prof

gatorguy said:

It can continue to use the camera even after the intended use is done and over. For instance from the Facebook app you take a pic to post. But if Facebook wanted to be evil that allows the app to continue recording images that you would not have explicitly authorized and continue doing so minute by minute with no way for a user to know it was happening. That's what he brought to Apple's attention. The camera permission does not restrict the camera use to only what the user would intend to grant it. 

Err, if the app is in foreground then it is actively used. How would you distinguish between "intended" and "unintended" use?

cf77 said:

Hey Apple, please release a MacBook Pro that us 17" users actually want to buy. It is 2017, and I've already replaced the motherboard and battery once in my 17". I would really like to upgrade, I would really like to give you my business, but the current offerings dont work for the amount you are charging. Please fix!  

I could not agree any more. I'm also using my 2011 17" every day and stopped my 2-3 year upgrade cycle when Apple dropped the ball on this form factor. One thing I definitely would like to add as a deal-breaker here: glare displays! I could potentially make a 15" MBP do (even though of the dongle crap and lack of MagSafe) but I refuse to buy a laptop with a built-in mirror.

I'm not giving up on Apple yet but if push comes to shove (i.e. my MBP finally kicks the bucket) I'll have to look for alternatives.

cropr said:

I own a software company and my developers can choose between a Dell XPS13 (Ubuntu based) and a Macbook Pro 13".  The difference between a Skylake and a KabyLake Dell XPS13 is 5 hours of battery life (10 vs 15), the performance is roughly equal.

There's no change in hell that Skylake vs. Kaby Lake provides a 50% longer battery life in a real life world scenario. Apart from the fact that something is very off in your development picture anyway...

Our developers get to chose whatever device they like and can be most productive on. The hardware costs are totally negligible next to the cost of a developers anyway and the additional IT people required to maintain non-Mac-devices completely offset the calculation so we actually prefer if the personell opts to use Macs.

tzterri said:

bobolicious said:

...as I cling to my trusty 17" mbp... Oh how a 'portable desktop' cool running quad core retina option with 16GB+ of ram would be welcome...

Same here

Well, I'd appreciate that as well but I already surrendered all hope to ever see a release of a sane MBP again. At least Apple has fessed up to their manufacturing defect with the GPU so hopefully my 2011 MBP will live another few years before I end up in the serious dilemma what to buy next...

9secondkox2 said:

There re was no way Apple could publicly say that they were going to allow their systems to be crackable by the government, but their would also be a push-shove going on and we know who'd win that one. So Apple cited "performance improvements," etc. for no longer encrypting the kernel. 

Actually you have that backwards. Encrypting the kernel does not provide any additional security, rather the opposite: It adds complexity for the decryption code (and software complexity always translates into bugs) and it prevents security problems from being researched by the good guys but not by the bad guys who keep sell them to all kinds of creepy people... There're only two half-way sane reasons why you'd want to encrypt software:

1. You want to hide shady code
2. You want to protect your code from copycats

None of which should be the case for Apple. I really hope that the mentioned speed improvements for the drop of the decryption during boot is not the only reason for Apple to go this applaudable way, such shortsightness would be rather sad...