myopiarocks

"Should you wait?" Yes, of course. Never buy the version 1.0 of anything Apple. Version 2.0 will be so much better. See, e.g., OSX 10 vs 10.1, the first ipod touch vs the 2nd generation ipod touch, the first iphone vs iphone 3g, first apple watch ("what is this?") vs 2nd gen, 1st ipad vs 2nd gen (people still use these for certain purposes)... the list goes on. It's going to be 2-3 more WWDCs before the Apple-Silicon version of MacOS starts doing things that x86 doesn't; the transition will be that long and support for x86 will be 3-4 years after that. So anything new that you buy now will be ~6-7 years old before Apple stops supporting it.

"Will you wait?" No. Of course not. And neither will I. It's Apple! Take my money.

After 15 years with Intel, every company that was going to make an x86 mac version, does, and the vast majority of these will port their stuff. Many other companies are still windows only, but there are companies with windows and iOS (but not x86 mac) products - they have iOS developers, already. So Apple's business decision is betting that these "windows and iOS" companies will assign their existing teams to expand their iOS products into the full mac feature set. For example, Autodesk Revit doesn't work on a mac, so engineering and architecture firms have to use windows, but there is an iOS (iPad OS) version for field use. (Revit is the big-boy-pants evolution of autocad, btw)

...and don't forget that Microsoft isn't oblivious to reality, anymore, and is seeing these same intel performance issues. The ARM version of windows sucks right now, but they have 2-5 years to improve it so that it runs great natively/virtually on a mac. Microsoft is more than happy to sell you a windows OS license for your apple silicon - they don't care about Intel they just care about selling their own stuff. I'd also expect ARM windows to imitate "rosetta," so that the ARM windows can run x86 windows. Performance hit, but even non-apple ARM is looking pretty good vs Intel nowadays, and there is no indication that Intel has a new architectural path forward so Microsoft will need to start thinking about this same switch (they just can't do it as nimbly as Apple due to existing code & customer base).

The problem is having speakers become obsolete. I have ~30 year old speakers that still sound great. They're "dumb" but they plug into a receiver.... my receiver is also ~30 years old. Early dolby digital and DTS 5.2 surround (yes, 5.2. The 90s were weird). I don't expect my old receiver to magically get Dolby Atmos. I don't expect my old speakers to stop looking early-90s-fugly.

I do expect to be able to plug my iphone into the receiver's aux input, or connect an airport express digital out to the receiver's digital-in, and have it play sound and work with airplay, etc. Good speakers and receivers last a very long time by tech standards. The 1st flaw with Sonos is that their products don't plan for their eventual software obsolescence: there's no audio input plug on most of them, for example. A simple aux-input (heaven forbid sonos add banana plugs) would give these things an indefinite lifespan.

Then there's the 2nd flaw with Sonos: their preference for marketing and sales over truth or even B- engineering: they say "Play:1 is too old for airplay2" and they offer a garbage work-around, while meanwhile their devices are uPNP and the solution requires nothing more than an existing computer or raspberryPI acting as a simple bridge. I have two play:1s and I use philippe44's free "airconnect" software (google it, it's on github and it's awesome) and PRESTO! the Play:1s work with airplay2. SONOS SHOULD BE SELLING A uPNP BRIDGE! ...but no, they'd rather keep it proprietary, tell you stuff's too old (factually, objectively, demonstrably, untrue), brick your speakers, and fill the landfills (seriously, do a deep-dive on sonos "recycling" if you disagree with where these things end up. They end up in the trash.).

WARNING: Lawyer-generated post ahead!

WARNING WARNING: This lawyer works extensively in IP licensing, so save yourself 30 seconds and just shut your eyes, now.

WARNING WARNING WARNING: Never ever ever take legal advice from someone on the interweb.

Yes, that's a very broad grant, in itself. But almost every line of that terrible document and connected Privacy Policy is full of things a lawyer would advise a client against agreeing to, and when attacking it a lawyer might skip the details and posit that it's against public policy (that might be the strongest argument, frankly). Especially regarding minors - the policy says that 13+ means that you are saying (by clicking) that you are 13+ and if under 18 a parent or legal guardian is approving when the minor clicks. I mean... that's just asinine to anyone who lives in an objective reality.

So the author isn't wrong that this awful doc says that the end user grants this license to faceapp and everyone faceapp has ever said "hello" to (check out the unholy definition of "affiliate" in the privacy doc!). But just because the end user says faceapp "can" doesn't mean there aren't other regulatory or policy reasons stopping faceapp, facebook, facesmash, or smashmouth.  Focusing on the grant of license isn't wrong, but really the entire doc needs a "plain english" laugh track (or drinking game: do a shot every time you feel violated).

Oh, and notice that the user doesn't own the user generated filters; faceapp owns those: You own your original content, but not your "older" self.

Wikipedia has an image of the original San Francisco font, and it was not the system default:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_(decorative_typeface)

I remember changing the MS Word 4 "normal" template to use San Francisco on school computers just to mess with the teachers. Those were the days....

Yes, I'm old.