Last Active
  • New York State Senate passes right to repair legislation

    To be clear on my position on this: I am fine with third-parties getting screens, batteries, structural members, camera modules, and the like and Apple has taken moves to supply some of this to some folks -- but yes, that removes their ability to do component-level repairs as part of the terms of service of the program. I am not fine with them having anything to do with the Secure Enclave or anything related to data storage.

    What many people here seem unable to comprehend is that both routes can exist together. The availability of 3rd party repair shops doesn’t mean Apple will cease to make repairs or that they will do all repairs. 

    People make the analogy of auto repairs repeatedly, and it’s an apt comparison. The windshield on my Audi got cracked by a rock. I took it to a 3rd party glass shop who did the repair but then took it to the dealership because some sensors behind the rearview mirror had be calibrated by Audi. It was cheaper and more convenient to take it to the 3rd party shop but they still made use of Audi’s expertise. If we can trust a guy at the corner service station to replace the brakes on a 350 HP, 2 ton truck, why do we have problems trusting someone besides Apple to replace a screen on our iPhone?

    It amazes me how people on this site are unable to appreciate nuance or any sort of middle ground - pretty much the only arguments here are hyperbole, slippery slope or straw man arguments, or simply make unfounded assumptions to prove their point.
  • iPadOS 15 confirms Apple's M1-equipped iPad Pro is a V8 engine powering a Ford Pinto

    vukasika said:
    Until there’s an improved iPadOS software, there really hasn’t been a reason to honestly purchase a new iPad since 2018. 
    To me the problem isn't really iPadOS but the lack of Apple first party Pro apps to take advantage of the M1 iPad Pro.  This is where Apple should take the lead being the platform owner and creator. When SJ introduced the first iPad in 2010, he demoed iWork. When he introduced the iPad 2 in 2011, he demoed Garageband and iMovie. Since then Apple hasn't demoed anymore first party apps. It would have been great if Apple introduced the M1 iPad Pro demoing FCP and / or LP reimagined for the iPad Pro.  There is literally only a handful of apps for iPad Pro that can truly be classified as Pro apps.  If Apple can't be bothered to make Pro apps available for the M1 iPad Pro why should third parties?

    This video sums up my sentiments

    It's a bit of a catch 22 - how much of the lack of application development is because of the lack of an OS that can run it?
  • iPadOS 15 confirms Apple's M1-equipped iPad Pro is a V8 engine powering a Ford Pinto

    ITGUYINSD said:
    AppleZulu said:
    So Apple releases expensive hardware with obvious capacity for future expansion of operating system capabilities, and the complaint is that the OS doesn’t max out the hardware out of the gate. Got it.

    Of course, if iPadOS already took full advantage of the capabilities of the M1 model, there would be much louder complaints about how last year’s pre-M1 hardware has been rendered obsolete so quickly by OS features the pre-M1 devices can’t handle. 
    "Out of the gate"?  iPadOS 14.5 was what was on the iPad Pro M1 out of the gate.  To be honest, what I saw on WWDC should have been iPadOS 14.6.  
    When there is a major version number change, I expect big changes.  iPadOS 15 has been in the works for quite a while.  Apple had plenty of time to design it to utilize the power of the M1 platform.  Instead we get pretty much nothing.  I think that is the point being made here.
    Exactly. After the latest iPad Pro was introduced, many people lamented the lack of software and how iOS was limiting it. Plenty of others said "just wait for iPadOS 15 - that will be a game changer." Well, iPadOS 15 is here and the game hasn't changed. We've been given a couple new pieces to play with but it's more like Apple is playing games. ITGUYINSD's statement that iPadOS 15 should really be 14.6 is right on target.

    Multiple people have pointed out that the previous generation was already hamstrung by iPadOS. That hasn't changed - there is nothing in iPadOS 15 that the last 2 generations of iPad can't handle with aplomb. If the A12x can power a Mac mini, doesn't that say something? The analogy in the article is perfect. We have a 355 V8 engine in a Ford Pinto. Driving on a parkway. In a parade. 
  • New York State Senate passes right to repair legislation

    OMG! We'd better stay out of New York - all the phones are going to start exploding because of dangerous repairs! /s
  • How Apple iCloud Private Relay works

    flydog said:
    DAalseth said:
    rob53 said:
    We want our constitutional rights to privacy, whether some people think we have them or not.
    When Judge Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court he was asked about a right to privacy. He said that there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. He didn’t say in relation to this or that issue. There was none at all, period. When questioned further on this point he doubled down on that assertion. Now Bork did not make it to the Court, but several of his law clerks and students have made it into Federal courts and I think at least one has made the high court as well. 

    Yes Virginia, there IS a deliberate and coordinated war on the right to privacy. 
    Mr. Bork must not be familiar with the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  
    I'm quite sure he was aware of them.

    As a refresher - the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, assembly and religion. It says nothing about privacy.
    The third amendment refers to quartering soldiers. Again, not directly related to privacy.
    The fifth amendment protects due process, self incrimination, etc. Not privacy.
    The fourteenth amendment pertains to citizenship, and limits states' abilities to limit rights. 

    That leaves the fourth and ninth amendments. Bork specifically addressed the 9th amendment in his confirmation hearings and elsewhere. The ninth amendment is one that has vexed scholars almost since the constitution was written. Bork's interpretation is that it simply delegates to the states rights that are not ascribed to the federal government in the constitution. There are differing views but to say that it generically gives a right to privacy is generally incorrect.

    Finally, the fourth amendment - unreasonable search and seizure. This is the closest the constitution comes to a right to privacy, and courts have varied in what constitutes a search (phone taps, etc) through the years, but they have universally held that this right is not absolute. Notably, in the text, "no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation." The constitution clearly recognizes that search and seizure can be appropriate within certain confines. I have yet to see any 4th amendment interpretation or ruling related to Facebook or Google data scraping.