puggsly

I take issue with almost everyone out here. 1) Yes, you can use messages to request someone share their screen with you but it requires someone at the other end. This is not equal to back to my mac. 2) Yes, you can use a service to keep track of your external IP and open ports (for everyone) to allow for connections but this is not equal to the VPN tunnel that back to my mac created. 3) Back to my mac was not unreliable! It was not perfect and some routers would not allow the protocol to pass through but this is like complaining that Gmail is not reliable because corporate firewalls block it. Back to my mac was an amazing service that Apple killed without giving us any good reasons. The core technology is still running on Apple's servers which is how HomeKit remote access works. This is a service that Apple should have double'd down on and expanded to iPads and iPhones and given easier ways to approve other users but they killed it and I'm not happy!

MplsP said:

I guess I'm confused. I got a pop up saying Back To My Mac was being discontinued and the info at Apple (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208922) says that screen sharing is still available. What's the difference?

Screen sharing is on your local network. Back to My Mac works over the internet with no configuration beyond signing into the same iCloud account on each system. The author does a major disservice by down playing this. Reach out to Apple and fight to get this back.

https://www.apple.com/feedback/icloud.html

ltcdrdata said:

I miss the 128GB version.... 64Gb is a laugh, 256Gb overkill for most people. It should have started at 128Gb (I wouldn't mind a slightly higher price).

I currently have an iPad 5gen with 128Gb (then the top model) which is still more than enough. A 128Gb model for eg. $379 or even $399 and I would update immediately, now I'll wait another year

I feel for you but I think keeping the price and making the entry level 64GB makes this fine for many users. A13, True Tone , center Stage and a usable amount of storage. This was a great update. Who knows, around Christmas you might see the 256gb get down to $429 and convince you anyway.

cpsro said:

Yes, the HomePod at least needs a feature akin to Echo skills. Locking out third parties is a shame and a hindrance.

It is possible you are correct, or then again, maybe not. The echo and the homePod have two main functions.

1) Play music, answer questions, set timers etc.....
In this area, HomePod is great and shortcuts can bridge some of the gap. But Echo's skills give it an advantage and there are definitely things that HomePod will lack without something like skills in this area.

2) Act as your smart home hub.

This is where most people see the skills for echo because it is what links your smart devices to your echo through cloud services and this is what makes Echo compatible to some degree with anything built by anyone. But at some point you will have to ask if that is what you really want? And this is something HomePod doesn't need because it has HomeKit. This means that devices don't have or need to log into services to be setup or used. They don't have to have some middleware to translate from this thing to that. If you are designed for Homekit, you auto register with the AppleID of the home owner and make all of your services available to all devices in the homekit household. There is no translation layer, things just work with each other. From a security standpoint and an ease of use it it night and day. The only downside is, you have to pick homeKit products which is getting easier and easier. This could still be an issue for early adopters who went down another path or for those who want devices that are not yet available with homekit compatibility (doorbells!). But we are still early days into home automation so this will not be a problem for most people. 

Also, Apple needs to step up it's game to allow vendors to expose more of their data to other devices but this gets better with each release of iOS.