Dan_Dilger
About
- Username
- Dan_Dilger
- Joined
- Visits
- 55
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,484
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 1,584
Reactions
-
Project Catalyst aims to bring apps to the Mac, enhance titles for iPad
May not be necessary. With the App Store and its frequent automatic updates, users can get bytecode appropriate to their architecture delivered directly. It’s not like we have software on optical media that is compiled to a specific architecture that we need to run.lkrupp said:Well, Catalyst apparently is a means to move from Arm->X86. What about the move from X86->Arm? If the Mac moves from Intel to A series Apple needs to come up with a Rosetta style framework that will allow existing X86 Mac software to run on A series chips during a transition period like Rosetta allowed PPC software to run on Intel Macs.
If the rumors are true about a coming switch from Intel to Arm for Macs then I hope such a framework is already up and running in an Apple lab somewhere.
You could own two Macs, each with its own silicon architecture, buy an app and get it delivered to work on both entirely via the App Store without even thinking about ARM/x86, 32/64, or any other variables. Boom!
-
Editorial: Why is privacy-minded Apple putting its new TV app on smart TVs notorious for s...
False. Google collects and stores tons of information about you and uses this against you, the product it's selling to its customer. You know this but yet you keep posting that Apple and Google are the same and "Google cares about your privacy" propaganda. That's purely false.gatorguy said:
Apple is not selling user data anymore than Google is AFAIK. Anything they happen to have stored regarding the personal "you" is safely and reliably stored and not sold to others. You do accurately note that when it comes to advertising both companies put you in a package of Advertising ID numbers, not names and addresses, which you and can change or entirely opt out of at any time. Any access to "you" is anonymized at least by the principles themselves.Latko said:
The whole "you're being sold" conversation as it concerns Apple specifically (and Google too) is in general a FUD campaign.
There really are companies out there selling the real you, personal details and all: Credit bureaus who sell more than a credit rating, insurance brokerages who sell claims histories and specifics of home, auto, boat, or whatever else you have of insurable value, state licensing agencies who sell driving records and ownership registrations among other stuff, even the principle CC licensing agencies like Visa and Mastercard who sell personal purchase histories. Oh and don't forget your bank, brokerage and pharmacy and until at least the past few weeks your cell carrier. EVERYONE seems to be in on it.
Worries about an ad placement seem kind of petty don't they?
Companies that collect data, the way Google collects your Google Home mic recordings, Nest videos, and other data, routinely lose it, hand it over to police--in ways that innocent users have lost their jobs over--and mistakenly leave it open for hackers to access.
You keep blatantly lying about Google and pretend that Apple is doing the exact same things. There must be a reason why you spend so much time fabricating totally false claims about Google. Can you lay out for us your business model, who you are, who you work for, and who pays you to sit on AppleInsider posting totally false information all of the time? Because it seems to be your full-time job.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/technology/google-facebook-surveillance-capitalism.html ;
Platforms like Google and Facebook may track and analyze our every search, location, like, video, photo, post and punctuation mark the better to try to sway us.
Google, in its early days, used the keywords that people typed in to improve its search engine even as it paid scant attention to the collateral data — like users’ keyword phrasing, click patterns and spellings — that came with it. Pretty soon, however, Google began harvesting this surplus information, along with other details like users’ web-browsing activities, to infer their interests and target them with ads.
The companies’ pivot — from serving to surveilling their users — pushed Google and Facebook to harvest more and more data, Dr. Zuboff writes. In doing so, the companies sometimes bypassed privacy settings or made it difficult for users to opt out of data-sharing.Anyone pumped for this week's launch of Google's Home Hub might want to temper their excitement. A smart home is a surveilled home. That’s been the concern of privacy activists since citizens started lighting up their abodes with so-called “smart” tech in recent years.
Take Google’s current smart home division, Nest Labs. It’s been told to hand over data on 300 separate occasions since 2015. That’s according to a little-documented transparency report from Nest, launched a year after the $3.2 billion Google acquisition. The report shows around 60 requests for data were received by Google’s unit in the first half of this year alone. In all those cases recorded from 2015 onward, governments have sought data on as many as 525 Nest account holders.
-
Editorial: Why Apple created Apple TV+ rather than buying Netflix
I know you like to just argue relentlessly about things that don't matter, but the article stated the "has a captive audience of more than a billion users," not that Apple has a billion users of Apple devices specifically. Rocwurst pointed out to you that Apple had nearly that many iTunes/App Store users five years ago. This isn't a controversial claim, and it's not a number that makes a difference whether you quibble about devices or whatever. You aren't making any point, you're just arguing.1STnTENDERBITS said:
Where are you getting 1 billion users? As I said to DED, there's nothing to back that claim. 1.4 billion devices divided by the average number of devices per person... yeah that ain't going to get you a billion users. Back in 2016 when Apple had 1 billion active devices, the per customer device average was 1.7 (per Credit Suisse estimates). That's 588 million. Even if you use the same 2016 estimate of 1.7 devices per person against 1.4 billion devices, you still don't get a billion users. I'd bet the device per person number is even higher now considering iPhones, iPads, iPods, Macs, ATV's, and Watches. I'd be darn near shocked if the average Apple device per person isn't over 2. Anecdotally, I have an MBP and an MBA. Both my daughters have iPhones. We have 4 iPads in our home. That's 2.7 devices per person. I'd bet your personal numbers would be even higher. To achieve the billion users, the average device per person would have to go down from the 2016 estimate of 1.7. Neither one of us believes that happened. There is no realistic combination of numbers that net you a billion users. ← That was my point to DED. He equated more than a billion active devices with more than a billion users. Can't do it.Rocwurst said:1STnTENDERBITS said:Nitpicky but relevant, you can't say Apple has an audience of more than a billion users because nothing supports that. You can say Apple has more than a billion active devices. Those two things are not the same and can't be used interchangeably. We both know there's no 1-to-1 correlation. Apple does have a ton of potential subscribers. There's no doubt about that. But they don't have as many potential subscribers as Netflix so their base of users isn't the advantage you make it out to be. Netflix includes Apple's base as potential customers along with users of any device that has streaming ability regardless of ecosystem.
Except, that 1 Billion Apple users using 1.4 billion active Apple devices ARE ALREADY signed up users with AppleIDs in Apple's ecosystem. That is a big difference from billions of users who have a web browser that *might* sign up for Netflix.
The barrier of entry is significantly different - Apple users would merely click a button or two to enable AppleTV+ and in many cases their credit card details are already also on file as iTunes, App Store or iCloud paid users.
Way back in Sept 2014, there were 885 million active iTunes/App Store users, all with credit card enabled accounts already set up with Apple.
All Netflix has is 149m existing users and a much higher bar for users to jump to even try out their services.
Apple users aren't Borg. There is no monolithic group think. ATV+ would face the same issues as Netflix: convincing the user the service is worth subscription. I'm not sure what barrier of entry you think Netflix has. There is no much higher bar. Signing up for the service it easy. If ATV+ has a couple fewer clicks the significance seems pretty insignificant. Content is going to be the driver, not "they already have my cc info".
Also, the article didn't actually link Apple's vast number of accounts (ie, captive audience customers) with "active devices," you did. So be careful when you're inventing problems that you're not simply wrong and complaiing about things that are not issues, nor claims, just to waste other people's time.
Netflix has ~150 subscribers. That's great. Apple doesn't have that many TV subscribers or even Apple Music subscribers yet. But Apple isn't going to have a problem finding enough subscribers to stay in business, and you know that. It doesn't have to sign up a billion people and it doesn't need an installed base of a billion devices. But it does have a billion pockets to appeal to, as Oprah pointed out.
-
Editorial: Why Apple created Apple TV+ rather than buying Netflix
The article isn't claiming Apple has more potential subscribers than Netflix. It's saying Netflix has /has had to work for subscribers, while Apple already has a large base of customers to sell to, and they all have Apple TV and the TV app on their devices right now.1STnTENDERBITS said:Apple doen't have as many potential subscribers as Netflix so their base of users isn't the advantage you make it out to be. Netflix includes Apple's base as potential customers along with users of any device that has streaming ability regardless of ecosystem.
I'm really not sure why you're looking at ATV+ strictly from an ecosystem standpoint. Short term benefits yes. But I'd bet Apple is looking at it long term as it's own version of Netflix. Ubiquitous and available everywhere on every device. The same way it looks at Apple Music which is available on iOS, Mac, PC, and Android. Services don't really benefit from being closed off. That's why Apple has AirPlay 2 spreading like wildfire beyond it's own ecosystem.
You say ATV+ is free from having to support every mobile device and any console or USB stick that can be attached to a TV. I say that is Apple's eventual goal. Their service everywhere.
Apologies for length. Lot to unpack.
Apple isn't in a race with Netflix to achieve subscribers. As the article notes, one of Apple's advantages in selling to a subset of Netflix's potential platforms/devices is simplicity and optimization for video hardware. That's not really an issue with Apple Music.
Some services Apple might want to offer broadly (like Apple Music), because they help sell outside users on Apple hardware. Some they will want to keep closed, because that will help sell hardware.
AirPlay 2 isn't a Service that generates money. It's a protocol where wide adoption benefits Apple's hardware buyers. If you only have a Samsung TV and an Android phone, AirPlay 2 on your TV does nothing for you--until you buy a Mac, iPad, etc.
Apple states that it will spread the Apple TV app broadly: "coming to popular smart TVs, streaming boxes, and streaming sticks, starting with Samsung." Most recently modern sticks (like Amazon Fire, Roku, Chromecast) support H.264 / H.265 (HEVC) codecs, which is what Apple has been supporting on its devices/silicon. Netflix has been doing this since 2007, so it had to dick about with VC-1, Silverlight, and apparently lots of other old codecs before iOS forced the industry to standardize. So in that respect, the planets are aligning for Apple to waltz in become a broadly distributed producer and streaming store within the TV app.
-
No, '250 scientists' didn't warn that AirPods are a cancer risk
In your other comments you refer to Bluetooth as a "possible radiating carcinogen." That's not true. EMF (as the article notes) is recognized as "possible human carcinogen (Group 2B)," but that is almost entirely due to two studies that aimed CDMA/GSM cellular EMF radiation (at 2-4x the human limit) at in vitro mice and rats, for 9 hours a day, 7 days week. Two years later, a small number of them developed tumors. So wearing sunscreen is far more of a concern than wearing AirPods, which operate far below the SAR limit, and only do this around your exterior adult ear--not your entire body, nonstop, as you develop inside your mother, at many times higher EMF radiation, as was the case of the mice. And endorsing some random Yahoo contributor over literally everyone with access to any science is just sad.wozwoz said:Anyone who sticks a Bluetooth radiating device INTO their head ... needs their head examined. Well done to Yahoo for pointing out the obvious.
