kamilton
About
- Username
- kamilton
- Joined
- Visits
- 55
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 445
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 283
Reactions
-
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway nearly quadruples stake in Apple
This is a solid vote of confidence. The Buffett organization also voted no confidence in retailer Walmart. Amazon and Apple look good for the foreseeable future.
-
Tim Cook says AR is a 'big idea,' likens tech to smartphone
VR = Majority Entertainmentseanismorris said:Sorry Cook, I call BS.
VR potential is 1000X greater than AR.
What Cook is talking about is what Apples investors can expect from Apple in the next 5-10 years.
The reality is VR is HARD and we should limit our expectations (near term), but longer term it has enormous potential.
Take a look at the F-35 helmet, it's probably the closest we have to true VR, and it's still incredibly primitive to where the technology will be in 10-20 years. The helmet currently cost $400,000 each....
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19764/the-f-35s-third-generation-magic-helmet-is-here/ ;
AR = Everything Else
Apple understands that AR has myriad real world applications for productivity. The largedt market is productivity through practical application of augmentation. We live and work in reality (most of us). Immersive VR has all the practical application of a video game or an acid trip - or playing a video game whilst on acid. Sooner or later, reality intervenes. -
Apple developing ARM chip for Mac to handle low-power functionality
Maybe OS X has been leading yet another secret life.... This is one of the reasons I love AI. We have some brilliant people. So, is it possible to rewrite and run OS X on ARM? Software folks? -
Apple's 'differential privacy' policy invoked for opt-in iCloud data analysis in iOS 10.3
Yes, I agree with your point. I can't pretend to know Apple's true motives and priorities when it comes to China. Certainly, making money is a primary motivation, but I'm tempted by the following logic:bigmushroom said:
I get nervous each time someone writes "sale of personal data". Newspapers and other old-fashioned subscription services used to sell addresses. Google doesn't sell any addresses. They sell access to "consumers who are tech enthusiasts" or "consumers who have young kids". That's a big difference.kamilton said:In the long run, all companies that depend on revenue from the collection and sale of personal data are doomed. We're simply in the earliest phase of the business model. The majority of people have no idea of the exposure they have. They have little or no direct experience with the consequences of that exposure. Accordingly, they are still ripe for tremendous exploitation. Consumer exploitation will continue until a threshold of direct experience with negative consequences is met, then the paradigm will shift dramatically toward security and privacy. Where/when is this threshold? I don't know, but once consumers start to feel violated and manipulated, it won't take long to eschew the companies and tech that screwed them over.
Apple is paying the short term price for building in privacy and security. Siri's learning curve. HomeKit's agonizingly slow progress. Ridicule from government and citizens that consider disallowing a backdoor to be unpatriotic or even treasonous. Watching nice niche markets get chewed up by competitors that are falling over themselves to exploit customer data.
Ultimately, the puck will be at customer security and privacy. Apple may be the only player there. Apple is doing both what is right and what will be in greatest demand.
I remember a time without Google where there was no effective search, there was no unlimited email and you had to constantly backup old messages, there was nothing like Google Maps etc. These services have created tremendous consumer surplus and they are financed by targeted ads. Google has a dashboard which shows exactly the data they collect and you can switch off any parts of that data collection that you dislike if you are so inclined.
Moreover, I find it very funny that you believe that Apple is doing "what is right" and that it cares about customer security and privacy:
Apple is fully invested in China which is its second biggest market. It engages in censorship since it removes apps that the Communist government doesn't like as well as books and publications (such as NYT app in China).
The much-maligned Google on the other hand gave up the Chinese market in 2010 when it retreated to Hong Kong - giving up a 30% search market share in that country and tremendous growth potential. They did that after the Chinese government tried to hack the accounts of political activists. They also gave up news censorship after moving out of China (which was a condition for operating Google New in that country before 2010).
Ultimately, most of the AI by Facebook, Google, Apple etc. is applied to data that is already stored on these companies servers - such as uploaded photo, emails, messages etc. Just because you don't allow Apple to tag your photos doesn't change the fact that they could facematch everything on their servers if they choose to do so.
Hence, it all comes down to trust. How much do I trust Apple, Google, Facebook etc?
So far I haven't seen Apple do anything as self-damaging as Google's pullout out of China. Why should I trust Apple more than Google?
If Apple seeks to establish a beachhead in China for its stated (and practiced - in other countries) ethos regarding privacy and security, it cannot do so by retreating like Google. In the short term, this makes Apple look hypocritical. In the long run, Chinese customers will increasingly aspire to Apple's premium experience and privacy potential. For the Chinese customer, privacy and security must be a most tempting forbidden fruit.
Human history repeats stupidity ad nauseum, but there are no examples of governments being able to censor and suppress large populations indefinitely. Suppression is especially difficult when a culture's education and affluence are in a phase of ascendency.
Apple is there, selling bottles and making money... Chinese customers know there is a Genie (privacy) in their bottle. Sooner or later, the Genie will get out. When it does, Apple will enjoy both the profits and a win for human rights. That sounds like Apple to me.
-
Apple's 'differential privacy' policy invoked for opt-in iCloud data analysis in iOS 10.3
In the long run, all companies that depend on revenue from the collection and sale of personal data are doomed. We're simply in the earliest phase of the business model. The majority of people have no idea of the exposure they have. They have little or no direct experience with the consequences of that exposure. Accordingly, they are still ripe for tremendous exploitation. Consumer exploitation will continue until a threshold of direct experience with negative consequences is met, then the paradigm will shift dramatically toward security and privacy. Where/when is this threshold? I don't know, but once consumers start to feel violated and manipulated, it won't take long to eschew the companies and tech that screwed them over.
Apple is paying the short term price for building in privacy and security. Siri's learning curve. HomeKit's agonizingly slow progress. Ridicule from government and citizens that consider disallowing a backdoor to be unpatriotic or even treasonous. Watching nice niche markets get chewed up by competitors that are falling over themselves to exploit customer data.
Ultimately, the puck will be at customer security and privacy. Apple may be the only player there. Apple is doing both what is right and what will be in greatest demand.
