Xed

avon b7 said:

The situation seems to have a very klunky solution. Too klunky even when the customer is 'at fault'.

I'm surprised a more convenient solution hadn't been baked into the user experience. 

Respite said:

Surely there’s something more interesting to write about than some people forgetting their passwords?

Pancake said:

This isn’t possible and it’s a fake video. When Apple Vision Pro notices motion in a vehicle it makes the windows disappear. 

Look at Casey Neistat’s video. When he went on the subway it stopped working. The only option to detect motion is on an airplane currently. Now I know why. 

Rage hate by the original video poster

dewme said:

Xed said:

dewme said:

It’s important to recognize that Apple and Steve Jobs in particular intended the iPhone to be a closed system. He only reluctantly agreed to open up the iPhone and iOS to third party applications after a lot of internal debate and with a series of conditions put in place.

The App Store and 3rd-party app were always intended. That's why the UI was designed the way it was with multiple pages and room for additional apps on the home screen. The reason why it didn't launch with the App Store is because it took time to build right. Remember that Jobs announced it in October 2007, a little over 3 months after the Phone went on sale and during their Fall event right before the Christmas season. This wasn't some hobbled together solution where they never considered the need for 3rd-party apps.

Hmm, not according to what I've read in here and in Walter Isaacson's book.:  

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/07/10/the-revolution-steve-jobs-resisted-apples-app-store-marks-10-years-of-third-party-innovation

I think it's also clear to differentiate between a "closed" system and an "extensible" system, which Designr articulates in his comment. These are not mutually exclusive. It seems like it was always a goal for the iPhone to be extensible through third party contributions and apps, but the mechanism for achieving this objective changed over time. One recognized approach to building reliable software is captured within a group of design principles captured under the acronym "SOLID." Here's an overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID#External_links

The "O" in SOLID, the Open-Close principle, is all about providing extensibility through various forms of abstraction in order to achieve a degree of separation and reduce the coupling between the closed software provided by the underlying system (iOS) and those who wish to extend its capabilities without altering the integrity of the underlying system. It's important to recognize that the mechanisms and granularity of abstraction have changed over time, so what was once done at abstraction mechanisms provided at a language level using languages like C++ and Java have moved up to higher levels of abstraction using libraries, frameworks, and subsystems accessed through application programming interfaces (APIs) and various types of messaging for near model, far model, synchronous, asynchronous, stateful, stateless, etc.

However, the common goal of the open-close principle has remained the same: to protect the closed part of the system, provide secure and robust ways to extend the closed part of the system, and to always protect  the closed part of the system from being adversely affected by the behavior of system extensions, e.g., prevent a crashed third party app from crashing iOS. As Designr pointed out, progressive web apps were probably a more secure and less coupled mechanism for extensibility compared to what Apple eventually provided through library based APIs.

Apple settled on an extensibility model that let extensions/apps have a tighter and more highly coupled interaction with the closed iOS system. To mitigate the risk they "protected" the closed part of the system by enforcing rules, code signing, and subjecting extensions to review by Apple's own people. At the same time the natural separation of core system level functionality from application level functionality provided by the iOS architecture, i.e., kernel level versus user level (or application level) is still in place. It's not like Apple gave away the keys to the kingdom, they simply moved to a tighter and more highly coupled extensibility model from what a web based model would have provided. In its purest sense web apps would not even have access to the file system, so something more, i.e., progressive web apps, were necessary.

Again, everything is fine as long as the compromises put in place to placate the EU do not impact the protection mechanisms that Apple has put in place. I seriously doubt that Apple would allow anything that would destabilize iOS. But what happens inside the third party silos that the EU has forced Apple to allow is anyone's guess. They probably won't be able to access anything that Apple deems to be under its own security and privacy umbrella, or crash iOS, but what happens with apps provided outside of Apple's app store is anyones's guess. Just don't call Apple if those apps behave in unexpected or harmful ways. You asked for it.

dewme said:

Simply wearing headphones reduces ones situational awareness. I'd imagine wearing a headset with augmented video and sound would be worse than using headphones alone.