OutdoorAppDeveloper

Suggestion to Apple: Get ahead of this massive security problem. If anyone can side load any app they want onto their iOS device, that puts every other app at risk from data theft and other hacks. To get around this start working right now on an alternative version of iOS that users can install if they want to, much like the beta profiles you have  now. The alternative side loading open iOS has no Apple App Store. It has no access to iCloud, CloudKit or any other technology that could become compromised by apps that have not been through the app review process. Most iOS users (myself included) will opt for the secure version of iOS for their primary devices. For older, otherwise unused devices, the alternative open but unsecure iOS will be a lot of fun to play with. Think of it as another form of recycling. The open iOS does no not need to be updated as often as the main secure version because (duh) it's not secure.

Apple Computer: Nice products but you wouldn't want to work there.

Poor Petabyte. Never had a chance. It sounds like we are skipping it and going straight to the Exabyte.
Many years ago at a tech trade show there was an asian company at the front of the hall proudly showing of their robotic hard drive loading system with over one Petabyte of storage. They named the thing the "Petafile". I kid you not. I bet they wondered why they were getting all the smirks and snickers as people walked by.
And now you know the rest of the story.

Does anyone else think that paying $400 for 32GB of RAM or $200 for 512GB of SSD space is a bit expensive? Like perhaps four times what the parts should cost? I guess we will just have to upgrade them our... oh snap!

This year, at least one cell phone maker managed cover up the hole punch with visible pixels. It would be great if Apple lead the market on display technology rather than following it by two or three years.

I would have loved an Apple Watch at that age. It's really too bad that Apple hates this kind of recycling. They love the kind that destroys old devices. This is why it would be a really good idea to allow people to do whatever they want with the devices they own. Someone could create an alternate version of Watch OS for toddlers that allows them to tap on pictures and learn things in the process without risking calls to 911. Apple will say that this is a huge security risk, but is it really?

I love VR/AR headsets but they won't be replacing hand held devices for a long, long time if ever. If they got small and light enough, they could replace your computer screen and iPad but the iPhone is in a different category. I keep mine in my back pocket when I am doing yard work which includes swinging a pickaxe. No headset will replace it as I require some degree of eye protection and wont risk damaging either my eyes or an expensive gadget. This is just one personal example but there are many others. Can you use an AR headset while driving? I am guessing not or at least not until your car drives itself. Let's take a look at the technological roadblocks preventing constant use of an AR headset:
Currently VR headsets are so big and heavy that they become uncomfortable to wear after an hour or two.
Even if an AR headset were smaller, it would still need to be powered by batteries. Where do they go? In your pocket with a cord dangling down your neck?
You can shrink the vision system but what about the rest of the electronics? It all generates heat so how to you dissipate it if the electronics are built into a pair of glasses?
AR is great but for the best virtual experiences, you need full VR. Will the AR glasses have a full VR mode or will we need another headset for that?
Many people are very sensitive to differences between motion they see with their eyes and what they feel with their sense of balance. How do you do VR without making people sick?
Finally the cameras. You can't have AR without some cameras to help with the tracking and scene analysis. People threw a hissy fit over the original Google Glass AR glasses because they had cameras. There was at least one fight over them. Is everyone ready to accept a camera on everyone's face constantly recording and sending the video back to the Apple's servers? What happens when Apple starts scanning those videos for anything illegal to protect kids or something?

22july2013 said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

I bet less than 10% of iOS users would enable side loading on an old device but if they want to they should be able to. This is why jailbreaking exists. Apple should just make an official way to jailbreak old devices and be done with it.

Apple should allow jailbreaking by letting users replace iOS with Android, but not by weakening iOS.

You are neglecting the fact that should side loading be allowed on iOS, companies like FaceBook would insist that any software developers who want data from FaceBook would be required to make their app "require side loading." That way FaceBook gets more data. And with a majority of software switching to side-loading to become more profitable, everything would have to be side loaded.

FaceBook could not require that users enable side loading in order to use their app. The market size is just too small. I would expect very few iOS users to enable side loading and disable iCloud an App Store apps on their devices. FaceBook can't give up the iOS market and they don't have the weight to force users to do anything. FaceBook still works in a browser so users would simply stop using the FaceBook app if they tried it.

Allowing jailbreaking does not weaken iOS. It strengthens it. Currently jail breaking is possible in older versions of iOS. That's really bad for security because it means that apps the user downloads from the official App Store on those devices have their personal data exposed to other apps. With the method I propose, it means that side loaded apps would not have access to any secure information. Users would have to manage security on their own (or with third party apps). A jail broken iPhone would be exactly like a Mac Book, Windows PC or Raspberry Pi when it comes to security.

tht said:

Reportedly, the device will be mostly based on the Mac mini's design but will feature "much more powerful hardware."

This is what threw me in reading the article. If this Mac Studio is the rumored Mac Half Pro, something the size of 3 or 4 stacked Mac mini's or a PowerMac G4 Cube, or a 2013 Mac Pro, or a Mac IIci on its side, at some point it's really not based on the Mac mini's design anymore.

If it is that much larger, there isn't going to be much similarity between a Mac mini and this box.

Then, how is it going to differ from the Mac mini that is rumored to have an M1 Pro and perhaps an M1 Max?

The one thing I never worry about is how a new Mac is going to look. Apple always does a great job with the visual design of their products. It will look great even if it is larger than the current Mac mini. The thing that worries me is releasing any kind of "pro" Mac that has no expandability. At least give us a couple of M.2 slots!

Great. Now why can't you install MacOS on the M1 iPad? It has enough CPU, GPU and RAM. In fact it has the same specs as the M1 Mac Mini. Why not implement a way to swap in MacOS if you want to at least on the 256GB model?
And what is up with the 64GB storage model in 2022? The going price of a 64GB SSD is $18. 256GB SSDs go for $30. That's a $12 difference.