gatorguy

Blackwhitepanda said:

Right move. What Prosser did, was not a rumor. It was stealing secrets. 

According to Prosser's text string, Apple's claims are inaccurate https://x.com/jon_prosser/status/1946058379085943243

ranson said:

gatorguy said:

Three years ago (or thereabouts) the Republican Party sued Google for employing a similar Messages feature, sending uninvited political texts to the spam folder. I would expect a similar "influence" campaign from them with Apple trying to address the same things. It's tough to ignore the pressure political parties can apply to do their bidding when so much of what the companies do involves regulators and courts. 

That lawsuit was actually about Gmail, not Messages / texts, allegedly being biased by flagging Republican candidates' mass emails as spam (but not Democratic candidates' emails). What was funny about that case (which was dismissed by the judge with prejudice - meaning it can't be refiled) was that the systems the RNC used to send the emails did not properly employ DKIM, PSK and DMARC while the DNC's servers did. That is why the messages were going to spam; it had nothing to do with political bias. But rather than just properly configure their email servers' authentication, they chose to sue for the right to use those unsecured servers to solicit donations without getting flagged as spam.

Ah, you're correct, I shouldn't always go by memory. Thanks for the details. 

Mike Wuerthele said:

Everybody take a deep breath and re-read the commenting guidelines.

As a reminder, this suit started under the previous administration.

Point taken

MplsP said:

AppleZulu said:

cropr said:

sflagel said:

robin huber said:

sflagel said:

it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better. 

Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?

CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.

Are you sure of that.  I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.

But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music.  What if  Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash.  Who will take responsibility?

The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level  than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that. 

This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos. 

As far as I can understand, one of the more obvious differences between Android Automotive and CarPlay Ultra is that Apple requires an iPhone running iOS12 or higher and Apple Services to make it work. Using Android Automotive does not mean automakers also have to accept Google Services, or that the owner must have an Android phone. But if you do have a phone it will operate the same whether it's Android or iOS. Apple CarPlay Ultra will not.

I see things as Apple trying to limit the advantages of in-vehicle smartphone use to iOS devices since the CarPlay Ultra interface won't work without one, disadvantage anyone who owns not-an-iPhone. Android Automotive doesn't care.

TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not.  If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source. 

whitehusky said:

chasm said:

Thanks for this eye-opening article. This is a lot more information than I would have guessed smart TVs collect. We watch, but we are truly being watched as well.

One alternative way to minimize this issue is to use the Apple TV hardware device rather than your smart TV's interface, which is usually ad-cluttered and poorly-designed anyway. The Apple TV's interface is far more pleasing and doesn't offer any direct ads, though it does show images and previews of shows for various services (including Apple TV+) at the top. This can be

I don't have one of the brands profiled above, but it's likely that some degree of what's detailed in the article is probably happening with most other brands, or soon will be.

If you don't have an Apple TV box, get one. If you can't get one for some reason, disconnect your smart TV from the internet after first checking for a firmware update and allowing that if one is available. Most cable companies now offer services like Disney+ and Netflix (et al) through your cable service rather than you having to subscribe directly, and in some cases that works out cheaper (and consolidates those services into one bill).

You can reconnect the TV to an internet connection on an annual basis to check for firmware updates, but I'd suggest leaving the TV "dumb" as much as possible for your situation.

This is what we do - the TV is not connected to the internet/wifi, and we watch literally everything through all Apple TV box. Maybe one a year or so I'll look online to see if there's a firmware update and update it manually. I just want the TV to be a dumb monitor and Apple TV to be the box I watch everything from.

If eliminating all viewership data sharing is your goal, be sure to disable all data collection gathered via AppleTV as well.  

AppleInsider said:

A new strain of Android malware dubbed "Gooligan," thought to be "the largest Google account breach to date," is already in active circulation and three-fourths of the Android installed base is vulnerable. Once infected, devices give hackers access to the users' Gmail, Google Photos, Docs, Drive and other Google services accounts.

Inaccurate. In truth only around 8% of active Android devices are vulnerable. 92% of the older Android 4 and 5 smartphones are shielded from the exploits via Verify Apps which protects those users who intentionally bypass security settings to sideload apps from unofficial 3rd party sites. (This malware isn't in the Play Store) . If you read Checkpoints comments I believe they themselves pointed that out.

 EDIT: Yes they did.
 "Check Point also notes that Google's "Verify Apps" technology has been updated to deal with apps using vulnerabilities like this. That's significant because, while it doesn't help devices that are already compromised, it roadblocks future installations on 92 percent of active Android devices, even without the need for firmware updates." "So as significant as a million compromised accounts sounds, this is also an example of Google's security strategy for app-based malware working as designed, blocking installations of affected apps across the vast majority of the ecosystem."

Afarstar said:

jfabula1 said:

So I’m thinking, if a US company get very successful in their business model & it get rich it becomes monopolistic.. 
Will Facebook be the next? 

Hopefully. 

Careful. There's a few American tech companies who have become behemoths. Apple and Amazon are two who immediately come to mind. This administration would not have been one I would expect to be insisting on business success being penalized. 

This is obviously a zombie lawsuit. Some things never die.

Anyway if I'm reading correctly the previous appeal ruling was overturned because the judge took into account the patents were invalid, and since Samsung had not raised that issue in the appeal patent validity shouldn't have been considered by the judge? Odd stuff. The legal system is just as confusing as the patent system. 

Soli said:

gatorguy said:

Soli said:

They lose a week of sales that could be sold the next week. In most quarters, they lose sales for that quarter. They potentially lose sales to other vendors for customers with the conspiracy theory mindset, like you and Rogifan, that believe the company is withholding for unethical and nefarious reasons, and feel like it's a personal slap in your face. They lose sales from the "new hotness" factor that causes the constraint in the first place. They lose sales from the domino effect when customers are selling the devices to others around them simply by owning it.

Oh, so you think I was intimating Apple had some evil reason for not having enough iPhones on hand? Well there's where your problem lies then. That's not at all what I said or even hinted at. No wonder you disagreed with me, you didn't understand or incorrectly read what I posted. 

If you believe they are artificially creating demand when they could be selling units to customers, then yes. What amazes me is that you and Rogifan think the demand has to be invented. 

I've zero idea whether they're artificially restricting supply or whether it's by pure happenstance that something seems to happen every year to restrict supplies, nor do you. It doesn't matter either as I'm firmly convinced Apple benefits from it either way. In general scarcity makes a product more desirable and thus more valuable to a potential acquirer who is less likely to question the price. It also tends to prompt immediate decisions to buy when you find one rather than put things off. 

And yes I know you're already familiar with how scarcity can play to a company's advantage. I'm writing that for others and not you. In Apple's case I don't think (yes that's a guess like everyone else's) that having plentiful supplies of a new iPhone model at launch, particularly a new color that everyone who thought about it already knew would be popular, is a high priority for them. I do believe they could have planned for more product in many of the releases if it was to their advantage to do so, and would have if it were so. Of course in any particular year or model there could be something beyond Apple's control (dual camera module?) that leads to a temporary restriction. With that said Apple has more control over their product and components than most other smartphone manufacturers. Remember all the stories about Apple buying up inventories of essential components well in advance and thus limiting the supply available to competitors? I do. 

heybartender said:

How is this design not a complete ripoff of the iPhone???

HTC would tell you it was they who were ripped off if anyone was. The latest HTC-produced smartphones are evolutions of the HTC original design that began with the 2013 One M7 at least as they claim.