Last Active
  • The metaverse is 'off limits' on Apple's VR headset, claims report

    starof80 said:
    If the rumors about this is true, Apple would be smart to reconsider about getting in the Metaverse. They will be left behind.
    Behind what? The Facebook / Epic concept of a virtual world to live in is so damn dystopian. Anyone who looks forward to that world is in need of psychiatric help because they can't seem to live effectively in the real world.

    I actually hope Apple keeps any AR/VR headset as a 100% closed system without any third party access. That way we won't have to hear about any of this crap that every computing product sold needs to be 100% open to other vendors selling their wares on it.
  • Outdated Apple CSAM detection algorithm harvested from iOS 14.3 [u]

    flydog said:
    Beats said:
    The fact anyone can reverse engineer this is scary.
    Some anonymous reddit user claims to have found code in an old version of iOS.  No one has "reverse engineered" anything.  
    That’s false. It was reverse engineered into Python. That’s what is available in the GitHub repository. 
  • Google details new Drive for Desktop client replacing Backup and Snyc

    It’s definitely better on its own, but there’s one use case that it’s really terrible for. If you use a personal Google Drive account and a company one under Google Workspace (formerly G Suite) then you can’t access both at the same time. You have to switch accounts. Previously, you could just run Backup and Sync at the same time as Google Drive to give parallel access to both.
  • Judge orders Tim Cook and Craig Federighi documentation in Epic case

    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    gatorguy said:
    Gosh, surprised the CEO of Apple would be ordered to appear. I thought the judge in this case already signaled doubts about the veracity of Epic's claims early on. Maybe that was a different judge and venue? 
    She has made clear that Epic doesn't have a real case to justify its contract-breaking, but she is being even-handed in allowing (within some limits) Epic to try and find some dirt that might justify their position, and that's fine

    Then we might be talking two different courtrooms since the judge in this one is a he from what I'm reading.
    The order was from a magistrate (a he), not the District Court judge (a she). Discovery disputes are typically handled by a lower magistrate. 
  • Apple says Epic Games dispute is a 'marketing campaign' to boost 'Fortnite'

    I hope Apple have hard evidence (not hearsay) to back up the claim about Epic throwing its toys out of the pram before. That won't go down well with a jury.
    This is not a jury eligible case. The determination as to whether the App Store even falls under antitrust regulations is a matter of law to determine. Juries only determine matters of fact (when the facts are disputed). There are no facts to litigate here. If Apple and the App Store are determined not to fall under antitrust because the App Store isn't a "market" or Apple is found not to be abusing its position even if the App Store is a market, then it's just a contract dispute. If that plays out, Epic doesn't do well on that front as the contract terms are pretty clear.