auxio

avon b7 said:

r_mari said:

EPIC's CEO is an idiot.

The Metaverse will not exist without Apple's participation.
Apple will create the Metaverse that people want to use.
Only Apple can create the glasses that people will want to use to access the Metaverse.

Even Facebook has given up on the Metaverse.
They realize that they cannot do it alone without Apple's help.

I can guarantee you that the metaverse can exist without Apple. The baby steps have already been taken but the goal of a seamless metaverse cannot exist without 5.5G and some serious grunt on the part of the carriers and infrastructure providers. It's not going anywhere without that. MWC2023 had some great examples of ultra-high bandwidth, low latency interaction using backbone technologies that are coming to market. 

The question beyond that is if you want multiple metaverses (AKA Apple metaverse) or something standardised.

An Apple metaverse would be quite limited as it is a terminal device manufacturer and the notion of a true metaverse really depends on data (content) and moving it around in quantity, at speed and keeping latency very low.

Nothing in that statement would be limited by Apple, should they choose to be involved. They're not the ones who cut corners on using high quality hardware (and optimizing their software for that hardware) to ensure a smooth experience.

That data should ideally be universal so I hope things move forward following standards and preferably open standards. 

No blue vs green avatars. LOL. 

Apple will use open standards where it makes sense to do so. I mean, it's not like they rolled their own TCP/IP stack for networking or came up with their own version of HTML for the web.

That said, they'll protect the areas where they invest in R&D heavily and come up with things which companies/people who are only fixated on technical details instead of the human experience wouldn't (but will be quick to dismiss as obvious or not as important). They're not an advertising company masquerading as a technology company who can give away their work and fund it via data harvesting. And they're also not the type of company which waits for everyone else to do the hard work and then cries that it should be open source and/or finds a way to clone and own it.

I know that it's difficult for the people whose minds only see algorithms and technical details to comprehend, but there's more to creating a great technology than the sum of its parts. Those insights into the human experience which differentiate truly great products from good ones aren't just obvious details. But I can see how it's easy for some to be envious and want to belittle it.

Epic CEO fears Apple's influence over will prevent him from scamming children in the metaverse

Fixed that

gatorguy said:

ihatescreennames said:

gatorguy said:

ihatescreennames said:

Is it just me or does it sound like the FTC wants to make it as simple to cancel a subscription everywhere as it already is if I’ve signed up for one via iOS?

Same with "that other mobile OS". If only every subscription for every service or product came from one of the two. But they don't. 

Excellent move on the part of the FTC, and something I've not been able to say with some of their other edicts. 

It’s not only subs that come from Apple that I can cancel via iOS. 

In case it wasn't clear it is the same with "that other OS". But as with both, that subscription has to be initiated via that ecosystem. I have many other subscriptions where that option was not available. I would guess you do as well, same with other readers here.

Now if only the FTC would mandate that you be able to cancel all unwanted data harvesting/profiling via one click, including what's being done by your web browser, your OS, and the data stored in your account on cloud servers.

NEmacGuy said:

Bard said the quiet part out loud.

It must have been created in the image of Eric Schmidt 

gatorguy said:

DAalseth said:

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

chasm said:

I think it would have been more prudent to say that Google denies Bard was trained on Gmail data, as given Google’s track record on honesty is … not something you should take as definitive, let’s just say.

Out of the mouths of babes … or bards, in this case …

So please tell me when they actually stopped scanning emails for data. They said the would stop a year after being caught doing it, but didn’t at that point. There have been no announcements claiming they had stopped since. This may be a carefully worded statement where gmail wasn’t used directly but a repository of data gleaned from all of their sources was used. 

Are you referring to events from several years ago? That was related to machine-reading your emails for monetizing, ie  ad-purposes, correct? FWIW they weren't "caught" doing something that wasn't already well-known.  But if that's what you're referring to it did cease 6 years ago, and plainly stated to be the case in privacy policy and several published help pages. This is one of them.  
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10434152?hl=en

If they were being dishonest about this, they would have been sued multiple times by various governments and targeted by a plethora of class-actions for lying about their privacy policy since then. Google is always under the microscope. 

Your personal data remains your personal data. 

It may have been “well known”, but Google always officially denied it. Until they announced they would not do it any more, which they have done a couple of times. Similarly they always said that Google Docs were not being used for ad-purposes, until they announced they would no longer do it. 

Sorry but Google has been caught lying about this kind of thing WAY too many times to be credible. 

I do find it surprising though that they haven’t been sued over this, though. 

You're mistaken. Google never claimed not to keyword scan email for use in ad placement (and other companies still do so). But feel free to prove me wrong, Don't miss that opportunity. Give me a source for it.  At least once you go looking for the thing that doesn't exist then you will know the facts.

And the real fact is that Google will do something until people call them out for it. In the meantime, they've come up with about a dozen other ways to do it so that they can stop doing the thing they're being called out for and come out looking like the good guy.

Honestly, just come out and be public with your entire business model and let people decide if they can stomach all the things you're doing behind the scenes. As a friend of mine who worked for Google said after watching Black Mirror, "it's a little too close for comfort".