sdbryan

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be able to take it apart, install a new battery, and successfully reassemble, the software in it will be hopelessly out of date and unable to update to anything worthwhile.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.

This would be great news for musicians who use an iPad Pro and bluetooth foot pedal to replace paper sheet music. There are already quite a few converts but a screen that is just a bit larger could produce many more converts. People who complain that adding another iPad size indicates a lack of focus just fail to understand there are potentially large markets for a larger tablet used in ways they failed to imagine.

byronl said:

i still want to have the OPTION to enter UNSAFE environments apps etc 

I don’t mean to be snarky but you do have that option. It is called Android. Many people use that option. It isn’t an obscure, unused choice.