- Last Active
imat said:The screenshots seem very "un-Apple". Too many options to activate and deactivate, way too confusing. I honestly hope this isn't the direction Apple chooses for the future. Many of these "options" shouldn't be options at all. 120 Hz? OK, but make it across the board as standard. Why give options buried in the settings menu?
The same applies for the camera options. Way too many options. Make them "smart" and "standard" and that's about it.
If someone has a "pro Camera" app of some sorts, that they purchased separately, give them the ability to toggle settings, but not everyone.
The setup process of a new iPhone will otherwise become EVEN LONGER and cumbersome. With the result people will have to spend 20' checking and unchecking stuff, privacy, alerts, locations, camera settings and the like before even starting to use the iPhone.
Aren’t they screenshots of devices used for testing? If that’s the case, the final options visible to consumers may be streamlined.
Thank you for this timely piece - I was wondering about this yesterday.
According to the following analysis, the hash that is sent is not unique to the app but only to the developer certificate: https://blog.jacopo.io/en/post/apple-ocsp/
“- No, macOS does not send Apple a hash of your apps each time you run them.
- You should be aware that macOS might transmit some opaque information about the developer certificate of the apps you run. This information is sent out in clear text on your network.”
mistergsf said:slurpy said:Just read the entire 34 pages.
To say they legally decimated Tim Sweeney would be an understatement. Jesus Christ.
I feel extreme pity for anyone who actually reads the fundamental facts of this case and still takes Epic's side. What a pathetic charade.
From the case: "Epic’s success does not entitle it to have this Court step in and remedy the harm it knowingly created, nor is there any legal basis for that. If Epic is looking for immediate relief for its customers, it can remove its “hotfix,” continue to comply with the contracts it signed and that apply to everyone else, and go on to pursue its legal challenge in this Court."
"The only real issue for Epic is the commission which it does not wish to pay and about which it is free to litigate. Epic does not need to breach its agreements or throw its own customers into this dispute to litigate an antitrust claim."
The main legal challenge may (or may not) be less straightforward.
While I’m not in the market for a powerbank I am very interested in learning more about this graphene battery technology. Based on what I have read, graphene batteries were still too expensive / difficult to produce in early 2020. Is this one of the first consumer-grade products with this technology?
I would love to learn more about this technology and about its potential in Macbooks and iPhones.
currentinterest said:I believe there is a strong possibility that there will be no M2 pro, M2 max, or M2 ultra. It is rumored that TSMC will have 3NM chips in production in the second half of 2022. These will likely find their way into the iPhone 14 pro as the A16. This will likely be the chip generation (M3?) Apple uses for a new MacBook pro and max, the MacStudio max and ultra, and the MacPro. We will likely see the M2 used in an iMac refresh, and a Mac mini refresh, but that’s it.
We could see something like this going forward (purely based on speculation and on the assumption that there will be a new A-series chip each year):
2022 fall: A16
2023 spring: M2 Pro/Max based on A16
2023 fall: A17
2024 spring: M3 based on A17
2025 fall: A18
2026 spring: M3 Pro/Max based on A18
New A-series every year, new base M-series every other year.