This is the height of arrogance. Microsoft's poor architecture is responsible for all the spam and viruses and e-waste in the world. They're the reason why everyone has to rely on Google rather than running their own SMTP. They created entire industries of fraud that have led much of the developing world into lives of crime.
If Spotify can't make their finances work, that's not a sign that Apple should subsidize them with both cash and platform changes.
Spotify is a disruptive business that has doubtless killed many other businesses. It's pretty normal to expect that they themselves may not survive. Yes, Apple's product is markedly similar, but it arrived later and has access to lots of ways to operate more efficiently.
When someone uses the term 'fair', it's typically when they are trying to trick you.
I completely respect this reading of the events of this year, but for people who closely observe the company, this narrative is incorrect in several ways.
The decision to focus on premium-price phones was influenced by the durability and power of the phones released over the past 10 years. There are tens of millions of iPhones 6, 6s, 7, and so on available at every price point. They work well and they can still be supported with updates. The cycle of upgrading frequently is fascinating for pundits but not actually a priority for Apple executives.
It is possible that sales were a bit lower than expected, but it's incredibly speculative to argue that the difference was large. If production schedules were altered, that was more likely adjustment of the highest-sales scenario. Again, Apple is in no hurry, and they don't want their business to be overly seasonal or cyclic.
This headline is almost right, except it wasn't consumers who said the prices were too high, it was just bloggers.
Around the time Google was celebrating its first decade, European lawmakers often focused on the premise that someone could ask for information to be deleted, and this was known as the right to be forgotten.
In my experience, most developers didn't believe it was plausible to implement anything like this. And, most legal scholar-minded people didn't feel that it was a sensible prerogative. After all, if Milo Yiannopoulos could simply instruct Twitter to delete their records of his suspension, he could go back to the platform.
However, in the ensuing decade we've gotten better at technology and administration. We now find it more feasible to delete people in a more complete sense, and the GDPR has forced us to consider it, at least somewhat seriously. Yet, in many ways it is just as, if not more, preposterous than ever.
The ambiguity of these insider trading laws has gotten so intense that it reminds me of the intellectual property situation that software has been in (which fortunately has been somewhat figured out by the patent office this decade). I understand why manipulating markets is not allowed, but if it turns out that Musk did something wrong by giving people *more* information, I think I'll be pretty fed up.
On top of that, the premise that he is being sued by short sellers ought to negate any standing they would have to be an aggrieved party. It's bad enough that companies can be sued for not making their stock go up, but to also have them be sued for making it not go down is not tenable.
I don't think the iCloud keys mentioned are enough to fully decrypt the messages.
After all, our iMessage data can't be decrypted by Apple even though they presumably store the equivalent keys to what has been transferred. It's a multi-key encryption technique.
In order to access iMessage data, or anything else locked to the phone, you'd still have to either spoof the biometrics (Touch ID or Face ID) or go in through GrayKey.
China may one day get access to those messages, but they haven't got it yet.
HBO already has plenty of incredible content. How many people still haven't seen Big Love or even Six Feet Under? Besides which, they are complex enough to watch multiple times. If they improved their interfaces, they could get a lot more enjoyment into the subscription, and gain an hour or so from YouTube and Netflix.
Some trivial examples:
- allow me to binge without seeing 'previously on' scenes, 'upcoming on' scenes, or theme song
- sort series menu in additional ways besides alphabetical
- a film is removed from watchlist after viewing. A series has its subsequent episode put on watchlist after viewing.
- let me see the old Carlin specials
- metadata on actors. HBO has hundreds of instances where a given actor has been in several of their series. Put that in the interface!
The question of how one can fill jobs seems like it may become a vast differentiator in how powerful the businesses of different nations can be. On the one hand, an encouraging approach seems likely to pay off in the long term. On the other, there are lots of jobs with specific needs, and a lot of hiring managers feel they could get efficient results by narrowing their search.
The potential for these systems (either the American or the Chinese) to be twisted could grow as more distinctions become evident. It's one thing to screen for gender and work permit status; to also go on height, political inclination, and more is a version of this that seems more and more plausible. Conventional wisdom suggests that these tactics would pay off in the short term, but not over the long term. Things that can't bend will eventually break.
So how does one wean private businesses off of the lollipop before it rots their teeth? I think flipping a coin could be a surprisingly effective equalizer. If you have a man and a woman who can both do a job, rather than picking a gender, just flip a coin. Even if this approach is only used occasionally, it's better than heterodoxy.
This perspective seems pretty entitled, and the article makes no mention of the incredible facts about how young Patreon is and how fast it is growing. However, I think it unintentionally makes a great point. Setting minimum wages means that there are lots of jobs that can never exist because they don't earn densely enough. They may still have a lot of value, but there are inefficiencies that prevent the compensation from coming in directly or steadily. In some cases, they are pursuits that are heavily front-loaded with effort that will only pay off after a decade or something like that. Patreon makes these things much more possible, by legally providing a wage that is not subject to minimum wage restrictions.
By using this technique, the app was able to display a map on the watch screen. This allows you to keep your phone in your pocket when youâ(TM)re out in dark, possibly unfamiliar streets at night. There are security implications of that too.
This is an interesting story and itâ(TM)s plausible that Uber would abuse this privilege if they could get away with that. But, if they couldnâ(TM)t, it may just be a story about how capable iOS and the App Stire review team are.
This article reached deep into Apple's offerings and history to find the juiciest targets. There may be some learnings available and I'll continue to study the article. Yet, I think an important takeaway is two principles of evaluating other peoples' work:
Don't knock it until you tried it. The notch is probably not going to really cause any problems once its in the hand. None of this guy's photos contained hands. Yet, you control the iPhone with your hands (and face of course).
Observing someone else's design, you will notice weaknesses, but you might not appreciate the compromises that were necessary to prevent disaster. If you can't come up with something better, your critique is weak.
I'm not saying that all of his critiques are wrong. Yes, products like iTunes have major weaknesses that are frustrating and longstanding. The company's dev resources are clearly constrained at times while biting off huge initiatives like Apple Pay and Siri. However, critiquing the iOS 7 interface seems pretty wack. Was it shocking at the time? Did it cause some confusion and annoyance? Yes. But, could we have gotten where we are as a culture without going through that period? I don't think his piece addresses this well enough. And, when you're delivering on the scale that Apple does, to an audience in the hundreds of millions, you have to deliver a combination of interfaces that are very subtle and interfaces that are very not subtle.
This is fascinating. I'm curious if the bulk of the testing techniques are things that could eventually be automated. If AI could bite off some of the burden, perhaps the chips could still be tested in a feasible time frame.
I read Tim's blog post to try to open my mind to this. It said "people want to comment on Netflix". I'm a bit tired of the idea that we need to reshape the web to help Netflix. But in the comments there was a gem: if the vendors want this functionality, all they have to do is go back to Flash!
I was never a fan of Flash and I'm glad that HTML5 has taken its place. However, this suggestion does seem both appropriate and viable to me. If the vendors want this level of brokenness, they can work on Flash until it works. Technology that makes things break intentionally is not a useful part of a web standard. The only likely result is that people who have truly paid will still not get their content. Shocker. Use Shockwave Flash if you want to attempt to make a system like this.
For any surviving Slashdotter who's not rageblind at the mere mention of Apple, here's a thought.
Properly engineered products can have a roadmap that's a few years long. For a product to come out about 9 months after Touch Bar while not including one doesn't indicate that its omission was a last-minute decision.
If you choose to believe that this interface has no future, knock yourself out. However, the evidence presented gives no support to this theory.
Defending privacy doesn't matter 99% of the time, but if you can't handle the last 1% then people will stop using your service, or they will perish (or get slammed by major hindrances).
There are scenarios where you'd want to call emergency services but not reveal your location. They might not be very common, but they might still be very important. It's not unheard of for police department to be compromised by assassins. Why not ambulances too?
Also there's just a lot of inherent danger in systems that automatically broadcast your location. Maybe Apple isn't satisfied that this one is secure.
Presumably, this building was designed before it became commonly known that open offices create these issues. As you may recall, they were intensely praised until recently and they deserve some of the credit for the flattening in hierarchy that our industry has experienced (e.g. your discussions with your boss are more public).
Nonetheless these floor plans could present a major challenge. Yet, it's important to remember that Apple's culture is unique, and the way they manage their projects, their timelines, their personnel and their stress are clearly distinct from essentially every other technology group. For instance, look at the presentations made during WWDC. The speaking and presentation style displayed is far better than almost any other conference. And, these are not marketing or communications officers - they are the engineers and managers who create and design the technology presented. Their poise, integrity, and capability make it easy to guess that they are not as beleaguered by indecisiveness, unrealistic deadlines, and petty swagger as many other technology workforces. It's very plausible that the social and emotional skills of this workforce are strong enough that they may reap most of the benefits of open floor plans while transcending most of the pitfalls.
Furthermore, this phase could be a step in a timeline that will only last as long as its needed. Although many Slashdotters are too rageblind to know, a discerning observer of Apple's history will see many 'inhale, exhale' phases in their products, interfaces, policies, marketing, and strategy. It's well-known that Tim Cook chose to relax much of the internal culture of secrecy that prevented different divisions from communicating. The technology teams have benefitted from cross-pollination of both concepts and tools in the first phase of this change. Now they will undergo another social transformation, and continue to ramp up the utility of shared discoveries. As modern technologists know, when complex questions can be swiftly addressed to hundreds of working developers, they can sometimes be answered or even upgraded just as swiftly. Leveraging this in a team like Apple's will surely be a source of explosive power as these casual relationships develop.
As the dust settles and the needs of each team and each engineer become apparent, there are lots of possible avenues for revision of the openness. For instance, engineers could augment their reality to manage visual or auditory distractions. They can build pods or walls if it's really necessary. But recall that they still have an existing headquarters with just as much capacity as the new one, which I believe is about 5 minutes away (maybe 15). Segmenting a team can impact productivity in some cases, but in others, a physical separation that leads to meetings only at deliberate intervals is a major boon to workflow. And, they can obviously use video chat as liberally as they see fit. People who have major difficulty adjusting to the new building can be housed in one of the tens of thousands of other offices that Apple can provide.
I think if we wait and see how this building works out, there will be lessons for some of us. It's good that everyone wants to stick up for the engineers and help them produce their best work. To suggest that Apple's leadership has other priorities is lazy.
Do you not realize that Apple has already changed China? Keep in mind that millions of Chinese citizens are using iMessage encryption to have communication that their government cannot read. The use of these apps is another good example.
If you choose to work in a cafeteria and have a family, cool. I don't tend to think that qualifies you to comment on whether Mark Zuckerberg "knows what's going on in his city".
You asked if we would buy a product that has not been announced, one which will have new features about which we know nothing. This is like asking if I would spend $850 on a Bibbulous bike. Maybe! It depends what that is
Slashdot Mirror
but it makes a difference if it was going to an Android. iPhone-to-iPhone is encrypted as an iMessage.
This is the height of arrogance. Microsoft's poor architecture is responsible for all the spam and viruses and e-waste in the world. They're the reason why everyone has to rely on Google rather than running their own SMTP. They created entire industries of fraud that have led much of the developing world into lives of crime.
If Spotify can't make their finances work, that's not a sign that Apple should subsidize them with both cash and platform changes.
Spotify is a disruptive business that has doubtless killed many other businesses. It's pretty normal to expect that they themselves may not survive. Yes, Apple's product is markedly similar, but it arrived later and has access to lots of ways to operate more efficiently.
When someone uses the term 'fair', it's typically when they are trying to trick you.
I completely respect this reading of the events of this year, but for people who closely observe the company, this narrative is incorrect in several ways.
The decision to focus on premium-price phones was influenced by the durability and power of the phones released over the past 10 years. There are tens of millions of iPhones 6, 6s, 7, and so on available at every price point. They work well and they can still be supported with updates. The cycle of upgrading frequently is fascinating for pundits but not actually a priority for Apple executives.
It is possible that sales were a bit lower than expected, but it's incredibly speculative to argue that the difference was large. If production schedules were altered, that was more likely adjustment of the highest-sales scenario. Again, Apple is in no hurry, and they don't want their business to be overly seasonal or cyclic.
This headline is almost right, except it wasn't consumers who said the prices were too high, it was just bloggers.
Around the time Google was celebrating its first decade, European lawmakers often focused on the premise that someone could ask for information to be deleted, and this was known as the right to be forgotten.
In my experience, most developers didn't believe it was plausible to implement anything like this. And, most legal scholar-minded people didn't feel that it was a sensible prerogative. After all, if Milo Yiannopoulos could simply instruct Twitter to delete their records of his suspension, he could go back to the platform.
However, in the ensuing decade we've gotten better at technology and administration. We now find it more feasible to delete people in a more complete sense, and the GDPR has forced us to consider it, at least somewhat seriously. Yet, in many ways it is just as, if not more, preposterous than ever.
The ambiguity of these insider trading laws has gotten so intense that it reminds me of the intellectual property situation that software has been in (which fortunately has been somewhat figured out by the patent office this decade). I understand why manipulating markets is not allowed, but if it turns out that Musk did something wrong by giving people *more* information, I think I'll be pretty fed up.
On top of that, the premise that he is being sued by short sellers ought to negate any standing they would have to be an aggrieved party. It's bad enough that companies can be sued for not making their stock go up, but to also have them be sued for making it not go down is not tenable.
I don't think the iCloud keys mentioned are enough to fully decrypt the messages.
After all, our iMessage data can't be decrypted by Apple even though they presumably store the equivalent keys to what has been transferred. It's a multi-key encryption technique.
In order to access iMessage data, or anything else locked to the phone, you'd still have to either spoof the biometrics (Touch ID or Face ID) or go in through GrayKey.
China may one day get access to those messages, but they haven't got it yet.
HBO already has plenty of incredible content. How many people still haven't seen Big Love or even Six Feet Under? Besides which, they are complex enough to watch multiple times. If they improved their interfaces, they could get a lot more enjoyment into the subscription, and gain an hour or so from YouTube and Netflix.
Some trivial examples:
- allow me to binge without seeing 'previously on' scenes, 'upcoming on' scenes, or theme song
- sort series menu in additional ways besides alphabetical
- a film is removed from watchlist after viewing. A series has its subsequent episode put on watchlist after viewing.
- let me see the old Carlin specials
- metadata on actors. HBO has hundreds of instances where a given actor has been in several of their series. Put that in the interface!
The question of how one can fill jobs seems like it may become a vast differentiator in how powerful the businesses of different nations can be. On the one hand, an encouraging approach seems likely to pay off in the long term. On the other, there are lots of jobs with specific needs, and a lot of hiring managers feel they could get efficient results by narrowing their search.
The potential for these systems (either the American or the Chinese) to be twisted could grow as more distinctions become evident. It's one thing to screen for gender and work permit status; to also go on height, political inclination, and more is a version of this that seems more and more plausible. Conventional wisdom suggests that these tactics would pay off in the short term, but not over the long term. Things that can't bend will eventually break.
So how does one wean private businesses off of the lollipop before it rots their teeth? I think flipping a coin could be a surprisingly effective equalizer. If you have a man and a woman who can both do a job, rather than picking a gender, just flip a coin. Even if this approach is only used occasionally, it's better than heterodoxy.
I'm surprised this gossip qualifies as news. Bloomberg and Ming are not accurate analysts when it comes to Apple.
Isn't this what iMessage does?
This feels like the day we've been waiting for.
This perspective seems pretty entitled, and the article makes no mention of the incredible facts about how young Patreon is and how fast it is growing. However, I think it unintentionally makes a great point. Setting minimum wages means that there are lots of jobs that can never exist because they don't earn densely enough. They may still have a lot of value, but there are inefficiencies that prevent the compensation from coming in directly or steadily. In some cases, they are pursuits that are heavily front-loaded with effort that will only pay off after a decade or something like that. Patreon makes these things much more possible, by legally providing a wage that is not subject to minimum wage restrictions.
Do people still bother to think that Android is a "non-walled garden"? Or have people realized that bit of rhetoric was simply overblown?
By using this technique, the app was able to display a map on the watch screen. This allows you to keep your phone in your pocket when youâ(TM)re out in dark, possibly unfamiliar streets at night. There are security implications of that too.
This is an interesting story and itâ(TM)s plausible that Uber would abuse this privilege if they could get away with that. But, if they couldnâ(TM)t, it may just be a story about how capable iOS and the App Stire review team are.
This article reached deep into Apple's offerings and history to find the juiciest targets. There may be some learnings available and I'll continue to study the article. Yet, I think an important takeaway is two principles of evaluating other peoples' work:
Don't knock it until you tried it. The notch is probably not going to really cause any problems once its in the hand. None of this guy's photos contained hands. Yet, you control the iPhone with your hands (and face of course).
Observing someone else's design, you will notice weaknesses, but you might not appreciate the compromises that were necessary to prevent disaster. If you can't come up with something better, your critique is weak.
I'm not saying that all of his critiques are wrong. Yes, products like iTunes have major weaknesses that are frustrating and longstanding. The company's dev resources are clearly constrained at times while biting off huge initiatives like Apple Pay and Siri. However, critiquing the iOS 7 interface seems pretty wack. Was it shocking at the time? Did it cause some confusion and annoyance? Yes. But, could we have gotten where we are as a culture without going through that period? I don't think his piece addresses this well enough. And, when you're delivering on the scale that Apple does, to an audience in the hundreds of millions, you have to deliver a combination of interfaces that are very subtle and interfaces that are very not subtle.
This is fascinating. I'm curious if the bulk of the testing techniques are things that could eventually be automated. If AI could bite off some of the burden, perhaps the chips could still be tested in a feasible time frame.
I read Tim's blog post to try to open my mind to this. It said "people want to comment on Netflix". I'm a bit tired of the idea that we need to reshape the web to help Netflix. But in the comments there was a gem: if the vendors want this functionality, all they have to do is go back to Flash!
I was never a fan of Flash and I'm glad that HTML5 has taken its place. However, this suggestion does seem both appropriate and viable to me. If the vendors want this level of brokenness, they can work on Flash until it works. Technology that makes things break intentionally is not a useful part of a web standard. The only likely result is that people who have truly paid will still not get their content. Shocker. Use Shockwave Flash if you want to attempt to make a system like this.
For any surviving Slashdotter who's not rageblind at the mere mention of Apple, here's a thought.
Properly engineered products can have a roadmap that's a few years long. For a product to come out about 9 months after Touch Bar while not including one doesn't indicate that its omission was a last-minute decision.
If you choose to believe that this interface has no future, knock yourself out. However, the evidence presented gives no support to this theory.
Defending privacy doesn't matter 99% of the time, but if you can't handle the last 1% then people will stop using your service, or they will perish (or get slammed by major hindrances).
There are scenarios where you'd want to call emergency services but not reveal your location. They might not be very common, but they might still be very important. It's not unheard of for police department to be compromised by assassins. Why not ambulances too?
Also there's just a lot of inherent danger in systems that automatically broadcast your location. Maybe Apple isn't satisfied that this one is secure.
Presumably, this building was designed before it became commonly known that open offices create these issues. As you may recall, they were intensely praised until recently and they deserve some of the credit for the flattening in hierarchy that our industry has experienced (e.g. your discussions with your boss are more public).
Nonetheless these floor plans could present a major challenge. Yet, it's important to remember that Apple's culture is unique, and the way they manage their projects, their timelines, their personnel and their stress are clearly distinct from essentially every other technology group. For instance, look at the presentations made during WWDC. The speaking and presentation style displayed is far better than almost any other conference. And, these are not marketing or communications officers - they are the engineers and managers who create and design the technology presented. Their poise, integrity, and capability make it easy to guess that they are not as beleaguered by indecisiveness, unrealistic deadlines, and petty swagger as many other technology workforces. It's very plausible that the social and emotional skills of this workforce are strong enough that they may reap most of the benefits of open floor plans while transcending most of the pitfalls.
Furthermore, this phase could be a step in a timeline that will only last as long as its needed. Although many Slashdotters are too rageblind to know, a discerning observer of Apple's history will see many 'inhale, exhale' phases in their products, interfaces, policies, marketing, and strategy. It's well-known that Tim Cook chose to relax much of the internal culture of secrecy that prevented different divisions from communicating. The technology teams have benefitted from cross-pollination of both concepts and tools in the first phase of this change. Now they will undergo another social transformation, and continue to ramp up the utility of shared discoveries. As modern technologists know, when complex questions can be swiftly addressed to hundreds of working developers, they can sometimes be answered or even upgraded just as swiftly. Leveraging this in a team like Apple's will surely be a source of explosive power as these casual relationships develop.
As the dust settles and the needs of each team and each engineer become apparent, there are lots of possible avenues for revision of the openness. For instance, engineers could augment their reality to manage visual or auditory distractions. They can build pods or walls if it's really necessary. But recall that they still have an existing headquarters with just as much capacity as the new one, which I believe is about 5 minutes away (maybe 15). Segmenting a team can impact productivity in some cases, but in others, a physical separation that leads to meetings only at deliberate intervals is a major boon to workflow. And, they can obviously use video chat as liberally as they see fit. People who have major difficulty adjusting to the new building can be housed in one of the tens of thousands of other offices that Apple can provide.
I think if we wait and see how this building works out, there will be lessons for some of us. It's good that everyone wants to stick up for the engineers and help them produce their best work. To suggest that Apple's leadership has other priorities is lazy.
Do you not realize that Apple has already changed China? Keep in mind that millions of Chinese citizens are using iMessage encryption to have communication that their government cannot read. The use of these apps is another good example.
If you choose to work in a cafeteria and have a family, cool. I don't tend to think that qualifies you to comment on whether Mark Zuckerberg "knows what's going on in his city".
You asked if we would buy a product that has not been announced, one which will have new features about which we know nothing. This is like asking if I would spend $850 on a Bibbulous bike. Maybe! It depends what that is
What an exciting way for the government to attempt to get a back door into our communications. Pitiful