1STnTENDERBITS

rob53 said:

I'm sure Apple and developers will find most of the issues before its released. Comparing Apple's implementation to Google and Facebook logons is like comparing a locked door to an open one. OpenID can complain all they want but lets hear their assessment about logging in with Facebook and Google. I highly doubt Apple will be logging any personal data and will not be selling anything while Facebook and Google are guaranteed to be selling everything they get.

Based on your comment, I don't think you understand the subject matter.  Their issue with Sign in With Apple has nothing to do with logging personal data or selling anything.  It's kind of hard for you to give an opinion about OpenID's complaint when you don't seem to even know what their complaint is about.  If their complaint about the security of Apple's implementation is valid, comparing it to Google and Facebook logins won't make it any more secure.  That's simply unnecessary deflection.  The complaint is critical gaps in security, not data collection.   

Apple will most likely address any valid security issues from OpenID's complaint before release.  

tylersdad said:

hattig said:

Bad luck America.

Services are going to be tiered to hell and back as soon as they can do that.

Oh, I'm sure the dross will still be available for all to see, and 'approved content' will be on the cheaper tiers as well.

But most service providers exist in localised monopolies, so without competition they will gauge you if you want streaming services they don't provide themselves, or news sources that aren't favoured, and so on. Oh, you want to do online gaming? That's only available on the $100pm tier.

Services are already tiered. I pay extra for faster connectivity. If I want to lower my monthly bill, I can choose a lower plan. 

Let's be clear: Prior to this decision, ISPs were allowed to do exactly what you describe, but they didn't. If an ISP does, you just switch ISPs. 

From you're comment, it's pretty clear you don't understand the subject matter.  Your speed may be tiered but your traffic is not.  That's what you're missing. 
Example: Tylersdad has a 25 Mbps (Tier 1) connection and pays $50/month.  For $10 more per month, he can get a 50 Mbps (Tier 2) connection. For $20 more than Tier 2 he can get 75 Mbps for $80 per month.  That's tiered service.  That has nothing to do with net neutrality.  
Here's what the repeal of net neutrality can get you:
Tylersdad likes to stream movies to his Apple TV,  likes to watch Netflix on his iPad, and game through his Steam account on his iMac.  Under net neutrality, no matter what he's doing he gets the same speed at the same cost.  Without net neutrality, ISP can charge for tiered access to traffic -different from tiered service- based on sites, type of traffic, or any other parameter they decide.  So in this new paradigm, if Tylersdad wants to stream movies on his Apple TV he has to pay $50 bucks for basic internet package (BIP) + $15 for Tier 1 streaming.  Tier 1 covers streaming to ATV, Roku, Fire Sticks, etc.  but does not include Netflix or Amazon Prime streaming.  For that you need to move up to Tier 2 streaming which is $25 extra.  Tylersdad likes Steam.  Can't stream things like Steam or Youtube on rinky dink Tier 2 though.  You gotta step up to Tier 3 Popular Traffic for an extra $50 per month.  Oh, and certain sites can only be accessed from Tier 3 traffic.  Sites like Apple.com or Appleinsider.com.  Mind you that's on top of your basic internet charge.

To be fair, my example is a bit of hyperbole but nothing in it is out of the realm of possibility without net neutrality. Again, net neutrality is about your traffic, not your overall speed.
Here's a visual representation.

AppleInsider said:

Samsung also decided not to include any buttons whatsoever on the Buds, forcing users to use their voice and Bixby any time they want to control them. AirPods can be customized inside of the settings app.

Small correction.  Although true they don't have physical buttons, neither voice nor Bixby is required to control them.  The Buds are touch sensitive and can play/pause/skip tracks, take calls, or summon assistants from either ear.

ihatescreennames said:

The article doesn’t mention it but was the watch brought into an Apple Store for service? If so, what was the outcome? Or are they just trying to sue without even bothering to contact Apple at all?

AI seems to have neglected to add that information to their article.  Yes, she did attempt to take the watch in for service.
"After booking an appointment at an Apple Genius Bar in August 2018, she says Apple denied the repair under warranty for free, and quoted her the out-of-warranty charge of US$229. She seeks damages “in an amount to be proven at trial for herself and all others similarly situated.”  - MacObserver

"The plaintiff booked a Genius Bar appointment in August 2018, but upon inspection, she alleges that Apple denied to repair the Apple Watch free of charge under warranty and instead quoted her an out-of-warranty fee of $229 for service." - MacRumors

eightzero said:

For perhaps the first time, we see a product from Apple where the engineers were obviously told: "price and cost are irrelevant."

The price seems reasonably reasonable.  I was expecting a starting price closer to $10K.  I think the engineers were told build a machine as powerful as a goddamn M1 Abrams that can drive as fast as an Agera RS and do it as quietly as a Model X... with better panel gaps. 

I think they did.  I think Apple hit it out of the park.

tzeshan said:

Microsoft and Google are competitors. It is strange Microsoft CEO shows up at an event mainly for Android devices. Maybe Apple is so strong that Microsoft hopes to bundle with Google to defeat Apple. 

Or maybe MS understands that ubiquity in their product reach is better for their bottom line.  It's why they've also bolstered their relationship with Apple under Nadella.  MS is only trying to defeat Apple in some fanboy's wet dream... or a DED article.    MS just wants their products available to everyone, everywhere, on every device. They aren't the Empire trying to defeat the Rebel Alliance.

AppleExposed said: 

When has Sammy gave a F about Google? This is about selfish Sammy not Google.They're scumbags and will stab everyone in the back if it means getting closer to being Apple.

I'd laugh my a$$ off it Samsung builds a strong relationship with Microsoft and pisses off Google.

When has Samsung not had a good relationship with Microsoft?  It's always been there.  How do you guys come up with these imaginary battles?  These are mega corporations doing business together to make money.  Samsung works with Google, Apple, and Microsoft... who works with Samsung, Google, and Apple... who works with Samsung, Microsoft and Google... who works with Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft.  They're competitors and companions.

maccaguy said:

UPS is reporting my new AirPods should be delivered tomorrow, so I’ll see what the actual box shows.

I'm not sure your box will actually show anything, unless you're getting the charging case separately.  I say that because there are two boxes pictured above.  One is an AirPods box showing a picture of the headphones and not AirPower.  The other is a Wireless Charging Case box - that's what the label says.  That's the one with the AirPower info on it.  

andrewj5790 said:

 

SpamSandwich said:

Now that makes more sense than paying tens of millions of dollars for an entire company. Just hire the best engineers.

Updated story. Looks like they went with the route that makes less sense. Lol! 

"That's what I meant.  This choice made more sense.  I really didn't think the other choice made sense." - random overzealous fan

Breaking update:  Apple doesn't buy entire company, just the building and the patents.

"This is what really really makes sense.  That's all Apple needed was the building and the patents.  Only Apple could do this." - same rando confirming to another rando fan

Breaking update 2:  Apple decides they want the employees and the building but not the patents.

"Yup.  I thought this was going to be their big move all along.  Why would Apple need someone else's patents.  - same rando.  other rando starting to give side eye.

Breaking update 3:  Apple says patents it all it needs.  The rest is useless.

"Aww yeah.  Apple playing 3D chess while the rest are playing checkers.  Just making their patents stronger.  Building that war chest. - rando by himself.  other dude left 

Of course I'm joking but there is a fair contingent of fans who act just like that.    

chasm said:

Gatorguy: I believe you misread the article and jumped to conclusions. Mikey's article clearly states that Google did not reveal that they had paused the reviews globally until Friday. Your statement doesn't contradict that at all -- it refers exclusively to the pausing of audio review in Germany.

Interesting that you're so quick to defend Google that you'd make a careless error like that.

Also unchanged: Apple among the three companies was the only one that was always anonymizing its voice clips before all this controversy even started, as per their white paper. Anonymizing is not 100 percent foolproof against identifying someone (for example, they identify themselves in the recording, or its obviously a famous person with a distinctive voice etc), but it was and is better than what was previously the policy at Google and Amazon, which left identifying information intact.

I think you're wrong on both accounts.  Read the headline.  It says "Google follows Apple's lead... "  That's not true.  They didn't.  There's no way to misinterpret that. 
Even from the article: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars Technica.  AI changed the context of that quote when they changed the attribution. 
The quote from the Ars article actually reads:
"Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars today.  They had already paused the reviews when they spoke to Ars on Friday.

You're wrong about the claim that Apple was the only one anonymizing the voice clips.  Google was anonymizing clips that were listened to as well.  Google also made the storing of audio clips opt-in and even if you do you can opt-out at any time.  If you've opted-in, you can set your account to auto-delete every 3 or 18 months.  You can also manually delete them at any time.   From the earlier Ars article on 11 Jul https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/google-defends-listening-to-ok-google-queries-after-voice-recordings-leak/

In case you misunderstand my intent, I'm not defending Google.  I am countering your misinformation.

Rayz2016 said:

wanderso said:

Replace the word “iPhone” with automobile.  Would you feel the same way about Apple’s decision if Ford, Toyota, or the like behaved in this manner? There are certain components that I would only go to a dealer for. The air bag system is an example.  Yet there are ample things I can do on my own car, using OEM or aftermarket parts that meet or exceed OEM quality. 

 So I replaced “iPhone” with “automobile” and guess what? I found that Toyota does behave in this manner. 

Battery replacements on a Prius have to be carried out using a genuine Toyota battery and at a genuine Toyota service centre, otherwise your warranty is automatically invalidated. In order to do this, Toyota can obviously tell when you’ve gone off-piste, repairwise. 

Also bear this in mind: the iFixit report didn’t say that installed battery doesn’t work; they just said that Apple won’t provide information on it (without the correct chip on the battery, they can’t). If the battery was installed by a non-authorised dealer then Apple doesn’t want to get stung by warranty claims for case damage, damaged touchscreens, failed waterproofing, and broken security hardware that can come from dodgy repairs. When an authorised dealer carries out the repair, the info on the phone will tell Apple engineers who carried out the repair and when. If they get a spate of damaged phones returned from the same 3rd party dealer, them they know they have a problem. Without that info, they don’t know where the problem originates. 

But that doesn’t stop you fitting dodgy batteries to your phone to save a few quid. If it explodes in your pocket then I don’t have a problem. But replace the words “in your pocket” with “on a plane” then that’s a different matter. 

Bad analogy.  Toyota's hybrid system warranty covers the battery for 8yrs or 100K milles.  Replacements are free under warranty.  Even if someone was crazy enough to pass up a free battery replacement and pay $2K for a replacement Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act would kick in if Toyota tried to void the warranty.  edit:  Magnusson Moss says that a company can insist on OEM parts only if the repair and parts are covered as free under warranty.  That crazy person paying for what Toyota would do for free still has the other portions of their warranty intact.  ← this is still true.  Non-OEM parts do not automatically void a warranty.

But we can still use your Prius as a base to demonstrate the problem with Apple's stance.    Imagine if you had to use Toyota branded/approved replacement headlights or tires or window glass or door handles or...  you see where I'm going.  You don't and it doesn't void your warranty or stop your car from communicating with you.

Your last sentence is FUD.  That same nightmare scenario you tried to build could occur with a battery supplied by Apple or an authorized repairer.   Moreover, it's a highly unlikely scenario, otherwise we'd be hearing about it happening on a regular basis.