Notsofast

gatorguy said:

"Google does not sell personal information..." 
"Google uses differential privacy to prevent advertisers from learning about you..."
"settings can be changed by the user to limit data collection..."
"a new incognito mode for Google Maps exists."

Love seeing the AI editor clarifying this for those who still seem so confused by it here on AppleInsider. Get out ahead of some who incessantly post misinformation and outright FUD. Well done. 

Now everyone get back to using the map service you find most useful or convenient whether from Apple or Google or TomTom or ...

You miss the point.  Choosing to use Google Maps is a disaster for anyone who values their privacy or their family's.  Google harvests the data that shows everywhere you and your family go, where you stop, for how long, etc., and then LINKS that data via what they call your "universal identifier" number that is the most dangerous digital dossier in the world that they control. For advertising and whatever other purpose Google decides, your Google Maps data is linked to the contents of every email sent or received if you use Gmail, every photo you upload to their photo cloud, every document you put on Google docs, every website you've ever visited, every click you've ever made on the web, (even if you don't use Android, but don't use a tracker blocker on), every search you've ever made if you use Google, all your contacts, etc., etc.   Read your TOS, they retain the worldwide rights in perpetuity to your photos, etc., and retain the right to sell all that data to a third party or transfer to a successor company, etc.   Of course, that virtual dossier is available to hackers, intel agencies, law enforcement with subpoena, etc., etc.

This article totally misunderstands a key difference between "dark mode" and "night shift."  Please amend your article as readers will leave with the wrong idea. Dark mode is merely working on contrast, which may assist in reducing eye strain, but it isn't meant to affect sleep.  On the other hand, "night shift" and other similar products are designed to gradually reduce the amount of blue light, reaching your eyes, mirroring what happens in nature as the evening wears on, thought, with some supporting research to reduce the stimulating effect that blue light has on the brain.

MacPro said:

Useless Message Poster said:

Reps. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) voted against the legislation. Massie had previously opposed robocall legislation, expressing concern about giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) too much authority.

Can someone check Massie's donor list?

Why, so you can harass them because they dared to support a candidate that voted against a position you support?  I don't agree with this particular vote, but the idea that we should harass and hate on anyone who supports someone we disagree with is a cancer that has spread and is splintering America.

gatorguy said:

"Will Apple have to brainwash the masses to buy it?"

It's not a computer for the masses and no amount of brainwashing could change that.

At the same time it's gonna appeal to a certain segment of buyers who have needs for intense video processing or scientific applications, or a few who purchase it "just because it exists". 

I think you missed the entire point of the article, and the title.

Fair points, but underlying the entire editorial is the dubious proposition that Apple wants to be like Netflix, etc.  It seems increasingly clear that Apple has no desire to have a large back catalogue of stuff that most people don't care to watch. Instead, they seem to intend to be more of a HBO, indeed as HBO transitions under its new owner to having more and more content, Apple may be the only high quality focused service out there.  Apple outmaneuvered the entire industry in offering a monthly service at the price of a single movie rental.  Likely tens of millions will sign up at that price to be able to watch a few shows and movies that Apple rolls out each month. All of Apple's shows don't have to be hits, they won't. all Apple TV + has to do is offer a couple things people want to watch, and they will be on.  The other thing the article may underplay is that by the end of the first year, Apple TV + will have already become the largest streaming service in the WORLD.  Again, ingenious on Apple's part to offer a free year long subscription.  That's over 200 MILLION more likely viewers.  If you are a producer of content, actor, etc., that's where you will want to be as no one will have close to the eyeballs that Apple will.