command_f

wonkothesane said:

StrangeDays said:

Soli said:

And people wonder why Apple works so hard to protect your our data with great components like the T-series chips. If a WHH has made this then chances are independent, gov't, or corporate BHH have considered and created something similar already.

But but but Apple is just being greedy and trying to rip off consumers with cables that cost $3 more than licensed third parties!

I don’t understand your point. How is the price of Apple’s cables related to the hack this guy created? Are you saying that the two h Apple developed is safer than the cheaper third party cables? Or that as long as it’s MFI it’s safe? This I could agree to. 

I think the "But but but" was intended to indicate sarcasm.

This sort of monitoring has no place after Beta testing: leaving it in production code is an obvious breach of trust. I expect it also breaches Apple's App Store rules; if it doesn't, I'm sure it soon will. It is simply unacceptable to covertly collect such data and reckless to send it to who knows what server controlled by goodness knows who and to send it in clear (unencrypted). It's not even clear that the tool can't collect data that would otherwise be on-device only. The only excuse can be rank amateurism in the companies responsible. Whatever happened to respect and responsibility?

As to the walled gardens comment that "you can’t monitor app activity, the data they send and receive, spyware, etc", I presume the writer didn't read the article. It clearly says "...study, which employed man-in-the-middle software to monitor data". For the avoidance of doubt, "man-in-the-middle" means inserting an entity into the communication path to monitor or otherwise interact with the data.

Apple's walled garden cannot be perfect (of course) but it has two big things going for it:
* It is continually improving as Apple blocks attempts at exploitation - individual exploits won't happen again. This makes future malpractice that bit harder.
* Its sole-provider status gives Apple a very big stick with which to beat transgressors. This in turn gives a big deterrent effect that reduces the number of misbehaving apps being created.

I don't see that sort of benefit for the apps running on Apple's biggest competitor.

I played with Alexa the other day on a friend's Sonos: I was impressed and amused. I have never been impressed by Siri. The actual speech parsing is good but the reaction to so many enquiries is just to display a web page on the display; this defeats the object in many cases. A rethink is overdue if Apple intends to compete in this area.

I'm not sure that the kitchen analogy is going to help Apple too much but let's not lose sight of the big picture:

* Batteries wear out. However you approach it, that's what happens. Disadvantaged batteries (eg cold) lose their effective charge very quickly: photographers and others have known that for years and it's chemistry, not commercial interest.
* "It is argued by the defendants they were made to install software updates that included elements to fix the battery problems ... which had the aim of preventing the battery from running completely flat and from randomly shutting down." Or to rephrase that, to make the phone work in situations where it otherwise wouldn't (including because it's old and marginal on being worn out). You can't give some people something helpful - I despair.

tjwolf said:

Can someone explain to me why any kind of 8k display is needed for AR?  [VR I could possibly understand - maybe].

I guess it depends what you're aiming to do in AR. If you plan to replace a significant part of the 'real' view with CGI then you'd want good resolution over a wide FoV (for example, to strip the front wall off of a building and show its internal layout or cover it with the facade of a planned replacement building). If you're just labelling stuff then I tend to agree that it seems to be overkill.

As a glasses wearer, I could get quite excited about integrating all manner of information into my sightline so long as the device was little bigger or heavier than existing 'dumb' spectacles. I think the size/weight bit is a few years away yet (sadly) but who knows what Apple's huge R&D capability might achieve. Also a better fit to Apple's core competencies than a car.