Dan_Dilger

crowley said:

I wonder if the higher end Macs will have A chips with integrated GPUs, or if there will be non-GPU variants where Apple have a dedicated separate GPU, presumably from AMD.

Having a dedicated GPU available would not require a "non-GPU variant," nor would that really even be desirable. 

Current MacBook Pros have Intel Core chips with integrated Intel GPUs, and more powerful AMD GPUs that can be turned on when more graphics HP is needed. 

ranson said:

rotateleftbyte said:

Rayz2016 said:

Folk won't take responsibility

That is an increasing problem. That's why we see so many really petty lawsuits filed against Apple. Personal Responsibilty bsed upon that thing called Common Sense is fast becoming a thing of the past to the obvious glee of lawyers all over the place (sic)

You sign a waiver/liability release to go through a Haunted Mansion or ride on a zipline, etc. Certainly (and rightfully so) Apple could require an acknowledgement of indemnity from the user when they wish to install an app outside of the official store to protect them against such things.  And certainly, if a user comes in with all kinds of problems as a result of buggy software (a problem Apple fields on mac computers already), that can be treated as non-warranty work, just as if you cracked your screen or some other non-warranty service, without voiding the full warranty. The arguments that have been presented is basically that Apple does not want to operate like every other computing company that already deals with these things.

You seem to be describing this issue as a problem others have solved. That isn't the case. Outside of the App Store, you have the trailer park on fire that is Android and then the vacant lots of Samsung and Microsoft, and the huge bags of plastic garbage that are China's app stores. Nobody has anything resembling the App Store, and the solution you propose would be to destroy the only functional, sustainable App Store to bring Apple down to the level of commodity garbage that cant fetch a coin.

That's like proposing that the solution to Windows NT in 1999 was to install Linux. No solution, just more problems of a more significant nature.

It's like proposing living in your car as a solution to a difficult rental market.  

ranson said:

Rayz2016 said:

dantheman827 said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

This is why iOS needs a "Pro Mode". Users who want a safe app environment can stick with the Apple moderated App Store while users who do not want any restrictions can switch to pro mode and install any app store they want free of Apple's SDK restrictions. Pro mode users would be responsible for their own security and should expect malware, apps that drain the battery in the back ground and so on (just like on laptop and desktop computers). They would also be able to install anti-malware apps as well as the professional tools they need to get work done. Personally, I would stick with the safe mode on my main iPhone and use pro mode on older devices and my iPad.

But apps would still be subject to the same sandbox as ones from the App Store, they would still need to be code-signed.

If Apple ever allowed apps from outside the App Store on iOS, they would most certainly go with the notarization model that they have for macOS as a requirement along with enforcing the sandbox

Well, that's why I was thinking that his idea might have legs. 

Here's the thing: in this game, it's not a case of who's right; it's who shouts the loudest, and Apple has never shouted that loudly. They could end up in a position where they're forced to open up the phone to third-party platforms. Here's where they could preempt such a catastrophe: don't risk all the hard work they've put in building a secure platform; just build another phone line and an open version of iOS and say, "There you go. Have at it."

Support it, but don't advertise it. Build great phones, but don't offer AppleCare.

It's not about who shouts loud enough. It is about which government agency is going to reign in Apple first, and force them to permit freedom of choice on devices that their customers own. My bet is that the EU will move first, and it will happen in the next 6-9 months. The handwriting is on the wall and there will ultimately be no alternative for Apple. The resistance between now and that time is simply a delay tactic and Apple knows it.

The EU did such a bang up job of "fixing" cookies! Now in addition to the problem that already existed (and still exists) you also get hasseld with stupid crap that tells you to click "OK whatever" on every website you touch. The EU tried to design the internet and failed miserably. Good thing American companies were there with a backup because the ITU CCITT and their reams of pages of X.400 and X.500 etc offer a mountain of evicence that shows the EU shouldn't be shaping anything online. 

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

This is why iOS needs a "Pro Mode". Users who want a safe app environment can stick with the Apple moderated App Store while users who do not want any restrictions can switch to pro mode and install any app store they want free of Apple's SDK restrictions.

This is literally what enterprise certificates offer: a Pro mode for businesses that distribute their own custom apps outside the App Store. But this also requires a team of IT professionals supporting this. It's not a consumer feature, for the reasons Rayz notes above. 

In fact, one of the primary problems of jailbreaking is that people break the security model and allow junk and malicious software that hobbles the experience, and then turn around and blame Apple. The idea that a device you buy you should have "total control over" to load your own apps stops making sense when you realize that Apple has to support that device, handle repairs, etc. And the OS you use is licensed to you. You don't own it, and you're not free to do anything you like with it because that has an impact on the entire ecosystem.

Many of the reasons that Android has failed in popularity among people who pay more than $400 for a phone is that this wild west experience is really bad. It's particularly bad for people who are not 24/7 capable of diagnosing extremely complex problems that affect their data. People hose their own Androids and then blame Android or Google or their vendor. It is not a workable situation. And those the most at risk for losing their data, or begin spied upon, or being randsomwared or otherwise injured are those who least understand the issues involved. It would be irresponsible for Apple to offer an internet-connected device with a camera and GPS tracking and then allow the use to make extremely complex policy decisions that they don't understand under the guise of "being an adult." We've had clear result data on this for over a decade and there is no longer any room for demanding the end users be given enough rope by Apple to hang themselves.

There is no way to have sideloaded apps on a smartphone that are safe from exploitation. Plenty of extremely technically proficient users have been victimized by sophisticated attacks taking advantage of this "freedom" that some users think is really important. People should stop wishing for Windows 98.  

The "foldable gold smartphones" that Escobar "launched" was a scam that offered a device for $350 that buyers never received. It turned out to be an existing folding Android with a gold sticker on it.

A second "Escobar Fold 2" turned out to be Samsung's Galaxy Fold with gold stickers on it, and a few of the devices were sent to YouTubers to create attention for the scam. Escobar was "reselling" the $1800 Galaxy Fold for $400 as part of a pyramid scheme to get sales, not to give away products for less than they cost.