tronald

So, this ID can only be tied to a user's interactions with the App Store? I was contemplating whether this is anti-competitive, but if so it is only subtly so. If I browse for products using the Amazon app, or Instacart, or really any other shopping app, then my browsing activity is also subject to analysis by the company behind that app. The difference here is that I can usually browse those other apps without logging in, to see what products they have before deciding to create a login, though apps are hardly required to allow such browsing without logging in first. 

Actual products purchased on the App Store or Apple Store apps are clearly associated with your Apple ID, and unambiguously so (and it really can't be any other way). 

You can ask an app not to track you, certainly, but this only informs the company behind the app that they shouldn't provide or sell the tracking that they do on your specific account to third parties. If Apple isn't providing or selling the data they accumulate to third parties, then this question doesn't even apply in their case. 

maciekskontakt said:

lordjohnwhorfin said:

It’s facebook that should be deleted.

I understand your frustration, but your claim is not mature. What should happen is section 230 should be taken away from Facebook (liability protections) and new regulatory laws should imposed on all new BigTech companies. That includes Google, Twitter and Amazon, but also Apple (which may have least of problems to obey from all BigTech companies). Unfortunately, governments would use these regulations to completely uncontrolled political purposes, so it may not be feasible. 

Without section 230 the Internet would bifurcate between parts that would be an unusable mess of unmoderated content (without moderation, all user content forums devolve rapidly into angry crap that overwhelms everything else) and parts that would be essentially devoid of user content. Why? Because if moderation (which is necessary to prevent user content devolving into angry crap) causes the platform to be legally liable for user content, then moderated content will cease to exist so websites would have to choose whether to allow essentially everything (yielding angry crap) or essentially nothing. No company could realistic afford to implement the amount of moderation and the kind of analysis that would be required to include only content that could never open them up to a user-content-related lawsuit. 

It is ironic that someone would demand in a hosted comments section that section 230 should be taken away. 

There should be regulation on the gathering, use, and security of user data. I don't think the US (or the world in general) could ever agree on how to change section 230 into something that could work effectively, because there is no agreement on what "effectively" could even possibly mean. 

I would be surprised if half of Americans actually understand what 5G is or would give them. Mix that with confusing media messages about China taking over 5G and the US fighting back against them over the last three years, along with coverage of anti-5G protesters where you have to read a bit too much of the article to know that it doesn't really exist already, and AT&T literally showing a 5G logo on phones connected to their LTE network, and I would be shocked if even a third of Americans could give an informed opinion on what the state of the 5G world actually is. 

And, exactly why should it matter whether the public understands the nuances between 4G and 5G anyway? This is a matter for tech titans, government regulatory entities, and telco and local government infrastructure investment, who are all tasked with eventually figuring out how to get services to the public that the public will (hopefully) benefit from. All the general public needs to know is that technology is continuing to get better and that the tech and regulatory worlds have to work together to make sure that continues to be the case. 

It would be more interesting if the US general public could be made more aware of the many ways that US tech infrastructure is falling behind much of the world precisely because our tech-regulatory-local-government relationships are so dysfunctional in getting actual tech infrastructure out to all of us, and just how much of that is caused by entrenched tech telco businesses buying off politicians and regulators. Sure, Americans know that corporate America basically owns US governance at all levels, but it isn't clear how many Americans know how much more advanced many other countries are simply because they don't have the US's level and forms of corporate-government corruption. 

cndgoose said:

Just had a thought ... could apple offer an M1 iMac/iPad hybrid with detachable iPad screen?

Apple does kind of sell that. They sell a MacBook that can run iPad apps, and they sell an iPad that can operate relatively seamlessly with documents and applications stored from and running on your Mac. I go back and forth between my iPad, my MacBook and my iMac fairly frequently without all that much friction. Further, the iPad can serve as a MacBook second screen that supports touch (albeit poorly). It just costs $600 more than a MacBook alone. So, the minimum price to buy into that level of the Apple ecosystem is not light on the pocketbook. 

Applications still need to catch up with the model, but one of my primary uses for switching around between devices is Word, and Microsoft very much seems to get the gist of the Apple operating model (which is also very much in keeping with Microsoft's current cloud-driven and subscription-based model). Adobe is slowly getting there, too, but it still has a ways to go, and it probably needs a better way of sharing larger files between devices which is something Microsoft doesn't have to think about as much. Apple is of course already surprisingly seamless, with Safari, TextEdit, Notes, Reminders, Music, Documents, Desktop, passwords, copy/paste, its productivity suite, and plenty more all running about as well on multiple devices (and types of devices) as they run on just one. They probably need to think more about Logic and Final Cut (which also suffer from the file size problem), but even those applications have some nice features for utilizing both device types simultaneously with an iPad providing a virtual touch-based control surface. Further, Garage Band and iMovie work across devices pretty well (though the iPad variant of iMovie is currently pretty underwhelming), and both can serve as starting points for work that is eventually pulled in to Logic and Final Cut.

I do sometimes find myself wanting to touch the screen on my Laptop after spending a bit too long using my iPad for editing something, but the trackpad really is such a better experience for use with macOS that I don't find it that much of a bother switching back. I really don't want to see macOS itself burdened with having to have a compelling touch interface, but there are a few apps that would benefit. Those apps, though, could probably start supporting use of an iPad as a second display, perhaps even as keyword/touch-display combo. 

What I want to see is seamless use of multiple devices in my house for very large files or very large collections of files, without having to transfer through the cloud as an intermediary. That is the one place where hybrids have a serious advantage. It seems entirely fixable, though. Wi-Fi exists everywhere, is fast enough (it is at this point faster than disk drives) and Apple has figured out how to establish convenient and secure connections within a home network. Come on Apple! Solve this one!

Could Apple make a convertible that supports going back and forth between a macOS-style interaction model when a keyboard and touchpad are attached and an iOS-style interaction model when detached? Yes, and their current Xcode application development model could actually make that work surprisingly well sometimes. But, there is a lot more that differentiates a touch-friendly device from a lap or desk friendly one. A big one is that a touch interface probably shouldn't be larger than around 11 inches, but a laptop probably shouldn't be less than 13 or 14 and computer on a desk really shouldn't be less than 24. So, a compromise device is going to suck at one of its use cases. 

I run BitDefender which I presume will find any of these roughly as well as Malwarebytes, but literally the only malware it has ever found is some PC-only malware in some old (obviously junk) E-mail attachments which I would never have clicked on. 

Are there Mac viruses out in the wild that don't require affirmative overrides (including actively accepting security overrides) from the user to get them to run?