anonymouse

About

Username
anonymouse
Joined
Visits
63
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,035
Badges
2
Posts
7,123

Reactions

1.6KLike98Dislike87Informative

  • Trump Mobile's made-in-US iPhone 17 competitor is really made in China

    anonymouseanonymouse
    So, let me get this straight, Trump is slapping special tariffs on iPhones while the Trump Organized Crime Family is bringing a phone to market?
    williamlondonravnorodomdebonbonsinophiliaToroidalBart Yronnedge57watto_cobra

  • Craig Federighi says macOS would ruin what makes the iPad special

    anonymouseanonymouse
    dpkroh said:
    kiltedgreen said:
    mfryd said:
    However, this is not a reason to prohibit running Mac OSX on an iPad.   Users should have a choice as to which OS they run.

    I have nothing against the iPad OS.   It's a great solution for many (but not all) users.   Why not allow users to choose which OS they are running?    

    The iPad OS can be the default, but please allow power users to install OSX.  iPad apps already work inside of Mac OSX, so no functionality is lost.  

    An iPad with an M4 processor, 16GB RAM, 2TB SSD, Thunderbolt 3, and a Magic Keyboard Folio (Keyboard and trackpad) would make a damn fine portable Mac.
    Please, just buy a MacBook if you want a “damn fine portable Mac”, it’s already here. I for one do not want my iPad running macOS - I’ll leave that to my Mac thanks.
    I have both and use both.  But I would prefer to have one device that does both. Ideally a choice of which OS to boot, but also on more capable iPads, have both OS running simultaneously.  Plenty of use cases for having MacOS running on the left on the screen and iPadOS running on the right for example.

    I wonder how many of the people here saying "just get a Mac", use BOTH devices REGULARLY.  Having to carry around TWO devices, when I could carry just one for both types of uses,  would be bar more useful.

    As to the comment about Microsoft trying the tablet thing, MS has never had a decent tablet style OS, so of course it didn't work when they tried it.
    Frankly, the idea of running both simultaneously is simply bonkers. Face it, your use case scenario is so niche that it's simply not worth the development costs for Apple to cater to it. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of customers, and potential customers, their strategy is imminently sensible.
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra

  • Craig Federighi says macOS would ruin what makes the iPad special

    anonymouseanonymouse
    glh said:
    The developers of Scrivener worked for a long time (years) porting Scrivener to iPad
    If it took them years, it's because they just said they were working on it but weren't, not that it was that "laborious" to do.
    watto_cobra

  • Craig Federighi says macOS would ruin what makes the iPad special

    anonymouseanonymouse
    kiltedgreen said:
    mfryd said:
    However, this is not a reason to prohibit running Mac OSX on an iPad.   Users should have a choice as to which OS they run.

    I have nothing against the iPad OS.   It's a great solution for many (but not all) users.   Why not allow users to choose which OS they are running?    

    The iPad OS can be the default, but please allow power users to install OSX.  iPad apps already work inside of Mac OSX, so no functionality is lost.  

    An iPad with an M4 processor, 16GB RAM, 2TB SSD, Thunderbolt 3, and a Magic Keyboard Folio (Keyboard and trackpad) would make a damn fine portable Mac.
    Please, just buy a MacBook if you want a “damn fine portable Mac”, it’s already here. I for one do not want my iPad running macOS - I’ll leave that to my Mac thanks.
    Well, yeah, and a MacBook Air 13" with the "same config" costs $1799, while the equivalent iPad Pro 13" w/M4 + Magic Keyboard would be $2648. Does that even make sense if you want a "damn fine portable Mac"?
    Chaos215bar4StrangeDayswilliamlondondewmemuthuk_vanalingamMystakillToroidalAlex1Nwatto_cobra

  • Apple & Google profit as Chinese VPNs collect your private data

    anonymouseanonymouse
    tht said:
    hmlongco said:
    If something ever needed to be Sherlocked...

    And I've said it before and I'll say it again, if I were the US government and wanted to track sketchy people, I'd back a "private" VPN service that looks to be above broad...
    You should have just directly said it. It's not hypothetical. There are VPN services that are working for the FBI, CIA, whatever government agency. Facebook even had their own VPN service to surreptitiously track users. They shut down Onavo because of controversy, but that doesn't mean they don't have some other VPN service under a different front company or handshake agreement; or, already have agreements with multiple VPN companies for data.

    Not sure how far anyone should trust a VPN service. From a well-known company who has ethical principles, probably can trust them. At least up until a change in management.
    Don't trust them at all. Regardless of any marketing talk about security and privacy, and regardless of how much you are paying them, assume they are selling your data out the back door. That's the whole point of these consumer VPNs, to capture your internet history and sell it, not to make you "safe" or "secure".
    tht