- Last Active
Mike Wuerthele said:
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.
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.
canukstorm said:vukasika said:Until there’s an improved iPadOS software, there really hasn’t been a reason to honestly purchase a new iPad since 2018.
This video sums up my sentiments
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.
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.
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.
flydog said:DAalseth said:rob53 said:We want our constitutional rights to privacy, whether some people think we have them or not.
Yes Virginia, there IS a deliberate and coordinated war on the right to privacy.
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.