- Last Active
StrangeDays said:Hey remember when there was moral outrage that Apple used Amazon cloud storage, and actually encrypted it? It wasn’t stolen or hacked, just merely being on Amazon caused the outrage.
When most come across a subject they do not understand they prefer to remain ignorant rather than educate themselves in order to understand the situation. And even when they “try”, they mainly only look for sources that reinforce their “beliefs” rather than attempt to develop an opinion based on fact... After all, who likes to be wrong? And you’re never wrong if only listen to people that tell you you’re right.
This was obviously a case of an “insider” hacking into a system she was familiar with. The responsibility of the security should rightly fall on Amazon’s shoulders, but privacy issues are on the company that stored their data on those servers. Let’s just hope that most of the companies who’s data was stolen, encrypted their data.
So Apple wasn't adopting an industry standard in order to fit in, or to somehow give up on making its own technology. It saw the lack of uptake from PC makers, it saw the technical benefits, and it decided to use it.
There were no technical benefits of USB over ADB other than it being faster. Apple was in fact adopting it because it was an industry standard. At the time even though USB had not caught on in the WIntel world, there were already more USB peripherals available than there were for ADB.
smaffei said:Actually, SCSI wasn't introduced until the Mac Plus. Not exactly the dawn of the Mac.
The Mac was released in 1984. The Mac Plus two years later in 1986; second year out of 35... I’d say that qualifies as “the dawn of Mac”.
seanismorris said:Apple biggest “problem” is the App Store, which could be considered a monopoly. The problem is Apple Music, Books, Games, TV etc. don’t have to pay the 30% which gives Apple an unfair advantage.
Forest for the trees.
First of all, it cannot be considered a monopoly, except by those who do not understand what a monopoly is. Which is a single entity that has a majority share of a market; an open market that others are free to take part in. The App Store is not part of an open and free market. It only exists on Apple's iOS devices. The App Store itself is a market unto itself, but even within it, Apple does not have a majority share of its sales. What Apple does have, is ownership of it. The same way Apple owns iOS, or in the same way Apple owns iPhone. none of these are monopolies or even close to being considered one.
On the surface it may seem like Apple has an unfair advantage, and that would be the case if Apple was just a developer offering their "warez" on the App Store and the App Store didn't cost Apple anything to maintain and run. But that's not the case here. Apple spends tens of billions every year not just to keep the App Store running, but also to make sure that App Store has a place to exist, so that other developers and service providers can offer up their own "warez" to users.
Just try to imagine all that Apple has to do to enable "Spotify" to write an app and make it available on an iPhone...
hardware development: cameras, displays, silicon, batteries, materials, manufacturing, shipping.
software development: operating system, developer tools, distribution.
plus... advertising, marketing
And yes, all that money comes from people buying their devices, but that money is being spent whether Apple Music exists or not. So, should Apple be able to offer those users services at what some consider a discount? Yes. As someone who just spent money on an Apple product, why wouldn't I expect something like that from Apple? We get free software (Pages, Numbers, Keynote) and free "cloud" services (email, storage, data syncing, etc.). Companies like Spotify should be thankful that Apple doesn't offer a free year of Apple Music to customers who buy their devices.
ElCapitan said:Perhaps the biggest issue here is that Timmy is standing there in conferences and in front of politicians such as the EU parliament bragging over how serious Apple takes privacy, while at the same time knowing his company store their customers data with the same companies he gives flack for NOT taking privacy serious. It is, at best, hypocrisy, at worst, complete contempt of his customers.
You can't be serious!? You really think those same user-centric terms and services those companies offer are the same as the enterprise cloud hosting/server services? Do you really think Apple created a Google account and just started storing all their customer data on Google Drive. LOL And you make the assumption that Apple would store all their user data on a 3rd party server without encrypting it? The amount of ignorance and hate is unbelievable.
Look, I don't like Google or Amazon, or even Microsoft, and I would never trust any of my data with them, but the service they provide to Apple (and other companies) is NOT the same they would provide to you or me. And when offering that type of service you can in fact make the assumption that privacy and security is part of the deal. To think otherwise, well, is just stupid.