ihatescreennames

slow n easy said:

danox said:

chromafox said:

mpantone said:

chromafox said:

mpantone said:

mikethemartian said:

How is it different than ChatGPT’s current free tier?

Maybe you should tune into the Platform Keynote or one of the sessions that will focus on such matters.

The WWDC general keynote is only 90 minutes long (or so), they don't have time to hit every single bullet point. About the only thing they did note was that ChatGPT functionality would be coming "later this year" which implies that it will not be running when iOS 18 releases.

The developer betas never have all of the features as the actual consumer release so even those who are downloading the iOS 18 images right now won't have all the answers.

In time we will all know more about iOS 18's capabilities and limitations. Apple simply can't provide all the answers in such a short span of time, especially in a high-level presentation that skews heavily toward a more consumer audience.

The Platform Keynote is where they will get into more technical detail. This is nothing new to this WWDC, it has been this way for many years now. The Monday morning 10am PDT WWDC keynote is more of a marketing message.

You or someone else will pose a similar question next year and me or someone else will likely pose a similar answer.

Does that other Mac info site (9to5) have more info than Insider? They said the OS would allow users access to the free tier of ChatGPT (5?) with the option to hook up their paid account.

That's a very curious first post on AppleInsider.

I'll be honest: I don't know if 9to5mac is any more correct than this site, MacRumors, Macworld, or any other technology news site.

One thing that I do know is that Apple does not typically hand out exclusive information to media sites. Basically everyone who covers Apple is just speculating unless they aren't quoting Apple press releases or things actual Apple representatives have said.

For sure, Apple will continue to reveal more information in today's Platform Keynote as well as individual technical sessions and other documentation as WWDC progresses throughout the week. So what people knew at 11:40am PDT this morning will likely not be the final word on everything about iOS 18.

Anyhow welcome to AppleInsider.

Well, am just trying to figure out whether ChatGPT will actually be free without quotas, or will require a paid subscription for more than 5 queries. This article made it sound like it's "free" in a way other than ChatGPT currently is for users. I haven't watched the keynote or the breakouts so I assumed that the other publication might've gotten the information from there. 

I don't really have a bias, and AppleInsider is my main source, but lately I've been noticing the "other publication" is usually a lot more detailed or has a little more value added in its articles... It just seemed weird that this article phrased things so vaguely - "free, at least to some extent. Users can also connect their premium account for more specific options" - while the other article was so specific about what "some extent" or "more specific options" might mean, so I wondered if that info had actually been in the keynote/breakouts.

I think it may be part of the deal Apple made with OpenAI? I assume Apple wrote an api to hooks into OpenAI ChatGPT your Apple tax dollars at work, in fact Apple mentioned the word api several times during the presentation a subtle reminder to the EU, DOJ, and Developers that value/money was spent/provided to build up the ecosystems in short what you are seeing didn't happen out of thin free air.....

It definitely will not have quotas because Apple would never do something like that. I completely agree that Apple must have a licensing deal for ChatGPT 4.0 but I guess it would be different in the sense that it would be going through Siri. So even though the information would be the same, it would take a different form and the interface and everything would be totally different from the ChatGPT app. You will always know whether or not the information is coming from ChatGPT because Siri will inform you that it has information from ChatGPT and ask whether or not you want to receive it. For the people who will never want answers from ChatGPT, I'm sure Apple will include a setting to turn off that feature.

nubus said:

wonkothesane said:

Sounds like a glorious future for consumers where multiple “wallet” apps will have exclusive cards, forcing the the consumer to permanently switch wallet apps, Such a gain from a usability standpoint! Apart from the little fact that other wallets simply may not work during your trip so abroad. 

It sounds fantastic. Apple didn't care to launch Apple Card outside US. Apple has used Wallet and Apple Pay to siphon extra charges without giving anything back.
I would much rather have local banks work on this than any American company. In addition this will make it easier to migrate to/from Android.

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

jvm156 said:

That makes no sense. It’s not like she can’t use any type of card within apple wallet. It affects the consumer not in the slightest.

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

harrykatsaros said:

"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.

Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save? 

It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions. 

It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees. 

To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question. 

Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!

Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained. 

It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase. 

She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone. 

Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems. 

The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet. 

It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU. 

So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm. 

The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed. 

That is now changing (at least in the EU). 

I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?  Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)

Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.

She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).

A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal. 

You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets? 

I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?

Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer). 

You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked. 

Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition. 

I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions. 

Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits. 

If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision. 

No, I never asked about harm. What I said was it is about protecting banks and not consumer harm.

Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.

Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.

Well, when you say you never asked about harm, you actually asked this:

"What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?"

As my wife isn't a bank I explained the consumer harm which is one of the key components of the DSA/DNA.

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

jvm156 said:

That makes no sense. It’s not like she can’t use any type of card within apple wallet. It affects the consumer not in the slightest.

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

harrykatsaros said:

"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.

Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save? 

It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions. 

It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees. 

To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question. 

Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!

Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained. 

It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase. 

She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone. 

Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems. 

The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet. 

It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU. 

So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm. 

The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed. 

That is now changing (at least in the EU). 

I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?  Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)

Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.

She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).

A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal. 

You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets? 

I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?

Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer). 

You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked. 

Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition. 

I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions. 

Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits. 

If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision. 

No, I never asked about harm. What I said was it is about protecting banks and not consumer harm.

Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.

Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.

There used to be wallet app from my bank (years ago) and I believe there still is in some of its international markets, but now, in my market, it's all rolled into the app and that is where everything happens, along with all the transfer options.

For online payments we usually use an interbank system (Bizum) or a special 'virtual' card (which actually exists in a physical format too) which has a 'dynamic' CVC which is only 'live' for 10 minutes and on top of that, no numbers appear on the card either. Funds need to be placed onto that card beforehand too. I find it to be very, very secure. 

Google Pay is unable to handle the dynamic CVC but some retailers like Amazon have no issue with it and without authorisation. Others do need authorisation, but that is a security measure not a technical limitation. Certain higher cost purchases even on Amazon require me to give the OK. My bank also uses the security aspects of 5G network slicing. That is by the by though. All my in-person phone payments are managed by BBVA Pay on one BBVA card. 

The point is just one app fluently handles everything. It is supposedly the best banking app on the planet (but that might be marketing spiel). For example If I think I have lost my physical card for whatever reason, I don't have to cancel it. I just need to pause it and then restart it from the app when I find it. It's been that way for years.

Apple will never be able to compete with my bank on the services side simply because my bank has access to my entire banking life and controls everything (including tax office interaction) from one location. It can compete in other areas such as the discount and cashback side. In the event that I need cash or send cash to someone, I can also do that in an entirely 'cardlesss' manner, using NFC or a phone number. 

I can use Google Pay (as long as there is not a dynamic CVC on the card) but I don't need to. 

Multiple wallets (where necessary) are a non issue. What do you do when you turn on a pair of Bluetooth headphones and have multiple devices it can connect to? One is the default option and the others appear under a bullet list in the notifications panel to choose from. 

And there is no need for things like licences to go, necessarily, into a 'third party' wallet. Far better for anything government related to go into a government app. The EU is working on one:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/EU+Digital+Identity+Wallet+Home

I have an app called 'my citizens folder' which collects ton of government information on me under one single app. From my properties listed on the civil register, fines, health information, registration on all kinds of census, voting rights, local council information, vehicles registered in my name, all kinds of communication with government, welfare etc. 

Digital ID Card, Driver's licence, and passport storage are coming very soon although I'm not sure how they will be stored. 

I also use the NFC aspect for transport (my travel cards are loaded onto my phone) while my wife and all iPhone users have been left out in the cold for the last few years because Apple simply hasn't authorised the apps Apple NFC access. 

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

jvm156 said:

That makes no sense. It’s not like she can’t use any type of card within apple wallet. It affects the consumer not in the slightest.

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

harrykatsaros said:

"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.

Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save? 

It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions. 

It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees. 

To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question. 

Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!

Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained. 

It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase. 

She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone. 

Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems. 

The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet. 

It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU. 

So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm. 

The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed. 

That is now changing (at least in the EU). 

I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?  Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)

Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.

She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).

A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal. 

You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets? 

I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?

Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer). 

You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked. 

Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition. 

I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions. 

Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits. 

If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision. 

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

jvm156 said:

That makes no sense. It’s not like she can’t use any type of card within apple wallet. It affects the consumer not in the slightest.

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

harrykatsaros said:

"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.

Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save? 

It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions. 

It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees. 

To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question. 

Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!

Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained. 

It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase. 

She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone. 

Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems. 

The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet. 

It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU. 

So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm. 

The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed. 

That is now changing (at least in the EU). 

I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?  Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)

Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.

She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).

A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.