cloudguy

flydog said:

gatorguy said:

Zuckerberg's reaction may have as much to do with Google's plans to do much the same as Apple has done and hoping to cut them off at the pass before they get there.  having both major platforms restrict 3rd party Facebook's access to private user data is something they surely want to avoid. 

What you posted makes no sense since FaceBook has access to the same API as Google. 

He meant that Google plans to adopt similar privacy features as Facebook on Android/Chrome/ChromeOS does. So by acting against Apple, Facebook also pre-emptively discourages Google from adopting Apple's opt-in tracking stance on their own platform. Facebook doesn't care what Google does with its own apps on Apple's platforms. If anything, Facebook and Google are competitors for the same ad dollars. (If you check out Daniel Eran Dilger's esteemed history of predictions, this was once considered a good thing, and the predictions were that Facebook would ultimately win, taking Google down the drain and Android with it. Boy, some of the "we want Apple to have the same monopoly in mobile that we complained about for 20 years when Microsoft had it in PCs" was over the top towards delusional.) But Facebook doesn't want to see Google adopt Apple's feature in this area in a bid to have Android/ChromeOS hemorrage privacy-oriented market share. That would lock them out of both dominant mobile platforms and prevent them from steering their users from iOS to Android. So they are acting to keep both in play for themselves and if not that at least settle for keeping one or the other.

You might ask "why is Google going to adopt Apple's anti-ads measure when Google relies on ads?" Simple. Google has read the writing on the wall. The folks still mad at "big tech" causing Hillary Clinton's loss (read: Democrats) are now running the DOJ, FTC etc. and are definitely going to use "monopoly" as a pretext for breaking up Google and Facebook while Biden is in office before Republicans with an entirely different view of what constitutes "trust" and "monopoly" have a shot at getting back into power in 2024. It is going to happen and they have no way of preventing it, so they are positioning themselves for it now, where their search/ads business will be separated from the rest, leading to (hopefully) a search/ads business on one had and "everything else" on the other that will include Android, ChromeOS, Google Cloud Platform, Google Fiber, their hardware business and their services (Google for Business, Google Classroom, Google/Docs/Photos, YouTube etc).

Currently, the data being collected from the part of Google that everyone scapegoats for their own decisions, failures and problems - search/ads - funds everything else, essentially insulating them from market forces. This allows Google to - for example - keep their Pixel phone hardware product that no one actually buys. Now that this is going to come to an end, Google's hardware division and subscription services are actually going to need paying customers to survive, their apps and services are going to need more purchasers and subscribers etc. Google Products "may" be able to get away with selling SOME data to their search/ads division but not nearly as much as before. So they are going to have to adopt Apple's approach on privacy in order to keep people buying Android phones so they can at least continue to make money off apps and services related to the Android platform. 

This is why Google went ahead with the FitBit purchase despite the DOJ holding it up hoping that Google would get frustrated and kill the deal or FitBit would attract another buyer (neither was going to happen). If the DOJ is inevitably going to rule against Google in 2023 and break them up anyway even if Google doesn't buy FitBit, what was the disincentive to keep them from doing so? Instead they will get the FitBit brand, patents, apps and software etc. to join Nest, Chromecast, Pixel etc. as a brand in the "Google Products" division that is going to get broken off from search/ads anyway.

Ironically, making Google Hardware a standalone entity will result in better hardware and strategy from that company. Their first order of business will be to fire Rick Osterloh - who the Alphabet brass keeps around precisely because he doesn't rock the boat and demand things that would actually allow the hardware business to succeed - and hire a real CEO with hardware and product design/marketing/supply chain expertise (i.e. from Microsoft Surface which has gone from a much-mocked nothing to a $10 billion business, or from Samsung, Huawei, Sony or even APPLE). And their various OS, software and hardware products will need to go from designed to be primarily sponges for data to being ... actually usable. 

This is a reason why Google isn't making common cause with the likes of Facebook and Epic Games and going after Apple. They know that the Google of 2024 will be VERY DIFFERENT from the Google of today and are preparing for it ahead of time. This is in contrast with Microsoft, who back in 1998-1999 were absolutely certain that they would win their antitrust trial right up until the moment that they lost and were unprepared for it. And it was the DOJ's breakup of Microsoft that created the very conditions that facilitated the rise of Google, Chrome and Android/ChromeOS in the first place, something that Google fully knows (and Microsoft to this day resents). 

Yeah people ... no. The iPad - whether Pro or not - is a mobile device running a mobile operating system. It can't run full-fledged PC apps and it lacks PC versatility. It can't even do what a Chromebook with 8 GB of RAM and an Intel Core i3 CPU or better is capable of in Linux mode. You can't even do something simple like install VSCode or Atom and write Javascript or Python code on an iPad.

Look, Apple types have been claiming "an iPad can replace a Windows laptop because Windows is horrible and people who use Windows instead of Macs are cheap dump unsophisticated uneducated losers" for 10 years. It won't work. You can't use an iPad for software development or engineering. You can't use an iPad for cybersecurity, network architecture or other IT work. An mechanical engineer can't use an iPad for CAD/CAM work, an architect can't use it for drafting. You can't use an iPad for data science. You can't even run full Excel or Access on an iPad for entry level analyst work. And those are the software limitations. If you are a sales/marketing/HR guy and are creating a presentation and need to use 2 screens: sorry you can't. The most the iPad is capable of is mirroring its single screen to a bigger one. And for entertainment? Sorry, you can't do AAA gaming with an iPad beyond the xCloud/Stadia/GeForce Now cloud stuff that you can also do on a $60 Walmart Android tablet. But you can on a Surface device that has an Intel Core i7 CPU and an Nvidia graphics card. And you will be able to do so on the next generation Surface Pro 7 which will have Iris Xe graphics. 

Sorry. The iPad is a tablet. The Surface is a PC. If you want a tablet to do real work, you should either get an iPad Pro - not an iPad Air - or a Samsung Galaxy Tab S7 Pro (which with DeX has desktop features that iPads lack). But if you want a PC, do not get an iPad or any other tablet. Get a MacBook, a Windows PC or - if you know Linux - a good Chromebook.

And if you want to know why Microsoft didn't compare this device with a MacBook Air ... honestly they should. The ad could show that the Surface can do all the PC things that a MacBook Air can do while pointing out the touchscreen/2-in-1 things that the MacBook Air can't do. But hey, remember it was Apple who began this in the first place with their utterly false advertising "the iPad can replace your Windows PC" campaign more than 10 years ago. So don't complain when Microsoft is throwing the same nonsense back at you.

Macocalypse said:

cloudguy said:

I can't believe that I am actually defending Apple products from Apple fans on an Apple site but here we are. But if you are going to get upset over stuff like this: well Windows and ChromeOS beckon. You can run all the Android apps you want on a Chromebook or Chromebox, and with BlueStacks and its competitors running Android apps on Windows is easy too. 

This, Also..

 I have been an Apple user for a while now (my first Apple product was an Apple //c). And let me tell you, Apple has NEVER been big on having an open platform. The Apple //c had almost zero internal upgrade options.  The first Mac was not really upgradeable, used proprietary screws, and could probably kill you if you don't know CRT safety. Apple has been working for decades to keep people from running their software on something other than the specified Hardware/Platform (See 5 Clones  The updates to stop Hackintosh and Jailbraking, etc.).  I tried making a Hackintosh once and stopped because the whole point of a Mac and macOS is the ease of use and benefits of a tightly integrated design.  When I jailbroke my first iPhone it became an unstable mess. I have a PC I built for gaming, and I have VMs to run various versions of Linux, Android for x86, and other OSes so I can get my micro managing fix.

The point I'm trying to make is...just stop, stop it please. Stop trying to make Apple products into something they never were intended to be. Stop complaining about trying to run software that isn't optimized and will give you a crappy user experience.  The "features" you keep thinking you want would destroy the current experience you have and make it as buggy, and as cumbersome to use as Android/Windows.  Apple is doing quite well financially without these "features" you are asking for. Which means you are either a very small portion of the user base, or you don't take advantage of the option to use Apple's own official feedback channels. If there truly is a massive segment of the Mac user base that wants theses so called "features", and they actually took the time and provided that feedback, Apple might take it into consideration. Keep in mind that they aren't obligated to make those changes (especially if it violates existing distribution and licensing deals). When you buy a Mac or an app you are buying a license for the use of the software, not the exclusive rights to do whatever the heck you want with the software and it's source code, that has never been the case with software licensing (unless its open source).  If that's unacceptable, then there are other platforms. 

I don't understand the surprise and outrage over something that has been Apple's MO for decades. Don't act like you have been violated when Apple makes a change to something that clearly was never intended to be a "feature" in the first place. 

Thank you. With one small caveat: ChromeOS isn't buggy/cumbersome at all. Quite the contrary in fact. Well to clarify: ChromeOS as originally intended is an excellent experience in terms of ease, intuitiveness, stability and security. By "as originally intended" I mean so long as you primarily limit yourself to how the platform was originally designed: as a browser/PWA-based one to exploit SaaS, IaaS and PaaS products. You introduce the buggy/cumbersome stuff by extending it to add Android apps and ESPECIALLY by adding Linux (though TBF the Linux part is still in beta and even there if you are command line fluent that removes many of the Linux issues also). While Android is Google's most successful product - by a mile - ChromeOS is clearly their best one. ChromeOS went from basically nothing outside cheap standardized testing machines for cash-strapped schools to basically wiping out Windows at the low end in a little over 5 years for a reason. Had Google doubled down on ARM and promoted LTE and 5G for the platform - a cloud platform with optional Android and Linux capability running mostly on 2-in-1 form factors for maximum connectivity and mobility - instead of deciding to sidle up next to Intel to badly emulate Windows and macOS it would have grown even faster, though granted the Oracle lawsuit is why they chose that route. 

Of course, you all know by now that I am not an Apple apologist. But I am not anti-Apple either! So take my point of view. Take cloud streaming. The single most promising cloud streaming effort - in my opinion - is Nvidia GeForce Now. Why? Because it allows you to play the games that you have already purchased on a Microsoft Windows PC instance in the cloud: Steam and Epic games. Or at least they did. The publishers of lots of these games refuse to allow them on GeForce Now. Despite the fact that the purchasers of these games have already bought a copy, the people who created and published the game stated that those licenses were only good for downloading them to and running them on PCs. That they didn't have a licensing model to cover cloud applications. So GeForce Now was very reluctantly forced to delist most of their catalog.

This is the same. When these publishers put these apps on the App Store, they only licensed them for iOS and iPadOS. That is a valid, legal binding contract. Those apps can't be put on tvOS, watchOS or macOS without the publishers agreeing to license them. Why wouldn't they? Who knows. But ultimately the apps are owned by the publishers. So long as they meet Apple's terms of service, they have the unilateral right to decide which platforms their apps appear on, and even to pull them from the App Store entirely. Apple's hands are completely tied here. There is literally nothing they can do legally. If they allow or do not act to prevent license violations, these app developers can and will sue them and will absolutely win because Apple will not have a valid defense. At all.

Remember: iOS is not Android. It is Android that has always sold itself as an open ecosystem and app developers who embrace Android do so fully knowing that their licenses aren't going to be honored: people are going to obtain their apps and install them on whatever devices they want, often without paying. It is for this reason that lots of developers avoid Android like the plague. They chose Apple instead because Apple promised them a secure ecosystem that would act to protect their investment as developers by enforcing their licenses and not allowing their apps to run anywhere that they aren't authorized. 

I repeat: this is a good thing. A very good thing. Security, privacy and control: the very reason why developers choose Apple over Android and Windows and why users choose Apple over Android and Windows in the first place. Well, users other than me. I prefer maximum control, which is why I prefer Linux and Android. And developers other than me. If I ever get back in the software development game again - it has been awhile and things have, er, changed lol - I will choose Android because I would want my apps to be distributed as widely as possible and, and there is the "freemium/free with ads" models to monetize those who sideload.

But I want people who have different wants - indeed different business needs than my own - to have a choice. Apple offers them a choice. Good grief, think about work environments that require security clearances. Would you even want a computer with the ability to install unauthorized apps on them in the first place? Of course not. That is why if I had a business or contract with those constraints, everyone would be required to use iPhones, iPads and Macs and they would all have the strictest MDMs to lock them down as possible. Despite my personal preference for Linux, Android and ChromeOS, business needs are business needs. OK?

As for you folks who said "why did I buy an M1 Mac in the first place if it can't run mobile apps!" ... I am sorry but buying a PC to run mobile apps makes absolutely no sense at all. They are not what PCs are for. I bought my first two ChromeOS devices long before Google added Android and Linux app capability to them and was perfectly fine with both. Your M1 Mac is just the same as your Intel Mac was, except a good bit faster.

Also, can you wait a bit PLEASE? The M1 Mac platform isn't even 3 months old yet. Give more developers time to update their licensing terms. It will be less than a year. Even better: wait 2-3 years when developers embrace writing apps with iOS, iPadOS and macOS versions! Lots of them are going to do it but it is just going to take time. They can't do it right now because they don't have M1 Macs suitable for this development work yet. Don't roll your eyes: the only M1 Macs released have been entry level devices: Mac Minis, MacBook Airs and MacBook Pros with 16 GB of RAM and rudimentary GPUs. Wait until the 32 and 64 GB RAM workhorse machines with GPUs capable of taking on the best of Nvidia and AMD become available so the developers of your favorite iPad apps will actually be able to tweak their existing apps and make new ones. These M1 Macs that you bought today will still be good in 2023, right? And you didn't just throw your previous perfectly functional Intel Mac in the trash when you bought your M1 model did you? (If you did, that's on you.) 

I can't believe that I am actually defending Apple products from Apple fans on an Apple site but here we are. But if you are going to get upset over stuff like this: well Windows and ChromeOS beckon. You can run all the Android apps you want on a Chromebook or Chromebox, and with BlueStacks and its competitors running Android apps on Windows is easy too. 

This article contains a lot of information appeared to make Qualcomm's purchase of Nuvia suspect. But to clarify:

1. Apple is designing its own 5G modem to replace Qualcomm's designs in the "iPhone 13." Qualcomm, also now clear of years of litigation with Apple, is looking to expand its own custom processor designs.

Apple was the subject of this lawsuit due to unpaid royalties to Qualcomm, which Apple later paid. Apple being forced to settle its lawsuit with Qualcomm before inevitably losing it had nothing to do with this. Were Apple still willing to fight this losing battle, Qualcomm would have still bought Nuvia and "been free to do so."

2. Apple's disputes with Nuvia's CEO has nothing to do with Qualcomm or their purchase of Nuvia. It won't keep Qualcomm from using Nuvia's chips or incorporating their IP into their own chips.

3. Apple's using Qualcomm's modems until they are able to design their own and integrate them into their own chips has nothing to do with this, which is about CPUs. Even after Apple finishes their own modem design and their contract with Qualcomm ends in 2024, Apple will still have to pay licensing fees to Qualcomm for the patents that they will use in the process of designing their own LTE/5G modems.

4. "Qualcomm's move comes as it announces that its current CEO, Steve Mollenkopf, is to be replaced by the company's head of silicon, Cristiano Amon."  Mollenkopf is an extremely successful CEO who is merely retiring after a typical 7 year CEO run and after having been with the company 25 years. This is not a "forced out in disgrace" thing like Ballmer and Microsoft and the orchestrator of the failed "pivot away from Wintel and towards AI-driven iPad apps" IBM CEO.

5. Qualcomm is merely doing this in order to satisfy Microsoft's demand for ARM chips that can successfully run Windows 10 and Windows 10X. So while you can say that the M1 chip was the root cause behind this action, that is as far as you can go.