tjwolf

About

Banned
Username
tjwolf
Joined
Visits
99
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,032
Badges
1
Posts
424

Reactions

675Like0Dislike55Informative

  • Rumor: 'Apple Watch Series 7' bands incompatible with current Apple Watches

    tjwolftjwolf
    The title is pretty misleading - nowhere in the article does is it actually supported.  The rumor, based on an Apple store employee, says that new bands won't be compatible with old watches, not the opposite, which is what the title claims.


    tht

  • Apple pushes pop up for Personalized Ads in its apps on iOS 15

    tjwolftjwolf
    gatorguy said:
    Someone in a different thread recently claimed that personalized ads were set to become a focus point for Apple, and the coding that makes on-device scanning for CSAM possible would eventually be used in conjunction with it....
         IF users can be convinced it's a more private way of integrating user data for better targeting without uploading it all it to Apple.  It's not sounding as far-fetched as it did when he first mentioned it. 

    Anyway until/unless that happens, looking forward to opinions (if any) from other members here on whether Apple currently using personal data to build anonymized ad profiles will still be acceptable for them. I'd wager this article will get almost no comments, preferring to make believe they didn't see it. 
    As another poster already succinctly put it 'I hate advertising'.  I mostly buy Apple products because of their design and smart integration between devices.  But I also pay that Apple 'premium' because my devices don't come pre-loaded with adware, don't have stupid "Intel Inside" stickers, and Apple's position on privacy.

    I think it's ok for Apple to provide a platform for advertising that its apps and all third-party apps can use to target users' needs while maintaining some user privacy.   This might allow some users to enjoy apps that they'd otherwise have to pay (more) for.  BUT Apple better let me turn all ads in the apps that come with the iPhone as I feel I paid for an ad-free environment when I purchased the phone.

    mobirdwatto_cobra

  • 'Apple Watch Series 7' complexity causing production delays [u]

    tjwolftjwolf
    lkrupp said:
    And when the series 7 is announced and available for sale this rumor will be debunked as most rumors are.
    Articles like this are never debunked - how could they?  Apple hasn't even announced the product, much less given a release date.  So when the watch is released, we can't know whether it would have been released earlier if not for this 'delay'.

    thtrinosaurtwokatmewfastasleepFileMakerFellermike1

  • Apple's lobbying against Georgia app store bill included threats to pull investments

    tjwolftjwolf
    amar99 said:
    Used to be against Epic, the push for 3rd party apps, etc. But given the recent steps taken by Apple I'm all for the opposition. Apple has shown their true colors, and they ain't pretty.
    You're not logical.  You're fine with EPIC lobbying states to create laws in their favor, but you think Apple fighting this effort with its own lobbying is "showing their true colors, and they ain't pretty"???

    This issue isn't (or shouldn't be) resolved at the state level.  Whatever people think Apple is doing wrong with its App Store policies it is doing at the national, even international level.

    My personal opinion is that as long as Apple is applying the same rules to the apps it sells on the iOS App Store as it applies to third party apps, it can create whatever rules it wants - the App Store is its property!  People crying monopoly abuse are just making noise.  Apple can't have a monopoly, since there is no "market of App Stores" in which it is the dominant/monopolist participant!!  Apple created the App Store to let developers sell their wares to its iPhone and iPad customers - provided they followed its rules.  It told potential iPhone and iPad users that if they buy one of their devices, they don't have to worry about security as much as when they buy other devices, because Apple protects them by only allowing apps on their devices that have been vetted by Apple.  All was good in the world - customers got what they want (a more secure device) and developers got what they want (another channel through which to make money).

    But as time went by, some developers - primarily the more successful ones - no longer liked those rules.  They wanted to keep more of their money.   Leaving the iOS platform in protest wasn't an option - they were making too much money from iPhone customers - so what to do?  The answer, of course, was to turn to politicians for a little "help".  Telling those politicians about "monopoly abuse" and "customer harm" (from not being able to choose where they get their apps from), and greasing the wheels with promises of future campaign contributions, their pleas found fertile ground.

    The only customers that will be harmed if Apple is forced to allow other app stores are Apple's EXISTING CUSTOMERS!  Most bought an iPhone at least partially because of the additional security a single App Store affords.  They would be made less secure if, suddenly, there were multiple stores.  Supporters of more App Stores would argue that those customers would still be just as safe because they could ignore the new stores.  But is this really true? No, it isn't!  If I get an email with a link to an app or an existing app I already have has a link to another app, I now have to be more vigilant that it's not leading to a non-Apple app store.  I now have to worry that everyone in my household that is on my Apple ID is just as vigilant - since a malevolent app on one iPhone can have disastrous effects on all the connected services & devices.  Even outside my family, I now have to worry that my data on iCloud isn't quite as secure as it once was, since there are now more malevolent apps able to run inside the Apple ecosystem, potentially taking advantage of weaknesses in Apple's security, since that security up to now assumed a relatively clean set of devices inside the castle.
    jahbladebaconstangrobabaapplguydanoxArchStantonwatto_cobrajony0

  • Bill targeting App Store will harm consumers & app ecosystems, claims think tank

    tjwolftjwolf
    dantheman827 said:
    ...
    Customers having a side-channel will allow developers to publish software that Apple doesn't want on the App Store, it will allow apps like emulators, game streaming, Kodi, "adult" apps, and any software that Apple may decide they don't want available to iOS users in the future.

    ...
    Unfortunately, aside from allowing all the apps you mention, it'll also allow malware to enter a user's iPhone.  And guess who gets the support burden or the blame or the repetitional damage?  Apple, of course.  That customer will scream at Apple for their iPhone having been infected, for the iCloud data having disappeared, etc....they won't tie it back to that app they downloaded many months ago from that "side channel".

    Another scenario, closer to home: our family has 3 iPhones under the same Apple ID.  We're all adults, but some of us (i.e. my daughter) are a lot more 'relaxed' about security than I am.  What if she ends up side-loading a malicious app - and it ends up siphoning off private information from our shared iCloud account?

    The fact is that many of us bought iPhones in the belief (whether it's a wrong belief is an entirely separate discussion) that iPhones were more secure because with respect to applications, they only had one entry point.  One could argue that Apple designed its entire ecosystem with that single "weak point" assumed.  If, suddenly, unchecked applications ran in this ecosystem, who knows what the security implications would be.  Apple's ecosystem certainly would no longer  provide the security many of us depended on.
    baconstangkillroywatto_cobra