StrangeDays

saarek said:

dk49 said:

bageljoey said:

reelgeek said:

…this isn't unprecedented.  It is disappointing.  

But why exactly is it disappointing? What is it that the AW6 processor can’t do that you need more power for?

If they realized that their processor capability already surpassed software demands, I commend them for focusing their advancements (Screen seize, fast charging, durability) elsewhere—where people will actually see the benefits! 

I imagine they are working on a faster processor and will have it ready when it’s needed—just not to satisfy the spec obsessed. 

I agree. I don't think that Apple watch runs any heavy computations such as games or CPU hogging apps. And though it doesn't apply to the current Apple watch, I would prefer more health sensors over a better processor any day. 

Which is what makes this update doubly dissappointing. Same SiP, different chassis, no new functionality. Emperors new clothes.

Don't get me wrong, I love my S6 and it was a fantastic upgrade over my S1. But the S6 wasn't much of an upgrade over the S5 which itself wasn't much of an upgrade over the S4.

The Apple watch basically peaked with the Series 4 and since then it's had very tiny updates.

designr said:

I, for one, would prefer fewer "boxes" sitting under my TV. Once I'm confident the DVD movies I own are consistently available on streaming services, maybe the DVD player goes away. I've not purchased an Apple TV (yet) in part because the built-in apps on my Samsung seem good enough for me and I have access to all the stuff I want/need.

yojimbo007 said:

Oh please give me a break… Apple and their Bogus Mantra of Privacy.
Onece they openly admit to their mass surveillance initiative being a full F-up and a massive blunder… and announce the plan is fully abandoned …. maybe  and only maybe then they may regain my confidence. 

Shame on Apple for disrespecting and treating their customers like sheep!
They need to openly admit to the blunder and apologize! 

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/01/09/apples-scanning-icloud-photos-for-child-abuse-images/ ;

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/photodna

https://protectingchildren.google/intl/en

muthuk_vanalingam said:

mr. h said:

gatorguy said:

I get that you really REALLY want to paint a glowing picture of "gosh Apple is doing this for us", but is there any even circumstantial evidence Apple was ready to make everything end-to-end encrypted in a way they could not access any of your data even if they were ordered to? Not as far as I know. It's more of a hope and prayer since otherwise it's not for the betterment of us users. 

All I can say about that is that the whole scheme would be totally pointless if they weren't going to encrypt the photos. Why go to all the effort of designing this enormously complicated system, calculating hashes on-device, doing the CSAM hash-matching in a "blind" way so even the device itself doesn't know if there's been a match, and then going to all the convoluted effort of generating doubly-encrypted "vouchers" and associated "image information", if the photo itself was uploaded to iCloud unencrypted?

Certainly, this system would enable the photos to be uploaded to iCloud encrypted, but I concede that as far as I know, Apple hasn't said that they would do that. It's just that, as I said, the whole scheme seems totally pointless if the photos are uploaded to the server in the clear anyway.

How about Apple just offers a toggle in iCloud photos settings? The two options would be:

1. Photos are CSAM-scanned and encrypted before being uploaded to iCloud.
2. Photos are not CSAM-scanned, but are uploaded to iCloud in the clear. The server then does the CSAM scan.

Would this solution make everyone happier?

Yup, that would make at least 99% of the users happy. There are few odd ones out, but this would be a workable solution imho.