tjwolf

g3. said:

anantksundaram said:

These stupid thumb-twiddlers who can't innovate to save their asses, going after US tech again...

Payments now. Pathetic. And ridiculous.

Limiting usage of NFC for 3rd parties is clearly anti-competition behavior. It’s like to say you will use only Safari at your iPhone because of security. It will not go like that forever. It can’t. Apple is just milking NFC payments and keep all generated on iPhone for themselves. 

More to say, apple pay didn’t improve “payment culture” in Europe much. When US was using swipe and sign, EU was doing chip and pin payments (more secure) and contactless payments were pretty common long before apple pay. In general, acquiring and payment services as such are more developed in EU - that’s for the innovations.
Main point is that Apple is really limiting developers to make use of NFC and deliver additional services on top of apple pay...

You're entitled to an opinion, of course, but to me there's a difference between "anti-competitive behavior" and "anti-competitive" side effects.  Apple's mantra on the iPhone has always been security/privacy.  The company - and the customers who buy its products - believe that the integration of hardware and software and the careful curation of access to this hardware/software leads to a safer product.  That's why Apple has always insisted on a single App Store - and has always limited access to its chips, including the NFC chip.  Yes, this decision has the effect of limiting or not allowing "competition", but that's the whole point - Apple and its customers believe 3rd-party alternatives in those areas will decrease the security of the whole system.

hodar said:

Sorry, cannot "see" how a ring would be beneficial.  As we get older, our eyesight does not get sharper, and being able to read displays becomes more difficult.  Even a younger person will spend more time trying to read a ring, than they would glacing at a phone, or looking at a wrist watch.  Think we have distracted drivers who text; wait until they have to squint at a ring.

And what would the ring give us, that we don't enjoy now?  My watch gives me a wide range of functions, all easily controlled by either a gesture, voice or a push button.  With a ring, the buttons would be much smaller, the gestures more delicate - the trade off just doesn't seem to justify the benefit.

I expect this ring to be another input mechanism for Apple's upcoming AR glasses.  Imagine wearing a pair of regular-looking glasses and asking Siri to show your to-do list.  It appears 'floating' in front of your eyes.  How to mark the one you just did 'complete'?  You could try to explain it to Siri, but it would be much easier if you could simply select it with that ring on your finger.

Perhaps the "screen" in the patent is similar to the Touch Bar on Macs - to show what tapping/sliding/whatever on it will currently do (since it will be context dependent.)

As AR glasses becomes one of the primary ways to see data (vs. iPhone screen or watch face), interacting with that data needs to be possible.

I haven't even been able to get 13.1.1 and now 13.1.2?  I'll be waiting anxiously as I have noticed several instances of Bluetooth disconnects with my AirPods.  Also, since updating to iOS 13 my wife and I have noticed various trouble AirPlaying to Apple TV (initially at 12.4.1 but also under tvOS 13).  Hope this addresses those connectivity issues too.

Kuo previously predicted - and other analysts have jumped on that bandwagon as well - that Apple would produce a 16" MacBook Pro this year.  Just a few days ago, I saw an article claiming that production is ramping up and that it'll be released in October.  Is Kuo changing his tune - or is this 16" beast just an interim solution until these miniLED Macs come?  Doesn't seem likely to me that Apple would introduce a new high end 16" this year and then immediately render it "obsolete" the following.

I think the title is bullocks.  Basically the article just articulates the author's preference rather than any objective data.  For instance, he highlights the titanium watch's supposed imperviousness relative to the $400 cheaper aluminum watch.  Sure, in theory, titanium is "stronger" than aluminum, but in practice your aluminum watch will likely never get scratches - I've had Watch 1, Watch 2 (because Watch 1's screen shattered falling from a locker room locker), and Watch 4 - all aluminum.  None of them ever scratched.  And, like another poster, I live a pretty active lifestyle.
The author lists aluminum's weight (or lack thereof) as another reason for titanium's superiority - because while not lighter, it's "just right"?!?  I have always had the larger watch and have *always* wished it were a little lighter (and, even more so, a little thinner).   And, besides, with a Milanese loop stainless link band, you can always add weight, if you insist on more weight.

Really the only reason I can think anybody will go for the more expensive materials Apple sells is to show off.  And judging by the photos the author provides, you can't even easily do that with the Titanium watch as, in black at least, it's pretty much indistinguishable from the other two finishes.  So if you want to show off, you gotta go enamel.