- Last Active
iOS 11 includes the new do not disturb while driving. I’ve been using it and I don’t get text message or call alerts while driving. Senders receive a message that I’m driving and I’ll respond when I get to my destination. I can override it but that’s included for passengers. It doesn’t preclude driver stupidity but it helps put up a roadblock that they have to consciously think before texting. Texting and driving by teenagers is a huge problem and it comes back to educating the driver no matter what age.
Suing the phone maker, carrier, car maker, car phone charging maker, city, etc. isn’t going to bring this man’s or anyone’s loved one back. (Just kidding about all those extras).
Obviously Apple had its reasons for waiting to include the feature until iOS 11. Holding it back because of competition is laughable. It’s actually a great feature that I think is a selling point.
wiggin said:This really isn't a 4th Amendment question. The FBI is operating well within those bounds in wanting to access the data on the phone. The search is reasonable and even has the support of the owner of the phone. It comes down to if Apple can be required/compelled to assist in those efforts, which would seem to fall more under freedom of speech (or in this case, freedom to refuse speech...in the form of computer code).
For those who are worried about their privacy should a tool be created which would allow brute for attacks on iPhones, the solution is simple. Use the alphanumeric passcode option and don't use a stupid password. And don't use Touch ID, either.
The tool requested by the FBI has nothing to do with TouchID since they requested it to be able to turn off the number of failed attempts before the data is erased. TouchID is simply another way of inputting the passcode using biometric fingerprint detection. The so-called news reports about a fingerprint workaround are all but bogus and Apple has continued to improve the security of using it with each new iPhone model as well as new versions of iOS.
By creating a software tool (which doesn't exist) the FBI is asking Apple to modify the security of the iPhone and iOS. The capability to erase the contents of the iPhone with failed attempts (as well as to remotely erase the data) was the subject of hearings and news conferences by lawmakers. They were the impetus for Apple to create the features in the first place. If Apple complies with the FBI what precedent will that set for future backdoor security tools? The leaders of other countries that have few privacy laws could use this as a case to compel Apple to create or use the FBI code to create additional security bypass tools. Once the hacker community is able to get this code they can and will exploit it. I am not convinced that the FBI is able to keep this tool secure and a one time use as they say.
All of the bluetooth issues that I had where I would lose the connection with my Apple Watch are gone and all of the connections with my bluetooth devices (glucose meters, headphones, Beats Pill+, BiPAP device) connect through their apps without issues which hasn't always been the case. There were times when I would have to remove the device and re-pair to make a connection. Haven't had a problem since about Beta 3.
That is a wonderful touching story.
My first iPhone was the iPhone 3G. I have always been a technology guy and waited for 3G support. I brought it home and tried to show my wife all of the things that it could do. Texting with a full on-screen keyboard! Always on internet access! etc., etc. Her first words were "why would anyone need to text when they can just call the other person?". After buying her and iPhone 4 she started to change her mind. Now she texts me from two rooms away in the same house! We share our calendars and don't even get me started on how she's hooked on Facebook and Twitter!
eightzero said:René de Kat said:What about not shooting to kill, but incapacitating the suspect like we do in Europe and other civilised countries? That way you can interrogate someone and not making assumptions about someone being a terrorist. I am always surprised with how trigger happy USA police officers are without actually using that grey matter.
I think Rene had a valid point but it came across a bit snobbish. Our law enforcement does tend to shoot to kill perhaps more often than necessary. This guy had a knife. Why couldn't he be taken down by means other than deadly force? We are so afraid of terroism that shoot to kill is the way we handle these situations. If the suspect were taken alive we would be able to learn so much more than anything on their iPhone.
As a new owner of an iPhone X I barely notice the notch. Well-written apps that have been updated for the iPhone X that use the entire display to it's advantage make it even better. Unfortunately there are lots of apps that haven't undated their apps to format for the iPhone X. They're just annoying because they don't take advantage of the entire height of the display. Apple isn't going to do away with the notch until the technology allows them to do it without compromise. If that's possible in 2019 then cool. As the article says, ETNews stretched their imagination out to thinking that the tech will be ready by then. A year and a half is probably pretty safe since Apple is already working on that iPhone right now and they want would probably want to get rid of the notch too. The other players in the market obviously haven't figured out how to do it since the notch is becoming a standard feature.
apple ][ said:Apple is never going to be #1 in marketshare, so who cares. Making a nice profit is what matters, not making cheap junk and selling it to cheap people.
What's better? 100 pounds of feces or 1 pound of pure gold? Which would you rather have?
The truth is is that the PC industry as a whole is collapsing and those that are showing higher market share this year will drop next year after the mass market is complete in fill up. The repeat customers will be those that need to replace systems that have stopped working. Apple has a base of customers that are willing to buy at a premium price and continue to upgrade on a consistent basis.
What is "causing grave harm to Spotify and its customers."? To my knowledge Apple doesn't have a policy against a user of a subscription service such as Spotify from registering and subscribing for their service outside of the iOS app in a web interface and then logging in once they load the app and are free to enjoy their service. The issue is that Apple's terms of service for apps excludes the ability to access the browser from within the app and return to the app. This isn't new, it's been that way for a long time. I have plenty of subscription services that use apps but required me to register via the browser first. I really didn't feel this caused me "grave harm". Most of them I have subscribed to for well over a year unless they were really shitty. I tried Spotify once and wasn't impressed just like I wasn't impressed with Beats either.
I haven't subscribed to Apple Music because I don't feel a need right now to stream music outside of my own library. I do subscribe to iTunes Match because I currently have over 6,000 tracks in my personal library. I can stream those tracks so I don't have to use space on my iPhone or iPad. I can also access them on my Apple TV. I can download tracks to my Apple Watch as well.
Another reason to use the Apple music apps (Apple Music or iTunes Match) is SIRI for search and voice to tell her to play anything in my library and if you're using Apple Music, play almost anything in Apple's music library. This will probably change as I understand it with the new SIRI API's in iOS 10 which Spotify can take advantage of. (I'm not a programmer so I don't know if this is exactly correct. If it's not perhaps one of the programmers here can correct me.)
If Spotify feels the need to charge an extra fee to register users because of Apple's one year requirement then it's possible their demographics aren't hanging around for that long. It would be interesting to see that information.
Okay it's an unlimited data plan. But exceeding 100gb per month on a single device is excessive. The carriers never intended LTE bandwidth to be a tethered service for all your internet use. In fact when I had an unlimited plan with AT&T tethering wasn't allowed. That was one of the reasons I switched to a different plan. I also switched so I could save money by sharing data with my whole family and not have to worry about limits on texting and calling minutes. As a whole I save a lot more money.
Using that much data on a monthly basis especially if it's from say one location such as your house can reduce the available bandwidth for others in your same area. I get it that you feel "I got the unlimited plan and I'm going to stick with it until hell freezes over and screw the carrier as much as I can in the process " but exceeding the appropriate amount for a smartphone user is just screwing others using the same network.