gatorguy

emoeller said:

You missed the most important part of Spatial Audio.   That being its application in AR/VR.   The user hearing 360 degree sound is essential to the AR/VR experience....

From the article :
"Virtual surround sound. Apple has likely spent a lot of time and money investing in it because it's important for virtual reality where you need to hear sounds in a 360-degree space."

So AI didn't miss it, they simply didn't emphasize it.

You're right of course, and the same reason both Google and Amazon are supporting it as they prepare AR/VR releases. 
For me, I don't like the sound differences listening on either Sonos or my earbuds, and so they don't really benefit from Spatial Audio at all IMO, in fact I'd deem it a neutral to negative feature outside of VR/AR applications. 

fastasleep said:

I don't understand this.

 "Bloomberg, Apple's next smart home device will be a smart tablet that will control smart home devices like thermostats and lights. It will also display video and handle FaceTime chats, similar to an iPad."

But... we already have that — it's called an iPad. And the cheapest one is already $329. All that's missing here is the mounting hardware for a wall or countertop fixed position. So why not just stick magnets on the back or something? This has to be a different kind of product. And an Apple TV with just a faster processor isn't really changing ... anything. ¯\(°_o)/¯

It sounds like Apple wishes to create their own versions of the Google Nest Hub where the screen generally stays in one place. We have one with camera mounted under the cabinets in the kitchen for live calls, streaming media/TV, and as a calendar of events and recipe center. Two more on tables/counters with no camera, one in the home office for a multitude of uses, and the other in the master bath where my wife likes to lounge in the tub listening to music and streaming videos.  They are very useful and enjoyable, which Apple fans will discover. 

Now that said,I think that those Nest Hubs will soon be able to be easily integrated into Apple's Homekit, or whatever they'll decide to call it once Matter is more fully rolled out. Perhaps that's what's prompting Apple's renewed interest in the category of smart devices, so that Google or "other" doesn't get too much traction in Apple homes.

EDIT: Here's an update for those not aware of the upcoming consumer-friendly changes. https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-home/matter-has-arrived-how-a-google-nest-hub-just-controlled-an-apple-homekit-smart-plug/

DAalseth said:

A lot of the complaint hinges on research from iOS developers Mysk in November, which discovered that Apple had the potential to identify a user in analytics it collects

I think this is even more important. The question isn’t whether what Apple is doing is in violation. The question is are they doing it. Potential is not proof of action. 

It has less to do with whether anyone's been personally identified (maybe they have or maybe they haven't) than with the fact that Apple says in order to prevent the data transfer altogether all we need to do is toggle it off in settings. That's been factually proven wrong. Apple is collecting user engagement data anyway, analytics, most likely to prove to advertisers the value of their ad platform.

Ten years ago Google was punished for something quite similar: Not for invading a user's privacy but for telling Safari users in writing that all they had to do to prevent data collection is toggle an Apple OS privacy setting in the browser. But that wasn't totally disabling it, and Google was properly fined despite proclamations it was all a misunderstanding.  It was not IMHO. 

I expect Apple too will claim it was all innocent, just a misunderstanding if they choose to acknowledge the issue at all. So far their way of addressing it is total silence. That didn't work a decade ago for another company and is not likely to this time either.

larryjw said:

Giving the NFL heads up. The NFL better not make a restrictive long term contract, else they’ll miss out on Apple’s AR/VR.

Based solely on everything I've read, any AR/VR negotiations would take place once there's actually a device and potential market value determined. It would have been a bad business decision to give Apple "known and unknown rights" which is what they wanted. Who knows what the value might be two years from now. TV streaming was the distraction IMO. It's about having that high-profile piece for introducing Apple's headset at the premium price expected, and NFL games would be it. 
Smart move on the NFL's part.

Assuming Google gets this contract, it could possibly, and I would say probably, include some requirement that they be treated as a preferred partner when those negotiations for AR streaming open. That would be a smart move on Google's part.

If Apple misses out (for the short term) it won't be because Apple doesn't want it. Missing out would be by the intent of the NFL and not Apple.

byronl said:

slow n easy said:

I plan on buying one more ICE vehicle so my first BEV likely won't happen for maybe 20 years or so. I'll be curious where Apple will be at that point. I'm a little skeptical right now. Consumer Reports says that Teslas are quite unreliable. I totally get that Apple products are highly reliable but they have never built a car before. I guess we'll see what happens.

consumer reports takes money from ford and others. 

Ummm... No they don't.