dewme

Gary123 said:

So I  was wondering if aluminum foil could be wrapped around cables to reduce RF interference. I googled it. Apparently it might help, but there might be some concern with the cables getting warmer than usual. Having stated this, I wonder if the interference at the plug is the main problem.
Also, if one were really clever, once could experiment with creating a little mini, concave RF reflector out of aluminum foil, to effectively make the Mac's wifi antenna more directional. While making a little pedestal out of Legos the curved strip of foil could be placed under the computer vertically, behind the wifi antenna, and directed towards the wifi router. I can't imagine it would help much, but since the author already has an RF meter, it might be worth the experiment. 

You’re probably thinking about parabolic (best) or hemispherical (ok) dishes used on radio transmitters/receivers, radars, etc. These dishes typically place the transmit/receive antenna at a distance equal to one-half the wavelength of the signal. If the Mac mini had an omnidirectional antenna you might see some improvement in signal-to-noise because it would concentrate and collimate the signal.  You would have to decide which frequency to design it for. 

Lightning saved us from the scourge of micro USB long enough to move to a better option. If that’s all it ever gets credit for, that’s good enough for me. 

PetrolDave said:

BlueLightning said:

Surprised something like this would get past testing (assuming testing was done).  

Most testing now is done by the developers themselves not by a independent test team, so the same wrong assumptions are made which leads to problems like this. Long gone are the days of a “Chinese Wall” approach…

Yes, developers are running a greater number of tests but the tests they run are at finer granularity than the system tests that are run by the test team. If you don't have an independent test team to create and execute system level tests and create regression tests to gauge the relative stability of the software as it's being built - you are basically screwed. Imagine the person who is responsible for the braking system in an automobile having final sign-off on whether the entire vehicle is ready to deliver to customers. Having every individual contributor assert that their piece is "good-to-go" doesn't answer the question of whether the system is tested to a level that provides a quantitative measure and determination that the software system is ready to ship. You have to do system testing.

On the Microsoft side of this thread, I don't know why so many folks are pouncing on Microsoft for this particular issue. Microsoft provides a vehicle for helping other software vendors deploy their software, but Microsoft only has so much visibility into what these other vendors are putting out there. I do believe that Microsoft should be doing a series of tests to ensure that the update package does not destabilize the target system after installation. But if the destabilization occurs only after the misbehaving application is executed or loaded on the target system there is only so much Microsoft or Apple can do. I cannot imagine that either Microsoft or Apple fires up every application, service, extension, library, etc., that is part of the update package to ensure nothing is compromised. 

I've worked very closely with Microsoft over 25+ years as a partner and have friends that work at Microsoft. I've worked on joint projects and industry initiatives with Microsoft. Based on my personal experience the quality of their program managers, developers, engineers, architects, vertical application specialists, etc., is nothing short of outstanding. At one point in the early 2000's they started hoovering up some of the most respected and influential developers and architects in the software development community at large. They are not lacking in talent in any way. Microsoft has a wealth of talent, but it all comes down to how they use that talent.

If I had to point a finger at Microsoft's achilles heel I would say that it's the massive scope, size, and volume of their code base and the need to drag along a huge anchor of legacy functionality and support for decades. Then there's the massive third party hardware and software community. If Microsoft only had their own software, their own hardware, far less legacy baggage, and an ecosystem that Microsoft is in total control of, they would be sitting pretty. Of course what we call "legacy baggage" has a huge impact of mass numbers of real people and businesses and Microsoft is not going to abandon them. They'd love to transition them to their latest and greatest stuff but that's a huge effort that will take time. I think that when they finally came around to focusing on security and then stability, as evidenced by Windows 10, they were able to glue together some major pieces of what once was a flimsy house of cards.

I have a tremendous respect for what Microsoft has been able to accomplish given the size and scope of what they've taken on. It's hard for me to directly compare Apple and Microsoft because I believe the two companies are on vastly different missions and each one is doing what they are best equipped to do. There's a good reason why they both keep themselves near the very top of the mountain when it comes to market capitalization. Trying to force a zero-sum-game comparison between these two companies is rather silly in my opinion. They are both crushing it regardless of who happens to be on top on one day or another.

Umm, of course they will make the best of the situation.

When the EU hands you lemons - you make lemonade. 

Why would anyone expect otherwise? Apple has to answer to shareholders who really don’t care about debating technical details and purity as long as the stock price keeps going up and they get their dividends. Some battles are not worth fighting, especially Lightning in 2023.

Long live Lightning and thank you Apple for saving us from the heinousness that was micro-USB. 

Vanity has no limits. 

Everything the current president is doing is purely for his own personal pleasure and to fulfill his deep personal yearnings for power, control, and forced allegiance. The basis of his relationships with all of these compliant corporate and political leaders, Tim Cook included, is FEAR.

Very interesting. 

anthogag said:

The Trump circus is probably more concerned about the US being at the leading edge of technology. Apple should make its most sophisticated and advanced components in the US. This would probably solve everything.

One of the reasons why the US has been a leader in discovery, innovation, and technological breakthroughs is because the US government has long taken a leading role in sponsoring and funding critical future focused pure research and development (R&D).

Although I’m 100% against the tariffs because they are ignoring the value proposition that free trade helps foster, I’m at the point now where I’m waiting to see what actually will happen rather than speculating about what might happen. 

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

Apple owns its products not the EU. The EU has no right to dictate to Apple how its products operate. As I’ve said before, the EU has every right to build their own platforms but it’s obvious they don’t have the ability or talent to design and manufacture anything people, including those in EU countries, want. It’s time to boycott everything made in the EU but I’m not so sure there’s actually anything they make I really want. 

The EU has every right to level playing fields and counter consumer harm and the stifling of innovation.

That has long been the case. 

In the 'digital' world, the same ideas are applicable but new laws were needed specifically for the kind of cases explained here. 

Do you remember the world pre-pdf?

Interoperability is key to the points mentioned above and for progress. 

Mechanisms will have to be created and perfected but technology has the tendency to outpace legislation so these situations will persist until things get settled. 

This isn't an Apple thing. 

It's a EU thing! ICT carriers were forced to open up their technologies years ago and share their resources to a degree. 

This isn't like the US where for as long as I can remember (and for all I know, may still be the case) your place of residence was a limiting factor to which carriers you could choose from.

I can opt for a virtual carrier which will use the infrastructure of one of the bigger players. That allows for competition to exist. 

Left to its own devices, Apple does not allow for competition to exist. We know this and this is precisely why it is being forced to open up in certain areas (and not only the EU). 

Of course, Apple is free to pull out of the EU. So is Google and Meta et al. Will they? Nope because, as you seem unwilling to contemplate, any pull-out would be met with very swift movements to fill any gaps. 

You personally, may well be able to get by without EU products, but what would Apple's current supply chain do without ASML? 

So you would be okay if the United States demands that ASML open up its intellectual property and designs to American companies?