1STnTENDERBITS

seanismorris said:

Every time I see these articles I wonder when will the shrinking (advancements) stop...

I realize 5-nanometer isn’t really 5-nanometer and is more marketing, but still the shrinking continues.

We’re getting real close to the physical limits, then things get interesting.

My “interesting” expectation is 2025, or 2 generations away.

This I hate.  The technical achievements are such that they don't need that stupid marketing shenanigans.  

ihatescreennames said:

Does this method require physical access to the device to install the Pegasus software? It sounds like that is the case, which makes the threat of most people’s data being compromised much lower. 

Is your question rhetorical or did you not read the article?  I ask because the physical access is addressed in the article.  Yes, it requires physical access (edit: on a second read, physical access seems to be implied, but not confirmed so that question is legit).  It's not a tool for mass data collection so most people being compromised is not an issue.  Also addressed in the article.  It's a tool sold to governments for targeted attacks. 

Simple example of a targeted attack:
Journo critical of a government enters that country to report on issue X.   At customs, journo's devices are taken for "inspection" by customs agents. 

I'm sure we can all come up with any number of valid scenarios where governments around the world would have ability to gain physical access to a target's devices.  
The larger problem is software and devices like this always, always, always make it into the hands of individuals with bad intent.  Sometimes it's the actual gov'ts.  Sometimes it some shady a-hole buying Cellebrite's tools off eBay.

Soli said: 

Personally, the only reason I'd want 5G is if the radios worked better over a longer range and through objects, as well as using less overall power by being able to grab data and then power down more quickly, but none of that seems to be the case.

Are you sure?  Everything I've read about 5G says the exact opposite.  5G depends on high frequency waves.  The higher the frequency, the shorter the wave and the more issues it has with obstructions like walls and trees.  It's one of the reasons more 5G cells have to be dispersed in a given environment.  Afaik, 5G radios do not work over long distances at all.  I'd love any info that says differently.

edit: Completely misread your comment.  As JanNL pointed out, you were saying these are the things you'd like from 5G.  Apologies.

2old4fun said:

mubaili said:

You would use all your data allocation is 1 hour under 5G. Apple need to become a carrier. 

Why do you say that? If it takes you all month to use your data now, it will take you all month to use the same data on 5G. But each download will be faster - not more!

@mubaili is probably saying that you would use your data allocation in 1 hour in reference to streaming.  He's referencing data use over time, not just a certain amount of data.  You are correct about a download, but that same sentiment does not apply to streaming.  Streaming is a big focus for a lot of companies these days.  Most people stream over WiFi so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.  But I'd bet good money we're going to get the stories of the 5G first adopter who "didn't realize" they'd burn through their data allotment while streaming using 5G.  "They just said the 5G was faster.  They didn't say I would use my data quicker." - most likely quote to be used by angry user relegated to 2G speeds for the rest of the month... with it only being the 3rd of the month.

MplsP said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

lkrupp said:

sirozha said:

If batteries were replaceable, this wouldn't be an issue. You can qualify a battery as a consumable item if it can be easily replaced. Because Apple decided to glue batteries in (both in their phones and in their computers), it's no longer a consumable item unless the entire gadget is qualified as a consumable.  

Why aren’t they suing Samsung then? What about all the other devices with non user replaceable batteries? Why just Apple? I’d like to see you explain this.

Per the article, the class action is a multi-part action.  It's concerned with the battery durability and AppleCare.  Specifically, how AppleCare is sold with regards to the Consumer Protection Act.  Samsung doesn't sell AppleCare.  From a practical standpoint, they can't sue everybody at the same time.  So they, like anyone with common sense, would choose to go after the biggest purse to potentially get the largest ROI from the time and resources committed to the action.  Hypothetically, a successful suit against Apple could give them enough of a war chest to chase other vendors, but they can't attack on multiple fronts simultaneously.

I just re-read the article and it sounds like AppleCare is included but not a necessary part of the suit (i.e. it applies to all iPhones whether the buyer purchased AppleCare or not)

From the article: "..the class action also alleges that consumers were not informed of the legal gaurantee avaialble to them under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. Law firm Vathilakis has stated that Apple has a responsibility to disclose to customers the guarantees provided by the act prior to purchasing AppleCare."

To me that reads as if they're alleging the way AppleCare is sold (not informing customer guarantee available under the QCPA) violates the QCPA.  It seems separate from the battery allegation.  That's why I said it's a multi-part action.  Looking at it, I guess it could be interpreted another way.  Regardless of interpretation it still serves the purpose of responding to lkrupp's query of why no one else was sued.