longfang

johnwhite1001 said:

Apple needs to pay up.  Apple Watch is a premium product and deserves the best technology for O2  measurement.  Only Masimo makes that.  Any software redesign Apple comes up with will not measure O2 accurately with people of color.   Thats unacceptable.  Give Masimo the few cents per unit they deserve Apple.

designr said:

1. $3,500
2. Face-scanning to size it.
3. Half-hour sales pitch.

Could they possibly put anymore friction on the customer path?

danvm said:

9secondkox2 said:

designr said:

danox said:

designr said:

danox said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:

1. How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
2. How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
3. How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
4. Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
5. How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
6. How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
7. How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
8. In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.

(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)

1. Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
2. Totally Apple's prerogative.
3. Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
4. Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
5. Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
6. Might be sketchy of Apple too.
7. Not sure about this one.
8. Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.

All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.

P.S. Apple just pulled another bone-head move of rejecting the 37 Signals Hey Calendar app: https://x.com/dhh/status/1743341929675493806 (here's a summary: https://world.hey.com/dhh/apple-rejects-the-hey-calendar-from-their-app-store-4316dc03)
P.P.S. Whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, Apple has become like the Microsoft we hated in the past (and IBM before them). Perhaps this is an inevitable outcome of success and size and dominance. But I think we all expected—perhaps quite naively—better from Apple.

Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.

Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.

Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.

(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)

Either way, Apple best be careful here.

Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.

And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.

Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.

Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.

And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android. 

Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo.  They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers. 

Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?

michelb76 said:

Fun idea, would rather have a landscape one. Given that Blackberry sued the previous product out of existence, I'm wondering what is going to happen with this.

danox said:

sloaah said:

9secondkox2 said:

mikethemartian said:

I much prefer macOS over Windows but unless a person really needs Mac specific software they are much better off using something like a HP Z8 Fury G5 which offers much more freedom for high end applications.

LOL no. 

With the money needed to spec that out like a Mac Studio, it’s better to just get an actual Mac Studio or Mac Pro. 

There are still professional situations where an M3 Max isn’t up to scratch. Such as with 3D animation, where high end rigs can have up to 1TB of RAM and multiple GPUs (even if they aren’t run in SLI having a free GPU whilst one is working can be helpful). 

Additionally the cost of updating a GPU on a rig each year is less than the cost of buying a new Mac Studio each year. 

That may be true but Apple isn't on that path and they are soon to be joined on that path by Qualcomm? UMA memory, low wattage with high performance? only time will tell. Hopefully the Justice Dept. won't take exception if it works out big for Apple.