sdbryan

Nunnyobizz said:

9secondkox2 said:

Nunnyobizz said:

The reality is that the 12.9 inch iPad Pro is excessively heavy and unwieldy.  Many people bought it because of its outstanding screen, but regret the move due to limited portability.  Raising the size to 14 inches would be suicide for a product.   

Incorrect. I have the 12.9” pro. Often times I wish it had a 15” screen. I hate moving and zooming artboards ad naseam around just to work in detail on a deadline. 

If you don’t need the pro, get the air or the base model. Let the pros have useful features. 

I guess you didn’t realize I’m speaking from experience as well.   I also have the 12.9 inch pro and as far as I am concerned, it is very heavy and cumbersome.  And I’ve seen many people online say the same thing, so I’m not alone.

 Funny I don’t see people in this thread clamoring for a 14 inch iPad either, so I think it’s safe to say you’re in the minority.  At 1.5 lbs, it’s the 12.9 inch iPad is the heaviest one they’ve ever made by at least a half pound.

You miss the point of the iPad Pro.  It’s supposed to be portable AND useful. While it is useful, the size and weight put off many people, and that includes pros.

I suppose I could clamor yet again for a larger iPad. There are many musicians who already use the 12.9 iPadPro to store, edit, and display huge libraries of sheet music. For me the current main constraints are a not quite sufficient screen size and battery charge limitations. A more readable screen size might push adoption to a significantly higher level. Certainly a “niche” market but so was desktop publishing when it surprised many by how it saved the Mac from oblivion.

scatz said:

chelgrian said:

darkvader said:

I'm assuming they'd still work if you use a VPN to appear out of the country to Apple servers.

I expect Signal would still just work, I can't imagine they'd go to any actual effort to break it, they'd just not "officially" support UK users.

They would be removed from the UK version of the App Store and as they are mostly indexed by telephone number they would disable any account that used a UK phone number.

While you may be able to do some workarounds the loss of critical mass and the fact you'd only be able to communicate with existing international users makes it not worth it.

Sadly I expect the current government in the UK thinks that Apple/Meta and Signal are bluffing, they aren't they are deadly serious and the UK is a small enough market they can that walk away from it.

The UK is largest market in EMEA by quite a margin.

I was under the impression that France was a larger market for Apple. Are you certain that UK is larger? In any case Apple management has already shown their staunch support for user privacy by default.

Beats said:

mikeinca said:

Remember when the original gold Apple Watch was $10,000!  I knew a guy who had one lol. 

And he’ll get the last laugh. Imagine what it will be worth. 

After so many years is there any possibility that the battery is not stone cold dead? At that point the display won’t even light up. Even if you get someone who might be able to take it apart, install a new battery, and successfully reassemble, the software in it will be hopelessly out of date and unable to update to anything worthwhile. I like my Apple watch but I have no illusion about its dispoable nature. I would give about $10 for that lump of non functional historical wearable computer device. I would pay much more for whatever current functioning wearable device Apple might actually support. I know there is a market for nonfunctional historical devices (like the original Apple I) but I have a strong attraction to things that, at least currently, provide cutting edge capabilities.

I wouldn’t say that the alternate payment system issue is simple and unimportant. But the crucial issue here has be alluded to a few times: Does this legislation require Apple, Google, et al to design their OS so that their devices will run unsigned code? Currently all the apps available in the app stores only run on your device because it has been cryptographically signed using the secret key that only the platform owner has.

One commenter certainly presented a quote that implies this while another said the former was incorrect about the content of the legislation. If true this would be armageddon for the app ecosystem. Even with platform owners wielding their authority to reject or later disable undetected malicious code/behavior the system is not perfect. But remove that mechanism and you invite chaos. There are just too many bad actors out there to just “depend on the kindness of strangers”

Thank you Crowley, Marvin, and Muthuk_vanalingam for clarifying the technical aspect of this issue. I carelessly assumed Apple was using the narrow meaning of “hash” with which I am familiar. But Apple is bringing a huge amount of processing to every picture stored on every iPhone (if the picture is uploaded to iCloud) in order to produce this more durable hash value. I am beginning to see why so many find this offensive.

Previously my response was that if a person was opposed to this sort of mass surveillance just turn off iCloud Photos. I suppose it is illogical but before I found the idea of performing a simple hash on every photo seemed innocuous. But the level of scrutiny and implicit assumption that every photo on every iPhone is guilty unless proven ‘innocent’ just seems obscene. I don’t want a piece of code like that in the OS of a device I chose to buy and use.