brertech

mr o said:

This is significant.

This is not simply about HTML5, is it? It is about progressive web apps: They look and act exactly the same as a native app on your iDevice. 
...
Progressive web apps are the future of the web on mobile.

No, they aren't. Just like this is not the year of Linux on the Desktop. Nor will it ever be.
Web apps do not look and act exactly like native apps, and they never integrate as well with the rest of the system. They will always move slower and perform slower as they attempt to emulate native code and create generic APIs years after the originals are available.

I won't even get into how horrible they are from a security perspective.

Rocket_Man said:

It's depressing to see how many commenters just assume that J.K. Scheinberg must have been less qualified or technically adept than younger hires, or that he was over-qualified, or that he must have given a "worse interview, or that he "just didn't 'fit'." One commenter, probably emboldened by anonymity, even had the audacity to libel Mr. Scheinberg, suggesting that he was not "looking to WORK" and was, instead, just "looking for a paycheck to coast on til retirement." Did any of you who posted those comments meet Mr. Scheinberg? Did you sit in on his interview? Did you check out his references? Did you read his resume and those of the younger people who were hired? Did you talk to the people who made the hiring decisions for the store? I bet that most of didn't even click the link to the NY Time article, much less read it before posting your comments. What motivates some people to claim that every lawsuit for employment bias, be it based on age, gender, race, religion, or sexuality, simply *must* be without merit -- despite all of the statistical and peer reviewed research that prove such biases exist and harm so many people?

Mr. Scheinberg may very well be the victim of age discrimination. I've seen it firsthand, and I am of the age where I am probably starting to experience it myself.

The problem with the premise of the article is that his work on processor transitions is somehow supposed to be proof of discrimination. "He's really smart and has in-depth Apple experience, therefore it is discriminatory that he wasn't hired."

Not necessarily true. The required skill sets of these positions, one in engineering and one in customer service, are vastly different. Just because he was a good fit for one does not mean he would be good for the other. Having managed many engineers, I have rarely found one that would be adept at a position that required dealing with unruly and unhappy customers all day long.

sflocal said:

Typical.  If this happened to Apple, it would be all over the news and congressional committees would would demand Tim Cook to testify in front of the world.  The media and trolls would call it "speak-gate" and get on the loudest podium to demand Cook's head.

But no... Just like Android, people know products like Alexa are garbage and junk, and since they have low expectations from them, they get a free pass.

Hypocrites everywhere.

Well, to be fair, Apple does get extra scrutiny because they are the largest company in the world.
Unlike Amazon, which is the ... <checks notes> ... umm, second largest company in the world.

mobird said:

If i recall, when Tim Cook introduced ARkit did he not talk about the millions of the "installed base" of iOS devices that would take advantage of AR.
Anyone who has followed this more closely please jump in and correct me if I have this wrong.

You’re correct, but keep in mind that the vast majority of AR features work on the older phones, including many of the other features they added this year.

Another thing to keep in mind... when ARKit3 actually gets released this Fall, there will be two generations of hardware that support People Occlusion and Motion Capture: last year’s phone/pad and this year’s. By the time apps with those features are widespread, it will likely be three generations.

The more annoying angle is for developers: simulators won’t cut it, so we absolutely have to have the most recent models to even evaluate this tech.

This is true, but largely irrelevant to the Epic case.

I think the posters here don’t know many teens. It’s not that there aren’t equivalent or better chat clients, it’s that all your friends are on iMessage. Definite source of lock-in.

It works for me without a visual indicator.
If I raise my wrist, it does not switch to the Siri screen until I start talking.

But it hears what I was saying even before it gives me any display on the screen.

Ok, this is a very disingenuous article.

Check the two links for Hillary and Bernie's donations. 
Now, look at the "Select Source of Funds" link at the top. Notice how Bernie's link is for "Candidate Committee only", while Hillary's is set to "Campaign + Outside Groups". Change Hillary's to also be "Candidate Committee only". Surprise! A completely different list, and much more in line with Bernie's but with more law firms than tech firms. The different between Alphabet's contribution to Bernie and Hillary is only $30k, for example.

Now, consider the claim that "Clinton, in contrast, is backed mainly by donors linked to the finance industry and labor unions, at the top being Soros Fund Management with more than $7 million. The Sanders campaign has often prided itself on staying distant from the finance industry." I have to laugh that you would single out George Soros, the most famous liberal philanthropist and boogeyman of the conservative movement as "finance industry". Yes, he made his money in finance, but he's also one of the biggest philanthropists in the world, including to organizations like MoveOn. The only other three groups listed which could be claimed as finance industry -- Euclidean, Pritzerk, and Renaissance -- have similar track records for donating to liberal causes.

Also...
"OpenSecrets didn't suggest why Sanders would have strong tech support, but Apple as an institution has adopted many left-leaning stances, at least on social and environmental issues."
Once you set Hillary's list to be "Candidate Committee only", it stops at donors as high as $148,645. How much did Apple employees give to Bernie Sanders? $85,576.
So for all you know Apple gave more to Clinton than Sanders, it just doesn't show in the limited chart.

Shame, shame, AppleInsider.