derekcurrie

genovelle said:

I believe project Catalyst is the key to this transition. It is the Trojan horse. If they can convince a mass of developers to embrace the conversion and especially if they made the process work effort ly in reverse, they will have an enormous catalog of apps that will run on ARM but are customized for use on the Mac. 

NO. Catalyst is bringing iOS apps to macOS on Intel because Apple can. Bringing RISC apps to CISC CPU architecture is relatively easy. Some Mac users will like them and users. Others will find them limiting.

Bringing Mac apps to iOS on ARM is not gonna happen. Going CISC to RISC is full of roadblocks. I won't list them as they've been covered to death in the past.

This is the very long awaited implementation of 'Something You Have' as a method of authentication. Ideally, this is combined with 'Something You Know', such as a password, and 'Something You Are', such as your fingerprint or face. These are the standard three factors of multi-factor authentication. A fourth factor, already available to smartphone users, is 'Somewhere You Are', as in GPS coordinates matching an approved authentication site or verification that the net user is located in their specified home or office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-factor_authentication

I've had a Yubikey for 10 years, waiting for Internet security to catch up. Meanwhile, Yubikey has added NFC authentication as well as FIDO U2F, FIDO 2, OpenPGP, OATH and FIPS 140-2 compliance. Apparently, it took Google getting into the USB key business this year to kickstart universal interest. *sigh* Better late than...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YubiKey
https://www.yubico.com

It has been my personal impression over the last couple years that Bloomberg has striven to place younger employees into the position of reporting. This has been most evident in their video programming. I've often found the new, younger staff to be less informed while being more child-like in their reporting enthusiasm, versus the staid seriousness I assume Bloomberg is trying to avoid. As such, I now think of Bloomberg as having gone overboard in their attempt to draw in the youth market.

Stirring the pot, here are some baseless speculations of my own, gathered together from my experience with the Apple market over the last 25 years:

Q1) Could Bloomberg be involved in AAPL stock manipulation?
I ask this because manipulating AAPL in the news was common practice circa 2014 - 2017. I personally called these manipulative reports Apple Bear BS. In statistics, correlation is next to useless in establishing cause and effect. But I did correlate this period of time with Carl Icahn's activist stockholder behavior regarding Apple. Once Mr. Icahn sold off his Apple stock, I correlated that the Apple Bear BS came to a halt. I have to wonder if there is a manipulation factor at work within Bloomberg. But this speculation is of course baseless.

Q2) Are stories written and published at Bloomberg being driven by their marketing division?
I call the ascendance of marketing executives into management 'Marketing-As-Management.' It is common among aging companies. The overall effect is demoralization of the productive members of a company as well is irrational business decisions. In the case of Bloomberg, their marketing may either have an irrational bias toward Apple, one of the most productive companies in history. Or it might be the case that their Marketing-As-Management doesn't provide the scrutiny required for the reporting of the highly complex technology sector. But this speculation is of course baseless.

Q3) Is Bloomberg overly intent and dependent upon the youth factor in their reporting and in their intended target audience?

Q4) Are there other sources of bias within Bloomberg I haven't imagined?

Q5) Is this just an ordinary and all too common case of bad technology journalism?

In any case, I hope the current concern of hardware hacking is sorted out and that Bloomberg can get back to what I consider to be professional quality reporting.