Spencer314

Honestly, given the history here, Apple deserves to lose this one. I did get myself an Ultra 2 prior to the ban, and quite like it. But seriously, from all the reports, Masimo initially negotiated with them in good faith for a potential deal, then Apple raided their employees and immediately filed patents covering technology that Masimo had in development or had already patented. Maybe Masimo's price for licensing was unreasonable and Apple didn't see another choice, but intellectual property law is what it is and Apple f'd over the wrong company. 

Gawd I hope this isn't the direction Apple is going. I don't mind a 120mm lens, though I'm seriously not going to use it that often. But, killing off the 72mm lens to get that 120mm is insane. If the max simply had a better lens and camera for the 72mm, I might have bought the 15 Pro Max (the 15 Pro's 72mm camera quality is a bit underwhelming, particularly when compared with the excellent main camera even at a 50% crop), but there is no way that I would want to sacrifice having a 12MP camera nowhere between 48mm and 120mm. The 70mm to 90mm range is just way more useful. Heck, 120mm isn't even telephoto enough to be that interesting, as a telephoto, so it really is nothing more than bragging rights. I have talked a few people out of getting the 15 Pro Max for this very reason, and all have realized I was absolutely right. 

This is as it should be. The Apple-to-Apple features are just going to continue being more advanced and predictable than Apple-to-RCS, and the color coding helps know what doesn't work. Better, though, might be a third color to represent RCS or end-to-end encryption (when that is supported with a new RCS standard), though perhaps that would be going too far. 

applebynature said:

beowulfschmidt said:

applebynature said:

anonymouse said:

The purpose of the law is ending end-to-end encryption. Child sex abuse is simply being used as the most emotionally compelling rationale for doing so. Apparently this does result in a lot of confusion.

Ironically, victims of child sex abuse are being exploited by lawmakers who want to end privacy.

You are unequivocally and absolutely incorrect. Did you read the damn bill? No you didn't. Because it doesn't ONCE mention encryption. It literally even spells out ways that a company can itself decide how to accomplish the task. For instance it would allow Apple to implement it's CSAM detection service that they've already developed that does not break encryption as satisfying this law, as I stated from the beginning.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. You're just typing BS from your emotional response to this bill, which again, is NOT aimed at encryption. 
Damn you're so confused, aren't you? Well I guess maybe not so much confused as completely lacking any actual knowledge of this topic whatsoever.

No, anonymouse is exactly correct.  Of course the law isn't explicitly purposed to end encryption, that would expose their agenda.  But whatever the stated purpose, the intended effect is to eliminate end-to-end encryption, or weaken it unto uselessness, so that governments can have access to citizens' private communication, "just in case", and "for their own protection".  CSAM is just the excuse they're using to justify it.

Ah, I see you're employing the Slippery Slope Fallacy here. Moving on.

Governments absolutely despise end-to-end encryption. And even western governments have tried to use "think of the children (or the terrorists)" arguments to end it for years. Some of their reasons for despising it are arguably valid, as E2EE takes away a significant intelligence gathering tool that can be used to stop terrorist plots, or to figure out how to prosecute somebody (or better understand if anyone else was involved) after an incident such as a mass shooting incident. But, much of this is also the banal interest in the state just gathering data because that's what they've always done and that's what they always want to be able to do, and because digital technologies made this so much easier to do at scale than back in the paper days and their addicted to it and really don't want to lose it. 

About 4 times more Android phones ship per year vs iPhones (both in the US and globally), which has been consistent for years. That means the 4% of new Android sales that are from former iPhone users represents about 16% of iPhone units shipped. That basically means the number of switchers in both directions is essentially identical within the margin of error.