Mike Wuerthele

22july2013 said:

I recall an AI admin saying that they would probably abolish these forums if 230 was revoked. Can one of them chime in here to say whether that's still true under this change?

It is still true under this proposal. Wyden is right, Warner is wrong.

It isn't cost-effective to pre-moderate comments. There is no way to make it cost-effective on what is already not a profitable aspect of operations.

bestkeptsecret said:

StrangeDays said:

bestkeptsecret said:

With all that engineering, they could have accommodated a power button. The battery drain is too fast. The factory reset workaround is a bit of a pain. 

I remember someone telling me that the iPod was badly engineered because it could only go to sleep and could not be switched off. However, the iPod never had such a severe battery drain. 

It is pure bliss when I put them on and listen to my music, but the battery drain and case are legitimate complains, IMO.

“AppleInsider staff have not encountered excessive battery drain during regular use, even when pairing to multiple devices and using auto-switching.”

I have. Hence my comment.

While we still haven't seen it, reboot the headphones and the problem is solved in much the same way a computer reboot solves issues sometimes.

ivanh said:

digital tyranny! Wake up man, (& woman &...)

/e/ project  ———— Linux phone is coming. 

This is one the most ridiculous things that I've ever seen posted seriously in the AppleInsider forums.

elijahg said:

auxio said:

elijahg said:

larryjw said:

sdw2001 said:

This may only be a temporary state, as there is some incentive on Apple's side to reinstate the blocks and to force users to download Mac App Store-sanctioned versions instead of the mobile-designed editions. 

Such as?  And I don't know....I find Apple's approach unsettling here.  If you have a machine capable of running mobile apps, and those apps are already approved for the mobile device (they are), why the need to control their distribution through the Mac App store?  Could there be some legitimate security or technical/performance concerns?  Or, is what I think it is...Apple demanding total authority to decide what runs on Macs?  Even that doesn't make much sense, as users can install Mac software outside the App store constraints.  The only legitimate reason I can think of is Apple is concerned about jailbroken phones (difficult to do these days, I hear) side-loading apps.  

I can think of one overriding reason not to allow iPhone and iPad apps to run on Silicon Macs -- the app developer did not give Apple and the user the license to do so. Period. 

Nor did the app developer give Apple or the user license to run iPhone apps on iPad at its introduction. And yet iPhone apps run on iPad.

And since then, Apple has added the ability for developers to specify which devices their apps are delivered for.

Being technical people, we understand that if we extract an app from one device and make it work on an unsupported device, and we encounter problems, we can't going to go crying to the developer/tech support about it.  However, the vast majority of people don't understand this.  Especially if some opportunistic developer makes the process of extracting the app and installing it on your Mac easy to do for those people.

Not really, they only disallow installations based on the features of a device, not the type of a device, but that's nothing to do with the user agreement and is only really to stop a phone-related device being installed to an iPad for example. If Apple added cellular support to the iPad, all those previously not available apps would suddenly be available on iPad. This is not meant to be used as a way to restrict installs per the developer's wishes, it's to stop people installing apps where they clearly won't work because of missing hardware features. It's also not possible to change the restrictions after the first upload of the app.

Someone who has sideloaded an app isn't going to go crying to the dev when it doesn't work. They're quite aware what they did was a hack.

The bolded has absolutely NOT been the case with the developers that we've spoken to.

They've made the choice to disallow their software on macOS for a reason, generally related to something not working right. That's not stopping the support requests.

tobian said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

tobian said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

tobian said:

Me as non-US citizen can’t agree on term “total security”, when US inteligence can access my data anytime - using de facto backdoor Apple provided them!

I'm not sure what you're talking about?

I think it was already discussed in another forum here on AI. Whole problematics, affecting both macOS and iOS perfectly described in an article you can find by googling "jeffrey paul your computer isn't yours" - 1st result. 
* With assumption I keep my settings default and won't take any steps to prevent it.

Yeah. That report was hyperbole with inaccurate assumptions about what was being sent from the jump, and we talked about it at the time.

I would be more than happy, if this isn’t true, as I’m using nothing but Apple gadgets! So Reuters wasn’t right about “Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained”? My question is simple - is iCloud backup with iMessage content encrypted? Otherwise, Transparency Report on apple website is real. Can governments read my private conversations? Even though I have no idea how inaccurate those assumptions are, I still consider Apple ecosystem *the most* secure.

If Apple is given a subpoena for your iCloud backup, they will give it, and that backup contains what iMessages you sent and received as they are decrypted on your phone after first unlock, and not encrypted in your backup. They do not provide this information to anyone without a subpoena.

Governments cannot read your private conversations as they happen, as they are encrypted between your iPhone and your recipient's device -- assuming you're using iMessage. I can't speak for any other service in that regard. I'm not sure what "Transparency Report" you're speaking of.

The "report" you linked was discussing a mythical scenario where Apple was getting not just app certificate verifications, but what you were doing in the app, and for how long. Certificate validations have to be sent to Apple's servers, for the validation to happen. And, Apple wasn't and isn't storing any record of those validations.

Your wireless carrier knows more about what apps you're using, for how long, and doing what, just based on what ports the app is using to connect. And, they can and do store location information on their users.