ericthehalfbee

gatorguy said:

MplsP said:

One of the reasons I tend to stay away from Google is because of privacy/data collection concerns; If Apple can improve Siri while maintaining privacy it would be great

Not that it likely matters. but Google has been using differential privacy in Chrome for some time (not exclusively tho). It's also meant to be used with Google's AI efforts from what I've read.

Apple does have stronger user-facing privacy protections compared to Google, no question. Still neither one is bad when viewed alongside other data aggregators, and both companies are aggressively protective of any user data they've been entrusted with. 

Google uses it in RAPPOR. Which makes sense. If I live in a certain city and start typing a search term in Google, then Google offers suggestions applicable to my city. But this is a fraction of Googles data collection.

I haven't been able to find anything about Google using differential privacy anywhere else. And I don't think their primary business activity (targeted advertising) would even be compatible with differential privacy. The whole point of targeted advertising is that Google knows who you are so it can match ads specifically to you. Differential privacy is the opposite of this.

People have been doing studies on differential privacy and targeted advertising, and it appears possible, but not at a level of granularity Google would like. So I doubt we'll see them using it anywhere else.

saltyzip said:

MnMark said:

A secure version of Android. That's funny!

Now if only appleinsider educated people, rather than playing a game of protectionism, we wouldn't get comments like this.

Read this to educate ones self:
http://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/the-worlds-most-secure-smartphones-and-why-theyre-all-androids/

We are educated. Which is why we know Android is a joke for security. You linking an article without context doesn't change that.

First off, those aren't "Android phones" that a normal person might buy, like an LG or Samsung. They run highly modified versions of Android but are stripped of much of what normal users associate with Android or any smartphone. They then install their own custom software to replicate functionality that we get from "stock" Apps. They are completely and 100% locked down. The only reason they use Android is because it's a free OS with the source code provided for you to allow you to customize it how you like.

Calling these phones Android phones would be like calling the Presidents limo a "Chevy" just because the base platform happens to be a Cadillac.

Android that the general public gets with the phones they buy are a joke compared to iOS, and will never match the security of iOS. 

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

williamh said:

boltsfan17 said:

cali said:

If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

iPhone-less glasses.

hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.

Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 

We can ignore some of the limitations of current technology. Let's dream a little and assume the stuff in the works will be better.  Why would the only option be a cable?  Why wouldn't the glasses connect with a video version of the W1 chip?  The AirPods demonstrate an ability to stuff battery and whatnot into a very small package.  Many fashionable eyeglasses have very thick temples.  I think you could make a fashionable frame with plenty of stuff hidden. The trick will be to hide a camera in the bridge and it will have to be hidden very effectively to avoid the glass hole effect and so the wearer doesn't look like a freaky minotaur. 

So if others couldn't SEE the camera on the man in the bar restroom then they'd be OK with Apple glasses in there? As I remember it the camera simply being there in the first place was the issue being promoted to fear Google Glass even tho it gave clear indication when it was in use. Why would folks accept an iWear camera, especially a hidden one?

If Apple is developing a similar product to be used on the street and in public I think that's the PR problem that needs to be solved. 

Because Apple isn't an advertising company. Google is.

Sorry, but that's not what garnered the Glasshole moniker, with even threats of bodily harm to some folks if they were to walk into bars, restrooms, theaters or perhaps simply looking at someone while wearing them. Ads had zero to do with it. 

Snap Spectacles are now being worn by a lot of people and I don't see them getting any derogatory nicknames or people threatening violence against them. Why do you think Google Glass was derided and Snap Spectacles aren't?

Google makes its living on advertising. This requires them to suck up huge amounts of data on people and their habits in order to support their advertising business (basically their entire business). Google has been in the news numerous times for shady practices regarding collection of data.
 
Apple makes its money on hardware, not on your data. And they are staunch supporters of user privacy and security and have been involved in high profile cases where they stood their ground (like the San Bernadino case). Apple has been promoting themselves as a company that values user privacy for many years, often taking swipes at Google in the process.

Apple won't have nearly the same issues Google had if they introduce something like Glass. They will announce it with an emphasis on privacy and they'll have their company history on their side to back up the talk.

Rayz2016 said:

adamc said:

cfc said:

When you say "real-life" users don’t need 32Gb I assume that you mean most users don’t need 32Gb, which is probably true (at the moment).  However this is supposed to be a Pro machine and a lot of Pro users (myself included) need 32Gb for some tasks.  We will have to stick to using desktop Macs for such tasks, which is why it is a bit worrying that none of them were replaced in 2016.

Just curious why do you need 32Gb of RAM for?

It appears that with some clever jiggery-pokery with fast SSDs and clever OS programming, Apple is attempting to tackle Intel's failure by blurring the line between RAM and SSD. This is a path they set upon years ago when the bought tha Israeli outfit (whose name I can never remember!).

The company was Anobit, and it was one of the larger acquisitions for Apple at around $400 million (more than they paid for PA Semi and Intrinsity combined, which are largely responsible for the A Series processors).

Not only did Anobit help Apple achieve the fastest SSD speeds in the industry, they no doubt were responsible for Apple putting NVMe in the iPhone 6S. A year later and no other mobile vendor has upgraded to NVMe and are still stuck using the inferior UFS 2.1 (which is funny, because Samsung bragged about the GS6 being the first phone in the world to use UFS 2.1, like it was such a big deal only to get the smack down from Apple when the 6S launched with NVMe).

rotateleftbyte said:

jungmark said:

CR also didn't recommend the iPhone 4. Not too worried about it as Apple is investigating the issue.

No new desktops is a problem but it's not a major problem. I'm thinking a spring release for those items. Apple can weather most challenges it faces. 

As for the anti-Apple press. Their whole modus operandii is "Slag off Apple and get more ad revenue". End of story.

There's only one company to blame for this:

Google.

Now I'll explain. Years ago the concept of ads was very simple. A media source (let's use a magazine as an example) would have two key items that made them attractive for advertisers. The obvious one is circulation - the more people that read your magazine the more you could charge for advertising space. The second is demographics. A car magazine like Road & Track would predominantly have a male readership with most readers in the 18-35 range. Magazines used to send out surveys to subscribers about income, education, interests and so on as this was the only way to determine the demographics of your audience. Advertisers would look at this and then decide if their products would be suitable to be advertised in that publication. Hence Road & Track would get ads from car manufacturers, car accessory manufacturers (like radar detectors) or similar products.

There was a problem with this model for both media outlet and advertiser. You had to work for it. Road & Track had to create QUALITY CONTENT that would make people want to continue to buy their magazines. They had to WORK for their readers. If they didn't do this then there were plenty of other magazines that people could turn to (Motor Trend or Car & Driver). Advertisers also had to work. They needed to perform detailed analysis of readership demographics of various outlets and compare it to the demographics of the people who bought their products in order to determine where they should spend their advertising money. And they had to think carefully about their ads. They had to be catchy, informative and have some quality that would entice readers to consider their product.

Now Google has eliminated these problems. Advertising can now be done by monkeys while Googles services to all the hard work of deciding where ads should be placed (based on demographics it creates about its users through the data it collects). And content providers no longer need to worry about content as their number one priority is now clicks/traffic. Quality content is replaced by click-bait headlines and fake news, because this drives traffic. In this way the primary reason for a media outlets existence has been changed. Websites are happy because it's childs play to secure advertising. No more negotiating deals with advertisers directly. Advertisers are happy because they can pay a single entity (Google) and have ads appear on millions of sites. We suffer through endless useless ads, garbage content only designed to drive hits and wasting bandwidth on something people hate (ads).


Which brings up a related point. Google makes 90% of their revenue on something people hate. Nobody likes ads, which is why we install ad blockers or PVR our favorite shows to skip the commercials. Yet they are rewarded for this by Wall Street even though their entire business could come tumbling down by something as simple as a new browser that actually completely blocks ads. If ever a company was on shaky ground as far as their primary product goes, it's Google.

Meanwhile Apple makes all their revenue from products that people actually want. Nobody buys an iPhone or MacBook because it's a necessity (like food or shelter). They buy it because it's DESIRABLE. And for making products that sell in huge numbers to people who WANT them they are punished by Wall Street and chastised by media as "relying too much on iPhone sales".

The whole thing is ridiculous.

/rant