charlituna

dewme said:

Depending on the malady that your Mac is suffering from, you may want to enable the Guest Account on your Mac so you aren't requiring (or allowing) the Apple Genius to log into your Mac using your account. I would never allow anyone to access my Mac when its logged in with my credentials unless I am sitting right beside the person and monitoring everything they are doing.

actually guest mode is often useless for trouble shooting. because it doesn't have Admin access which is often needed. 

but a second empty admin account is a good idea. it's actually a common troubleshooting step for issues that could be software based

AppleZulu said:

It took a week after the kid's mom notified Apple about the thing for Apple to respond to the issue publicly.

It took a week after Apple responded publicly to the thing for Congress to respond by writing Apple a letter asking why it took them a week to respond.

I'm just saying.

difference is that Apple was notified but the woman hadn't notified the right group. sounds like she sent a message to the general feedback off the site or something about as vague and it took several days for the information to get to the right group to figure out what exactly the flaw was. meanwhile said woman, apparently made that Tim Cook didn't personally call to offer her a fat reward, announced the flaw on social media. and THAT is when folks knew it existed. and Apple shut down the server within like 24 hours. 
Congress knew about the issue for a week, publicly knew, and did nothing. 

jkichline said:

I’m not a lawyer, but if I’m following this correctly...

Apple purchases the rights to existing but abandoned trademarks using a subsidiary which Apple always does to avoid rumors and paying way too much for these things.

So when Apple found out that there was another trademark that was filed, they attempted to buy it, but the company foolishly said no instead of entertaining the request. Apple didn’t have to buy it since they already had the trademark, but they tried.

So a foolish company that used a term that doesn’t provide marketing value could have sold it to Apple but instead got outclassed by a company steeped in copyright law and is now grasping for scraps.

my understanding of what the article is saying is a tad different. my read is that this android developer found out that the trademark was about to expire and was going to make a play for it. probably figured they could get it cheap because it hadn't been used for a while and was all but abandoned. there might even be a mechanism in the trademark processes to apply for an existing but about to expire trademark before the expiration. if the current owner doesn't re-up then the new application is processed before anyone should have found out it's available. but before it was fully expired, Apple via this shell company, bought the rights from the legit owners. and probably legitimized the purchase by filling some kind of use documentation. so now Mr Android App is screwed. 

as for using subsidiaries and shells, Apple does that as much to keep their plans a secret as to avoid being taken for a ride on value so I'm not shocked about that move. in fact I think Apple may have been screwed over by Cisco over the iPhone trademark in part because they didn't use a fake name. course that one didn't work out so well for Cisco since the Trademark Office etc agreed that they jumped in at the last minute with a claim they were about to use the trademark again just to keep it away from Apple. In the end they were allowed use the mark for the office phone or whatever it was they claimed they were about to create and Apple got cell phone use of the name (sort of like Apple getting Apple for computers etc but they couldn't start a record company cause Apple Records)

AppleInsider said:

An iTunes backup copies the apps and everything in them.

incorrect. I believe it was iOS 9 when iTunes removed the App Store from the Mac. At which time iTunes stopped syncing apps. if you do a restore they are also downloaded via wifi

DAalseth said:

On being connected to a vehicle's Bluetooth system, the app would temporarily block calls, text messages, and notifications that could distract a driver, with the added option of sending automated replies advising the user was unavailable.

I don't believe this is how the Apple system works. It doesn't use Bluetooth to sense when it's in a vehicle, which would be useless if the device wasn't paired with the vehicle. Doesn't Apple's system sense when GPS tells it that the vehicle is moving?

apple's does both