CloudTalkin

lkrupp said:

Notice how we don’t hear much anymore about the government wanting back doors into consumer’s devices? They don’t need to. Case closed.

I have always maintained, on this site and others, the government never really needed backdoors.  What they were actually after was unfettered access, not access in general.  They've pretty much always been able to get in, but there was cost -sometimes considerable- involved.  A backdoor would eliminate the calculus of expense vs actionable intel.  It would also be the end of privacy as we know it.  

Murvel said:

So is it Azimuth or Correllium?

Azimuth.  From the post:

"Now it's revealed that two Azimuth hackers approached the FBI with a series of iOS vulnerabilities, or exploits, that in combination allowed them to unlock the iPhone. Reportedly, Azimuth was paid $900,000 for the unlocking, though it led to no actionable intelligence being recovered from the phone."

Your question is understandable though.  Outside of a cursory mention of Correllium in conjunction with iPhone virtualization, this entire section rehashes an unrelated lawsuit and only serves to confuse:

According to The Washington Post, Apple's subsequent and separate 2019 suing of Corellium could have uncovered that the firm had been behind the unlocking. Corellium co-founder David Wang and Apple's requests for disclosure ought to have revealed the information, but the Department of Justice intervened on national security grounds.
The suit against Corellium concerned the company's creation of virtual iPhones which can then be used in hacking research. Apple's suit was dismissed, although it can yet appeal.
According to The Washington Post, Corellium argues that Apple's legal efforts are an attempt to put the firm out of business. Reportedly, Apple had tried to buy Corellium, and separately it had tried to hire David Wang before he co-founded the company.

Spronic said:

Many commenters are making great points... Apple is slow wheeling it’s catalog, and the difficulties in carving out its own niche were obvious back when they decided to not serve content with overt sex or violence. 

I’m not saying that that is required in perpetuity. But I am confident that it is hamstringing potential artists from creating their art. Or maybe not explicitly, but why have restrictions on expression (within reason) when other distributions are more accommodating? I think Apple is comfortable with the bed they’ve made, and they have money and infrastructure to do it... I’m guessing they’re hoping there’s a market for it... but I don’t think there will be without a killer-app, as they say.

Anyway, I meant to point out that this title is poorly written. And as much as I love this site, I expect better.

Apple never made a decision to not serve content with overt sex or violence.  Emphasis on never.  From day one, their programming has been geared primarily towards adults.  Go all the way back to the original launch lineup and examine the shows.  The PG trope was as invalid then as it is now.  There are legitimate criticisms of ATV+.  Apple shying away from sex or violence in it's programming isn't really one of them.

chasm said:

This is pretty much exactly where Apple wanted to be, as I read it.

Only morons and analysts think Apple is trying to “compete” or “win” against Disney, Amazon, et al.

It’s like saying PBS is trying to “compete” or “win” against NBC/CBS et al.

Apple wants to offer a quality-heavy option for the kind of people who prize quality, I.e. their customers, and it is succeeding in both its goals and on its own audience terms.

In short, they’re doing what they wanted to do and it is finding its audience. For $5/month it’s a great value.

I promise I'm not picking on you.  I'm just using your quote as a jump off point.  Is everyone reading the headline and not the article?  I ask because I can almost 100% guarantee this is pretty much exactly where Apple did NOT want to be, as I read it.  The article implies Apple's efforts are by and large failing. It says the vast majority of their content rated as Poor.  

What did you read that lead you to the conclusion you posted?  Genuinely curious.  

Appleish said:

Not surprising. Apple TV+ has a high concentration of really good programming. The only other service that comes close is Disney+.

I like a lot of ATV+ programming too, but the article claims the exact opposite of what you're asserting.  The article claims the vast majority of Apple's programming has a poor average rating (47 out of 65 in the drama category).  According to the article's source, it's not true of Disney either.  Graph of the complete analysis is above.  You can see the relative strengths and weaknesses in each service's programming.

In the end it's al relative.  I like highly rated stuff.  I also like stuff that get's critically obliterated.  Each service has offerings at both ends of the spectrum.