auxio
About
- Username
- auxio
- Joined
- Visits
- 142
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 5,065
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 2,796
Reactions
-
Apple Vision Pro's first new immersive video in months is 5 minutes of old soccer clips
And don't dare turn that same critical eye on other companies in the industry.StrangeDays said:
This is a typical nonsense post. Lots of claims, little facts or data.Roderikus said:This is a typical Tim Cook product launch.Grab the money, lots of hollow promises, little product affinity or vision,
Guess what the follow-up will be. Let alone the future….
-
Apple looking inside China for AI providers to sidestep regulatory issues
You should go into politics with spin like that.gatorguy said:
It won't affect Google Android. They still won't be selling products in Chinaauxio said:
Given that it's Chinese regulation driving this, it's not specific to Apple. Everyone will have to fall in line or risk not being able to sell in China.jellyapple said:Tim really loves China.
By the same logic, Apple won't be selling iOS in China either. 
-
Apple's focus on local AI models and licensing LLMs could be a winning combo, says analyst...
The fundamental problem is that investors want perpetual growth in everything. It doesn't matter how big and successful you are in a product category, you must always grow.Luis.A.Masanti said:“Analysts, analysts, analysts…” read this aloud in Ballmer's monkey-jumping style.
Apple —at least— is using in device machine learning from the original 2007's iPhone's keyboard.
But wait… the analysts do not paid too much attention to that but… to the fact Apple… ‘seems to follow the herd’ of using server side AI!
After 40 years of following its own way… to become the most valued company… to release the most successful product… analysts and financial advisors still think that ‘following the herd’ and ‘making big acquisitions’ is the way to success!
That's the reason they want server-side AI: it'd be a new service which Apple could then get people to pay more money for. As opposed to on-device AI, which is bundled with the existing hardware they sell and thus isn't a new revenue stream.
With the way investment in technology has gone since the advent of online services (as opposed to hardware and software products), I tend to feel like it's at odds with human advancements (as measured by increased efficiency in performing tasks and/or being able to do new things). The one time sale of incredible hardware which elevates humanity just isn't as interesting to investors as the continual revenue stream from services designed to addict people to them.
-
Next-gen CarPlay battles Android Automotive for carmakers, drivers
I'm curious how they'd collect the data if the car doesn't have a built-in cellular uplink. Only way I can think of is when you take it in for service. But if you go to a 3rd party mechanic, then that wouldn't work either.gatorguy said:
Most automakers sell varying levels of user data to data brokers. Nineteen of the most popular car brands have privacy policies that explicitly allow this. GM doesn't have a corner on it. And don't think that using Carplay prevents automakers from collecting data on who you call or text from your vehicle, or where you travel. It does not. If you've connected to the vehicle's onboard systems, then the data is recorded by the vehicle.badmonk said:
Agree, evidently GM is already selling data to insurers about driver behavior to assess whether a potential insured is a good risk or not. Welcome to the world of the heavily connected and monitored car. I am sure Alphabet would love this market.chasm said:
Most car companies are not going to drop support for CarPlay because a) it plugs in from the iPhone rather than being embedded and b) because there are a lot of people who love CarPlay too much.thinkman100000000 said:Wouldn't consider a car without carplayGoogle made an offer carmakers couldn't refuse: spy on users and you can sell that data with an embedded system that only CarPlay can override (for now).
So eazzy-pezzy: If you use manufacturer-supplied connected services in your vehicle, the safe assumption would be some of your driving stats, and other assorted personal pieces of data and communications, are being shared outside of the organization. Credit bureau's, insurers, and marketing companies are prime suspects.
If you don't want your car/truck/SUV sharing your data then buy an old one, something from 20 years ago and earlier.
-
Bitcoin app accused of stealing $120,000 in another App Store failure [u]
Having plenty of experience with the App Store review process, I've never faced any problems. Though maybe it's because the companies I've worked for have a reputation for legitimate products that follow a standard business model (i.e. the customers see value in the products, and thus are willing to pay for them, and so there's no need to resort to data harvesting/advertising for revenue). Honestly, I'd never ever work for a company that simply views the products they create as a trojan horse for some other revenue stream.CheeseFreeze said:Most of the security / safety that Apple promotes is psychological. It's branding. It's marketing.
Set aside their notarisation processes (which is a great concept and really works!), the actual human review process is inefficient, prone to $$$ bias and Apple politics and human errors. Of the 30+ games and apps I deployed on iOS/iPadOS involving major media stakeholders, Apple sometimes just forgot to review our apps (staying in a queue for weeks), didn't communicate for days, rejected publication based on nonsensical reasons and misunderstandings, costing stakeholders thousands and thousands of dollars, especially when the app was tied to an important media announcement.
I could design a game that passes Apple review, but after 50 days suddenly changes from a game into a pornographic content video player and Apple would *never* know about it as part of their review process. Yes, my account would be banned as soon as the first complaints roll in, but by then the damage is done.
The truth is that Apple obviously cannot review every SKU on their store, even with a large team.
The primary reason for Apple to be the gate-keeper is not to protect the interests of its consumers, but themselves.
Which is what companies do, not just Apple.
So, I'm looking forward for other parts of the world forcing Apple (and similar competitors) to open up their ecosystem and allow for side-loading and third-party stores. This IS in the best interest of its users.
And given the state of the tech industry, I'm quite certain that these alternative app stores will simply be that: trojan horses for data harvesting. For those who argue that nobody will be forced to use them, I can well imagine that there will be some social media/messaging app which is exclusive to one of those app stores (paid for by the company behind that store), and once all your friends are using that app to communicate/share, you won't have a choice but to sign up and download it from that store to keep connected to your social circle.
As you said, this is what companies do: look out for their own best interest. I'll take the companies which are dependent on the quality of the products they create directly for their customers, not the ones which are dependent on the quality of the customer data they can get for their real customers (advertisers and/or AI companies).
