- Last Active
cali said:I was wondering about this the other day. I've paid for apps that have been long forgotten by the devs and I checked to see if they were still available.
what if someone paid for these apps?
An easy solution would be to remove these apps from the App Store but allow those who paid to be able to download them.
Judging by the review, If looks are you primary concern, just buy a cheap pair of good looking headphones: if audio quality is second, you don’t really care about audio.
I wonder why it didn’t get 5/5. From the review, it seems they sound and can fit great. But for $400, I expect perfection in a pair of headphones. People dinging it for looks might want to consider that they are planar which equals larger drivers.
The Paris terrorists didn’t even use encryption.They used SMS to simply text “We’re started now” (or something to that effect). They carried out all the planning using unencrypted means—a news report mentioned them meeting in-person. The SB terrorist woman posted of Facebook her allegiance to ISIS right before the attack. The 9/11 hijackers’ activity alarmed the flight school instructors, who reported it to the government, but it was never investigated.
3 cases where the information was available but never acted on, out of many, and none had anything to do with access to encryption. The Police can’t justify access to encrypted channels if they can’t even handle red flags. They already know when people buy an excessive amount of any substance. They already know when transfers exceed $10K. They have access to many non-encrypted channels and giving them the keys to everyone’s info will just lead to more cases of officers illegally accessing user data.
Meanwhile, there have been literally the hundreds of cases where government agents have accessed private info using their clearance illegally to spy on spouses, exes and people they know or are interested in for non-official reason— cyberstalking love interests to tracking down exes new SOs to harass or threaten them. Out of these hundreds of cases, few are investigated, few lose their job or are even prosecuted for breach of trust and even fewer make the news.
sog35 said:Guy is an idiot. Just trying to get a fast check from CNBC to bash Apple.
Just shut up dude. All you did was design a heart rate sensor on a watch.
crowley said:Plenty of headroom on my 128, I imagine you'd need to be an HD video fanatic to come close to filling 256.
Not necessarily. After a few hours of HD video and photos (~10GB), adding a few thousand tracks at lossless audio fidelity (~60GB) & a good collection of 500MB–2GB games (~35GB) fills up 128GB easily. My iPad Air 128GB without everything I could load that’s not video takes up most of the room (7.8GB free).
I might not load as much video on my iPhone, but my iPod classic has over 150GB of music compressed to 256AAC on it. I’d like to place my entire music collection (ripped from CD & purchased lossless) on a small form factor device, but that would be over 750GB.
I realize I’m not a typical user, but there are a decent number of us out there.
I don’t know anyone with a 16GB iPhone that uses it beyond the basics that doesn’t have to manage space by deleting things all the time. I tell people: buy the 32GB model if you are going to use it for more than just stock apps. Those deciding to ignore that advice to save a bit of cash always regret it, and complain about having to pick and chose apps or music or pictures. It’s time Apple ditch the 16GB models since iOS and its bundled apps use up about half the space on the devices. They probably should have done this when they released the 6 and kept the same price points, especially considering NAND memory is now <$25 per 64GB for consumer flash memory cards. At large volumes, Apple probably saves less than $10 using 16GB instead of 32GB NAND.
But Apple has no real impetus to push the envelope as long as all their competitors are struggling to keep up with iOS device performance, timely upgrades & device compatibility. To me it’s a squandered opportunity, but while it might be “money saving,” Apple really doesn’t need to save money more than they need to lead in minimum storage capacity.
SpamSandwich said:There's no need for any of this and collusion between the private sector and government to share data cannot result in anything good. Ever.
Problem number one: One of the biggest robocall sources, political ads, are ALREADY LEGALLY PROTECTED and cannot be blocked, because political speech is protected!
My solution has been extremely effective. I have no landline and any call from a number not in my iPhone's address book will go unanswered and is immediately blocked.
Yeah, politicalls™;) & emails that can’t be blocked suck because they waste my time & everyone else’s time. I used to be able to ignore unknown numbers, but thanks to business w/companies with “displaced/floating caller ID [the phone number shown is not the number to call back nor even in their block of numbers]”—should be illegal too, IMO—I don’t have that luxury anymore. I told one person calling on behalf of a candidate that because they were repeatedly calling me ever couple of days that I was not going to vote for him because he was already a nuisance & giving him more power would be against my peace of mind. They stopped calling, but I still didn’t vote for him. (It was a local race.)
It’d be really simple if there was a X11 number a person could call which, when called automatically reported the prior incoming caller as spam/robocall. To prevent abuse a threshold could be established and adjusted for known area codes—that way people with grudges couldn’t add an enemy to a public blacklist. Then users could do much of the reporting & the companies can focus on verification, filtering & disconnecting abusers much faster. This is kind of like how busy chat boards operate now. The only problem is scaling—thus the threshold & tweaks to target area codes like those in florida which generate much of the spam robocalls IME.
This idea might not be perfect, but it could be used as 1 potential starting point. So, ideas for tweaks and other considerations, counter-/complimentary ideas welcome but blanket “this won’t work/this idea sucks” critiques without rationale will be ignored. “Ain’t nobnody got time for that noise!” Thanks.
I tried out the VR tech in the 90s and it was cool even then, despite the very basic realtime 3D rendering of its day. The biggest roadblocks aside from current tech limits & price, are perceptual. It will take time.
Most people haven’t read the fiction that @dysamoria talks about (I have and love the ideas, but we are in the minority), and few want direct brain interfaces because how fearful most people are of tech they don’t understand. So, while it might one day be possible, it will take a lot longer to catch on if at all. He is right though, 3D TV simply isn’t compelling enough to buy into considering its limited uses. But hey, it has made regular HDTVs a lot less expensive. So that’s about the best thing that’s happened for consumers with the glut of 3D HDTVs.
I agree with @cnocbui that VR needs a killer app, or at least one that inspires others to improve on their design. I think aside from gaming which is the most promising, the other use would be immersive 3D modeling where artists could sculpt models in 1:1 scale. But I think VR can be surpassed by 3D AR for some applications. AR also has a lot more useful applications outside of gaming. However they can complement each other (add an electronically controlled visor on the outside that can turn opaque and an AR headset becomes a VR headset).
While the phones and initial headsets are a good start, the technology will have to become a lot higher res, cheaper and lighter by removing the guts of the phones and simply making the headsets an AV combo w/graphics card, battery, optional camera & essential parts (actually not much less tech, but simply rearranged for balance and aesthetics. Who knows perhaps high speed 802.11ad or its successor will be fast enough to make them as convenient as decent bluetooth audio headsets are now. But at this point this sort of tech is probably something that’ll come out in the 2020s and not the 2010s. I’m basing this guess on current tech in lab and early versions in the wild. I could be completely off, but if I were implementing AR/VR it, this is probably what I would go for.
So, whether or not people think its cool or everyone has their own idea of where it might go (or not go), people will still hammer away at it. Now, consider Cooks comments remind me of his comments about Google Glass a bit. When asked about it, he said Apple was interested in wearables but alluded to other places to wear them. Now we see what he meant.
So, while I am guessing here, I think Apple will do what it has done the last 15 years: let other trail blaze the portable sector and learn from their shortcomings. Then Apple will develop their own device that surpasses everyone else, just like they did with the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad and Apple Watch. I’m only drawing from history though, so take it for what that’s worth.
Add Streaming Comedy to their platform & I’m in. Sports only appeal to a minority of people—albeit a loud—even obnoxious—minority.
This still doesn’t make up for the stonewalling Apple gave to people trying to get them to open up iOS enough to be used by people with physical disabilities just 3 years ago.