darkvader
About
- Banned
- Username
- darkvader
- Joined
- Visits
- 110
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,581
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 1,146
Reactions
-
'Apple Car' will disrupt auto industry, says Morgan Stanley
They're nuts.Sure, a few people are going to be fine not owning a car. Most of those people already don't own a car today. Uber is a thing, taxis are a thing, buses are a thing, you can have somebody else drive you around if you want. And yes, autonomous taxis will be a thing.But Americans at least are NOT going to give up on the concept of personal car ownership. If you own the car, it's there when you need it, you have the freedom to make last minute plan changes. And (this is really important) you can leave your stuff in it. You don't have to worry about whether you left something in the taxi. If you're going somewhere that you need more stuff than you want to carry into where you're going, you can leave the rest in the car and get it later if you need it.The concept that Americans are going to give up owning cars is as crazy as the concept that most Americans would give up on owning homes.
-
New iOS 15.2 beta includes Messages feature that detects nudity sent to kids
elijahg said:
Surely that's a bit of a catch-22: Since it has to be enabled by parents but won't notify parents due to potential repercussions, I'd wager the kind of parents that would dish out those repercussions would never turn the feature on anyway?Although not enabled by default, parents or guardians can switch on the Messages feature for child accounts on a Family Sharing plan. The feature will detect nudity in Messages, blur the image, and warn the child.
Unlike the previously planned version of the feature, parents will not be notified if the system detects a message contains nudity. Apple says this is because of concerns that a parental notification could present a risk for a child, including the threat of physical violence or abuse.
This does still have the potential to be contentious, since it's still scanning (on device) the photos being sent. That means much like before the tech for further erosion of privacy is already implemented, potentially allowing a country to force Apple to scan for particular pictures as they see fit. Yes it's enabled for child accounts only, but it wouldn't be much trouble to enable scanning for anyone, and not much more of a stretch to force them to send a surreptitious notification to a government minion.
What happens if Jingping tells Apple it has to scan for any photos of Winnie the Pooh? Will Apple still say no under threat of being removed from China? This question that was never really answered before still exists - and Apple's only response is "we won't bend to government demands", with no answer to "even if it's China?".If this contains no code capable of reporting the results of the image analysis to any third party, then it's fine.Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if that dangerous code is there, and given Apple's previous intent of putting it there, Apple can't be trusted at this point. Apple needs to have a third-party code audit to confirm that the dangerous code is indeed gone. -
Facebook attempts to bypass Apple's App Store fee with new Subscriptions payment link
Lexicon1 said:I’m still amazed by the number of tech websites who don’t seem to have either read fully or grasped the ruling of the judge in the Epic vs Apple trial. The removal of the anti-steering rules in the App Store guidelines does NOT mean that Apple won’t get its 30 % commission. In fact the judge ruled that Apple is entitled to compensation for its intellectual property. Anything else would be contrary to intellectual property law. The only difference would be that payment would be done to the third party fully, and then Apple would have to get its 30 % from them after the fact. Whereas today it’s the other way around, which is much easier for Apple as they are the payment processor and only need to pay out the 30 % to the developers. How this will be done in practice, we’ll see. But Apple has anyhow appealed so we’ll see what happens.Sure, Jan. The courts are going to let Apple go after developers for not paying 30% to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for them. That'll happen. Right."Intellectual property" doesn't figure into it AT ALL. It's basic contract law, you can't have a valid contract without consideration from both sides. The developer pays a hundred bucks a year, then gets access to get into the app store. The developer uses Apple to process payments, Apple gets (an extortionate, but whatever) 30% cut. The developer uses an outside payment system, Apple does no work, and Apple is entitled to and gets exactly nothing. -
Steve Wozniak 'can't tell the difference' between iPhone 12 and iPhone 13
What is wrong with you people?This is Woz, the guy who created Apple. The Steve who REALLY created apple, not the attention whore Steve who liked taking credit for what Woz did.And he's absolutely right. The iPhone 13 is effectively no different than the 12, which is no different than the 11. Phones are a mature technology, and pretending that a new model every year is somehow going to be an amazing upgrade is idiotic at this point."But battery life is better!" - Guess what? That's not innovation, Apple could have done that all along, all it takes is making the phone thicker so a bigger battery fits inside. We could have iPhones that work for a week without charging if Apple really gave up on the idiotic thin fetish.
-
Apple asks court to stay part of the Epic Games lawsuit injunction
How about NO.The judge got it wrong, of course. Apple IS a monopoly, and the app monopoly on iDevices needs to be ended.But this injunction absolutely needs to stand. Apple's position is unreasonable.
