OutdoorAppDeveloper

Apple could do the event at WWDC. Perhaps the company could add a vaccination passport to Apple Wallet so that everyone in the auditorium could prove they are vaccinated. California will begin vaccinating everyone in the state in April so there is plenty of time for everyone invited to get their shots.

The main purpose of the app review process is to protect Apple's business from app developers and users of apps. Apple has automation that carefully checks that its API is being used correctly by an app developer and thereby greatly restricts what a user is allowed to do. The app review process as designed cannot determine if an app or a company is fake. If I made a new developer account and claimed to be Acme Hole Company, Apple would never contact the real Acme Hole Company to find out whether the app really belonged to them or not. Instead Apple waits for users to report apps as malicious and then takes action if there are enough complaints. Of course by then the fake app developer has already made their money and just sets up a new fake developer account and app. Always keep in mind that most of Apple's security is for Apple not for you.

Apple's problem is that since they curate apps, they have taken on the responsibility for the apps in the App Store. They would have been protected if they had allowed any app on the App Store since no user would trust them. Instead they have tried to build trust by saying that the App Store is safe because apps are reviewed. Users have no understanding that "safe" only applies to Apple's technology and not their own information.

If Apple wants to fix this problem it should do two things:
1. Identify its developers in some secure way that prevents developers from pretending to be someone they are not. Collect biometrics (voice, facial features, retina scans, etc.) of developers before allowing them to publish anything.
2. Trust developers who have a long track record of releasing safe apps and dealing with customers honestly. Use that trust to grant them additional API access to sensitive features (like being able to request access to a user's personal information).

Like everything Intel does lately, this marketing campaign is a disaster. Let's talk about the marketing campaign that Intel should have run:
Gaming PCs and laptops. They are everything a Mac is not: They have powerful GPUs, many times faster than anything you will find in Macs. They have RGB lighting which is cool and fun and very different from anything you will see in an Apple product. You can build them yourself with any components you choose. You can swap out components later should you feel the need to upgrade. You can run any software you want on them. You have the right to repair them yourself or at any convenient, affordable, nearby repair shop. There are a wide array of choices of prebuilt systems. Pc laptops run from very thin and light to luggable tanks with desktop performance. You can earn money by mining crypto currency when your systems are idle (which is still difficult to do on a Mac).
Of course none of this explains why you should use an Intel CPU rather than an AMD or an ARM.

Dear Intel, have you seen the back side of a PC lately? It's not a pretty sight.

Absolutely true: No one really games on a Mac. However the reason has far more to do with Apple's software than its hardware and almost nothing to do with Intel.
Here is the truth: Apple released a powerful new laptop based on its own Apple Silicon chips instead of Intel and just as many Apple users game on it than they did on previous laptops built using Intel: Almost none.
The reason gamers play on Windows laptops has everything to do with GPUs made by NVIDIA and AMD as well as open standards that allow anyone to write games for them and anyone to buy them from any company they want like Steam or Epic.
If Apple really wanted to stick it to Intel, they could license their own Apple Silicon chips to other companies for use in Windows laptops and gaming PCs.