avon b7

AppleZulu said:

My prediction is still that HomeOS and the mystery Home Hub will function like a 21st century home mainframe system.

The hub will likely just be a box, like an AppleTV box. It will contain the hardware necessary to run Apple Intelligence (AI) and an advanced Siri. Other Home devices, like existing HomePods, AppleTVs and new wireless home terminal screens, will then be networked to the hub, which will handle all the heavy processing that's required for all those devices to run AI and super Siri. (Note that the ridiculousness of the renderings in the article above makes it pretty obvious that the hub will not be a HomePod with a tablet nailed to the side.)

It's this mainframe scenario that will make it possible for Apple to roll out an AI-powered Apple Home without creating the enormous and prohibitive barrier of requiring everyone to replace their existing AppleTVs and HomePods before being able to use it. All those devices are already on your home network and they don't ever leave it. By introducing a powerful hub, all everything else needs to be able to do is function like a "dumb terminal." Not only does this scenario not require upgrading existing HomePods and AppleTVs with more powerful processors in each, but it also means that future models as well as new wireless Apple Home tablets can be kept less expensive. This is necessary because making an IoT home truly just work requires having enough user interfaces distributed through the home so that there's always something conveniently accessible. An iPhone or iPad helps with that, but it's easy to get up and leave it somewhere. Having enough control devices that "live" in different parts of the home is the better solution.

For Apple to leap forward with Apple Home and make it the thing it should be (and finally better than the competition), they have to make it possible to quickly put AI-powered control into lots of homes, while maintaining their stated intention to keep most AI queries securely under user control and out of the cloud. A "mainframe" Home Hub makes that instantly possible as soon as Apple puts it out there.

The addition of inexpensive terminal screens adds the option of visual Apple Home controls when talking to Siri isn't preferred. The new terminal screens themselves can be super-thin tablets as small as an iPad mini with a MagSafe connector on the back, so that it can easily be attached to a charger on the wall or a stand in the kitchen. It would only need a front-facing camera, a microphone and small built-in speakers. It would only need WiFi and bluetooth antennas, minimal data storage and a lightweight processor. Every query to one would be transmitted to the Hub for processing. This simple configuration would make them inexpensive enough to place several throughout the home. 

Put all that together, and you have an Apple Home that just works.

The hub, as a central unit for compute functionality, is commonly used but it should not be the only option available. 

Ideally, each device should have the decentralised ability to offer up its hardware capacities to a common pool on a virtual software bus for other devices to take advantage of (even independently of a hub). 

If you are sitting in your living room and on a hands free call, sending the audio through the dedicated mics on the TV and using the speakers on the TV should be a seamless option instead of using those on the phone. Ideally, the communication options should 'move with the user' throughout the home for example by using mmwave movement sensing and handing off audio to other devices as the person moves from one room or position to another. 

The cameras on your TV should be able to follow you (if you so desire) as you move around the room on video calls providing for a more interactive experience. The same cameras can be used for all kinds of other functions, too.  Security surveillance using AI (tying in with mmwave sensors for example). Skeletal mapping for exercise, yoga etc. 

Those same cameras should be able to interpret gestures. Muting TV sound should be as simple as looking at the TV and raising a single finger to your lips. 

Some devices will simply be 'dumb' (even within a smart setting) in the sense, for example that they lack the hardware to participate in higher level authentication processes and, as a result, are unable to distinguish between owners and different users of devices (family/friends) or lack the security credentials to access privacy related functions.

A fridge doesn't need much access to user data if it is simply identifying the food in it, calories, possible recipes for what is in there or of course the expiry dates. 

All IoT devices would be able to broadcast their abilities and only those with the right hardware credentials (IoT chipsets) would be able to access data in line their own particular security clearance. IoT is tiered in terms of security. 

Devices will have the ability to pass information on to higher level devices with more credentials in critical circumstances. If an mmwave sensor detects a fall or that someone has stopped breathing for example, it should be able to draw on NPU compute power elsewhere (the TV, phone, tablet, laptop etc) for AI to confirm the situation and get another device to notify someone or even allow for voice communication via those devices if necessary. Even, potentially, to the point of opening the front door for the emergency services to access the home. That is the idea behind pooling hardware services on virtual software bus. Each device offers up its hardware possibilities. 

On the connection side, it must be lightning fast, low latency and stable. Devices that are QoS dependent would obviously be able to demand more bandwidth.

Something like NearLink is perfect for that. PLC backhaul would also be nice (probably essential). FTTR should also be commonplace. Embedded or using 'invisible' surface mounted fibre. No doubt, GPMI will end up with smart options. 

Control elements should be everywhere you need them and be able to control the device you are aiming your instructions at. Tablets, watches, control panels, microphones, sensors, phones, dedicated widgets etc. Some control elements would be portable (see video link below) and others fixed into things like furniture and wall panels. Some may be basic or limited. Others can have more wide ranging  control options. A screen mounted on a Home Pod would work fine as an option. 

However, for all of this to actually work, the entire underlying system needs to be IoT-ready at its core. This has always been a niggling doubt in my mind about Apple's approach. Perhaps WWDC will shed some light on that. Maybe they will announce a complete IoT layer spanning all their OSes and the umbrella term will simply be HomeOS. 

Smart Homes should also include power and charging of things like cars (which themselves are an extension of the smart home).

Residential PV solutions and battery storage are becoming commonplace, so hardware and software security are also paramount to peace of mind. Fire protection including extinguishing capacity, flood protection and structural protection for residential batteries etc. AI to receive and process weather information, shadow issues on solar panels and to be able to interpret electricity prices and run off of battery power depending on those prices. It should all tie together. 

Obviously I'm just skimming the surface here on what a truly smart home is today and how to interact with it.

I have my doubts about some of the current control features on smart homes. For example, Huawei's 'Smart MINIs' that allow you to 'copy' and even 'paste' scenes from one setting (the control panel of a particular room) to another by simply moving a small puck around. 

Most of the above already exists and has been available for years (HarmonyOS for example).

Smart homes are now also connecting with smart cities. 

It would be great for iOS users to have a true, fully integrated, smart home and OS level management tools to manage it.

However, on a competitive level Apple will have to really pull out all the stops. A huge advantage though is that something like HarmonyOS will never be accepted on US soil so that market is up for grabs as it is effectively walled off from China. 

Matter/Thread (eventually/hopefully) will move things forward for wider interoperability between platforms which is a plus. Even a must. 

Another huge consideration is 'bang for buck' as it were. A complete Huawei Smart Home solution can cost many thousands of dollars depending on what you are looking for. You don't have to go down that route obviously and you can opt for as much or little depending on budget. 

Does Apple plan to start slow (a la Apple TV) or try to push out a more complete smart home scenario package? Both options would be perfectly valid but something like NearLink is an absolute must here. The connection speed, immunity to interference and stability of the network connections is the base upon which everything else rests. That part needs to be rock solid. 

Some videos of what is currently available: 

This video is (in Spanish) is a very basic walk through of a HarmonyOS Smart Home 4 based flat. It gives a basic idea of what is available but is great way to see (you don't need the audio) the varying kinds of control elements dotted around the installation. The main compute box is at the entrance behind a panel in the wall.



This is short and in Chinese but highlights things like the smart pucks mentioned above to take your smart preferences with you around the house. 



This is a brief rundown of the AI based residential PV+storage solution. 



My 'smart' home consists of smart plugs/bulbs and apps to control them. Voice control is handled by Alexa/Echo devices. 

So it's 'smart' in a very limited way but functional. 

It's clearly a world away from what I've described here but hopefully that's where we're heading.

The question is where Apple/HomeOS plan to land between the two scenarios. 

For example, I have two TVs in one room with two Fire Sticks (one connected to each). That room has one Echo device but it can only control one of the Fire Sticks. That doesn't make sense if the Alexa App let's me assign names to all the devices.

Hopefully Apple will ship something that does not run into that kind of situation. 

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more. 

Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices. 

I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).

If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations. 

I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems. 

What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring? 

People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones. 

You haven't addressed my point. 

What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?

The answer is zero. 

The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them. 

Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone. 

That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.

The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)

That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.

Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.

On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met  by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection. 

I don't want them to make users sign off on accepting the limitations. I suggested it could be a way to get them off the anti-trust hook.

It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.

It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.

Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.

It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.

That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.

I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost. 

Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions. 

Do users not have a right to know what's going on? 

Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them. 

davidw said:

sirdir said:

docbburk said:

All without compensation? That's what they are trying to do to Apple. 

I think they can still get compensation. But why, I thought they sell phones. Why shouldn’t the OWNER of the phone have a choice where he licenses his software??

The EU DMA and any similar bills, couldn't care less about any perceive rights of a mobile phone OWNER, to have a choice of where they license their software. These bills are not about the consumers. The DMA is NOT a consumer rights bill. Consumer protection is NOT one of its main goal. Any benefit to consumers is purely a side affect and is not a requirement when the commission go fishing for violations based on made up BS criteria that has never been proven to be the threshold limit for anti-competitiveness.

The DMA is billed as  a "fair" competition bill. It's goal to see the the 5 largest US tech companies competes on a level playing field by limiting their abilities to profit from their IP and by forcing them to give away their innovations to competitors, so they can better compete against the big 5 US tech companies. There is no requirement for companies that competes with the big 5 US tech companies, to invest in R&D, in order to better compete. Their R&D  consist of being able to leach off the big 5 US tech companies by crying loud enough to the government about how "unfair" it is for the big 5 US tech companies to have the money and resources to innovate and then not share those innovations for free, with its competitors. WAH WAH cry the CEO of Spotify and Epic Games.

As a consumer and the OWNER of a mobile phone, your choice of where you want to license software is limited by where the developers offer their software for licensing. Not on any consumer rights you might think you have in choosing where you want to license software. If a developer only develops for Android, an IPhone owner has no inherent rights to force the developer or Apple, to make that app available on iOS. If developers only wants to have their apps available in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store, the phone OWNERS has no choice to demand that the developers make their apps available for sideloading, because sideloading is how they want to license software.

The phone OWNERs rights to choose where to license their software takes third place behind the developers rights to choose where to offer their software for licensing, which is behind the rights of the IP owners of the phone OS, to control and profit from their IP. The EU DMA goal is to erode the IP owners rights to control and profit from their IP, in order to benefit the developers perceived rights to profit from using others IP for free, on some not need to be proven and not required, premise that the phone OWNERS might also benefit.

"These bills are not about the consumers"

They are very much about consumers. They are very much about consumer protection. 'Consumers' are one of the most important reasons these directives are drawn up. Consumer surveys play a key role in forming the direction these directives take.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act/europe-fit-digital-age-new-online-rules-users_en

kiltedgreen said:

Just think of this (A lack of significant new features in the Apple Watch Series 10 and no updates to the Apple Watch SE or Apple Watch Ultra, is claimed to be behind another year of declining sales.) concept logically; to address it, Apple would have to build new features into Apple Watch this year, in 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037 …

You get the picture.

Just what exactly would you expect? How many features can be added to an Apple Watch, every year until the end of the product line? What are buyers demanding? What crucial feature must an Apple Watch have before these others buy it? Maybe everyone who wants one has bought one? Do iPhone sales keep rising every single year?

I know computers are different from anything else in that they contain software which can be updated whereas your TV, cooker, car, grass mower, microwave and the like stay the boring same, year after year. Such is the strange life we lead as humans in the West today where it’s expected that there will always be more features in our tech products. Every. Single. Year.

I'd say form factor/design considerations are important to keep inertia going. Longer battery life is also a selling point. Better sensor arrays (and the AI on the data interpretation). 

Of course, the biggie is non-invasive continuous glucose monitoring. That will be a watershed moment. 

apple4thewin said:

So question for anyone, most of the time Apple is the center of these laws, but does that force the hand of other companies? Such as Nintendo on the Switch platform? Sony on PlayStation? Microsoft on Xbox?

It's not limited to Apple but there are few companies involved. That is why these proposals are made in the first place. 

Those few companies have sufficient means to limit competition and stifle innovation. Especially when their scope for harm is wide.

The equivalent of 'gatekeeper' will perhaps need to be fleshed out a bit but we can expect the same kind of action (in one form or another) to spread.