Last Active
  • RCS is still half-baked, and Apple has no reason to adopt it

    "[RCS] is too little, too late unless Google makes significant changes and improvements"

    Andrew, I appreciate the article, but i'm curious about this statement. What significant changes to RCS should Google make? You don't bother to elaborate on any of that in the article. You mentioned that RCS doesn't support e2ee out of the box, but Google has already added it for one-on-one messages while groups are still in the clear. Is there anything else?
  • New iOS 16 Developer Mode may be preview of third-party app store toggle

    rob53 said:
    I want, no DEMAND, that this Developer Mode setting include a way for the iPhone operator/owner to lock out the ability for it to be changed by anyone except the iPhone user as defined in iCloud settings. Further, I want to make sure the iCloud settings require either a password, passkey or something no person other than the logged in user has access to. I CHOOSE to only use the Apple App Store and since it's my device with my personal information on it, I have a right to protect that information, especially from non-governmental people, like developers. I CHOOSE what goes on my OS devices, not developers or governments. A "bad actor" has several ways to get past any iOS setting but it's more difficult when there aren't settings that would easily allow the beginning of opening an iOS device. This mode is a semi-locked door when it currently is a wall with no way to get through. 
    I don't quite understand this rant. The setting is part of the phone OS and thus will be protected by your passcode/biometrics? A bad actor would be required to have physical access to your unlocked phone, then enable this setting, reboot, etc. It's not like anyone can just do it remotely. So nothing about this setting violates any of your freedoms to choose what software you put on your phone or from where it comes, etc.

    Sure, let's suggest the user be required to re-authenticate their AppleID as well if it will make you sleep better at night. But that is completely aside from any rant about limiting your choice. This setting actually gives everyone more choice.

    I do understand and agree with posts wanting tight controls around this setting for kids' phones. I'm sure that is part of the final solution if not already there.
  • Apple fails bid to shut down refiled Cydia antitrust lawsuit

    sflocal said:
    Nonsense.  People like you, wannabe developers, will literally make stuff up to further your agenda.  Whiners like you are not Apple's customers.  WE are Apple's customers, not developers, not you.  

    You want the Wild West, go to Android and be done with it.
    Wow, is it really necessary to attack people and call them names like wannabe and whiner?
    avon b7williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingambyronl9secondkox2boboliciousgrandact73
  • Senate Judiciary advances bill that would force Apple to allow iOS side-loading

    They won’t have to follow any rules, other than those that are part of the operating system (iOS). Like Apps not being allowed to access storage outside their sandbox or trying to access iMessage.

    However, a lot of things Apple checks for have nothing to do with APIs or iOS restrictions. For example, does your App contain pornography? Does it pass your personal details to other 3rd parties to monetize your data? Does it allow you to enter a credit card number for payments and then use that number later to commit fraud?

    Even if an App is playing by the rules of the APIs and iOS it can still do a lot of other shady stuff 

    So, just because a sideloaded app would have pornographic content, it's shady? Please.  BTW, sideloaded apps would still be sandboxed, and there will be no way to get around that since it's enforced at the OS.

    I agree that sideloading is dangerous, not because of the inherent risk of having non-verified code, which is manageable on the same way as on iOS. The risk here, is others have said, is that companies like Facebook can delete their App Store versions of apps, and therefore have none of the privacy enhancing features that apple has spent the last decade fighting for. No nutrition labels, no limits on tracking.

    The bill is about giving everyone choice - for app makers to choose how their apps are distributed, and for device owners to have full control over what software they can install on their personally owned property, and from where they get that software. And just like Facebook could choose to remove their app from the App Store, you could then choose not to install their hypothetical sideloadable replacement. If you choose to stick with the App Store, great. But a device's owner should be the only and ultimate gatekeeper over what apps are installed - not Apple.
  • Texas homes heat up as power companies alter smart thermostats

    What a ridiculous, misinformed, clickbait article. Nobody's thermostats are being tampered with. They opted into a program that allows this, and in exchange they receive financial perks on their power bill (including the power company providing the smart thermostats to them for free). This article needs a major overhaul, or to be retracted completely.

    I have been reading AI for over 20 years, but if you keep churning out trash like this, you will quickly fall off of my bookmarks. There are plenty of other reputable sites covering Apple that post the same news as you do, just as timely. Clearly they are more informed about the topics they are reporting.

    Engadget similarly posted a trash story about smart thermostats a few years back (here), and I promptly removed them from my news feed and have not been back.