command_f

The whole 'USB-C connector for charging on everything' makes a lot of sense. I can travel with one charger and one cable to charge iPhone, iPad, earPods, MBP, camera (Canon), power bank, Kindle etc.

Change always comes with pain and that's what we're currently (!) seeing.

dewme said:

I wish there was a way to turn off or disable all the Apple-generated folders that are now shoved in our faces with the latest generation of Photos on all devices. 

Agreed. Finding the library or a particular album can take some time and then you have to convince Photos to let you see the photos full screen (ie one at a time).

Call me a Luddite but I've taken to using the Files app for some photos. I generally use a 'proper' camera but load selected batches of photos onto my iPhone/iPad for sharing. Putting these into folders in Files named after the various events makes them easy to find and easy to flick through when sharing. In Photos, it's too easy for me, or the person holding my phone to look at the photos, to accidentally invoke editing or the Info panel.

The bonus is that those photos don't appear in the main photos list in Photos, leaving that as an easy reference for all those casual and unrelated photos I take on the phone.

jdw said:
…"Apple Car"… would have made the company "too diverse."  I think it would have harmed Apple in the end, so good riddance.  No doubt they'll glean money off all the patents they filed in the years to come.  That's enough.

I agree that a car would likely have heavily diluted management focus because there are few synergies with core business once you start looking at all the physical systems.

Probably more seriously, the car market is very difficult. There are many competitors and low margins: Apple could conceivably compete with these but the market is also heavily regulated (it’s the opposite of a green field) and uncertain. The market for EVs (and it’s far too late to enter the internal combustion market) is subject to volatile government regulation (which year do other fuels get banned from sales = it just keeps changing), user doubt (range anxiety) and dumping from China (at least in the UK, the new government still thinks that’s a good thing). However good your product, these things will cause big variations in the sale of very expensive products. 

lotones said:

inkling said:

Putting a research lab in China makes no sense. China has a well-deserved reputation for intellectual property theft. That's bad enough with the items are already in production. It's far worse to have ideas stolen when they're still under development. China could be releasing Apple-designed products before Apple itself does so.

Crazy, crazy, crazy.

I agree. All it takes is for the Chinese government to declare everything researched in that lab belongs to them. They just arrested 4 Taiwanese executives for being Taiwanese in China. How many more literal red flags do you need?

Or for the Chinese government to quietly strong-arm individual employees to pass over IP or lose their liberty, home or who knows what. That would be cheaper and easier than the hacking campaigns already being waged against Western companies. In this case, just because you're paranoid definitely does not mean that they're not out to get you.

dewme said:
Today, a lot of software development organizations follow a continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD or simply CD) model which, in theory, means that every build or every daily build is in a releasable state. In other words, if they had to ship the daily build, it would be good to go and fully tested. That's the goal, but I'm not sure Apple or very many software development organizations hit that goal perfectly. Getting closer to the goal still represents a significant improvement.

It can also have the opposite effect if new requirements/features continue to be drip-fed into the proposed release. That means there is a continuous supply of new, hence immature and buggy, components.