citpeks

About

Username
citpeks
Joined
Visits
334
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,007
Badges
1
Posts
271

Reactions

502Like17Dislike85Informative

  • Leaked cases show off iPhone 15 Pro design changes in detail

    citpekscitpeks
    theile said:
    If only the power button would be moved back to the top, so I don’t take screen shots from turning off the display or using volume buttons. 

    "Design is how it works."  :D

    Frustrating, isn't it?
    williamlondon

  • macOS Sonoma beta review: Few major updates, but very welcome

    citpekscitpeks
    Xed said:
    I'm glad that Apple has finally put this into Settings, but I wish there was an entire Settings section for default apps.


    IIRC, Apple moved the default mail and browser app settings from System Preferences to inside Mail and Safari's prefs in Leopard, forcing the user to launch those apps at least once anyway, even if they had no intention to ever use them.  Didn't make any more sense then, or now.  And still not intuitive in iOS either, so some sort of unified listing would be helpful.

    iOS' settings panels have long since become unwieldy and sort of a mess, and while I recognize the desire to harmonize things, pushing that model onto the Mac was a step backward.
    williamlondonforgot usernameappleinsideruserAlex1Ndarkvader

  • Apple's live events are probably a thing of the past, and that's sad

    citpekscitpeks
    Actually, I prefer these scripted, pre-recorded presentations to the old live events. I think they are able to present a lot more information more clearly and concisely than doing a live event allows. You also avoid wasting time with glitches that have nothing to do with the product or presentation. (Like Craig Federighi's "failed" Face ID demo, which only "failed" because the feature was working as designed and had been disabled because of stage hands handling it and looking at the screen before the demo.) The demos and presentations are also better and more compelling since they don't have the restriction of doing it on a stage in front of a live audience but can be more creative with it.

    If one were attending in person, a live event would be more exciting, but how many of us actually ever have the opportunity to attend in person? And, frankly, even the live events were scripted and rehearsed, and the only person who was ever going to go off-script was Steve Jobs, so we aren't really missing anything in that regard. (I was at the WWDC right after Jobs returned to Apple, and I wouldn't have missed the Q&A session he did there for the world (the one where he talked about taking the Newton out back and putting a bullet in it's head, among other topics) but those days are, sadly, long behind us.)

    There is some irony, though, that the Steve Jobs Theater was designed and built to host live events and they stopped doing them almost immediately after it was "opened".

    In days of MacWorld Expo, a fair number of the hoi polloi public did have a chance to attend the keynotes, if the desire and effort was present.  One didn't need to be a member of the media, or an invited guest, just have the willingness to line up early.

    I'm not lamenting how what are fundamentally sales pitches are delivered either.  What I do miss is the chance to have direct contact with Apple's product managers and other personnel on the show floor, for good and bad.  A bug report or feature request in the system will never have the same impact as the direct person-to-person feedback.

    Not just for Apple, but any company.  For the smaller ones, that interaction went directly to the top, like for a Rich Siegel (BBEdit), or a Thorsten Lemke (GraphicConverter), who anyone could speak to while they were on the show floor.

    Now, the minimum to approximate such access would be to a WWDC attendee, and even that has changed.
    darkvaderwatto_cobra

  • iPhone will catch a sales block in EU countries if Apple limits USB-C

    citpekscitpeks
    mfryd said:
    The fear is that Apple will do something outside the USB-C standard.  Third party standard USB-C chargers/cables may not be allowed to charge as fast as Apple approved "Mi-Fi" cables.

    Yes, one must be careful in how the rules are worded in order to address this issue.  It is also unclear as to whether it is reasonable for Apple to require extra certification for higher power charging.  Can Apple use a charging scheme that is a superset of USB-C, yet still compatible with it?

    The Type-C Authentication standard, which allows both source and sink devices to do as much, or as little is they see fit with what they connect to, will probably provide the technical foundation for Apple to verify connections and decide how to proceed.  It is part of the USB spec, so Apple doesn't need to create anything special to have that capability.

    It's funny that the EU is 1) reading tech rumor sites, and 2) crafting official responses based on such rumors.

    What's even funnier is that the EU itself doesn't seem to recognize the history of USB charging, or what is happening right now under their noses, with MagSafe.

    From the beginning, no device would have any sort of capability to "fast charge" if proprietary extensions to the USB specs were not implemented.

    Apple 10W, and then 12W were not part of the USB spec.  Nor was Samsung's Fast Charge, the Chinese phone brands' methods of fast charging, nor QuickCharge.

    They were created to fill a need to enable higher charging rates, but none of them prevented devices from charging at the standard, albeit snail slow rates USB specs provided for.

    On the wireless induction charging side, MagSafe conforms to the Qi standard, and Apple devices will function perfectly fine with chargers that conform, but an Apple-certified wireless charger is needed to "fast" charge at the highest rates.  Same principle at work.

    Most are not picking up on the concept of a superset, instead focusing on a restricted subset, assuming that's how Apple will approach it.  But MagSafe, and history says otherwise.

    Technically, gas stations cannot break out credit card merchant fees into separate component charges, or they will be in violation of their merchant agreements with the card associations.  How do they get around this?  By offering "cash discounts" and a lower price that does not contain those merchant fees.

    It is entirely possible to adhere to the letter, if not the spirit of the law, and you're right, nuance will play a big role.

    tht said:
    It doesn’t sound tenable, other than a minimum req’t. 

    Are they going to say that a device must support 3rd party cables at its maximum charge rate? How would they determine who is at fault? It could be the cable, the power adaptor, or the device. 

    Are they going to mandate that every USBC cable must support 10W, 30W, or 100W? There will be cable who will only support 10W. How would a consumer know what power a cable supports?

    They really don’t know how it is going to work. It’s taking more than a year for them to come up with a “clarification” of what they mean. Just seems like a shitshow. Like with MFi, they would have to come up with a certification standard for the whole chain for it not to be a shitshow, and that’s already XKCD territory already. 
    The only kind of "minimum" that exists is that spec-compliant Type-C cables must be capable of carrying 60W (more than enough for most devices), and USB 2 data.  The older spec provided for higher capacity 100W cables, and currently 240W cables, which must be e-marked.  Those specs pertain strictly to cables, not sources, nor sinks.

    There is no minimum standard, or expectation for any device except for what that device chooses, or is designed to accept, and every one is different.

    As noted above, history, and practice has not prevented supersets, nor do those supersets preclude compatibility with strictly spec-compliant devices.

    If the EU is going to try to overreach, and not merely mandate compliance, but single out Apple for not complying "enough," then it should be prepared to apply that standard to everyone, not just Apple, and prepare for some pushback.

    The EU's stated objective was to have Apple standardize on Type-C, for compatibility.  Apple can do that by switching to Type-C ports.

    But what it appears to want now, in response to a rumor, is to also regulate performance.
    tmayroundaboutnowfreeassociate2Alex1N

  • How Apple's worst value in a product will be a bestseller in 2023

    citpekscitpeks
    kmarei said:
    Doesn't this mfi for usb-c charger violate the open source nature of usb-c standard ?
    it's a standard, and as long as you abide by the standard, everything should work fine
    doesnt matter if it's a laptop, tablet, or phone
    without having to pay money to apple, usb-c is NOT an apple creation

    if iPhones only work with an mfi cable, that by definition means they are inferior
    because other phones work just fine with any usb-c charger 
     I've used an HP usb-c charger to charge an iPad Pro, Microsoft phone, Microsoft surface laptop, and portable car tire inflator just fine
    no errors or issues or anything 
    No, it doesn't the spec.  Type-C Authentication was being mooted as far back as 2016, and the first version of the spec was published in 2019.

    Section 2.2 of the spec cites as an example just what is being rumored:

    "USB Authentication allows a USB Host or PD Product to authenticate an attached Product and, by Policy, choose how to interact with that Product. For example, a PD Sink may choose not to use the full advertised capabilities of an unauthenticated PD Source. Authentication can be initiated by either a PD Sink, PD Source, or USB Host."

    If Apple chooses to prevent their devices from drawing full power from an unauthenticated source, that does not break any rule.

    That said, the authentication capability was included by the USB IF as a security measure, to mitigate the risk of plugging your phone into a random port, such as a quick charge at the airport, resulting in some sort of malware, or other unintended consequences, given that Type-C has become a catchall in terms of connectivity.

    I doubt the intent was to have it used as part of a business strategy, or part of a marketing ploy to encourage users to buy "approved" or name-branded cables, or whatever.

    That would seem to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the law, and open up a can of worms that might encourage others to adopt similar tactics, though to be fair, that kind of thing is nothing new in the USB charging game, even before Type-C, though not to the extent that could develop, since earlier standards lacked any type of authentication or DRM-like schemes.

    But it is important to point out that this is all speculation for now, and until we see what Apple actually does, it's just a theoretical debate, and good only for some clicks.

    The MFi program was originally conceived for the iPod in 2005, so it's not like Apple users have be unaware, or have chosen to shy away in droves because the company has chosen to have licensed accessories, and make it a revenue stream.  IIRC, iOS 7 in 2014 was the first to throw up active complaints about non-certified cables.  If there is more of the same, people will just carry on, as they've been doing, even if they're moaning in forums like this, but still buying Apple products.
    Fidonet127twokatmewAlex1Nwatto_cobra