1STnTENDERBITS

cottonthePrt said:

A few days ago the comments were filled with people bashing Spotify for their lawsuit against the app store. This is the real reason to have competition in the app store realm. An iPhone or iPad is more powerful than many 10 year old computers. We would never accept being forced to buy programs from one source on our computers, yet we do on our mobiles. An iPad especially now is a computer, we don't need repressive regimes or "family-friendly" corporations telling us what we can install. 

Hopefully, you do understand that your competition argument has nothing to do with government requests to remove apps.  You're making the wrong argument in the wrong thread.  Transparency reports are about letting the public know, as much as legally possible, about the governments requests for our data.

At least Apple is smart enough not to tie the success of their streaming service to the ATV hardware.  Making it available via as many avenues as possible gives it a better chance at success.  Big picture, if the streaming service succeeds because of ubiquity and the ATV hardware gets relegated to the past,  I'd bet Apple could live with it.  Luckily, the ATV is getting some help from the cable companies allowing customers to choose ATV's instead of cable boxes.

sflocal said:

MacPro said:

Seriously, they picked Flash installer as a Trojan Horse for Mac users?  They must be looking for the least Mac savvy users out there I guess.  

I find it odd that virus writers have a decent level of technical ability to code and distribute a payload, yet they are dumber than dirt when it comes to masking that payload as a Flash file.  It just seems odd.

I can only guess that their thought process might be to think that if anyone is still using Flash on their Mac, they have to be stupid enough to be asking for it.

Why would you find that odd?  If you're a virus designer, who would you rather target?  The tech savvy user who has a greater chance of resisting, mitigating if infected, and reporting the issue.  The tech illiterate who still responds to random requests to update software.  The latter is more likely to fall for the virus install, less likely to know how to mitigate the infection, and not likely to report the issue to anyone.  Flash as a vector is a shotgun approach. Shoot as many unsuspecting victims as possible.  As of May 2019 ~17% of Macs were still running El Cap or older.  Flash would not be such an anomaly on those machines.

netmage said:

The reason has to do with perspective- a triangular arrangement provides the iPhone with 2D perspective capabilities versus the 1D provided by a horizontal or vertical arrangement. This should provide a better DOF estimation and more successful computational photography dependent on it, such as portrait mode. 

None of what you wrote is true.  I am a neophyte when it comes to photography, but even I know what you wrote makes no sense.  We do just fine figuring out depth of field with our two eyes in the same plane.  Cameras have gotten so good they can do it with one lens and math.  The wiki on depth of field has too much info beyond my comprehension but I did get the gist, and that gist is what you wrote isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field  To be fair, wikipedia can't really be considered a definitive source.  But the info provided gives me more confidence than your 2D/1D theory. 

tmay said:

You are incorrect about my opinion.

It was that the existing multiple camera arrays, some linear and some in an "L" configuration, were not as efficient as a what Apple appears to be using for this fall's triple lens model, a camera array in an equilateral triangle.

Hence why I expect that Apple's configuration will become a standard; it will just work better for 3D and AR. Next year, when Apple is likely to add a time of flight sensor, it will likely be right in the center of the array.

As efficient... what does that mean?  I ask because I've seen several posters on several sites parrot similar sentiments without any valid supporting logic.  Whether the camera module is vertical, horizontal, triangular, or... it's all basically immaterial.  Any combination of images and info from multiple lenses is going to be handled by each company's computational algorithms.  Some algorithms may be better than others, but all of them can "do the math", regardless of lens orientation.   Seriously, computational photography has gotten so good companies are producing pics with single lenses that are just as good as pics from multiple lenses.  More importantly, you can't claim "more efficient" than other implementations because you don't have a baseline to judge "efficient" 

Your hypothesis with 3D and AR.  Why?  Afaik, there's no science that backs that up.  If there is, I'd love to see it.   There could be any number of reasons for Apple's rumored equilateral layout, but the reason you gave is suspect at best.