arthurba

I find the tone of this article really disturbing.

The majority of MacOS apps that natively support M1 have been compiled on Intel MacOS with the Xcode cross compiler/universal binary - not on M1 natively.  

Application developers like me are developing on Intel hardware for 3 Intel platforms (Linux, Windows and Mac).  Now I can't even buy an MBP to develop on any more.  The odd platform out that makes our life difficult it going to come waaaay down our list of priorities.

I've written a more detailed reply elsewhere in the forum: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/224834/the-last-mac#latest

Apple's implementation is the only RFID one that I've seen that genuinely offers privacy to the consumer (by hiding the credit card details from the retailer and merchant service provider.   I'm sure there are some, but I've not seen them here in Oz.

NAB, Westpac and CommBank all have RFID solutions of their own that have no security or privacy controls (from plastic cards to apps on Android).

From my PoV - Apple, far from stifling competition, are the only ones providing competition.

Finally - the reuters article is misleading "Apple ... does not allow third-party electronic payment apps to be loaded onto to the hugely popular smartphones.".  Well then I wonder what the Starbucks card app on my iPhone is doing then?  It's a third-party electronic payment app!  

This is about RFID, not phones, and hopefully if Apple's solicitors can make that case then the ACCC will see the complaint has no merit.

chasm said:

If they continue on the Huffman path, the unpaid labour pool and users will likely abandon it. Its bizarre that, having seen that this is what’s going to happen, Huffman would risk his entire business on his arrogant presumptions and false sense of urgency.

Thanks for this reply. The tone of the Appleinsider commentary on this is OTT.

However can I offer a slight alternative take to yours?  I use reddit and so do most people I know and none of us use this app. Huffman will have the actual stats on who uses the Web site and official app vs who uses the API. Maybe he knows this 3rd party app is actually a storm in a teacup.

The future of Reddit is via a paid subscription or through advertising.  Twitter apps that bypassed the advertising and refused to pay a subscription were never going to last and the user's who would only access it that way were never going to stay it could be the same for Reddit. These end users that use the 3rd party app may never stay, so why bother cater to them?

Of course failure to engage and manage the whole thing is a spectacular failure that should indeed cause the board to reconsider his role.  But the end result?  Same. 

Moderators closing the forums over this is just locking actual consumers of the content out.  I (and everyone else I know) are not contributing to these polls. 

To me it sounds like internal compliance found a problem with firmware updates.  i.e.: the 'malicious' firmware update was created by Apple, and successfully installed on a Super Micro device - proving therefore that it's possible to install 'untrusted' firmware.  i.e.: the complaint isn't about malicious firmware, it's about super micro devices accepting untrusted firmware.  

This has been a well known problem for years. I'd be curious to know what finally made them act (or pretend to act).  Presumably some network threatened to block their browser or something.

Who would have guessed that a web browser supplied by an advertising company was designed be advertising friendly?

I can guarentee that they will not fix this.  They'll stop a single ad using up so much data/cpu, but they'll just fix that by using a higher rotation.

About 2 years ago my sister in law visited the US from Australia so I gave her an old iphone on Verizon to use for the duration.  We restored her last backup, so it was just like her phone.  Off she went.

After 1 day, I was getting exceeded data notices from Verizon.  I assumed initial syncing of mail etc. was the cause, maybe some tethering.  Whatever.

Anyway, every. single day. I. got. excess. data. charges.

So when she calls me up I offer to walk her through finding the data use by app, just to find out what's behind it.

It's chrome.

"But I just view a couple of pages a day, usually the NY Times" and some web based email that a client/customer requires her to use.

I suggested that she maybe uninstalls chrome and uses safari for the duration.

Oh, no!  Not possible.  Inseert "safarin never works, I must always use chrome" speech someone has previously fed her.  No she wouldn't install uBlock or any other ad-blocker (some of her clients are in the advertising industry, and she considers adverts to be her meal ticket).  So I ended up negotiating a larger data deal with Verizon that month...  The things we do for family right?

Who would have guessed that a web browser supplied by an advertising company was happy to continue to run adverts continuously even when you are not looking at them.  The fact that they get paid for each ad rotation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I can guarentee that google will not fix this.  They'll stop a single ad using up so much data/cpu, but they'll just fix that by using a higher rotation.

AFAICT this does NOT require Apple to give up control or fees.   An "App Store" will be a new class of app that can be distributed by Apple. And you can bet (just like the 3rd party payments) that Apple will charge fees.  Ie: if you want to have an App Store then 30% of your revenues will go to Apple. 

Let me share an 'outside the US' perspective.

All this discussion about RCS is moot.

If I send an SMS/RCS to any Android contact, I never get a reply and they never see it.

Why?

Because Android users use WhatsApp.  In other countries it's WeChat.  

They see it as a combination iMessage/Facetime app and use it just like us Apple users use iMessage/Facetime - ie: we don't use anything else.

I asked a friend about my text message and they showed me their phone: no sign of my message, and no sign of any app that would show an SMS either.  They either hadn't installed it or deleted that app.

I'm guessing in the US it's different, but I wouldn't think that it will be different for long.

foregoneconclusion said:

FYI: Apple's web site clearly says that the maximum trade-in value for the "computer" category is $1250. Should be obvious that a $50K system isn't the intended target for this kind of program. 

As @mikethemartian suggested, the true value of the Mac Pro can be found not in what Apple will pay you as a trade in, but what Apple sell 'refurbished' units as:
https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished/mac/mac-pro

That page lists "Refurbished Mac Pro 2.5GHz 28-core Intel Xeon W, Two Radeon Pro Vega II Duo, Apple Afterburner" for $39,239.00 and includes:

I’ve yet to see a car with a USBC port, but there are already cars with wireless charging built in. 

USBA will be around for a very very very long time even if it’s just for cars.  

Cars will migrate away from USB to wireless charging just like they’ve moved away from ‘mic’ ports to Bluetooth. 

The future is not USBC, it’s wireless for power and thunderbolt for data (because USB 3.2 is still too slow).

In an opinion piece I think it would be kinder if the author at least tried to unpack Apple’s position. “Apple claims that opening up repair access to its devices would create consumer safety and security risks.”

Those “consumer safety and security risks” are very apparent to me.  Last summer, several people in my neighborhood "lost" their iPhones at local beaches, and community members helped the owners track the lost items down with "find my" (why people find this so hard I don't know).

Last known location - a "phone repair shop" some 40km away (but no, the police won't investigate, and I've no idea why).

So I guess someone can spend a morning "collecting" iPhones and by the afternoon have a few dollars in their pocket.

This creates a “safety and security risk” for iPhone owners.

After iPhone's - the next most common thing stolen here are BMW's - and again, it's for parts.  If BMW could stop 3rd party repairs, they absolutely would, because folk around here are now actively campaigning "don't buy a BMW" because it's bringing crime to the area (particularly at night). I doubt BMW are very happy about the crime or the consumer response.

You can buy BMW parts as "genuine" or “thirdparty”, but it doesn't stop people stealing BMW's for parts.  Having "3rd party" suppliers for Apple parts is also not  going to discourage or prevent the theft of iPhone's for parts.  Making the iPhone irreparable (except by Apple) and/or the parts unuseful (as described here: the display can be replaced but it breaks Face ID) are significantly more effective strategies for combatting theft and keeping iPhone owners safe.