svanstrom

jkichline said:

svanstrom said:

Apple will also get less criticism for kowtowing to dictatorial regimes.

China is a sovereign state and whether we agree with their policies or not, they are still a sovereign nation and Apple, if they want to do business there, needs to abide by their laws. We wouldn't want China coming here and doing what they please without obeying our laws either.

While I understand your ideas about web-based apps, they can simply be blocked with a firewall or open those developers up to lawsuits by China. Additionally, if those game manufacturers want to be paid (likely) then they need to be able to exchange currency. This places the onus on financial institutions like Stripe and others... who in turn would likely be required to block payments from China if they don't have a license. Generally while you may not agree, that is the law in China and operating without a license is unlawful and Apple must comply. 

First of all, Apple is not the US government, nor are there political officers assigned by the US government to control Apple; so that whole "what if China did [this] in [other country]"-thing doesn't apply at all, even if the technological aspect of your argument was valid (and it isn't).

Apple avoiding to implement existing open standards that would help standalone web apps implement core functionality expected by users (like notifications) is forcing whole categories of apps into the AppStore, where they become subject for Apple to police to follow local laws… What would happen otherwise with payments and firewalls and whatnot is irrelevant here; because here it is about Apple intentionally avoiding to implement open standards without those open standards being a security risk to their users.

And by doing that they end up having to kowtow to dictatorial regimes. Like China.

muthuk_vanalingam said:

SpamSandwich said:

pk22901 said:

My 2 cents:

Apple's car will be a critical move forward in maxing out utility and reducing CO2, waste, and energy, through increasing utility, reliability, and useful years. Apple's car will be sharable: one car for a couple, family, friends, neighbors, or dedicated fleets of cars.

In Short: Apple's car won't be a car; it will be a system of 'indestructible' reliable, super energy-efficient cars, communicating with each other ("I'm walking here." - Dustin Hoffman) to the purpose of making our Earth livable again.

Apple is dedicated to making a large contribution to regreening Earth, and supporting people's health and opportunities whatever nation they inhabit.

Get China and India to reduce their output of pollution, then you’ll really have something.

Do you know the population/overall carbon emission/Per capita carbon emission levels of India and USA? And guess which country comes out on top for the wrong reasons on a per capita basis?

You'll never have any form of reasonable conversation with the "I want the world to burn as long as not the other ones stop ruining it first"-crowd. 

wood1208 said:

Making EV car is difficult endeavor. Apple will need experience partner in auto industry to make it happen. But, Apple always go on it's own way so we have to wait and see for 2-3 years and see Apple car progress. One thing for sure. If Apple strategically decided to go after EV car market, than it will happen and it will be success.

An experienced partner within the auto industry wouldn't really help much…

I mean, you can't underestimate the problems involved in making such a high level car that Apple would have to deliver; but at the same time the basic technologies involved in making a car are very basic. With enough dedication, time, and access to the internet, you yourself could get something going out of your own garage (at least good enough for a couple of spins around the block); so throwing lots of money and expertise on that will get an at least half decent car ready for mass production.

So what would Apple actually need from an experienced partner in the auto industry?!

Well… mass production isn't exactly unique for the auto industry, and the more unique talents can be recruited (just as is already done when new tech is used); so… once you start analysing the situation you end up with that the only things that Apple truly would need, that simply doesn't exist yet within the "experienced auto industry". We're talking the actual things that Apple would bring to the industry; so the actual physical car-related skills and experiences from the existing industry becomes trivial in comparison to what Apple would have to develop, and short of buying/partnering with Tesla, or maybe Google, Apple would have to develop that from scratch themselves.

Has anyone collected all his predictions and showed what they look like on a timeline…?

elijahg said:

Something that irks me is not Apple or Facebook related, but AppleInsider related. They regularly publish details about companies slating Facebook and similar for nonconsensual tracking, and yet AI has 24 nonconsensual trackers blocked by Safari. In fact they don't comply with GDPR, which is breaking the law, as they have no cookie popup unlike pretty much every other Apple-centric site. Why not, AI? Also, how long until this comment gets disappeared? 

Took a while to disable all my blockers and VPN; but at the main AI page the number of trackers blocked by Safari did start to go up to double digits. And no popup about GDPR, CCPA, or any of the other gazillion different laws that basically say that users must consent to cookies.

There is the https://appleinsider.com/privacy-page, of course; but that's mostly just the old "by reading this you've already consented"-approach to legalese.

So, yeah, confirmed that there's a bunch of cookies/trackers.