Slashdot Mirror

Sign into https://developer.apple.com/do..., and click here

Duh, they aren't.

https://developer.apple.com/xc...

Thanks for not paying attention

That's why they've asked IBM to help.

http://www.apple.com/business/...

And they've helped a lot.

http://www.ibm.com/mobilefirst...

Check section 3.1 of the Apple app store review guidelines:

Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected

So maybe you could publish an app that transfers your data from iOS to Android, you just can't use the word "Android".

What's the reason why Apple would simply ban apps that mention Android in the title? What's the point? Anyone have a good answer for that?

FIrst, is there any evidence that they would, or have; or is it just Apple Hate?

Does the iWatch have a microphone too?

http://www.apple.com/watch/

I don't know if it does. Who makes it? We'll check their website.

Who cares of the device works or not, can you do work on it? Can you edit a Powerpoint presentation and forward it on to your boss's laptop for him to use at the next sales meeting?

Yes, you _can_ edit a Powerpoint presentation on your iPhone/iPad. All of the Microsoft Office apps are available for iOS for free:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/de...

I'm IT in the local school district, which has plentiful amount of mac. I looked up the current power cable for macbook airs on a whim; I was morbidly curious about how much apple charges for one.

I'm not sure why Apple put a rating system into their own site's products. Especially when it ends up like this.

Pages of people with appleIDs, and pages of their handwritten, one-star reviews.

OFFS! http://www.apple.com/iphone/sw... Heaven forbid you go look at an Apple web page and find out for yourself.

Check section 3.1 of the Apple app store review guidelines:

Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected

So maybe you could publish an app that transfers your data from iOS to Android, you just can't use the word "Android".

What's the reason why Apple would simply ban apps that mention Android in the title? What's the point? Anyone have a good answer for that?

If there isn't a business need for it, it goes out to investors. [...] That doesn't happen with Apple.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Apple has been paying out quarterly dividends since 2012 and began a $10 billion share repurchase program at the same time that they restarted paying dividends. They later bumped up the repurchase program to $60 billion (making it the largest in recorded history), then bumped it up further to $90 billion, and then increased it even further to $140 billion. With both the dividends and repurchases, Apple will have directly returned $200 billion to investors in the five years from 2012 to 2017. And investors clearly recognize and appreciate that fact, since Apple's P/E ratio is half that of Google's and about a tenth that of Amazon's, meaning that investors expect to spend about twice as much with Google and 10x as much with Amazon before they get back a $1 return on their investment.

Apple is currently in the process of returning more money to investors than any other company in recorded history, so your statement that they aren't paying out is patently false. Despite that, they money is still piling up in their accounts, just because they're making so much. If only we all had that problem!

If there isn't a business need for it, it goes out to investors. [...] That doesn't happen with Apple.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Apple has been paying out quarterly dividends since 2012 and began a $10 billion share repurchase program at the same time that they restarted paying dividends. They later bumped up the repurchase program to $60 billion (making it the largest in recorded history), then bumped it up further to $90 billion, and then increased it even further to $140 billion. With both the dividends and repurchases, Apple will have directly returned $200 billion to investors in the five years from 2012 to 2017. And investors clearly recognize and appreciate that fact, since Apple's P/E ratio is half that of Google's and about a tenth that of Amazon's, meaning that investors expect to spend about twice as much with Google and 10x as much with Amazon before they get back a $1 return on their investment.

Apple is currently in the process of returning more money to investors than any other company in recorded history, so your statement that they aren't paying out is patently false. Despite that, they money is still piling up in their accounts, just because they're making so much. If only we all had that problem!

If there isn't a business need for it, it goes out to investors. [...] That doesn't happen with Apple.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Apple has been paying out quarterly dividends since 2012 and began a $10 billion share repurchase program at the same time that they restarted paying dividends. They later bumped up the repurchase program to $60 billion (making it the largest in recorded history), then bumped it up further to $90 billion, and then increased it even further to $140 billion. With both the dividends and repurchases, Apple will have directly returned $200 billion to investors in the five years from 2012 to 2017. And investors clearly recognize and appreciate that fact, since Apple's P/E ratio is half that of Google's and about a tenth that of Amazon's, meaning that investors expect to spend about twice as much with Google and 10x as much with Amazon before they get back a $1 return on their investment.

Apple is currently in the process of returning more money to investors than any other company in recorded history, so your statement that they aren't paying out is patently false. Despite that, they money is still piling up in their accounts, just because they're making so much. If only we all had that problem!

If there isn't a business need for it, it goes out to investors. [...] That doesn't happen with Apple.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Apple has been paying out quarterly dividends since 2012 and began a $10 billion share repurchase program at the same time that they restarted paying dividends. They later bumped up the repurchase program to $60 billion (making it the largest in recorded history), then bumped it up further to $90 billion, and then increased it even further to $140 billion. With both the dividends and repurchases, Apple will have directly returned $200 billion to investors in the five years from 2012 to 2017. And investors clearly recognize and appreciate that fact, since Apple's P/E ratio is half that of Google's and about a tenth that of Amazon's, meaning that investors expect to spend about twice as much with Google and 10x as much with Amazon before they get back a $1 return on their investment.

Apple is currently in the process of returning more money to investors than any other company in recorded history, so your statement that they aren't paying out is patently false. Despite that, they money is still piling up in their accounts, just because they're making so much. If only we all had that problem!

If there isn't a business need for it, it goes out to investors. [...] That doesn't happen with Apple.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Apple has been paying out quarterly dividends since 2012 and began a $10 billion share repurchase program at the same time that they restarted paying dividends. They later bumped up the repurchase program to $60 billion (making it the largest in recorded history), then bumped it up further to $90 billion, and then increased it even further to $140 billion. With both the dividends and repurchases, Apple will have directly returned $200 billion to investors in the five years from 2012 to 2017. And investors clearly recognize and appreciate that fact, since Apple's P/E ratio is half that of Google's and about a tenth that of Amazon's, meaning that investors expect to spend about twice as much with Google and 10x as much with Amazon before they get back a $1 return on their investment.

Apple is currently in the process of returning more money to investors than any other company in recorded history, so your statement that they aren't paying out is patently false. Despite that, they money is still piling up in their accounts, just because they're making so much. If only we all had that problem!

Why can't they give me better battery life, LG G4 has a 3000mah battery, iPhone 6 has 1810mah, then how the hell does it manage to last longer than the G4.

Two reasons:

1. Apple is the hands-down master in both battery technology AND power-management techniques. For example, just LOOK at the hoops they jump through on OS X to eke every erg out of their batteries (this article is now two OS-generations old, so the techniques described therein have gotten even better). And for another example, look at the new iPad Pro. It even changes the screen and digitizer refresh rates (separately) for better battery life and improved performance when needed.

2. They make the WHOLE widget; which REALLY makes a difference when it comes to power-budgeting and power-saving techniques, and synergy between software and hardware. Berate Apple all you like; but you have just demonstrated EXACTLY why that makes a difference...

I'm pretty sure that most users will not get the patch for a very long time, if ever, due to carriers not caring one bit about updating in a timely manner.

This. It seems that the US carriers rarely send out OS updates for the many security updates. This needs to change.

That change can be had TODAY.

Yeah, if you have hardware access to a device you own it. Nothing new to see.

That's actually not true on iOS where the unlock code actually forms part of the master key from which filesystem keys are derived. So hardware access without the unlock code nets you nothing. Of course, with a 4-digit code it's only a few days to try all 10000 of them, but users can a complex passcode with sufficient entropy to make brute force impractical.

Check to see whether it's disabled already, open a command prompt and run:

defaults read com.apple.NetworkBrowser | grep DisableAirDrop

If it returns DisableAirDrop = 1, then you should be fine. If it comes up blank, or if it shows DisableAirDrop = 0, then AirDrop is not disabled by default. In this case, run:

defaults write com.apple.NetworkBrowser DisableAirDrop -bool YES

You'll need to log out and log back in for the change to take effect.

references: this Apple Forums thread

It's far too late to try and introduce a new console to the market now, just look at the ouya.

Xbox, playstation, nintendo and PC have the market majority when it comes to games. Nobody buys an apple for gaming so what exactly do they plan on running on it? Mobile ports no doubt which, as history has shown, don't translate well when moved from a small touch screen to a large screen and controller.

I hope you put some salt on those words, so they are more tasty when you have to eat them in a very short while.

Developers are already lined-up to start trying-out the stuff they are already developing for the AppleTV.

I'll be the servers that are hosting developer.apple.com are white-hot from all the downloads of the TVOS SDK.

In fact, I would be willing to be big money that some of the people who are AppleTV hating on this very site are busily studying TVOS right now.

There will be standard game controllers for the Apple TV. I suppose those would do OK, once games support them. http://www.apple.com/tv/games-...

Still, I think Apple is aiming more for the "casual" gaming crowd.

I took a short cruise through the AppleTV SDK the other day, and I am almost sure one of the APIs is geared toward handling dedicated Game Controllers.

Someone has outdated information, and it's not me. The max iOS app size is now 4GB. However, Apple TV doesn't use iOS. It uses tvOS, and:

Along with the lack of local storage, the maximum size of an Apple TV app is limited to 200MB.

From the tvOS docs.

The AppleTV can use third-party Bluetooth 4/LE controllers (See this link). I'm sure plenty of folks will come out with all kinds of controllers for it. The bundled one seems okay for a lot of casual gaming, buy buying more controllers isn't going to break the bank on a $150 console with $1-5 games.

AppleTV also has an interesting storage system to deal with the 32GB problem. The "core download" for any game has to be less than 200MB, with amounts above that loaded in 64-512MB chunks that are available on-demand over a network. The AppleTV will dynamically manage the on-demand area. So your old, less-used games will shrink if you never play them, then re-download when you use them again. (See this link for more.)

There will be standard game controllers for the Apple TV. I suppose those would do OK, once games support them. http://www.apple.com/tv/games-...

Still, I think Apple is aiming more for the "casual" gaming crowd.

Apple needs to bring more to the party. Like a la carte cable channels. That would be "One More Thing..." that would make me drop the cash.

You mean like this, which they have had working for a bit, or this which they have been working on for most of this year?

You may have heard that Apple had a little get together today.

This is news to me! Seriously, anyone who wants to criticize Apple should at least go to the product site for details. I'm not an Apple fan, since I don't like the low fixability quotient of Apple's mobile products. But if you're buying into the iCosystem this might not be a bad idea. You trade in your old iPhone, instead of just letting it gather dust in your closet or worse dirt in a landfill. Let's just hope that Apple really recycles the old phones and not just reexport them to the Third World.

What private API's?

Those that allow integration with the operating system to make it a first-class citizen. There are many camera applications superior to Apple's one but you can't quickly access them because this is allowed only for Apple applications.

What makes you think the Live Photo is not a type of burst photo usable via standard Photos SDK?

Nothing, I never said it isn't, you incorrectly inferred that.

Any app will be able to work with Live Photos - they mentioned Facebook was already adding support.

Right and the existing applications that did cinemagraphs couldn't integrate with the OS at the same level. Not only can you not change the default camera application but you cannot add callbacks to the existing one to use 3rd party functionality. So instead you have to wait until they take the functionality of these 3rd party applications, integrate it into their own offerings and make those other ones redundant. You're stuck with the limitations of Apple's default applications, same as with email, any kind of OS-provided "email" option defaults to their email client and you can't change that even if you don't use it. Same goes for web browsers.

What private API's? What makes you think the Live Photo is not a type of burst photo usable via standard Photos SDK?

Any app will be able to work with Live Photos - they mentioned Facebook was already adding support.

There is no persistent local storage for apps on Apple TV. This means that every app developed for the new Apple TV must be able to store data in iCloud and retrieve it in a way that provides a great customer experience.

Along with the lack of local storage, the maximum size of an Apple TV app is limited to 200MB. Anything beyond this size needs to be packaged and loaded using on-demand resources. Knowing how and when to load new assets while keeping your users engaged is critical to creating a successful app. For information on on-demand resources, see On-Demand Resources Guide.

The question is: Will there be other controllers?

I figured there would be when they announced Guitar Hero, but the dev docs clearly say there can be third party controllers (that work the same way iOS third party controllers do).

Part of their user lock-in strategy.

It's a piss-poor strategy, considering they host a webpage for deregistering your iMessage account.

They're actually fighting in court for the right to keep doing this, instead of not being dicks and fixing it.

Citation needed: that's an extraordinary claim, and one that's utterly failed to make headlines.

Remote File Manager Free does a great job of this, but it's not quite as free as the name suggests. Windows file shares are only supported through an in-app paid upgrade, but of course this is only a few dollars, and it works really well.

You can either stream movies, or download them and save them for watching later.

This isn't great advice.

The Air 2 has 2GB of RAM (in contrast to the Air's 1GB); having multiple tabs open in Safari is much nicer. And when iOS 9 hits over the next few weeks, only the Air 2 (and whatever is announced Wednesday) will support split screen multitasking.

Many? According to Google, the lightest HP laptop is .17 pounds heavier than a Macbook. The lightest Lenovo laptop is 1.72 pounds, 8.5% lighter than the Macbook.

Where are you getting your information? Specs on Apple's web site say the MacBook is 3.48 pounds which is only true if you pick the lightest features.

From the Macbook specs: 2.03 pounds. You know, comparing apples to Apples: the ultralight from one company vs the ultralight from a compeditor.

And 8.5% should be a big deal if I base myself on you previous quote:

By being carried. You might not care of the laptop weighs 2 pounds or 8, but some people do.

8.5% is the same difference as 400%? Again, I must question your sense of proportion.

I'm happy you like your purchase but Apple isn't the only company with competitive quality products these days.

I think they make a great products but it's not the only product and they don't win in all categories no matter how hard to try to convince yourself.

Straw men.

I really wish we could have a unbiased conversation but you're clearly a fan boy trying to justify his purchase of a MacBook.

Clear projection.

Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end.

I know of some that won't.

idiot.

I know you are, but what am I?

Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end.

I know of some that won't.

idiot.

I know you are, but what am I?

Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end.

I know of some that won't.

idiot.

Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end.

I know of some that won't.

idiot.

SMS? This is an apple script exploit on a mac PC. not a mobile device. Nowhere does the article explain that SMS is an attack vector and unless iOS is vulnerable as well,I do not see how it could be.

Not to support the obvious shill-article; but I believe that, since OS X 10.10 (Yosemite), Macs have been able to receive/send SMS and MMS messages that are routed through Apple's iMessage service.

Having said that, I still believe that the amount of disabling of security by the User, and the Granting of Permissions by the User puts this Exploit solidly in the "Yawn" territory.

Any reason why this won't be blocked by OS X Gatekeeper?. The signatures Gatekeeper uses are automatically updated. The clueless fool who could be p0wnd by this exploit doesn't know Gatekeeper is there, running in the background and protecting him.

The actual "exploit" is _bordering_ on the old school "look at all the horrible things you can do if you have root access" exploits as though root access itself is the exploit.

Except for the fact that this does not need root access, did you actually read and understand this or did you just jump to Apple's defence?

So far, so right. It's actually far more complicated than simply typing in your Admin password: https://support.apple.com/en-u...

And the moral to the story: A) never trust the word of a security researcher who wants to sell you something, and B) you don't have to be a complete moron to be a Apple-Hater, but it sure helps.

Note that the default is "Deny" and the only other options is "Open System Preferences" where you have to grant access to the app/script

I can totally see how this could happen without the user noticing.

apple.com and enjoy your life.

FTFY.

Microsoft is basically following what Apple and Google have already done and got little attention from it.

What little data-gathering that Apple has done not only pales in comparison with the massive data-suck that is going on in MS OSes now.

And Apple is very up-front about what they do (and more importantly, don't) collect, what they do with it, and most importantly, How to Turn It OFF. Completely. .

BIG difference!

Microsoft is basically following what Apple and Google have already done and got little attention from it.

What little data-gathering that Apple has done not only pales in comparison with the massive data-suck that is going on in MS OSes now.

And Apple is very up-front about what they do (and more importantly, don't) collect, what they do with it, and most importantly, How to Turn It OFF. Completely. .

BIG difference!

But what's the alternative?

That's easy...

Sorry, but they remain the only platform which does not (and never will) depend on software revenues (and/or the data extracted thereby). In fact, they discovered that the opposite philosophy can be a powerful selling-point.

And before you start whining about "cost", the question becomes "How much value do you place on your Privacy? The very existence of this Article (and the many other related ones on /. and other sites) says to me that, for geeks at least, Privacy is a very important consideration.

Think about it.

But what's the alternative?

That's easy...

Sorry, but they remain the only platform which does not (and never will) depend on software revenues (and/or the data extracted thereby). In fact, they discovered that the opposite philosophy can be a powerful selling-point.

And before you start whining about "cost", the question becomes "How much value do you place on your Privacy? The very existence of this Article (and the many other related ones on /. and other sites) says to me that, for geeks at least, Privacy is a very important consideration.

Think about it.

Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end.

I know of some that won't.

Stallman warned everyone that proprietary software turns on the user in the end.

I know of some that won't.

That's been around for years, it is MAINLY for remote support and what limited functionality it can do with software packages and changing, locking down, and management settings is very minimal. No doubt it works great in a small environment like a classroom or maybe even a small campus where support is the main goal but it is no comparison to what is available in the world for managing Windows machines.

When you are part of a team of 2 that manages (not talking about tier 1 and 2 support when users have problems) 1000 desktops and laptops around the world, let me know which methods you think are better. Try seamlessly moving the location of their network synchronized home directory to another storage/network location for practice

I mentioned that it had been around for years; but I don't agree with one other word of your post.

It is precisely designed to admin huge numbers of Macs, as well as Windows and Linux machines, anywhere they can be reached, including over the internet. It even includes switchable AES encryption for network traffic; so even if a VPN is not available, you can safely admin remote systems. That's a far cry from your assertions.

Also, far from your claims that ARD is mainly for "remote support" (which is actually such a broad term that I cannot discern what you really mean); but assuming you mean like Citrix' "GoToAssist", which us so wonderful you can't even cut and paste between the admin and the target, and only works between one pair of endpoints per session, or something like Goverlan, which is nowhere near as capable as ARD, and is far more expensive, or Microsoft's RSAT, which is only for Servers, or DameWare, which seems about equal to ARD, at least for Windows systems; but which would be $700 for your hypothetical two-technician setup, vs. $160 for ARD for the same two licenses, I would say that, with these specs, and a price of only $79 for unlimited Client systems, ARD neatly wins, hands down.

But since a video is worth 1,000 x 30 x VideoLengthInSeconds words, here is a nice 939 second video (that's 28,170,000 words-worth) showing ARD in action.

And, finally, addressing your "challenge": Since you can setup an Account for Remote Admin, and because you can either Remotely Run the Terminal App and/or Run Command Line scripts on the Remote machine, moving someone's Home Folder should be as simple as this.

Next!