tomahawk

Between 2015 and 2020 -- half a decade -- Microsoft contentedly sat on Windows 10. In 2011 it delivered Windows 11.

That's a lot like saying Apple "contentedly sat" on Mac OS X from March 2001 to November 2020 because they didn't change the major version number. I may not be a big MS fan, but it isn't like they weren't providing significant OS updates in a roughly similar cadence to macOS. And let's also not forget that Apple is getting really good at announcing new "major" OS versions with features that won't actually be ready until multiple updates later.

I think Mr. Hale needs to go back at look at Apple's history, especially under Jobs. He firmly believed if you don't cannibalize your own products, someone else will. He knew the iPod Mini, nano, and Suffle would cannibalize sales of their higher end iPod.  He knew the iPhone would cannibalize the sales of the iPod.  He also knew, if Apple didn't make those products, eventually someone else would come up with something that would also take away those sales.

The moment Apple feels there is a market for a ring, and that they can provide a quality product in that market, they'll release one.

Also, note that as this article mentions, third-party Mac developers have to add an extended attribute to their app download distributions (com.apple.quarantine) if the apps are distributed outside the Mac App Store. Although most developers will honor this requirement, it's still possible that some won't - leaving some downloads as a security risk which can bypass some of Apple's app security in some cases.

I feel like this isn't as clear as it should be. It isn't up to the third-party developers to add an extended attribute to their app download distributions. It is up the third-party applications that offer download or unarchiving capabilities to ensure the attribute is properly applied, or remains applied, when downloading and unarchiving.  The security provided by Gatekeeper would be 100% useless if all developers were required to do something for it to work. Bad actors would simply not add the attribute at all.

Apple removing the bypass may cause more annoyance for some Mac users, since doing so now requires a trip to System Settings on every app first run for non-Mac App Store apps. There's not much users can do about this other than disabling SIP, which again, Apple doesn't recommend.

It would only be accurate if the device is set to only allow applications from the App Store.  If it is set for App Store & Known Developers, it will only appear for applications that haven't gone through the appropriate processes to notarize their applications.

robin huber said:

Ditto, but for me Ace became the place. They even give an additional 1% cash back when using ApplePay. When I asked an HD clerk when they were going to accept AP, she gave me a dirty look and said “Never!.” That was it for me. Only shop there for things I can’t get at Ace. 

No offense, but a clerk at a store knows diddly about the payment services or plans determined by corporate. You may have gotten a short response because I'm certain the employees are just as annoyed at their employer refusing to accept a modern form of payment as the customers are and they likely get asked about it constantly.

3,000 square feet for parking? I feel like you're missing at least one digit.  You could fit 33 RAV4s in 3,000 square feet if you parked them bumper to bumper.