone. The more often your phone pings a tower, the less time and effort, it takes for your provider to find your phone and make the connection.
If you drove from SF to LA in 6 hours, and the last call you made before arriving in LA, was in SF, your provider would be wasting their time looking for your phone in SF, 3 hours into your drive. Put if your phone was still on and pings a tower every 1/2 hour or so, while driving, they would know that you are no longer in SF and concentrate in the area where they received the last ping from your phone.
If your provider don't receive a ping from your phone after so many hours, it will assume that you are in an area with no reception or you turned off your phone and will then send the incoming call directly to voice mail. Your phone will always ping a tower if there's reception and will ping once it establishes a reception, after a period of no reception. So long as it's on. And will ping a tower every time you power on and off your phone, whether you used it or not.
Now back in the days before the iPhone, this data wasn't of interest to anyone but the providers and law enforcement. But now of days with the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, cell phone makers and other data mining businesses, using location data for marketing purpose is big money. Specially now that it has gotten infinity more accurate with GPS. And yet, no one seems to be making a big deal about service providers collecting location data for their own internal operational use, by way of cell constantly pinging towers ..... unless it involves Apple.
I know exactly what he meant. . He didn't understand my comment. He didn't understand the topic. The iPhone isn't giving away it's location data. The UWB check doesn't leave the phone. That little nugget was the primary purpose of Apple's response. Had he read the article and understood the content instead of overreacting to my comment, he probably could have saved you a ton of off topic keystrokes.
We now know that Apple isn't giving away any location data, because Apple reasonably explained it. But before Apple fully explained ( The first time, Apple only stated it was an internal function of a sort) why the little arrow symbol lights up every so often on their iOS device, even when all access to location data has been denied to third party apps, some people were all over Apple because they thought this was proof that Apple is sharing the user's location data with someone. Which they used as evidence that Apple was no better than Google or Facebook, when it comes to protecting users privacy. So why were they so concern that Apple might be sharing location data (which we now know is not happening in this case) and don't seem to concern about how nearly all cell phones are sharing the users location to their providers, as a normal function of how cell phones operates?
Some people wants to turn this molehill into a mountain because they believe that Apple is being a hypocrite when Apple advertises how much out of the way they go to protect their users personal data. The slightest instance that looks like Apple might be sharing their users data, even without any solid proof and all of a sudden, Apple is no better than Google or Facebook, when it comes to protecting users personal data. There are some people that will never believe Apple's explanation on this matter and will still believe that Apple is some how sharing the user's location data. Even had Apple fully explained it the first time it was questioned on why the little arrow lit up very so often, even when all access to location data is denied.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Nah. Non-issue. No one will care in a week after it rolls off the front page. Not everything is a PR crisis, despite the desperate handwringing of those who always will.
No one said it was a big issue or a PR crisis. It kinda seems you didn't understand the context of the comment. The jist is this was a wholly avoidable issue. Not every issue has to be judged as if it's Spinal Tap Turnt Up to 11.
O rly? You: "Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts"
...punching yourself in the nuts implies great, self-inflected pain. ie, a PR crisis. Which you and others have attributed to the tech media narrative, which again is suggesting it's a PR problem. It isn't. It isn't an issue at all. Next week, no one will care.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
It seems to me it’s others turning a mole hill into a mountain. It’s almost like tech media and security researchers want people to be in a constant state of panic or freakout. It’s like when the news came out that Google was working with a big hospital system on analytics. Big freak out in tech media even though the number of people at Google working on this project was small and everything was HIPPA compliant.
Exactly. It used to be that when people discovered questionable things, they would ask the company for an explanation. Now, let’s just spread it all over social media first and create FUD.
Yes, social media, which tracks people far more effectively than any Apple device ever could.
Well put hexclock. Privacy is a big news issue these days and everyone looking for clicks or attention. When I first read about this I knew it was the typical hyped up ‘security’ problem. Listen as naive as it sounds I believe Apple when they tell me they’re interested in my privacy. Until they truly eff up then I will second guess them. Everyone looking to create news over every damn thing that has Apple’s name associated with it.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Nah. Non-issue. No one will care in a week after it rolls off the front page. Not everything is a PR crisis, despite the desperate handwringing of those who always will.
No one said it was a big issue or a PR crisis. It kinda seems you didn't understand the context of the comment. The jist is this was a wholly avoidable issue. Not every issue has to be judged as if it's Spinal Tap Turnt Up to 11.
O rly? You: "Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts"
...punching yourself in the nuts implies great, self-inflected pain. ie, a PR crisis. Which you and others have attributed to the tech media narrative, which again is suggesting it's a PR problem. It isn't. It isn't an issue at all. Next week, no one will care.
Don. Don, Don, Don. Please stop being argumentative for argument's sake. Most everyone understood the context of what seems to be your latest windmill. Trying to parse my comment to push a silly self serving narrative... well, Mr. Quixote, I'mma just let you be you. Good luck with that.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Nah. Non-issue. No one will care in a week after it rolls off the front page. Not everything is a PR crisis, despite the desperate handwringing of those who always will.
No one said it was a big issue or a PR crisis. It kinda seems you didn't understand the context of the comment. The jist is this was a wholly avoidable issue. Not every issue has to be judged as if it's Spinal Tap Turnt Up to 11.
O rly? You: "Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts"
...punching yourself in the nuts implies great, self-inflected pain. ie, a PR crisis. Which you and others have attributed to the tech media narrative, which again is suggesting it's a PR problem. It isn't. It isn't an issue at all. Next week, no one will care.
Don. Don, Don, Don. Please stop being argumentative for argument's sake. Most everyone understood the context of what seems to be your latest windmill. Trying to parse my comment to push a silly self serving narrative... well, Mr. Quixote, I'mma just let you be you. Good luck with that.
The meaning and visualization of punching one's self in the nuts is not a mild statement.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Nah. Non-issue. No one will care in a week after it rolls off the front page. Not everything is a PR crisis, despite the desperate handwringing of those who always will.
No one said it was a big issue or a PR crisis. It kinda seems you didn't understand the context of the comment. The jist is this was a wholly avoidable issue. Not every issue has to be judged as if it's Spinal Tap Turnt Up to 11.
O rly? You: "Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts"
...punching yourself in the nuts implies great, self-inflected pain. ie, a PR crisis. Which you and others have attributed to the tech media narrative, which again is suggesting it's a PR problem. It isn't. It isn't an issue at all. Next week, no one will care.
Don. Don, Don, Don. Please stop being argumentative for argument's sake. Most everyone understood the context of what seems to be your latest windmill. Trying to parse my comment to push a silly self serving narrative... well, Mr. Quixote, I'mma just let you be you. Good luck with that.
The meaning and visualization of punching Pune self in the nuts is not a mild statement.
Yet you still completely understood the context of my quote in it's entirety. Evidenced by your accurate explanation to Rogifan. He understood the context as well. Trying to equate that parsed section of my quote with a claim of PR crisis is just silly. To do that you'd have to ignore every other thing in the quote. Punched in the nuts was simply a humorous way to illustrate Apple could have easily avoided any controversy. Hype the U1. Exactly what I said in the same quote he's trying to reframe.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Nah. Non-issue. No one will care in a week after it rolls off the front page. Not everything is a PR crisis, despite the desperate handwringing of those who always will.
No one said it was a big issue or a PR crisis. It kinda seems you didn't understand the context of the comment. The jist is this was a wholly avoidable issue. Not every issue has to be judged as if it's Spinal Tap Turnt Up to 11.
O rly? You: "Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts"
...punching yourself in the nuts implies great, self-inflected pain. ie, a PR crisis. Which you and others have attributed to the tech media narrative, which again is suggesting it's a PR problem. It isn't. It isn't an issue at all. Next week, no one will care.
Don. Don, Don, Don. Please stop being argumentative for argument's sake. Most everyone understood the context of what seems to be your latest windmill. Trying to parse my comment to push a silly self serving narrative... well, Mr. Quixote, I'mma just let you be you. Good luck with that.
The meaning and visualization of punching Pune self in the nuts is not a mild statement.
Yet you still completely understood the context of my quote in it's entirety. Evidenced by your accurate explanation to Rogifan. He understood the context as well. Trying to equate that parsed section of my quote with a claim of PR crisis is just silly. To do that you'd have to ignore every other thing in the quote. Punched in the nuts was simply a humorous way to illustrate Apple could have easily avoided any controversy. Hype the U1. Exactly what I said in the same quote he's trying to reframe.
My comment to Rogifan is about a different aspect of your comments. I agree with you that Apple is bringing this on themselves by not being proactive enough about mitigating potential issues—they could've done the same with their iPhone 4 which showed 1 to zero bars when you held the device a certain way because they didn't alter what the deciBels represented in the cellular icon, so people assumed that it was killing their service when AnandTech showed that the design was allowing for connectivity with fewer deciBels and holding a connection in areas where other devices showing more bars couldn't.
The part I disagree with is using mole hill into a mountain and the nut punching analogies and then saying you don't mean that seem big or severe. Both of those are indications that you think they are.
Bottom line: I believe this isn't a big deal, but that Apple could reasonably do a much better of keeping these issues from arising at all.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
It seems to me it’s others turning a mole hill into a mountain. It’s almost like tech media and security researchers want people to be in a constant state of panic or freakout. It’s like when the news came out that Google was working with a big hospital system on analytics. Big freak out in tech media even though the number of people at Google working on this project was small and everything was HIPPA compliant.
Exactly. It used to be that when people discovered questionable things, they would ask the company for an explanation. Now, let’s just spread it all over social media first and create FUD.
How to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Step 1. Implement a function. Tell no on about it. Step 2. Have it discovered by someone outside the organization. Step 3. Retroactively explain, then offer an opt out.
Opt out after the fact gives the impression that "we're only offering an opt out because someone found out what we're doing". Unnecessary self infliction.
Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts. The optics are always worse when "caught" doing something. That vaunted Marketing department could have easily preemptively spun this as a security and safety bullet point of the 11 series and 100% we would have had multiple articles extolling the virtues of UWB geofencing. Not a negative peep would have been heard.
Nah. Non-issue. No one will care in a week after it rolls off the front page. Not everything is a PR crisis, despite the desperate handwringing of those who always will.
No one said it was a big issue or a PR crisis. It kinda seems you didn't understand the context of the comment. The jist is this was a wholly avoidable issue. Not every issue has to be judged as if it's Spinal Tap Turnt Up to 11.
O rly? You: "Apple stop punching yourself in the nuts"
...punching yourself in the nuts implies great, self-inflected pain. ie, a PR crisis. Which you and others have attributed to the tech media narrative, which again is suggesting it's a PR problem. It isn't. It isn't an issue at all. Next week, no one will care.
Don. Don, Don, Don. Please stop being argumentative for argument's sake. Most everyone understood the context of what seems to be your latest windmill. Trying to parse my comment to push a silly self serving narrative... well, Mr. Quixote, I'mma just let you be you. Good luck with that.
The meaning and visualization of punching Pune self in the nuts is not a mild statement.
Yet you still completely understood the context of my quote in it's entirety. Evidenced by your accurate explanation to Rogifan. He understood the context as well. Trying to equate that parsed section of my quote with a claim of PR crisis is just silly. To do that you'd have to ignore every other thing in the quote. Punched in the nuts was simply a humorous way to illustrate Apple could have easily avoided any controversy. Hype the U1. Exactly what I said in the same quote he's trying to reframe.
My comment to Rogifan is about a different aspect of your comments. I agree with you that Apple is bringing this on themselves by not being proactive enough about mitigating potential issues—they could've done the same with their iPhone 4 which showed 1 to zero bars when you held the device a certain way because they didn't alter what the deciBels represented in the cellular icon, so people assumed that it was killing their service when AnandTech showed that the design was allowing for connectivity with fewer deciBels and holding a connection in areas where other devices showing more bars couldn't.
The part I disagree with is using mole hill into a mountain and the nut punching analogies and then saying you don't mean that seem big or severe. Both of those are indications that you think they are.
Bottom line: I believe this isn't a big deal, but that Apple could reasonably do a much better of keeping these issues from arising at all.
I think I see the problem. The idiom "make a mountain out of a mole hill" doesn't mean what you and Strange Days seem to think it means. It literally means to overreact to a minor issue. My quote is essentially a how-to on how to cause an overreaction to a non-issue. It is not a declaration that an issue is big or severe. The use of the mole hill idiom is the biggest indication that I think this isn't a big issue. Again, trying to equate nut punch with crisis is silly. Your bottom line is virtually saying the same thing as my original quote 'cept with less creativity. Either way you're both entitled to your opinions. This has gotten waaaaaaaay off topic so I'mma drop out and go make fun of the iPhone 9 naming rumor.
Phil, did you read that article? I ask because you presented it as a counter argument to my assertion that Apple is the first smartphone vendor to implement UWB in a smartphone. The article doesn't counter my argument, it actually supports it. Respectfully, go back and read it. You will find Samsung did not implement UWB. Samsung allowed one of their phones to be used as a demo for Freescale's UWB prototypes. Execs from both companies call the project a product concept, with Samsung's EVP of R&D stating, "Adding Freescale's UWB to our cell phone for this demonstration, we have created a unique product concept that showcases the possibilities for next generation mobile/cellular products."
It was a product demo. Afaict, nothing ever came from it. To date, again afaict, Samsung still doesn't have a phone, smart or otherwise, that utilizes UWB. Pretty sure that's going to change though. https://www.engadget.com/2019/08/01/sony-and-samsung-resurrect-ultra-wideband-to-improve-location-tr/ Funny tidbit. The article ends with this nugget: "The technology is still a fair way off from consumer use, but it's already being leveraged in enterprise -- and particularly by the automotive sector..." Engadet article from Sept says fair way off from consumer use. Little less than 2 months later, Apple releases UWB tech for consumer use.
1. Sorry for the late reply (for some reason I don't get emails or notifications on replies to my post) 2. Sorry for not thinking my counter argument through: yes, you are correct (afaict as well) Apple is indeed the first to implement UWB in a phone that is actually being sold. Prototypes shouldn't been seen as "We're first". Which leads to my no. 3... 3. The SpoonPhone: grizzlyanalytics . blogspot . com /2014/07/recent-years-have-seen-constant.html youtu . be /jdUe8vXdwn8 4. Indeed funny to see the tech mentioned in August, and being 'a fair way from...' and there's the 11, a mere 2 months later...
Comments
https://phys.org/news/2005-02-samsung-freescale-ultra-wideband-enabled-cell-3gsm.html
On the Apple front, I knew a lot about UWB and how it could be used via the U1 chip for Location Services. This was announced in June 2019 and written about by AppleInsider once or twice. What I didn’t know was the regulations stipulating where the iPhone could not be. That was a surprise that could have been explained back in June 2019. So... Bad on Apple.
It was a product demo. Afaict, nothing ever came from it. To date, again afaict, Samsung still doesn't have a phone, smart or otherwise, that utilizes UWB. Pretty sure that's going to change though. https://www.engadget.com/2019/08/01/sony-and-samsung-resurrect-ultra-wideband-to-improve-location-tr/ Funny tidbit. The article ends with this nugget: "The technology is still a fair way off from consumer use, but it's already being leveraged in enterprise -- and particularly by the automotive sector..." Engadet article from Sept says fair way off from consumer use. Little less than 2 months later, Apple releases UWB tech for consumer use.
Some people wants to turn this molehill into a mountain because they believe that Apple is being a hypocrite when Apple advertises how much out of the way they go to protect their users personal data. The slightest instance that looks like Apple might be sharing their users data, even without any solid proof and all of a sudden, Apple is no better than Google or Facebook, when it comes to protecting users personal data. There are some people that will never believe Apple's explanation on this matter and will still believe that Apple is some how sharing the user's location data. Even had Apple fully explained it the first time it was questioned on why the little arrow lit up very so often, even when all access to location data is denied.
...punching yourself in the nuts implies great, self-inflected pain. ie, a PR crisis. Which you and others have attributed to the tech media narrative, which again is suggesting it's a PR problem. It isn't. It isn't an issue at all. Next week, no one will care.
The part I disagree with is using mole hill into a mountain and the nut punching analogies and then saying you don't mean that seem big or severe. Both of those are indications that you think they are.
Bottom line: I believe this isn't a big deal, but that Apple could reasonably do a much better of keeping these issues from arising at all.
2. Sorry for not thinking my counter argument through: yes, you are correct (afaict as well) Apple is indeed the first to implement UWB in a phone that is actually being sold. Prototypes shouldn't been seen as "We're first". Which leads to my no. 3...
3. The SpoonPhone:
grizzlyanalytics . blogspot . com /2014/07/recent-years-have-seen-constant.html
youtu . be /jdUe8vXdwn8
4. Indeed funny to see the tech mentioned in August, and being 'a fair way from...' and there's the 11, a mere 2 months later...
Virtual kudos 2 U!