corebeliefs

I believe Epic has a point, and don't believe Epic forfeited anything by agreeing to the original Apple contract. Contracts are re-negotiated often, even iron-clad ones. Business is often about exerting influence based on a company's popularity with consumers. Apple commands its price premium because of this.

Regardless of the proposed motives for it, Epic has a point in wanting consumers to have a choice that Apple doesn't want to give. The device isn't a rental, and without the App Store ecosystem the value of the device we are paying for is much less. They go together.

But here is where I believe Apple should get a pass. Desktop computers that Epic references are much more forgiving of any kind of program run on it. Epic is trying to get the same system applied to mobile devices which are finely-tuned for battery life, performance, and security. If Apple ever is made to allow other app stores on its devices, it should be able to indemnify itself from offering support for the device, unless the device is wiped to a factory refreshed state. 

auxio said:

lkrupp said:

Remember, people, this is the former 'Facebook security chief’. Facebook and security are mutually exclusionary terms.

I was just about to say the same thing.  If people are outraged about CSAM scanning, they surely know about Facebook scanning everything (and not just hashes).  A former Facebook employee weighing in on it?  That's a joke right?

I'm not tracking the argument here. If anything, an ex-Facebook security chief would be more credible on this subject for the reasons you and others are stating, for the same reason the government uses embedded informants. They know what they're talking about. 

olivertwist said:

I have tried Apple iBook Author, Adobe InDesign, Scrivener, Vellum as well as several obscure apps for creating ebook. Many of them have serious shortcomings and are frustrating to work with due to their limitations. Sometimes, they don't export to epub properly (lot of inconsistencies in the final product). One workaround I've used a lot of times albeit one shortcoming: Microsoft Word and Calibre. I use Microsoft Word to create the draught version of ebook then export it to Calibre which in turn creates the epub, mobi, azw, etc. versions. Calibre does a very good job of creating epub versions. However, the only issue I have with Microsoft Word and Calibre is their inability to create the table of content with linkable chapters that allow the readers to jump to the selected chapters.

While we're on the subject of Apple iBooks and Apple Books, Apple ought to be ashamed for causing the "planned obsolesence" while promoting its committment to the environment. I learnt to my shock that any notes and highlights created in iOS devices running iOS 11 and later do not appear in macOS version of Apple iBooks app, especially High Sierra or earlier. The only indication was the pop-up warning in my iOS devices, letting me know that I would have to upgrade my Mac computer to Mojave to take advantage of "new features" in Apple Books. In order to see them, I must upgrade my Mac computer to Mojave or Catalina, which is impossible with my nine-year-old iMac (Mid-2010) running High Sierra. My iMac is running flawlessly and marvellously so I have no reason to replace my iMac with newer ones and contribute to the environmental waste.

P.S. Don't suggest the DOS-Dude patch for installing Mojave and Catalina in the vintage Mac. I tried it before, and my iMac couldn't display the colour correctly (Blue shows up as orange, etc.) due to ATI Radeon video card not optimised for Metal. ATI had the drivers that would address this issue, but Apple refused to certify them.

It looks like a TOC is possible to create in Calibre, but looks a bit involved. 

Who this isn't a good look for is AppleInsider. How far down the rabbit hole is AI willing to go with these posts that insinuate things that aren't proven and likely can't be proven? Because it's Apple we need to hear workplace grievances aired that have nothing to do with Apple products and services, and no one can verify whether they point to anything tangible for a customer to know?

Too many tech sites have made a career out of insinuation-journalism, where even scant evidence is used to prove a predetermined case. Reasoning like this: "If only .1% of the Apple workforce is alledging institutionally bad behavior, that's just evidence everyone else is too scared to talk."

AI, it's not too late to drop this kind of stuff. 

auxio said:

corebeliefs said:

auxio said:

lkrupp said:

Remember, people, this is the former 'Facebook security chief’. Facebook and security are mutually exclusionary terms.

I was just about to say the same thing.  If people are outraged about CSAM scanning, they surely know about Facebook scanning everything (and not just hashes).  A former Facebook employee weighing in on it?  That's a joke right?

I'm not tracking the argument here. If anything, an ex-Facebook security chief would be more credible on this subject for the reasons you and others are stating, for the same reason the government uses embedded informants. They know what they're talking about. 

The argument is that, if you had no problem working for a company which scans everything people upload to them to build an advertising profile, how can you now speak out against Apple doing a very limited version of that when you're uploading to them?  Simply because it's happening on-device rather than server side?  Uh yeah, that's because it's the only way to maintain end-to-end data encryption.  If they had to generate the image hashes server side, it would mean you'd have to upload your photos unencrypted (or encrypted in a way which allows Apple to decrypt them).

Some of you are talking like the guy is defending Apple. He's saying exactly what people here believe is true, and he has the background to be credible in his criticism, unlike most posting here, including me. Your moral posturing about where he worked doesn't disqualify his knowledge on this subject. We don't know if he has "no problem" with what Facebook does. He left the company and now works at that shady college Stanford. Oh, wait, Stanford is one of the world's most prestigious schools. Maybe stop trying to apply your purity test and take what he says, or not. 

It seems you're referencing MaxTech with your sideswipes about controversy. The problem with indirectly criticizing other channels, it makes you look weak and cowardly, not them. MaxTech gets a lot of heat because they set the tone with investigative reviews of Apple products. They're not afraid to have strong opinions. They make reviewing a long-term conversation. All of these things help clicks, as the trolls have pointed out. But they also reflect the reality that tech products take time to understand in real-world use.

Have a problem with what they're saying? Reference them directly. It will only improve your site. I've watched many channels and sites try to bury their influence with indirect innuendo. And yet, MaxTech still leads the way because they're talking directly to viewers and not playing the industry game like you are here.