1STnTENDERBITS

Couple of things.  These are great headphones.  They were a great value at $600 ← that's cheap for quality open back headphones- and they are an insane value at ~$300.  I think they are a perfect entry point for someone looking to step their listening game up to the next level.  One can test the "audiophile" waters without spending audiophile cash.  These cans are definitely targeted for home listening.  Although you don't need one, I'd seriously recommend getting a quality DAC to accompany the headphones.  It really, really makes a difference.  

Contrary to the authors recommendation, I wouldn't buy these for gaming.  That super long, permanently attached cable will be a drag.  If you want open back for gaming ATX has the AD700X for under $100 available.  Comes with detachable 3.5mm cable.  Has no mic though.   Best bet for open back gaming is Sennheisers Game ONE.  $120.  Has everything for the gamer.   Open back gaming needs an isolated area or an understanding family.  Sound will definitely bleed out into what ever room the gamer is sitting in to play.

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.

dewme said:

godofbiscuits said:

I trust OpenID if they say there are security holes. And given the importance and visibility to Apple, I’m sure they’ll address the security issues before releasing SIWA. 

‘As for compatibility with generic OpenID?  Nice for OpenID, but it would only muddy the waters when it comes to customers understanding what SIWA is all about. Id be surprised if Apple makes that a priority. 

The thing is, OpenID is not saying there are security holes. Read their statement: 

"which could nominally leave people exposed to code injection and replay attacks."

If you're running Safari right click on the word nominally and select "Look up nominally." Or look it up in a dictionary.

Standards organizations are populated with wordsmiths who choose their words very carefully. They are not identifying any actual security holes that they have found. They are only saying that there is a possibility that an issue may or may not actually exist. Identifying a possibility is one of the weakest arguments one can make. If they were stating a probability, with a hard number or range of numbers, then we'd have to take a much more serious approach.  

Respectfully, maybe you should re-read their statement.  OpenID is saying their are security holes and they are identifying them.  They even link to the issues in the same paragraph you're quoting from (the hyperlink is "a host of differences").  Whether their claims ultimately prove to be true is a different matter.  Regardless of the veracity of their claims, you made the mistake of parsing their quote, excerpting a portion, and then building an argument around it.  Context matters.  That full sentence reads, "An example of the latter is absence of PKCE in the Authorization Code grant type, which could nominally leave people exposed to code injection and replay attacks."  That sentence is about 1 example, not their entire premise.  

rob53 said:

I'm sure Apple and developers will find most of the issues before its released. Comparing Apple's implementation to Google and Facebook logons is like comparing a locked door to an open one. OpenID can complain all they want but lets hear their assessment about logging in with Facebook and Google. I highly doubt Apple will be logging any personal data and will not be selling anything while Facebook and Google are guaranteed to be selling everything they get.

Based on your comment, I don't think you understand the subject matter.  Their issue with Sign in With Apple has nothing to do with logging personal data or selling anything.  It's kind of hard for you to give an opinion about OpenID's complaint when you don't seem to even know what their complaint is about.  If their complaint about the security of Apple's implementation is valid, comparing it to Google and Facebook logins won't make it any more secure.  That's simply unnecessary deflection.  The complaint is critical gaps in security, not data collection.   

Apple will most likely address any valid security issues from OpenID's complaint before release.  

seneca72 said:

Is Ive's new studio LoveFrom or shoudl it be "LoveFORM"  Surely the latter sounds more appropriate.

LoveForm - function can take a hike....

It's LoveFrom.  From FastCompany article: 

LoveFrom? Sort of an odd name on first hearing, right? Well, there’s a story there. The name comes from this Steve Jobs quote, paraphrased by Ives in a Financial Times piece today.

“There was an employee meeting a number of years ago and Steve [Jobs] was talking . . . He [said] that one of the fundamental motivations was that when you make something with love and with care, even though you probably will never meet . . . the people that you’re making it for, and you’ll never shake their hand, by making something with care, you are expressing your gratitude to humanity, to the species.”

“I so identified with that motivation and was moved by his description. So my new company is called ‘LoveFrom’. It succinctly speaks to why I do what I do.”