citpeks

Someone who wants a nice-looking stand, but doesn't understand the technical details, or nuances in the MagSafe system.  No doubt a fair number of people.

Companies like Satechi, and many others are clever not to use the trademark, or branding in their non-MFi products, but that distinction is unlikely to be noticed.

The MagSafe branding as it pertains to iOS devices is also what Jobs might have called a "bag of hurt," as well, with the marjority of products that do support the magnetic attachment portion, but not the fast charging rates only available in products that are officially MFi-licensed.  Apple can't distance itself from its role in the mess.

However, that doesn't excuse Satechi from selling a product aimed at that price segment, but not securing an MFi-license for it to compete with the Belkin, and support full-speed 15W charging.

The dearth of certified third-party Watch charging accessories due to the cost and hassle of the MFi program has long been evidenced by the vast majority of products requiring users to supply their own Apple charging pucks.

That has carried over to the iPhone as well, but at least they will still accept a charge from a non-MFi charger, albeit capped at 7.5W.  If Apple didn't see any value in preserving Qi-certification in their phones, it would probably be gone as well.  The company could have also, like Samsung, made its proprietary fast-charge protocol a Qi PPDE extension, but it's hardly a surprise that it did not and kept control over MagSafe, its administration, and its licensing stream, for itself.

Apple has squandered the lead it had with Siri and HomeKit.

Both have languished, and lag behind Google's and Amazon's efforts.

Instead, the company still treats the Apple TV like a hobby, if not some sort of disease to be avoided, and offered users an expensive smart speaker whose best feature is sound quality; nice but not exactly the top priority for a smart speaker.  The market reacted predictably.  A smaller, more affordable version might be more attractive, but hardly breaking any new ground.

And that's it.

Meanwhile, users who want IoT products that are fully integrated with the Apple ecosystem find themselves as second class citizens, lacking the same variety of choice and pricing that competitors like Google and Amazon provide.

Occasionally, a promising product that does feature HomeKit is announced, and ships on time, but many are also delayed, or never have their promise of HomeKit compatibility fulfilled (looking at you, Ring, but you're not alone).

The IoT market is worth hundreds of billions, but for reasons unknown, Apple executives are happy to let others dominate, and not do more to ensure Apple users have a similar level of options, except with the polish, and privacy-oriented design that they expect.  Not a speaker or camera whose mission includes helping a company compile a data profile of your habits, in order to send you more ads, and have you buy more stuff.  Where did the vision go?  Where is the plan?

Meanwhile, money and resources are plowed into big, risky bets like autonomous driving vehicles (which are still a long way to being commonplace) and AR (the 3D glasses of the 21st Century).

Puzzling.

If it's a late model, it could.  Apple says their USB 3.1G2 ports can supply up to 15W.

When you, or anyone else, receives their S7, you can use the System Information app to see how much power the Watch cable is requesting from the MBP's USB port, and verify whether it's "fast" charging.

Apple's support document, while perhaps helpful in providing the detail, is a bit oddly worded, and the source article headline's seizure upon that 5W detail in the headline is probably more harmful than helpful.

The Watch models have tiny batteries, a bit over 1Wh, and aren't really demanding in term of charging power., even this new "fast" method. In fact, small batteries shouldn't be fed lots of current.

As a practical matter, USB PD was designed provide a legitimate, non-proprietary universal power delivery standard, with support up to 100W in its original guise, and that has been extended to 240W in the latest spec.  All spec compliant USB-C cables should have a minimum electrical capacity of 60W, so there is more than enough capacity, and extra headroom built into the standard.

5W is about the minimum baseline for any type of USB power, and has been supported long before PD wad adopted.  It's a trivial amount of power, for PD or not.

So, for Apple to specify a PD adapter supporting at least 5W is redundant, and it would be hard to imagine any reputable PD power source not able to comply with the requirement.

If one were to try to read between the lines, that might imply that the power source must support the PD protocol, and that BC is not supported, but it would also be an odd omission, when there are potential sources that can supply 5W, but not via the PD protocol.  If the Watch charger doesn't support BC, it would eliminate those potential sources.

Apple needs to get its house in order, so to speak, pursue a cohesive home automation strategy, and improve Siri.

Who wouldn't welcome doorbells, security cams, speakers, or other IoT products from a company with a privacy-minded bent, and done with the polish one expects (or at least used to) from Apple?

They could all connect with a "Super AppleTV" that serves as a hub, tied to iCloud services on the back end.  Multiple units could even serve as a mesh.

Apple had the leads with Siri and HomeKit, but has squandered them.  Siri hasn't gotten much smarter, and HomeKit was too complicated to implement, ceding the home space to Google and Amazon. which are both happy to data mine their users.

Re-hiring a guy to fix only the speakers reflects a distinct lack of vision the company has in this segment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been following this closely, but from what has been written here, this is how I read it:

1) Researcher discovers (another) bug, but as a means of protest and to draw attention, opts not to report new bug to Apple through the proper channels, and exposes it in a YouTube video instead.  The "gives away" part, whether a direct quote or not, suggests researcher is wiling to forego the compensation, if not the credit, for the new discovery.

2) Apple fixes bug, without acknowledgement, or compensation.

3) Researcher now bemoaning the lack of credit/compensation, for a bug that wasn't reported, or formally submitted through established channels, just YouTube.

4) This is a researcher who has gone through the procedure before, and has been acknowledged, and compensated by Apple for that discovery, of another lock screen bug.  He may have his issues with the system, but he cannot claim to not know how it works.

This, of course, doesn't preclude the possibility that Apple may have discovered the bug on its own, treated it as an internal patch, however unlikely that might be.  There's also the possibility that is was indirectly mitigated as a side effect from patches made for other purposes.  I'm not aware of the expected disclosure requirements of bugs found internally, or how closely they are enforced, but CVEs apply to publicly known vulnerabilities.  Does a YouTube video formally qualify?

All I know is that ignoring, and making it a point to flout the system, however messed up you may think it is, might not be the best way to achieve the desired outcome, or effect change.

Such tactics are cheap, and pander to the lowest common denominator, and/or those incapable of applying critical thinking.