mr. h

slow n easy said:

I don’t want to be overly dramatic about the notch, but even with it in the menu bar, I still think it will be distracting.

There are photos/renderings on Apple's website that seem to imply that you can set the screen resolution so that there is effectively no notch - i.e. it's not notched out of the menubar, it's that the pixels either side of the camera are just turned off and not used.

The camera shouldn't be thought of as a notch out of the useable screen, it should be thought of as apple giving more pixels to use either side of the camera, if you want.

henrybay said:

Great news! Apple listened. Their CSAM concept made a mockery of Apple’s privacy ethos. Even though it was well intentioned, it would have turned our iPhones into digital Stasi officers monitoring our every move. 

Apple should turn their attention to screening cloud services where much of this offensive material is apparently stored and shared. But they should leave our iPhones alone. Our phones should be sacrosanct paragons of privacy. 

The irony of this post is sky-high.

Their CSAM concept was actually an extremely clever way of enabling all of your photos to be uploaded to iCloud fully encrypted (without giving Apple the keys), such that neither Apple nor anyone else (should they hack into iCloud, or be law-enforcement with a warrant) would have been able to inspect the photos in iCloud, with the exception of any individual photos that matched a CSAM hash, with the proviso that even then, there would have to be at least 30 photos that matched known CSAM material, before even that was possible.

But now, since they have backed down, all of your photos will continue to be uploaded to iCloud unencrypted, where Apple, law enforcement, and any hackers will be able to inspect all of your photos.

Which one of these two scenarios offers the most privacy?

AppleZulu said:

mr. h said:

AppleZulu said:

What’s described here looks to me like Apple foiling ‘chop shops’ from being able to swap around parts to sell stolen (or otherwise dubiously sourced) iPads. 

Well yes, I guess it does prevent that. But who in their right mind would chop stolen iPads together, when you can just sell them unchopped? Much less effort.

It tends to be a bad idea to limit the freedom of law-abiding citizens in order to prevent actual or perceived criminality. See for example, attempts to add back doors to encryption standards.

The pathetic simping for Apple on display in this thread is utterly nauseating.

Nobody’s limiting your freedom. You don’t have to buy the device if you don’t like it or how its manufacturer works. 

It’s not “simping” to postulate reasons other than nefarious money-grubbing why Apple might restrict functionality when parts are swapped out. 

A number of Apple’s device security measures are aimed squarely at stifling the viability of a market for stolen Apple products. Making stolen devices reliably worthless on the black market protects consumers by making it less likely their devices will be targeted for theft in the first place. Without those measures, you’d better believe that theft of iPhones, iPads and MacBooks would be rampant, and would be worse for Apple products than other brands, because of their higher value. 

So Apple takes measures to assure a stolen device will be scrap. If “chopping” stolen devices could provide a means around those security measures, that absolutely could make chopped devices worth more than the alternative. Thwarting such tactics is not “limiting your freedom” any more than is closing the “back door” that would enable a third-party actor to wipe a user-locked device and re-set it for for resale.  

Yes, it absolutely is limiting people's freedom to conduct cost-effective repairs on their legally-owned hardware.

Apple have become increasingly hostile to third-party repair over the years. Where is the evidence that this has resulted in a reduction of Apple device theft?

Like I said, there is no choice because all major manufacturers do this. So what you are saying is, "if you don't like this situation, quit complaining and don't have any modern personal computing device". This is not a realistic suggestion.

I honestly cannot believe that so many people have been duped into thinking that this situation is a net benefit to them. It's disgusting.

You have also failed to show how, in the specific scenario shown here, this is hampering the selling of stolen iPads. How does preventing screens from being swapped from one device to another put people off stealing iPads? How many opportunistic thieves think to themselves "oh, I better not steal that iPad, because I won't be able to swap its display onto that other iPad I stole last week"? This is an imagined scenario; it doesn't happen! Preventing law-abiding citizens from repairing their own devices because it might stop criminals stealing things is not a good solution. 

gadgetcanadav2 said:

MplsP said:

pscooter63 said:

If I'm a pro, using a "pro" device, why would I want to risk my livelihood with ill-informed repair people?  Which is what this article really highlights.

And you have the option to take it to Apple. 

Go back to the car example - if FedEx gets its trucks from Ford do they and should they need to go back to a Ford dealer for every repair? Or is it conceivable (I know, this is way out there) that a non-Ford mechanic might be qualified to make a repair?

If Ford requires all maintenance from Ford, you have the choice not to buy their product. Same with Apple. What you want is to dictate to Apple how they should run their company. Apple is in business to make money, not coddle to your whims.

Until there’s no car company left that allows your car to be serviced by an independent shop.

When it comes to consumer electronics this has pretty much happened already; there is no choice.

foregoneconclusion said:

These are the same companies that are fine with AI scraping the internet for other people's IP. 

It's not really that much different to how humans learn.

foregoneconclusion said:

Highly advanced cut-and-paste.

Is a gross over-simplification of what these tools do. In fact, it may not even be an oversimplification, but rather just flat-out wrong. When you are typing, are you performing "highly advanced cut-and-paste"?

ApplePoor said:

It appears that none of the self proclaimed rocket scientists here have any idea what the design and build process was on, for instance, the iPad. If one checks the auto industry, there are many instances of "replacement" parts that can only be used with VIN numbers within a range or engine numbers within a range. This is the result of needing changes to fix an issue or a vendor can no longer supply a necessary part.

I have a PhD in Electronic Engineering. How about you?

Stymyx said:

[...] forcing people to wear one when they don't want to, that never works.  If they want to live dangerously, fine, let them.  If they don't, they're only endangering themselves.

If they are in a rear passenger seat, it is not true that they are only endangering themselves. In a high-energy crash, a person sitting in a rear passenger seat without a belt on, can crush a person sitting in a seat in front of them.

AppleInsider said:

[...] Google Bard: Adequate, but Microsoft Bing blows it away
[...] Google's offering is worse in nearly every regard versus Microsoft's Bing.
[...] Google Bard's not really that much better than Microsoft's "new Bing."
[...] Google Bard should do just as well as Bing's use of the technology behind ChatGPT. And to a point, it manages to do just this.
[...] Indeed, the cleaner Google-style interface, the multiple drafts, and the quality of responses may make it a better venue for most users than to go through Bing.

Make your mind up! Was this written by AI?

ApplePoor said:

If one can not afford the cost of repairs, then don't buy the item.

One does not buy a Ferrari unless they have the resources to maintain that vehicle at a shop with Ferrari trained mechanics and authorized access to Ferrari specific parts.

Same idea with airplanes. I have owned several over the years. I went to a licensed A&P mechanic as I did not want parts falling off while in the air. 

At an Apple Store/repair facility, one expects the employee is trained on Apple gear and knows how to fix it and has access to the correct parts.

The above three examples have folks trained to work on their specific brands and that training was not free, so the cost of training is in the prices of those items or shops labor rates.

If I need brain surgery, I go to a doctor trained in that field, not a witch doctor on some island that claims he/she knows how to do the surgery.

Everything mechanical man made can need repairs. I prefer to get the repair done once and done.

It's not entirely clear why you liken third-party repair technicians to "witch doctors". That's just ignorant and breathtakingly cynical and rude towards many talented individuals. Third-party repair folk are usually dramatically more informed and capable than the "officially trained" technicians, because the only thing that the officially trained technicians are allowed to do is replace entire sub-assemblies such as a motherboard or battery. 

Third-party repair technicians, on the other hand, are able to diagnose specific faults, and if they are able to source the components, to effect a repair by replacing only the failed component. Hence third parties being able to fix a fault for $50 (replace broken component on motherboard) instead of Apple who will charge $500+ (replace motherboard).

Oh, and there's also plenty of evidence that even the "official" technicians that customers never get to interact with, but who do "refurbishment" of failed sub-assemblies that subsequently become replacements to be used in other repairs, are often shockingly incompetent and do a significantly worse job than third-party repair technicians.

john-useless said:

does anyone think there is enough of a market for Apple to sell a newly-designed 11- or 12-inch MacBook Air for $899?

[...]

Or, potential market demand aside, perhaps Apple wants to satisfy demand for smaller screens only by offering the various iPad models.

Yes to the second point; I'm sure Apple considers that size and price point to be covered by the iPad.