jdw

It's certainly about time to do the RIGHT THING with the SD card slot on MacBooks!  I can only hope it's real UHS-II or III or Express this time (all backward compatible), as my mid-2015 MBP limits SD card speed to the UHS-I cap of 104MB/s.

I remember when I was blasted NUMEROUS TIMES in many online forums, including this one, for expressing my intense dislike of the horrid Butterfly keyboard.  I was told by Cupertino Worshippers that "it's the future, and there's no way Apple is going back!"  Well, Apple did go back and all those loud voices of Butterfly support are now silent.

The thing about Apple is you cannot worship any product feature at any given time because what you worship today may be gone tomorrow.  I never worshipped the SD card slot, but I appreciated it enough to write Apple plenty of feedback since 2016 to bring back that feature in notebooks.  I retained hope through the years because it never was really gone. To this day, the SD card slot remains an important feature in iMacs, even the iMac Pro, proving its worth.  And no, it doesn't matter if there are competing card technologies out there like CF & XQD.  SD is still a huge deal. It's the most widely used memory card format, despite the fact newer formats are nipping at its heels,  SD is ubiquitous like USB-A, although I doubt Apple will restore that wonderful dongle-eliminating connector even if USB-A is still found everywhere 10 years hence (and it probably will).

No mention of restoring the glowing Apple logo on the back lid, but who knows what treasures future MicroLED tech will bring.

The TouchBar has loud fans, but so did the Butterfly keyboard.  It serves no practical use for me personally and merely drains the battery.  The addition of a real ESC key didn't fix the TouchBar in my mind.  The TouchBar is the ultimate extension of the no-tactile feedback Butteryfly Keyboard concept.  Apple has long hoped its users would love to rap their fingers across glass or a desk.  Sorry, but that probably won't ever happen.  Tapping on an unmovable surface makes you hate life.  Go ahead and tap your fingers across your desk right now.  Beat your fingers on it for the next 15 minutes and then ask yourself, "Am I having fun yet?"  No, you are not.  Having a springy key fire back up at you after pressing it is a thrill. Typing enjoyment outshines the fact the TouchBar could be morphed into pretty much anything.

All in all, I am very excited...

Apple Silicon (I'll probably sell my Intel stock this year)
SD Card Slot (UHS-II this time?)
MagSafe 
Decent Keyboard
Real Function Keys
And... An Apple who lists to Feedback from folks like me -- THANK YOU!

anantksundaram said:

I sure am glad that the whole world isn't -- at least, not yet -- run by lawyers.

Bravo on preaching that truth!  

After reading every single post in this discussion, the only people defending Apple on this are the wannabe lawyers and extreme legalists, always trying to defend the unreasonable because they prefer the letter of the law over the spirit.

It's important we remember our Apple history. The Beatles' created a green apple as their Apple Corps logo in the 1960's, and both Steve Jobs and Woz knew that but created an Apple logo for their computer company anyway.  Apple Corps sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement in 1978 and in 1981 Apple Computer agreed to pay $80,000 and never enter the music business.  As we all know, Apple later entered the music business anyway -- a case of double infringement.

So when comparing a pear logo that looks nothing -- I mean NOTHING -- like the Apple logo at all, one must consider that our beloved Apple, Inc. originally created its logo in the full knowledge that their apple would be quite similar to the Beatles' apple, but did it anyway.  That's all the more reason why Apple should punch its legal team in the nose over this, bow their heads in apology, and then get busy on the next great thing.

flydog said:

It's clear that you have zero understanding of even the fundamental concepts of antitrust law.

FaceBook is not being sued because it tried to limit competition.  FaceBook is being sued because it used illegal means to limit competion, and harmed consumers as a result. 

LOL.  It's clear that you have zero understanding of those who oppose the fundamental premise of antitrust law.

I disagree with what is deemed "illegal means" to limit competition, and I strongly disagree that consumers were harmed insofar as the service is free.  Yes, it is free, even if some wish to content it is somehow not free only because data is gleaned from us.  If you have no cash money at all, and if you want a service, you ultimately have to pay for that service, even if the means of paying (giving up your personal data) isn't what most people really like.

The points made in my previous post still apply.  These are home-grown US businesses that we should laud, not seek to tear down, especially with the US economy in shambles due to Corona lockdowns.  Tearing down US companies with antitrust only serves the interest of those who seek to tear down American from abroad.  It doesn't make us stronger.  In the name of upholding law, order and consumer protection, it makes America vastly weaker overall.

If you dislike your personal information being sold or used in ways you dislike, or if you dislike targeted ads, you the consumer have it within your power to immediately stop all of that by deleting your FaceBook account.  No intervention by Big Brother is necessary.  It's called "personal responsibility."

Love them or hate them, all of these tech companies, INCLUDING APPLE, are America's home grown businesses that should be celebrated not destroyed by the over-reaching hand of Big Brother.  And I say this hating all the silly fact checking labels FaceBook puts on posts (and Twitter too), which in fact limit individual liberty, even if one can content those fact checkers are correct.  So even though I personally dislike various things about FaceBook and even Google, I would never ask Big Brother to step in and crush them for being Capitalists.  

Sorry, but when you are in business, you seek to limit your competition.  Label it Anti-trust or Anti-competitive if you like, but it's only reasonable to buy Instagram as a matter of good business.  And what may be a near Monopoly within the USA is most assuredly not in China, which is a massive country everyone needs to ponder.  China gains when America loses.  And America is not gaining by breaking up its big tech firms.  What you see in the news on this topic is merely a game of envy and revenge and the illusion of "protecting the little guy and increasing competition for the good of all consumers."

Also bear in mind that even though there is more digital blood being shed at the hand of the US Government at Google and FaceBook right now, Apple is still a target.  By supporting the anti-trust lawsuit mania, you are in fact supporting action against Apple too.  Just keep the in mind.

Mike Wuerthele said:

jdw said:

As reported by 9to5 Mac, ...

You're misinterpreting a bit of what the researcher said and what 9to5 accurately relayed in its reporting yesterday.

What gets sent back to Apple is a hash of the app that's been launched, so yes, Apple knows what app you're using, and when you launch it. But, Gatekeeper doesn't send to Apple what you're doing, how long the app is open, how long the app is active, or when the app is closed. While the hash that is sent is not further encrypted (other than being a hash), you're making a big assumption that Apple is either sharing this data, or that the hash is readable by a MITM attack by the ISP or the government.

The ISP already has your location information, and depending on locality, basically provides that to anybody who asks, so I'm not sure why the researcher is baffled by an IP giving away your location. Plus, if you have an app that connects to the internet for any reason including license authentication, the data it sends, and the port it sends it on, tells anybody watching you with a MITM attack more about you than a single hash at launch will.

This behavior has existed since Gatekeeper's launch in 2012. AI talked about it then, and I talked about it in a different venue.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.  However, I don't believe I have misrepresented the article, nor have I made any assumptions, as per the fact the article itself talks about PRISM as a "spying program" not me. The article raised a concern in me, and since this AI article is somewhat related, I shared my concern.  That is all.

Even if one contends Apple isn't told how long my apps are open or when the app is closed, I would prefer if information about my app usage was not sent to Apple at all.  The article I referenced is talking about that point, so it is relevant for each Mac user to consider.  

The researcher you mention in that article is not baffled by an ISP sharing your information.  He seems concerned that the unencrypted personal information that passes through the ISP could easily be shared. In other words, if that level of information was never sent to Apple, it would not pass through the ISP!  That's the point here.

Since you have apparently written about this back in 2012, what specific domain should I block with Little Snitch rules to prevent this data transfer?  (Not that it will help Big Sur users, as per the reasons given in the article which say Little Snitch cannot help in that case.)