There isn't much reason why it cannot run on the web. The Modern Web Browser is a thin client solution. Even traditional CPU intensive programs, can run on the web now. Because the the heavy CPU stuff is happening in the Cloud, shared with others All the browser and you normally just need a way to input the data into the system, and get the output back.
As Application Front-Ends, Web Browsers make, well, good Web Browsers.
That is all.
Web Apps are horrible, and are doing nothing more than contributing to the technologies that are making so many websites are so script-ridden that they are seriously ruining the World Wide Web's main use: Viewing Hypertext Web Pages.
Seriously, a lot of web-pages these days don't stop dancing around and reformatting themselves for well over a MINUTE.
of developer real-world identity (corportate and/or personal) for each developer id.
And a requirement that developers buy into an insurance plan so that if their developer id is used for malware, end-users can file a class-action lawsuit against the developer and recover damages via the insurance pool.
Or better yet, rather than a cumbersome class-action, have a pre-setup mediation service administered by Apple.
That's actually not the worst idea in the world.
The problem would be getting the Devs. to buy into it (no pun).
But I'm still in agreement that no practical Security system can prevent a User with Admin privileges from allowing Malware to be installed using Social Engineering trickery.
I don't know the details regarding how "code-signing" verification actually works; but it would seem like GateKeeper could verify a computed-at-install-time Hash against an Online Database (maintained by Apple), and simply refuse (at ANY "Permissions"-level) to Install a Package that doesn't verify. That way, even if the User is an Admin, GateKeeper would save them from themselves, by disallowing the installation of "Altered" code. That way, you're not only validating against a "legit" DevID; but also against the actual contents of the Package itself.
Even if you allowed a User "bypass", a set of "We detected that the CONTENTS of this Package does not match our Records, and there is a great probability that this Package has been altered to contain Malware..." would likely prevent all but the most brain-dead Users from getting hosed.
The only way to defeat such a system would be to hack GateKeeper itself. This could be made fairly impossible on T2-equipped Macs, and even on systems without the T2, it could be made extremely difficult.
The EAC program has existed since at LEAST iOS 8.0, and there have been abuses thereof since shortly after that.
Yes, these Developers are certainly violating the TOS of their EAC Agreement; but since their Apps are never available in the App Store, IMHO, in addition to its stated purpose of allowing "In-House" Apps to be distributed by companies, this has a secondary (perhaps unintended, perhaps not) function that serves as a nudge and a wink by Apple that can allow some "prohibited" Apps to be Side-Loaded onto iOS devices, without Apple having to have those types of Apps published in their App Store.
In short, what we have here is a rather large hole in the Walls of the Garden, and one that I am pretty sure Apple really doesn't mind, much like the Hackintosh Community, which Apple could have lowered the boom on over a decade ago, and yet, chooses not to.
See how stupid this headline is? That's how stupid apple is for not allowing anyone to run whatever they damn well please on hardware they own and paid for.
So let me get this straight:
First, Apple has an App Store with "Rules". Slashtards hate that. Conveniently ignoring the fact that anyone with a Mac is free to Download XCode for free, and Develop to their heart's content for the "hardware they own and paid for."(no Dev. License Needed to Develop Apps for your OWN iOS Devices).
Next, Apple provides an "Enterprise App Certificate" Program (which is designed to allow Companies to Develop custom iOS Apps for In-House Distribution), and then, since those Apps aren't available in the App Store, and thus are not subject to any "Approval Process", sort of looks the other way when certain Devs. abuse the intent of that program. So now the Slashtards are Triggered about THAT!
Please tell me: How can those two completely opposite Points-of-View both be correct?
Not only is the Headline stupid; but so is the entire article.
Why? Because Enterprise Apps, by (correct) Design, are intended to be a "Closed" Distribution system, for Companies to Distribute their own Private, Internal Apps.
As such, Apple never sees these Apps. They are not part of any "Approval" or "Policing" process, simply because the Apps are never Available in the App Store.
So, the entire article is nothing but Yellow Journalistic Clickbait Doggerel, and the "author", MsMash, should be terminated (hopefully with Extreme Prejudice!), immediately.
I've worked for a company that uses an enterprise account for internal testing. Apps signed with enterprise profiles are never seen by Apple.
THIS!!!!
Mods: Mod Parent WAY Up. This simple, truthful Post neatly explains why the entire article's premise is unmitigated BULLSHIT!
Apple doesn't "Police" Enterprise Apps, simply because They never appear in the App Store, and thus by (proper) design, are never submitted to an App Approval Process of any kind...
But that doesn't make for breathless "reporting" that generates da Clicks, now, does it?
According to an Update to this article in MacRumors.com, AT&T has "clarified" that the 5GE showing up on the Status Bar of iPhones running iOS 12.2 beta 2, simply means that the customer is in an area where 5G MIGHT be available...
Sure it is a big deal security lapse from Apple. So the received/found the problem, analysis the scope of it, stopped the service, sent out communication about the problem. Now they are applying a fix.
It seems like a responsible course of action.
I am sure people who hate Apple, because they were beaten up by a hipster a few years ago, will still fault Apple, and make them seem like a pile of idiots who cannot code themselves out of a paper bag. But these things happen, I am actually surprised it doesn't happen more often.
I am sure all you programmers out there who are smug that their code never got hacked. But is it really skill, or just being lucky, or your program isn't just that popular enough. It can often just be a bad day where your code has a security flaw in it, and coded so it would be difficult for the QC to find it. However within weeks of it being public it was was found as a problem. I myself never had my coded hacked, however this isn't a reason to pat myself on the back, or be smug and judgemental, as I have fixed things in my own code that could had been bad if I didn't catch it. And I never know what else I may have open.
This is Slashdot. You can't apply LOGIC or FACTS here when the subject is "Apple".
Makes sense, since the bug was obviously in the Group FaceTime code running on Apple's Servers.
The best thing about this is that no change/update to iOS should be necessary. So no problems with "You must Update your iOS to use Group FaceTime", or any other annoying User experiences.
Doesn't matter about what was "better". what matters is what impacted the world more. Apple products were always 2nd or 3rd place options, and always way behind the leaders. The Commodore 64 dominated until the rise of the IBM PC and the clones. That is what changed the world - a standard, open hardware and OS platform for anyone to work with. Domination in the market as a standard platform enabled an explosion of software. Without the IBM PC and Windows, the entire 1990s Internet/computer revolution would have never happened.
And without the Apple 1, we'd still be toggling-in Bootloaders on our Altair and IMSAI PDP-8 Clones.
Apple sued, and ran out of business, the companies that produced GEOS and GEM. They drove the products off the market with lawyers.
In effect, they wiped out the companies producing competitors for Microsoft's Windows environment. GEOS and GEM both had versions targeted at the MS-DOS systems.
Yes. Apple ran Microsoft's competitors out of the GUI market, assuring the Wintel Monopoly once Microsoft won the look-and-feel lawsuit.
It makes sense, though, because Microsoft in the early years was one of the dominant Application developers for the Macintosh.
Aside from everything? How about erase the stupid proprietary OS, boot like a normal computer and let people use the goddamn machines they paid for, however they want and privately?
WTF ARE YOU SMOKING?
I assume you are implying that Linux isn't a Proprietary OS? No, instead it is like over 100 slightly different Proprietary OSes... And if that wasn't true, then how come no one can create binary Application packages that will install/run on ANY Linux Distro??? Sounds to me like each incompatible Linux Distro is exactly a "Proprietary OS".
I also assume that by "Boot like a normal computer" you are referring to the T2 "Secure Boot" procedure? You are ignoring the fact that that is easily disabled (by design), as is the ability to defeat "Evil Maid" booting from external drives:
Not sure at all what you mean about "Let people use the goddamn machines they paid for, however they want and privately". There are ZERO restrictions on what you can run on your Mac, and where you can install it from. Again, simple GUI settings and Alerts (in GateKeeper) control your personal comfort-level between "completely safe" and "uninhibited" on an App-by-App basis:
And as far as "Privately", Apple has the hands-down best track record in that regard. Better than "Joe's famous Linux Distro" with all of 12 followers? Probably not: But when compared to all the other major OS vendors, you betcha!
Since bypassing Apple for purchase of In-App services is against ToS; How long before Apple suspends the Netflix app in the iTunes store and disables existing installations on Apple customers' hardware with an error message indicating "This app is currently unavailable, because the creator, 'Netflix', is in breach of the Apple Developer Agreement" ?
That's what I was wondering.
But I think the TOS only states that you can't have a LINK in your App that directs people to an outside payment processor. I think NetFlix is skirting the rules by simply putting it on the onus of the USER to navigate to NetFlix and do their account set-up.
So the option is to spend more money to occupy the sole charging port on an iPhone. Not good. And for Square, I get the 3.5mm jack readers for free; I guess I can spend $50 to buy the Bluetooth units, but I'd rather get the free ones and hand them out to my 4 employees so they can all sell product as needed. But again - best to give money to someone else to solve the problem that Apple created by eliminating the jack.
Here's a question for you: what problem did Apple solve by removing the 3.5mm jack? Other than consumers not giving them enough money?
Oh, I'm sorry; I thought you were MAKING MONEY on your tradeshow sales. If you have 4 employees, then you have enough income to expense-off the 4 Square readers. Or, better yet, just get their POS terminal. I'm pretty sure your 4 employees won't be selling your tradeshow trash at such a rate that having to share a cash-register is going to be a problem. And if it is, then you have the income to afford it. Not to mention that those readers or POS terminal(s) are a business expense, and therefore a tax write-off.
Let's hope this is a long term consumer trend that brings back user replaceable batteries and longer periods of software support.
Then Apple already has you covered!
While their phones don't have "swappable" batteries (like a flashlight), they do NOT do blatantly anti-consumer construction techniques such as GLUE with their batteries. Instead, they use Command-Adhesive (stretch to release) adhesive strips. Just grab wih a pair of needlenose pliers, and voila!
And as for "longer periods of software support", again, Apple is your hero (or should be). I don't think I even have to go into details, considering every single 64 bit iPhone (IOW, from the 5s on up) is fully supported with OS and App updates.
It's a very short distance, and possibly the reason it's taking so long is that they plan to use some sort of beamforming from the multiple antennae. It seems very logical to try this, but completely crazy to announce what turned out to be an unfinished product that hasn't made it out of R&D yet.
They aren't going to try and "Transmit" power (thank Deity!). That would require some sort of
Multi-watt Microwave transmitter in your house.
I'm pretty sure these charging mats use some kind of induction, which doesn't spew EM radiation all over.
Yes it does, whatever gave you the idea that induction doesn't leak EMF? Hint: induction = EMF.
EMF ("Electro-Motive Force") is the old term for "Voltage". But, considering the field strength falls off exponentially with distance (one of the biggest problems with Wireless chargers, BTW), there isn't much problem with "Leaked EMF".
I'm pretty sure these charging mats use some kind of induction, which doesn't spew EM radiation all over. Still more wasteful than plugging in, though.
I don't really understand the benefit of these, since it won't reduce cable clutter around your desk. I guess one might make sense if one charger replaces lots of small ones in a workplace etc. Otherwise, it sounds about as useful as a Wifi AP that only works within touching distance.
Apple's idea of having a multi-device mat, which IMHO, is also what has made the Project stall, is actually a better idea than multiple charger cables/adapters hanging around.
But I agree in general about wireless chargers; way too inefficient, and actually "anti-green".
The only cables I see regularly damaged are apple ones due to their entire lack of sensible cable end grommets. I see them almost every day, always frayed in the same location, right after the hard rubber ring by the plug/adapter. It's shocking they have not improved this in 15 years.
Yep; by retarded users that don't know how to treat a cable properly. I have yet to have an Apple cable fail at the strain relief, and that includes the still-used-every-day 30-pin dock/charging cable for my iPad 2.
Hint: Pull the cable out by the connector-body; don't pull it out like a frickin' WEED, and you'll have no problems.
Slashdot's aversion to most things other than 7-bit ASCII is well-known. Why visit and post at the site if you aren't prepared to deal with its well-known constraints?
You mean like making people have to use ignorant antediluvian HTML markup to do simple styled text, instead of doing what nearly every other forum-based site does an provide a Rich Text Editor.
Back in the old days, the most ardent Mac enthusiasts pooh-poohed unix. This was back when Apple was blowing many millions of dollars on their 'next generation Mac OS' which was a flop. Apple's developers really aren't good enough to produce a robust preemptive multitasking OS. They ended up just piggybacking on unix.
Speaking to third party Apple developers, they have always been a captive group. The tools back in the 90's were expensive and you had to pretty much be a club member to do much at all.
Apple has decades of Unix experience.
You forget A/UX. Initially released in February, 1988:
Unfuck the Dock. The Dock was always an annoying use of screen real estate when it was at the side of a 4:3 ratio display. You really wanted it at the bottom. But then we moved to 16:9 ratio displays, where there's plenty of room at the side of the display, so what does Apple do? MOVE IT TO THE BOTTOM. Not just that, but when the Dock was pinned to the upper-right, it was in a predictable location. But now that it's in the center-bottom, it grows in both directions, so everything on it moves every time any new element is added. It eliminates the benefits of muscle memory, making using your computer slower. On Windows you can throw the mouse into the appropriate corner and whack the mouse button to pop up the menu that you use to do everything. On MacOS, that only pops up the menu that you use to do some things. Apple is known for being the masters of UI, but they're actually worse at it than even Microsoft.
Um, unless they killed-off the option, you can pick where the Dock is located (bottom or either side).
no, that is because they did not choose a absolute dumpster fire of a platform to stick to
the only reason these people are special is cause no one else wants to deal with apple's constant fuck you we changed everything shit
Apple has one of the most CONSISTENT UIs on the planet.
There have absolutely been some changes along the way; but by and large, you can take a person that used MacOS 7.0 and sit them in front of a Mac running MacOS 14.0 (Mojave) and they will be productive a LOT faster than someone who is used to Windows 7 in front of Windows, well, anything after that...
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't much reason why it cannot run on the web.
The Modern Web Browser is a thin client solution. Even traditional CPU intensive programs, can run on the web now. Because the the heavy CPU stuff is happening in the Cloud, shared with others All the browser and you normally just need a way to input the data into the system, and get the output back.
As Application Front-Ends, Web Browsers make, well, good Web Browsers.
That is all.
Web Apps are horrible, and are doing nothing more than contributing to the technologies that are making so many websites are so script-ridden that they are seriously ruining the World Wide Web's main use: Viewing Hypertext Web Pages.
Seriously, a lot of web-pages these days don't stop dancing around and reformatting themselves for well over a MINUTE.
Nauseating.
You daughter will be a Comfort Woman for rich Chinese Tourists who visit the Museums called EU and USA.
Because there will soon be no jobs for stupid white people left. At least if they don't wake up from your fever.
Tell me why it is that all Communists are the most brutally-Capitalistic people on the planet?
is using all apples stealing tactics to steal from apple. Look goods on apple. Why should apple be the only tech company to lie, cheat and steal.
You honestly think they are?
How cute.
of developer real-world identity (corportate and/or personal) for each developer id.
And a requirement that developers buy into an insurance plan so that if their developer id is used for malware, end-users can file a class-action lawsuit against the developer and recover damages via the insurance pool.
Or better yet, rather than a cumbersome class-action, have a pre-setup mediation service administered by Apple.
That's actually not the worst idea in the world.
The problem would be getting the Devs. to buy into it (no pun).
But I'm still in agreement that no practical Security system can prevent a User with Admin privileges from allowing Malware to be installed using Social Engineering trickery.
I don't know the details regarding how "code-signing" verification actually works; but it would seem like GateKeeper could verify a computed-at-install-time Hash against an Online Database (maintained by Apple), and simply refuse (at ANY "Permissions"-level) to Install a Package that doesn't verify. That way, even if the User is an Admin, GateKeeper would save them from themselves, by disallowing the installation of "Altered" code. That way, you're not only validating against a "legit" DevID; but also against the actual contents of the Package itself.
Even if you allowed a User "bypass", a set of "We detected that the CONTENTS of this Package does not match our Records, and there is a great probability that this Package has been altered to contain Malware..." would likely prevent all but the most brain-dead Users from getting hosed.
The only way to defeat such a system would be to hack GateKeeper itself. This could be made fairly impossible on T2-equipped Macs, and even on systems without the T2, it could be made extremely difficult.
Where's the flaw in my logic?
This is the SECOND story about this subject.
The EAC program has existed since at LEAST iOS 8.0, and there have been abuses thereof since shortly after that.
Yes, these Developers are certainly violating the TOS of their EAC Agreement; but since their Apps are never available in the App Store, IMHO, in addition to its stated purpose of allowing "In-House" Apps to be distributed by companies, this has a secondary (perhaps unintended, perhaps not) function that serves as a nudge and a wink by Apple that can allow some "prohibited" Apps to be Side-Loaded onto iOS devices, without Apple having to have those types of Apps published in their App Store.
In short, what we have here is a rather large hole in the Walls of the Garden, and one that I am pretty sure Apple really doesn't mind, much like the Hackintosh Community, which Apple could have lowered the boom on over a decade ago, and yet, chooses not to.
See how stupid this headline is? That's how stupid apple is for not allowing anyone to run whatever they damn well please on hardware they own and paid for.
So let me get this straight:
First, Apple has an App Store with "Rules". Slashtards hate that. Conveniently ignoring the fact that anyone with a Mac is free to Download XCode for free, and Develop to their heart's content for the "hardware they own and paid for." (no Dev. License Needed to Develop Apps for your OWN iOS Devices).
Next, Apple provides an "Enterprise App Certificate" Program (which is designed to allow Companies to Develop custom iOS Apps for In-House Distribution), and then, since those Apps aren't available in the App Store, and thus are not subject to any "Approval Process", sort of looks the other way when certain Devs. abuse the intent of that program. So now the Slashtards are Triggered about THAT!
Please tell me: How can those two completely opposite Points-of-View both be correct?
Not only is the Headline stupid; but so is the entire article.
Why? Because Enterprise Apps, by (correct) Design, are intended to be a "Closed" Distribution system, for Companies to Distribute their own Private, Internal Apps.
As such, Apple never sees these Apps. They are not part of any "Approval" or "Policing" process, simply because the Apps are never Available in the App Store.
So, the entire article is nothing but Yellow Journalistic Clickbait Doggerel, and the "author", MsMash, should be terminated (hopefully with Extreme Prejudice!), immediately.
I've worked for a company that uses an enterprise account for internal testing. Apps signed with enterprise profiles are never seen by Apple.
THIS!!!!
Mods: Mod Parent WAY Up. This simple, truthful Post neatly explains why the entire article's premise is unmitigated BULLSHIT!
Apple doesn't "Police" Enterprise Apps, simply because They never appear in the App Store, and thus by (proper) design, are never submitted to an App Approval Process of any kind...
But that doesn't make for breathless "reporting" that generates da Clicks, now, does it?
According to an Update to this article in MacRumors.com, AT&T has "clarified" that the 5GE showing up on the Status Bar of iPhones running iOS 12.2 beta 2, simply means that the customer is in an area where 5G MIGHT be available...
Still kinda smarmy, IMHO.
https://www.macrumors.com/2019...
Sure it is a big deal security lapse from Apple. So the received/found the problem, analysis the scope of it, stopped the service, sent out communication about the problem. Now they are applying a fix.
It seems like a responsible course of action.
I am sure people who hate Apple, because they were beaten up by a hipster a few years ago, will still fault Apple, and make them seem like a pile of idiots who cannot code themselves out of a paper bag. But these things happen, I am actually surprised it doesn't happen more often.
I am sure all you programmers out there who are smug that their code never got hacked. But is it really skill, or just being lucky, or your program isn't just that popular enough. It can often just be a bad day where your code has a security flaw in it, and coded so it would be difficult for the QC to find it. However within weeks of it being public it was was found as a problem. I myself never had my coded hacked, however this isn't a reason to pat myself on the back, or be smug and judgemental, as I have fixed things in my own code that could had been bad if I didn't catch it. And I never know what else I may have open.
This is Slashdot. You can't apply LOGIC or FACTS here when the subject is "Apple".
I figured they would fix this Server-Side.
Makes sense, since the bug was obviously in the Group FaceTime code running on Apple's Servers.
The best thing about this is that no change/update to iOS should be necessary. So no problems with "You must Update your iOS to use Group FaceTime", or any other annoying User experiences.
Doesn't matter about what was "better". what matters is what impacted the world more. Apple products were always 2nd or 3rd place options, and always way behind the leaders. The Commodore 64 dominated until the rise of the IBM PC and the clones. That is what changed the world - a standard, open hardware and OS platform for anyone to work with. Domination in the market as a standard platform enabled an explosion of software. Without the IBM PC and Windows, the entire 1990s Internet/computer revolution would have never happened.
And without the Apple 1, we'd still be toggling-in Bootloaders on our Altair and IMSAI PDP-8 Clones.
And without the wheel, we'd still all be walking.
How far back do you want to go, fucktard?
Apple sued, and ran out of business, the companies that produced GEOS and GEM. They drove the products off the market with lawyers.
In effect, they wiped out the companies producing competitors for Microsoft's Windows environment. GEOS and GEM both had versions targeted at the MS-DOS systems.
Yes. Apple ran Microsoft's competitors out of the GUI market, assuring the Wintel Monopoly once Microsoft won the look-and-feel lawsuit.
It makes sense, though, because Microsoft in the early years was one of the dominant Application developers for the Macintosh.
Bullshit.
Citation, please.
Aside from everything? How about erase the stupid proprietary OS, boot like a normal computer and let people use the goddamn machines they paid for, however they want and privately?
WTF ARE YOU SMOKING?
I assume you are implying that Linux isn't a Proprietary OS? No, instead it is like over 100 slightly different Proprietary OSes... And if that wasn't true, then how come no one can create binary Application packages that will install/run on ANY Linux Distro??? Sounds to me like each incompatible Linux Distro is exactly a "Proprietary OS".
I also assume that by "Boot like a normal computer" you are referring to the T2 "Secure Boot" procedure? You are ignoring the fact that that is easily disabled (by design), as is the ability to defeat "Evil Maid" booting from external drives:
https://support.apple.com/en-u...
Not sure at all what you mean about "Let people use the goddamn machines they paid for, however they want and privately". There are ZERO restrictions on what you can run on your Mac, and where you can install it from. Again, simple GUI settings and Alerts (in GateKeeper) control your personal comfort-level between "completely safe" and "uninhibited" on an App-by-App basis:
https://support.apple.com/en-u...
And as far as "Privately", Apple has the hands-down best track record in that regard. Better than "Joe's famous Linux Distro" with all of 12 followers? Probably not: But when compared to all the other major OS vendors, you betcha!
Seriously. This sounds like Apple marketing. Reminds me of when Apple bragged about the vector computing on the g5's.. Which was basically SSE/3Dnow.
Don't believe all the crap you read about Apple performance
Altivec in the PPC was far more advanced than SSE. The only problem was hardly any software was coded for it.
But when it was, it was pretty damned impressive!
Since bypassing Apple for purchase of In-App services is against ToS; How long before Apple suspends the Netflix app in the iTunes store and disables existing installations on Apple customers' hardware with an error message indicating "This app is currently unavailable, because the creator, 'Netflix', is in breach of the Apple Developer Agreement" ?
That's what I was wondering.
But I think the TOS only states that you can't have a LINK in your App that directs people to an outside payment processor. I think NetFlix is skirting the rules by simply putting it on the onus of the USER to navigate to NetFlix and do their account set-up.
So the option is to spend more money to occupy the sole charging port on an iPhone. Not good. And for Square, I get the 3.5mm jack readers for free; I guess I can spend $50 to buy the Bluetooth units, but I'd rather get the free ones and hand them out to my 4 employees so they can all sell product as needed. But again - best to give money to someone else to solve the problem that Apple created by eliminating the jack.
Here's a question for you: what problem did Apple solve by removing the 3.5mm jack? Other than consumers not giving them enough money?
Oh, I'm sorry; I thought you were MAKING MONEY on your tradeshow sales. If you have 4 employees, then you have enough income to expense-off the 4 Square readers. Or, better yet, just get their POS terminal. I'm pretty sure your 4 employees won't be selling your tradeshow trash at such a rate that having to share a cash-register is going to be a problem. And if it is, then you have the income to afford it. Not to mention that those readers or POS terminal(s) are a business expense, and therefore a tax write-off.
As I said, "Manufactured Objection". Next!
Let's hope this is a long term consumer trend that brings back user replaceable batteries and longer periods of software support.
Then Apple already has you covered!
While their phones don't have "swappable" batteries (like a flashlight), they do NOT do blatantly anti-consumer construction techniques such as GLUE with their batteries. Instead, they use Command-Adhesive (stretch to release) adhesive strips. Just grab wih a pair of needlenose pliers, and voila!
And as for "longer periods of software support", again, Apple is your hero (or should be). I don't think I even have to go into details, considering every single 64 bit iPhone (IOW, from the 5s on up) is fully supported with OS and App updates.
It's a very short distance, and possibly the reason it's taking so long is that they plan to use some sort of beamforming from the multiple antennae. It seems very logical to try this, but completely crazy to announce what turned out to be an unfinished product that hasn't made it out of R&D yet.
They aren't going to try and "Transmit" power (thank Deity!). That would require some sort of
Multi-watt Microwave transmitter in your house.
No thank you.
I'm pretty sure these charging mats use some kind of induction, which doesn't spew EM radiation all over.
Yes it does, whatever gave you the idea that induction doesn't leak EMF? Hint: induction = EMF.
EMF ("Electro-Motive Force") is the old term for "Voltage". But, considering the field strength falls off exponentially with distance (one of the biggest problems with Wireless chargers, BTW), there isn't much problem with "Leaked EMF".
Moron.
I'm pretty sure these charging mats use some kind of induction, which doesn't spew EM radiation all over. Still more wasteful than plugging in, though.
I don't really understand the benefit of these, since it won't reduce cable clutter around your desk. I guess one might make sense if one charger replaces lots of small ones in a workplace etc. Otherwise, it sounds about as useful as a Wifi AP that only works within touching distance.
Apple's idea of having a multi-device mat, which IMHO, is also what has made the Project stall, is actually a better idea than multiple charger cables/adapters hanging around.
But I agree in general about wireless chargers; way too inefficient, and actually "anti-green".
The only cables I see regularly damaged are apple ones due to their entire lack of sensible cable end grommets. I see them almost every day, always frayed in the same location, right after the hard rubber ring by the plug/adapter. It's shocking they have not improved this in 15 years.
Yep; by retarded users that don't know how to treat a cable properly. I have yet to have an Apple cable fail at the strain relief, and that includes the still-used-every-day 30-pin dock/charging cable for my iPad 2.
Hint: Pull the cable out by the connector-body; don't pull it out like a frickin' WEED, and you'll have no problems.
Slashdot's aversion to most things other than 7-bit ASCII is well-known. Why visit and post at the site if you aren't prepared to deal with its well-known constraints?
You mean like making people have to use ignorant antediluvian HTML markup to do simple styled text, instead of doing what nearly every other forum-based site does an provide a Rich Text Editor.
FFS, it's 2019, not 1994.
Back in the old days, the most ardent Mac enthusiasts pooh-poohed unix. This was back when Apple was blowing many millions of dollars on their 'next generation Mac OS' which was a flop. Apple's developers really aren't good enough to produce a robust preemptive multitasking OS. They ended up just piggybacking on unix.
Speaking to third party Apple developers, they have always been a captive group. The tools back in the 90's were expensive and you had to pretty much be a club member to do much at all.
Apple has decades of Unix experience.
You forget A/UX. Initially released in February, 1988:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Notice that it wasn't discontinued until Apple was well-into its aborted Next-Generation OS Development (Copland, et al)
What's your wish list for the new NeXTCube?
Unfuck the Dock. The Dock was always an annoying use of screen real estate when it was at the side of a 4:3 ratio display. You really wanted it at the bottom. But then we moved to 16:9 ratio displays, where there's plenty of room at the side of the display, so what does Apple do? MOVE IT TO THE BOTTOM. Not just that, but when the Dock was pinned to the upper-right, it was in a predictable location. But now that it's in the center-bottom, it grows in both directions, so everything on it moves every time any new element is added. It eliminates the benefits of muscle memory, making using your computer slower. On Windows you can throw the mouse into the appropriate corner and whack the mouse button to pop up the menu that you use to do everything. On MacOS, that only pops up the menu that you use to do some things. Apple is known for being the masters of UI, but they're actually worse at it than even Microsoft.
Um, unless they killed-off the option, you can pick where the Dock is located (bottom or either side).
Yep, it's still there:
https://www.imore.com/how-use-...
no, that is because they did not choose a absolute dumpster fire of a platform to stick to
the only reason these people are special is cause no one else wants to deal with apple's constant fuck you we changed everything shit
Apple has one of the most CONSISTENT UIs on the planet.
There have absolutely been some changes along the way; but by and large, you can take a person that used MacOS 7.0 and sit them in front of a Mac running MacOS 14.0 (Mojave) and they will be productive a LOT faster than someone who is used to Windows 7 in front of Windows, well, anything after that...