rcfa

About

Banned
Username
rcfa
Joined
Visits
120
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,678
Badges
1
Posts
1,124

Reactions

1KLike0Dislike119Informative

  • Satechi's new Aluminum Hub & Stand is designed with iPad Pro in mind

    rcfarcfa
    One port too few, to be useful: a second USB-C port.

    Right now, e.g. I use the MagicKeyboard’s USB-C to power both the iPad Pro 12” as well as a Raspberry Pi which is powered and networked with the iPad Pro over the built in USB-C port. 

    I wouldn’t be able to do that, as the built-in USB-C port is used to connect the hub, and the hub’s USB-C port is used for power. There’s no USB-C port left to attach any USB-C device.

    Useless, in a time where more and more peripherals are USB-C
    watto_cobra

  • Popular Alibaba-owned app UC Browser caught monitoring user browsing data

    rcfarcfa
    I’m surprised they even have two versions, given that an app could simply adapt to whatever language is preferred…

    Guess Chinese users don’t mind so much as they know their government is tracking them anyway, so what’s one entity more, if you have no privacy to begin with…
    watto_cobra

  • New job ad suggests Apple launching 'homeOS' [u]

    rcfarcfa
    The OS on homepods is obviously Darwin based and a derivative of the iOS/tvOS branch. It simply has no branded name, as it’s supposed to be something that’s as unobtrusive as possible. OS updates happen automatically, there are no public betas, etc.

    In short, either homeOS is how Apple refers to it internally, or some successor to what runs on HomePods will have a higher profile and more functions, and thus gain a customer facing brand name. The most likely functionality added: apps

    Either way: no big deal, because it’s obvious that Apple won’t let the HomePod line stagnate and wither.
    selleringtonfastasleepwatto_cobra

  • Some iPhone users report high battery drain following iOS 14.6 update

    rcfarcfa
    That’s the problem, with media giving credence to anecdotal information. It leads just to nonsense, like withdrawals of important vaccines, baseless lawsuits, etc…
    lkrupptwokatmewJFC_PAwatto_cobra

  • Facebook sponsored research paper lambasts Apple's iOS 14.5 privacy

    rcfarcfa
    22july2013 said:
    I've been known for complaining that Tim Cook is fighting Apple's legal battles with weak public statements. 

    Mark Zuckerberg's statements have been loud and clear, but they are the wrong arguments. Here's what I think Mark should say: (I apologize for being the devil's advocate)
    Tim Cook announced a few days ago that Apple will get its revenue for his Apple App Store "one way or another." That's a valid position, which also applies to FaceBook. If Apple decides to unilaterally revoke one of FaceBook's ways in iOS for making money, through its new App Tracking Transparency software, FaceBook will find another way. Apple has the right to charge users for "free apps" on its app store, and FaceBook has the right to charge users who use FaceBook. That fee could come as money, or personal information, or varying service levels like fewer ads or faster server response times for people who provide us with the data we need to make our money. Apple isn't the only company who can play that game. FaceBook can take a page from Apple's playbook and this is a game Apple can't win because, like Apple, FaceBook has a relationship with the users outside of the FaceBook app on iOS. If, however, Apple decides to play fair and nice with its iOS features, FaceBook won't need to resort to charging users "one way or another."

    By comparing FaceBook's problem to Apple's problem, he may get popular support.

    So what? Nobody cares if Facebook wants to charge for its service, as long as the copyright remains with the content creators (users!) and users privacy remains respected.

    If Facebook turns in effect just into a user data hosting platform, without any advertising, user data analysis, user data sales, etc. of course they have a right to charge a fee, and most people would not have a problem to pay it, and the rest would finally discover how much time they used to waste on the platform…

    In no way, shape or form would that approach bother Apple. It’s a fake argument, that Apple’s privacy initiatives are anti-competitive. They are pro-user, pro-privacy: it’s Apple’s value added to their products, the value people are willing to pay a premium for.

    If that hurts the competition then not because it’s anti-competitive, but because two business models compete, and users prefer Apple’s.

    It’s up to Apple’s competitors to adopt the same business model. 
    watto_cobra