crowley
I don't add "in my opinion" to everything I say because everything I say is my opinion. I'm not wasting keystrokes on clarifying to pedants what they should already be able to discern.
About
- Banned
- Username
- crowley
- Joined
- Visits
- 454
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 11,743
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 10,453
Reactions
-
Smaller Mac Pro, 2021 iMac redesign with color options shown off by prolific leaker
How would it cut any cables? You'd just need a USB cable instead of an AC power cable. They're a bit thinner generally, but it's not a great difference. Even if you daisy chained them (which would only work for one, maybe two units because of the 40W power draw under load) there would still be cables between the machines.22july2013 said:
Valid point, but there might be some people who just stack Minis in a rack and don't have other devices attached. This could cut the cables by 50% if the only other cable is networking.crowley said:
Bit of a niche use case. Also, if you're running the Mac mini off USB power then that'll limit your ability to power other devices from the USB/Thunderbolt ports on the Mac Mini, which though not a killer feature would probably mean a lot of grumbling if you took it away.22july2013 said:
Good answer, thanks pal. I was thinking that getting rid of a cable like AC power would be helpful for people who stack these devices, which is the idea that I was replying to.crowley said:
5W at idle, it'll still pull 40W under load. But yeah, USB could provide that, it already does for MacBooks after all. A traditional AC power port is probably cheaper and more robust though.22july2013 said:I wonder, since the M1 Mac Mini is so low power, just 5W for the CPU I read, could it (had it been built differently) run on USB or Thunderbolt providing the power instead of a 110V cable?
-
UK launching investigation of Apple App Store after anti-competition complaints
Well you should tell someone that because:22july2013 said:
That page says "Notarization requires Xcode 10 or later" but iOS apps don't have to be written with Xcode. So this idea won't work. I thought you were talking about the revocation feature that works in iOS, which doesn't require notarization, so for that, I do apologize. But your idea doesn't work because Xcode isn't mandatory for iOS apps. For your idea to work, all developers would have to convert their code to Xcode, and that would probably be anti-competitive and illegal.crowley said:
What?22july2013 said:
That's not an answer because signing those apps provides no security for the reasons I provided. Apple has no information about the app, so there's no reason to sign it. What does Apple have, the NAME of the app? They don't have much more than that. They submission was made to the third party app store, and at no point did you say the third party app store has to submit any data back to Apple to get the notarization. If you explain what information has to be sent to Apple, THEN you would be answering my question.crowley said:I absolutely did answer that, and you replied to my answer. For the avoidance of any doubt, the answer was:For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
The developer sends the app to Apple. Notarization is code review, and Apple has all the information they need about the app. How on earth do you suppose Apple would check for malicious code without having the code? I'll post the link again because you clearly didn't even click it last time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation
I've already said all of this, but you aren't reading properly, even when I repeat myself:
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store.
Honestly dude, put a minute of effort into understanding what notarization is, it'll save both of us a lot of time.
So even if notarisation requires Xcode, that's no worse than it will be from next month. And I haven't heard of anti-competitive challenge to that decision from Apple so far.Starting April 2021, all iOS and iPadOS apps submitted to the App Store must be built with Xcode 12 and the iOS 14 SDK.
Also, other packages used for writing iOS apps still use the Xcode toolchain to build the final app, which is the only real requirement. Apple can't tell if you used Xcode as the IDE, and I doubt they care. So in practice all apps are written with Xcode in the way that counts and would be accepted for notarization under the rules as written.
And that doesn't include the possibility of notarization being optional for install (I doubt it would be, but it's possible).
-
Intel targets M1 weaknesses in 'You're not on a Mac' ad campaign
GeorgeBMac said:crowley said:Why can't Microsoft do it on their own?
Because it has to interface with Apple's hardware.And Microsoft are used to interfacing with other people's hardware. The firmware for M1 is documented by Apple, with support for kernel and system extensions. And a bootable version of Ubuntu has been released for Apple Silicon too, so it's clearly possible without needing Apple holding your hand.
Maybe Apple could help by developing a Boot Camp-like tool to make the process easier, but Microsoft have to show willingness to release Windows for ARM as a retail product first.
False premise, since you don't know they aren't doing so already. Have you stopped beating your wife?GeorgeBMac said:A better question is: Why won't Apple lend them cooperation and assistance?
But even if they aren't, they probably have a lot of other issues to deal with in developer relations for Mac Apps, giving proactive support for a alternative OS may well not be their top priority, especially if the developer of that OS is not showing much interest themselves.
-
Intel targets M1 weaknesses in 'You're not on a Mac' ad campaign
It's a license issue because Microsoft are not selling licenses for Windows for ARM! They already have the bulk of the product, and they're shipping it embedded on Surface Go machines. The amount of work to get Windows for ARM working for Apple Silicon and available as a download and purchase is likely to be trivial for Microsoft but they aren't doing it. And you're blaming Apple for some baffling reason.GeorgeBMac said:Rayz2016 said:
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.GeorgeBMac said:danox said:GeorgeBMac said:Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to:
1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.Again, it's not a license issue. Does Facebook need a license to run on an ARM processor? Does any software?And Apple simply walking away from a valued business partner with their little taunt was childish, unprofessional and showed poor business skill.And, it doesn't matter what percent of users actually use it. Having the ability to run the most common OS, is an insurance policy in case they need to run something that will only run on that platform.I would say: Grow up Craig!
-
Qualcomm opposed to Nvidia's $40B takeover of Arm
It most certainly is not. ARM actively designs and develops its own technology. It's not a manufacturer or retailer, but neither of those are necessary to not be a troll.danox said:
Arm is on it’s way to being a Troll company....larryjw said:Why can't ARM just exist as a stand-alone company? I don't get the "ownership" issue. In a significant way, it's just a standards organization, like the RFCs defined the protocols for the Internet, or the standards for relational databases, or Java, or CSS.
