citpeks

About

Username
citpeks
Joined
Visits
334
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,007
Badges
1
Posts
271

Reactions

502Like17Dislike85Informative

  • Cellular Apple Watch buyers call out Verizon's maddening activation block

    citpekscitpeks
    I'm not totally in agreement with how the EU regulators act, but this sounds like the kind of crap that they would not tolerate, and consumers should not.

    But it's part of the legacy of the American Telco Monopoly, now cartel.

    Those of a certain age will remember when Ma Bell would only allow devices it provided, leased or sold, to be connected to the phone network.  The notion of buying your own phone, answering machine, or whatever was completely foreign.
    ronnbageljoeyzeus423gilly33watto_cobra

  • How Apple's worst value in a product will be a bestseller in 2023

    citpekscitpeks
    kmarei said:
    Doesn't this mfi for usb-c charger violate the open source nature of usb-c standard ?
    it's a standard, and as long as you abide by the standard, everything should work fine
    doesnt matter if it's a laptop, tablet, or phone
    without having to pay money to apple, usb-c is NOT an apple creation

    if iPhones only work with an mfi cable, that by definition means they are inferior
    because other phones work just fine with any usb-c charger 
     I've used an HP usb-c charger to charge an iPad Pro, Microsoft phone, Microsoft surface laptop, and portable car tire inflator just fine
    no errors or issues or anything 
    No, it doesn't the spec.  Type-C Authentication was being mooted as far back as 2016, and the first version of the spec was published in 2019.

    Section 2.2 of the spec cites as an example just what is being rumored:

    "USB Authentication allows a USB Host or PD Product to authenticate an attached Product and, by Policy, choose how to interact with that Product. For example, a PD Sink may choose not to use the full advertised capabilities of an unauthenticated PD Source. Authentication can be initiated by either a PD Sink, PD Source, or USB Host."

    If Apple chooses to prevent their devices from drawing full power from an unauthenticated source, that does not break any rule.

    That said, the authentication capability was included by the USB IF as a security measure, to mitigate the risk of plugging your phone into a random port, such as a quick charge at the airport, resulting in some sort of malware, or other unintended consequences, given that Type-C has become a catchall in terms of connectivity.

    I doubt the intent was to have it used as part of a business strategy, or part of a marketing ploy to encourage users to buy "approved" or name-branded cables, or whatever.

    That would seem to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the law, and open up a can of worms that might encourage others to adopt similar tactics, though to be fair, that kind of thing is nothing new in the USB charging game, even before Type-C, though not to the extent that could develop, since earlier standards lacked any type of authentication or DRM-like schemes.

    But it is important to point out that this is all speculation for now, and until we see what Apple actually does, it's just a theoretical debate, and good only for some clicks.

    The MFi program was originally conceived for the iPod in 2005, so it's not like Apple users have be unaware, or have chosen to shy away in droves because the company has chosen to have licensed accessories, and make it a revenue stream.  IIRC, iOS 7 in 2014 was the first to throw up active complaints about non-certified cables.  If there is more of the same, people will just carry on, as they've been doing, even if they're moaning in forums like this, but still buying Apple products.
    Fidonet127twokatmewAlex1Nwatto_cobra

  • The macOS Sonoma 14.4 update is breaking printers for some users

    citpekscitpeks
    First, it's important to note that in general CUPS printer drivers have been deprecated in favor of IPP, and for Apple in particular that means AirPrint.

    However, CUPS is still present in Sonoma, and hasn't been removed.  Yet.  It is still possible to install CUPS drivers from older OSes in Sonoma, and they will still function.  I just verified this with my Brother AIO laser printer, for which I installed the CUPS drivers meant for Catalina, which was the last version of Mac OS supported by Brother for my printer model.  It does not support AirPrint.

    The "core CUPS software" has not been removed, at least from my 14.4 installation, and my printer still functions, albeit in unsupported fashion.

    It would be a d!ck move for Apple to completely remove a framework in a point release.  That said, I wouldn't bet against that happening in Mac OS 15.x, or another future version, so users should be prepared for that inevitability.  Personally, I will rue that move because my decade+ old printer would become obsolete for no reason other than OS support.  It has been dependable, durable, and economical to operate.  And I have little desire to buy a new printer just to accommodate a new OS.

    Whatever issues those users are having probably result from a cocktail of MDM, MS software, and a deprecated framework, but, they are not universal.

    muthuk_vanalingamVictorMortimerwatto_cobra

  • Phil Schiller will be Apple's ecosystem defender for quite some time

    citpekscitpeks
    avon b7 said:
    He might not be the same now. Maybe he's just too long in the tooth but he was there through thick and thin and defending the brand. That's admirable. He's an Apple guy. 

    Apple's stubborn refusal to make reasonable, measured concessions in the way it does business has had the predictable effect -- regulators around the world who have had Apple in their sights have now pulled their triggers, with both barrels from the EU and US the latest and largest.

    Cook strikes me as an adaptable guy, shown by the way he's able to navigate the fraught geopolitical waters that the company navigates, and mostly avoid the criticism that would easily come from being so invested in China.

    But if he is indeed the one who has left Schiller to mind the App Store, and allowed him to maintain the hard line stance with regard its policies, then I think that may have been a mistake.  Taking the same all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it stance in how it deals with developers, large and small, has now brought consequences, where Apple might be forced to take steps beyond what it could have voluntarily taken, because it, or he in particular, felt that the company was too and powerful to have anyone push it around.

    Worse, it has come at the result of the lobbying from hypocrites like Sweeney and Ek, who bear no admirable qualities of their own; they're sharks on their own accords.

    A marketing guy, no matter how tenured, should not be the one making overall strategic decisions like that.  That's the CEO's job.

    I've been an Apple user all my life, and the way the company exerts its market power should disconcerting to anyone who recalls what Microsoft did in the past, and how Mac users vehemently railed against them and their conduct.  That shoe is now on the proverbial other foot.
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon

  • Apple execs explain Apple's position in the AI race & how it isn't necessarily 'behind'

    citpekscitpeks
    Federighi takes it a step further, explaining that Apple doesn't need to deliver every technology on Earth. No one asked why Apple wasn't a shopping destination like Amazon, or why it didn't build a YouTube competitor, so it seems odd that everyone is clamoring for Apple to supply a chatbot.
    Nobody is seriously asking Apple to directly compete with Amazon, YouTube, or Google Search.

    What people do expect is for Apple to deliver on the promises it made itself last year with Apple Intelligence, and it has thus far failed to do.

    At its best, Apple runs its own race, and doesn't let others define the rules.  Even when it does, it finds ways to bring something different to the table, and win.  At its best.

    So, there is truth in what they say.

    But as successful as Apple has been, it has not been free of missteps, and failing to fully develop technologies it helped bring to the market.

    Siri, of course, is most famous, and not being able to deliver on AI is in danger of following that same path.  Redemption still awaits.

    HomeKit could have enabled Apple to grab a much larger share of the IoT market, even rule it as far as its own users go, but its success was left in the hands of others.

    In both cases, Apple squandered whatever lead it held, and is now forced to play catch up, by trying to make Siri smart, and developing home/IoT products beyond a speaker.  Even with a rumored launch of a home hub product later this year, HomeOS was MIA from WWDC.  So what, an iPad married to a HomePod?  How will developers be able to enhance it and make it essential, or will they be shut out of a closed shop, at least until WWDC '26, '27, or whenever Apple feels, or is forced to open it up to others?

    The company was prescient, in incorporating ML, and ML hardware into its products, but again, for a company that has in the past skated to where the puck is going, not where it was (or in the words of Jobs, "giving people what they want, before they know it") the whole Apple Intelligence effort has been reactive, not proactive.

    It's not difficult to see, however the execs want to spin it.  Nobody forced the people at WWDC '24 to go on stage, and make the promises they did.  Apple dug its own hole there, perhaps out of an uncharacteristic bout of pressure, if not panic.

    None of this is to say Apple is "doomed," to steal that old joke.  Far from it.  But for a company that usually manages to put most items in the Win column, it would be foolish to ignore those in the Loss column, especially big ones that has cost it new markets, and the benefits they bring.

    One would also be foolish to bet against Apple, but today's Apple is not the Apple of old, and there is no magic CEO to lead the company like before.  We've seen what happens before when Apple was in that situation.

    As a user, my response to these two would be -- don't tell me, show me.  Apple's employees knew that would be the standard going into every meeting where Jobs was in attendance.  Do they still know, or have that fear and hunger?  Or is the company slowly drifting into mediocrity and complacence again, just with a much larger financial buffer this time around?  It wouldn't be the first tech giant to do so.

    For these two guys, and Apple to be able to later say "I told you so" it first has to deliver on its own promises.
    roundaboutnowAnilu_7777omrssfe11ITGUYINSDdewmeAlex1N

  • Five ways macOS Tahoe makes you radically more productive

    citpekscitpeks
    Clipboard History is said to only retain items for 8 hours.

    Those expecting to recall history items from the morning before might be a little disappointed.
    appleinsideruserwilliamlondon

  • iPhone 17 Air's battery life could be the shortest in years

    citpekscitpeks
    retrogusto said:
    Of course, it’s also possible that the battery capacity will be lower than average but battery life will be higher, since battery life depends on much more than just the battery capacity.

    Condemning a product based on a rumored battery capacity?  How about let's see what the finished product is, and more importantly, how it performs.  Apple has always designed for performance/usage goals, not necessarily the best paper specs, and the cell capacities in iOS devices have regularly "lagged" behind those of competitors'.

    BTW, the six-year old iPhone XS I still use has a 2658 mAh cell (10.13Wh, which is a more telling figure that doesn't omit voltage), and ~84% capacity after a bit less than 700 cycles.

    And dual cameras with OIS, A12 made on a 7nm node…the power efficiency of components hasn't been standing still in those six years…the battery cell is one component of many that comprise the device.

    The Air is likely to be a niche product, and those attracted to it shouldn't be going in blind to whatever compromises it may end up having.
    thtwilliamlondonwatto_cobra

  • 'Breaking Bad' creator's new show on Apple TV+ is 'Pluribus'

    citpekscitpeks
    anthogag said:
    Rhea Seehorn was good in Breaking Bad. They were all good. 

    This licking donut teaser is disturbing.

    Yes, she was fantastic playing Kim Wexler.

    But I think you meant Better Call Saul, as that character didn't appear on Breaking Bad.

    However, she did appear on screen with Walt and Jesse during their cameos on the final season of Saul.

    We can only hope that the new series carries on the same level of quality.  Gilligan is flying without his old wingman, Peter Gould, on this one.
    ronnStrangeDays

  • Apple execs explain Apple's position in the AI race & how it isn't necessarily 'behind'

    citpekscitpeks
    dewme said:
    This is a very well articulated comment framed in how one might deliver a "tough talk" to someone who has be slipping a little in comparison to their previous performance. But I would not pin it all on Tim Cook. I think Tim is doing what he needs to do in a very difficult environment. Is he perfect? No, but he is trying to be the calm, stoic, and thoughtful leader that he needs to be.

    In the business sense Tim is as good as it gets. But he's not the burning, undeniable, and unquenchable source of energy, creativity, and purposeful intention that Steve was. There are not a lot of lifelong entrepreneurs and creative risk takers that work in the same way that Steve did. Steve had Tim to lean on for fine tuning Apple's business execution concerns. He had Jony Ive to collaborate with on design goals and a team senior executives that Steve kept a fire under them to make sure Apple's execution stayed in lock step with Steve's expectations.

    I seriously doubt that under Steve Jobs, things like strategy and execution were ever rule by committee. While Steve had a Tim Cook partner to lean on, Tim Cook doesn't have a Steve Jobs partner to lean on to maintain the same balance and mix of combined strengths. Tim has to lean on a committee, the sum total of which seems unable to fully fill the void left by Steve. They are doing a great job and the business is thriving, but there is still a small slice of unfilled capability and drive to maximize Apple's potential.

    The question in my mind is whether Apple's current perceived shortcomings, real or imagined, are due to shortfalls in vision, strategy, or execution. Maybe it's a combination of all three. I'm not talking about market expectations. I'm narrowing it way down to Apple's delivery performance, whether Apple has been able to deliver on the expectations that they planted in their customer's minds and maintain the quality bar where needs to be. From a batting average perspective I believe they are way ahead of their direct peers who are within the same product/services markets. For Apple, merely being a power hitter isn't enough, they have to be a phenom.

    I personally believe that software quality is still an issue, as well as engineering execution that cannot fully keep up with current promises and expectations, much less the very broadly scoped ones that some folks are trying to force Apple to take on, like AI that goes far beyond the scope and domain of the products that Apple builds. As an engineer, product manager, or project manager there is nothing worse than being behind on what you've already committed to delivering with a specific release date AND having the scope of the work expand beyond what you have already committed to. The goalposts for what is expected in the release deliverables keeps going up but the release date doesn't move. I'm sure anyone in product development has seen this movie before and knows it doesn't end well.

    As much as we'd like to ignore it, the prevailing political, social, and economic turmoil has certainly affected Apple. I'm not just talking about the personal challenges that Tim Cook has to contend with, or the demotivation of Apple employees who keep up with current events, it's things like moving factories and manufacturing production to different countries, having to deal with the EU, having to deal with a mountain of lawsuits, having to renegotiate with countries who are suddenly adding to their list of demands and that kind of stuff that crushes execution performance and distracts those who would much rather spend their time coming up with great new ideas and new products or motivating teams.

    In a perfect world Apple would be able to go after every adjacent market and outside dependency to bring more capability and coverage under the Apple brand, e.g., IoT, LLM AI, networking infrastructure, wider range peripherals, home automation, audiophile gear, physical security infrastructure, etc. Despite their size and coffers filled with cash, they don't have the resources, attention, focus, and bandwidth to do everything without giving up something else to compensate for it. 

    I'm not a member of the "Fire Cook" reactionary group that calls for his head upon every bit of perceived negative Apple news.  That belongs to the peanut gallery of critics on other rumor sites.

    By both objective and subjective standards, I believe he has done an excellent job of leading Apple, and handling the pressure of such a high profile role with such high stakes.  He's done what a CEO is expected to do, run a profitable company that returns value to its investors.  Those who think that the CEO role is exemplified by those like Jobs, or even Musk, don't understand that executives like that are outliers, and unique as individuals (for better and worse).  He has also fulfilled Jobs own desire, to see his baby and legacy carry on to grow into adulthood and hopefully live a long, full life, so to speak.  Cook was the best candidate, internally, and it would have been difficult to find a better one externally.

    I've said before, I think Cook could have been successful in a different life in a diplomatic role, with the way he has deftly steered Apple's ship between the icebergs of governments around the world, amongst other risk and challenges.  Even from what little Cook publicly shares about his life, it's clear that his priority has always been Apple, and seldom about himself, in any context.

    Those who have criticized him for the perceived fealty shown to the current administration conveniently ignore the parade of other business leaders who have done the same, without the slightest bit of shame.  I have no doubt it must present an intensely personal conflict to do what Cook has done, but he has done it for the sake of Apple, and at the cost of his own personal principles, which run counter to everything that is happening now.  By its nature, his public role as CEO seems counter to what the Cook the person is comfortable with, yet he has managed to excel.

    His strengths are not those that Jobs had, and vice versa.  As the anointed successor, along with Ive, Jobs clearly hoped that the two could work together in long lasting partnership like the one he had with Ive, leveraging the individual strengths each one has.  That ultimately lasted ~8 years, with the reasons for the dissolution truly known only to those parties.  I won't try to speculate whether they were natural or unnatural, but probably both.

    I didn't enjoy the Organizational Behavior class when in it during college, but have come to appreciate what it taught, and understand why those things are important to the success of any business, or group, large or small.  Leadership is spoken of so often, and casually tossed around as a term, it has become cliché.  But there is real truth behind that concept, and it when it is lacking, it becomes acutely evident.

    So, no, I wasn't trying to pin it on Cook, though ultimately, as the head of the company it does reflect on him.

    Business is dynamic, and so are companies.  Conditions change, and demand response.

    Internally and externally, Apple has things it can try to control, and those it can't control.

    The "headwinds" (to steal a favorite PR-speak term) Apple faces now are stronger than they have been in the past.

    Like people, companies have a life cycle as well, and Apple is squarely in middle age, which shouldn't be discounted.

    How it reacts to these challenges, as a mature and powerful company, will be the ultimate arbiter of success.  Will it set itself up to have many more years of a healthy, long life, or is this the start of a decline that makes it more vulnerable to disease, the effects of aging, and the outside factors it can't control?

    I'm old enough to have seen the tech revolution from early on, and there are many things people now take for granted that were not even dreamt of back then.  That perspective also serves to remind me that nothing is forever, even the largest, richest, most powerful companies.  Apple may not be "doomed," but it is also not immune from the fates of the big names that have faded, or disappeared.  So it can't allow the seemingly little missteps in the present to undermine its future.
    avon b7

  • Apple's Epic gamble: birthright citizenship ruling cited to overturn antisteering mandate

    citpekscitpeks
    Rodgers' original ruling basically gave Apple the win against Epic in all respects but the steering.

    I'm puzzled at why Apple is being so stubborn at belaboring the issue.  And whose legal team is now resorting to tactics like this.

    Actually, I'm not, because it is a fight between two greedy corporations as to how much they can squeeze out of users, in or out of the iOS ecosystem.

    Apple could have simple conceded on this one point, and tried to compete on a platform on which it already holds many advantages.  It could have said to users (as well as developers), our way may cost a little more, but it works better, is more private, and safer; basically the way it has marketed its products overall.  And many have responded positively to that, and made the company wildly successful.

    Instead, it is choosing to hope that obfuscation, and refusal to allow its partners to offer users other options they find might find attractive, is the way the company want to compete.  Worse, it validates all those who throw around the tired buzzwords like "walled garden," "sheep," and the like.  And it implies that Apple doesn't respect its users enough to allow them to make decisions of their own, by trying to not give them those options at all.

    Tim Sweeney has some presumptuous assertions of his own, hoping to leverage someone else's platforms to make more money for himself, and thinking that he can set up shop in someone else's mall, and act like a landlord of his own, without paying rent.

    Neither are saints, and neither had the common sense to try to strike a deal, and keep it out of the courts, where the lawyers are the ones who will benefit most.

    Apple's continued recalcitrance, if not intransigence, serves to keep its tactics in the news, in the crosshairs of regulators, and could lead to the company ending up in a worse situation than if it had simply complied with the judge's original order.  A judge who mostly agreed with Apple's case, but became angered after Apple didn't comply.

    It's not smart to piss off a judge, and now try to undermine their authority.  But I guess that's how the Apple of 2025 operates.  Every slice of cake shall be theirs.
    muthuk_vanalingamCrossPlatformFroggerronnAlex1Nwilliamlondondanox