I am an embedded Developer with over three decades of paid experience. Do these people really think someone like me (or me) doesn't realize that technically, these devices could be considered a "computing device"?
But, the less fanatical among us nerds, you know, the ones that don't have to prove that they are "smart enough" to get Linux to run on their toaster, just because they can say they did it (woohoo), realize that these are still, at the end of the day, Appliances with an Embedded microcontroller, or System-on-Chip, inside.
So, with that in mind, is a device with a mask-programmed microcontroller a "computer"? You can't run arbitrary code on it. Isn't the microcontroller just another form of ASIC at that point? You can't install Linux on it, any more than you can do so on your Cat. Yet inside that MCU, it's the same CPU core, same RAM, same peripherals, running the same instruction set. The only difference is that it has been built with a last-mask that happens to have a printed pattern on it that causes the part to act as a particular state-machine. But is it a "computer". No, it is not.
So please quit trying to Impress yourselves by declaring just any-old-thing that happens to have an MCU in it a "computer". Because, in just a very few decades (when it will be even harder to find anything that isn't an Embedded System), people will simply look at you like you're daft, punks.
I don't care if it's free or not. If it's annoying or unnecessary, I don't want to have to spend two hours to rid my newly bought computer of crapware I don't want.
Then buy a Mac. Not one whit of "crapware". Macs used to come with "trial versions" of MS Office; but I don't think that has been true since they developed the iWork suite. They also had a "trial" version of that, too; but then started simply including the suite for "free" with new Macs.
If OSX comes "free" with their hardware, but is also sold separately - or even just has a defined value separately - they will likely fall afoul of the law.
Both Mavericks (current version) and soon-to-be-released Yosemite versions of OS X are distributed FREE; but are only licensed for use in Apple-Approved hardware.
Just because you might be clever enough to download Cisco's Router firmware from a Cisco download site (read "App Store") into a D-Link router (and even make it work), does not magically transmogrify that Firmware into Libre "OS" code.
They might have a better defence as the OS is free. If anything where it might get interesting is that effectively you are buying the OS and it comes with a machine. Thus there might be a way to convince a judge that where Apple is going legally wrong is to insist that you use their machine.
That will never happen, unless you can make Nikon offer its DSLR cameras' OS ("Firmware") to Canon EOS Rebel owners, too.
When an "OS" is offered only for a particular manufacturer's products (which is undeniably the case for OS X, but not for Windows (or even Linux)), then it is more appropriately termed "Firmware", and should be considered simply one more BOM component, like the CPU or Memory.
The fact that Apple specifically states that OS X is licensed only for Apple-Approved hardware (and the fact that they are the authors and publishers of same), only strengthens their legal position.
Can't wait until the tie in between OS and hardware for Macs is shut down too. Being able to use MacOSX on any x86 compatible computer or buying able to buy a macbook without the OS (and don't give me the "Apple give away the OS!" crap, its value is baked in into the hardware, its just indirect...).
We wouldn't want any double standard here!
All Apple has to do is start calling OS X "Firmware", and that neatly sidesteps the whole issue. No court is going to say that a product can't be sold with Firmware written by the same manufacturer.
It only applies if the OS and device are really two separate entities. For Macs you could argue that you should be able to buy the device without the OS. For phones, it seems that the OS is part of the device, especially in case of iPhones (what else are you going to run on them). Keep in mind that iOS isn't sold separately either, nor are there any charges for upgrades.
That's because the iPhone (which really should be called a computer) is locked down in the firmware by the manufacturer to only run operating systems provided by them. If they would disable this blocking then alternative operating systems could run on the iPhone. It has in the past when good hackers were able to work around Apples attempt to dominate the user, but that has not been successful recently.
I argue that the iPhone and iPad really should not be called a "computer" (unless you also want to call your microwave oven, TV set, A/V receiver, DSLR, DVD/BD Player, VCR, etc. a "computer"), because there are simply absolutely no practical alternatives for the Firmware "OS" that completes the "product" design.
Even a "jailbroken" iPhone is still running iOS; otherwise it would be useless as a phone. All that the "jailbreaks" do is provide a method whereby "unsigned" software packages can be "side-loaded" into the iPhone. However, that unsigned software must still be developed in XCode to run under iOS.
I the case of the Mac, you may have had a (weak) argument; but now that Apple distributes OS X for free, I'm pretty sure that the Italians won't be interested in going after Apple.
Since computing is moving to tablets and phones, can we get OS refunds for iDevices and Android tablets and phones also ?
Also, is this applicable to Macs?
I wondered the same thing. But now that the most recent two versions (Mavericks and Yosemite) of OS X are free (and iOS has been free for quite a while), I don't think that the Italian gummint could force Apple to assign a "price" to that which they are distributing for free.
OK, that is fine, I'm not sure you read "But as a general statement it is completely not true that a competent GPU is capable of doing something on its own."
So if you didn't talk about GPU drivers, you are missing something important.
No. I just assumed that anyone reading and posting on Slashdot understood that in both cases (Windows 8's "Whatever-Replaced-Aero-Glass"', and "OS X's "Quartz Compositor" (or whatever it is called these days)) that the difference between using those APIs (and the lower-level drivers and hardware) to acheive either the Windows 8 "Modern UI" or OS X's "Window and Desktop(s) Management" could not be attributed to having "tightly controlled" Hardware selection (in Apple's case), vs. "Anything Goes" hardware selection (leaving the Windows Approved Hardware List out of it for the moment), because, in each case, the actual underlying hardware and software was almost assuredly capable of presenting essentially the same complexity of display, and that the REAL difference was that Microsoft simply (and IMHO, wrongly) thinks their primitive UI is what "the people" actually want and need (but which "the people" have simply and roundly rejected, as referenced by W8's frighteningly-low adoption rate)..
So obviously, it isn't the tightly-spec'ed hardware (since what Apple is doing could be handled by any competent GPU designed in this century)
Well, (both) the competent GPU makers suck so hard at driver writing, that black holes have developed an inferiority complex. So on top of a competent GPU, one needs a competent GPU writer, or at least hold the hands of GPU makers in writing drivers for an OS and/or test the drivers beyond imagination.
Apple is doing that well with their limited GPUs supported. But as a general statement it is completely not true that a competent GPU is capable of doing something on its own.
Actually, I wasn't actually talking about the GPU-drivers, or their authors (except to attempt to make the point that OS X's advanced use of the WIMP UI (as compared with Windows 8) is not "rocket-science", GPU (or GPU-driver) wise; but rather the authors of the OS (as embodied by their employer, i.e. Microsoft or Apple) are the "Rocket-Scientists" here. Because it is the OS that contains the functions and functionality that enable all that cool (and useful!) Window and "Multiple-Desktops"-Management in OS X, that makes Windows 8 look and feel so downright antediluvian by comparison.
So, what I was saying to the GGP was that "This has NOTHING to do with 'Restricted Hardware' choices (because any number of readily-available hardware combinations could easily handle the task), and EVERYTHING to do with OS Designers and Developers, and their ability to solve the UI challenges in an elegant, easy-to-use way."
When you have a relatively small customer base and are highly restrictive about what hardware your OS will run on, you have a lot of freedom to be very VERY controlling of your environment.
Seriously?
Within a very large "set" of possible motherboards, video cards, etc, What possible bearing would the range of a certain class of hardware that an OS can run on have to do with whether that OS uses featureless, monochromatic "tiles" that look like they were designed by a six-year-old (but which are running on a GPU that can crank out 25 zillion individually shaded and textured polygons per second), and which barely knows how to do an overlapping window, let alone multiple desktops, as opposed to an UI that actually looks like it was designed by someone who not only implemented easy-to-use features to compensate for systems with limited screen real-estate, while taking full advantage of systems with multiple displays? (Yes, I am fully aware that other OSes have supported things like multiple desktops for some time; but this is about Windows "Modern UI" vs. OS X).
So obviously, it isn't the tightly-spec'ed hardware (since what Apple is doing could be handled by any competent GPU designed in this century) (trackpad gestures notwithstanding). So maybe, just maybe, it is something else, eh?
Microsoft decides that it's in their best interest for all customers to use identical UIs, so they make Metro the standard interface on phones, video game systems, tablets, desktops, and servers. Apple decides that it's in their customers' best interest for products to have similar but individualized UIs, so they create tailored interfaces for tiny, small, and large displays.
That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two companies (and why Apple is eating Microsoft's lunch in every category where they directly compete).
Microsoft has not ever understood one thing.
People ***HATE*** "Windows". Windows is associated with work, pain, crazy difficulties, nerds and viruses. The brand name has negative value.
So what does Microsoft do? They double and triple down on fucking *Windows*. They had the opportunity with the Metro to finally make people see Microsoft as going beyond Windows. "No this isn't Windows any more, it's not supposed to be Windows, and that's OK. We're more than Windows, so try it on its own terms".
And now with phones they kill the one name, Nokia, which people did have a good association with, in favor of a nothingburger which might as well be a suppository name.
That's because, if you have paid attention these last few years, Microsoft thinks that the name "Microsoft" is what is "tainted"; not "Windows". They're wrong, of course. And all they would have had to do was ask about 100 people randomly off the street, and that would have been well-enough data-sample to show that in abundance.
So they are trying like hell to run away from a pile of dogshit they stepped in, while ignoring the fact that they are still carrying the stench of it with them on their shoes.
The kernel IS unified. They're literally using the same kernel across all devices since Windows 8 and equivalents. APIs are already optionally unified.
R U Serious?
Are you REALLY saying that a PHONE is running a full-blown NT Kernel?!?
MS could have been wise about the whole situation and looked to GNOME and Unity as some attempts at putting a touch screen orientated interface on a desktop environment and the uproar it caused. I am not sure how Microsoft thought they would have any different results. And I think MS is trying to beat Apple to unifying their operating systems; they want to look original when they finish first even though they didn't start first.
Yeah, but you'll notice that Apple is VERY selective about "unifying" the Desktop (pointer-driven) and Tablet/Phone (touch-driven) environments. And I am sure that they have been even MORE selective after seeing the adoption rate of Windows 8...
Because unlike the neck beards, MS is innovating. Why does a view (desktop, tablet, phone) have to be tied to the OS?
For certain activities, it doesn't (and usually isn't in any reasonably-modern OS). However, at some point, the UI "becomes" the driving factor in the OS (and Application) design, and when that is ignored, you get the clusterfuck that is The Interface Formerly Known As Metro.
Hardly, they are trying to catch up with Linux which is already literally one OS running and holding a strong footprint on all these things. Of course Linux runs on platforms both smaller and larger than any form of Windows.
You're joking, right?
Even Linux fans acknowledge that there is anything but "literally one" Linux. In fact, that's either one of its biggest drawbacks or one of its greatest strengths (or both, somehow)...
And of course the intent of a backup system is among other things to keep data that was deleted by mistake - how can iCloud know if you deleted something by mistake or not?
This.
That is precisely why I have set our work backup software to not erase "Deleted" files from our backups. Instead, the backup software just sends me a reminder every month to review the deleted files (which I will do when storage-space or backup-time becomes a problem). Until then, it is pretty cheap insurance against tears...
The people who are dogging on the Apple Watch for not being "autonomous" simply don't understand the state of the art regarding battery capacity vs. Power budgets, or the laws of physics regarding antenna sizes.
People who claim that the Galaxy S is "autonomous" because it has WiFi are not seriously thinking it through. My iPad is WiFi-only, and let me tell you, it does NOT feel particularly "independent" when I have tried to use it out of the range of WiFi. And believe it or not, those places still exist, even in a major metropolitan area such as where I live. Plus, I seriously doubt you're going to see much in the way of battery life if you do much WiFi-ing with the Galaxy S.
No, I too believe that the smart watch in General is best realized right now as an adjunct to a smartphone; but that still allows for some fairly useful applications.
Right but having a more powerful one next to other vital organs is just fine.
Actually! I do worry a bit about that, too. That's why I usually put my phone on the passenger seat when I can, and in my laptop bag's front pocket, or on my desk when at at work. At home, my phone is likely to be anywhere.
And now we go full-circle, with me having to worry about the BT in the Apple Watch as well...
But, quite frankly, nothing scares me quite as much as a diagnosis of Brain Cancer/Brain Tumor. I watched the wife of an extended-family member go from seemingly fine to a corpse (quite unpleasantly) in the space of about six weeks due to brain cancer. It ain't pretty...
So, if I can avoid that fate by avoiding microwave transmitters strapped to my head for hours at a time, I think I will.
BTW, I was given a hand-me-down BT earpiece. Liked the convenience, but just couldn't get by that whole microwave thing...
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
I am an embedded Developer with over three decades of paid experience. Do these people really think someone like me (or me) doesn't realize that technically, these devices could be considered a "computing device"?
But, the less fanatical among us nerds, you know, the ones that don't have to prove that they are "smart enough" to get Linux to run on their toaster, just because they can say they did it (woohoo), realize that these are still, at the end of the day, Appliances with an Embedded microcontroller, or System-on-Chip, inside.
So, with that in mind, is a device with a mask-programmed microcontroller a "computer"? You can't run arbitrary code on it. Isn't the microcontroller just another form of ASIC at that point? You can't install Linux on it, any more than you can do so on your Cat. Yet inside that MCU, it's the same CPU core, same RAM, same peripherals, running the same instruction set. The only difference is that it has been built with a last-mask that happens to have a printed pattern on it that causes the part to act as a particular state-machine. But is it a "computer". No, it is not.
So please quit trying to Impress yourselves by declaring just any-old-thing that happens to have an MCU in it a "computer". Because, in just a very few decades (when it will be even harder to find anything that isn't an Embedded System), people will simply look at you like you're daft, punks.
This post is an interesting case in wrongness density.
I was simply pointing out that neither side is actually "right".
... software down the users throat.
I don't care if it's free or not. If it's annoying or unnecessary, I don't want to have to spend two hours to rid my newly bought computer of crapware I don't want.
Then buy a Mac. Not one whit of "crapware". Macs used to come with "trial versions" of MS Office; but I don't think that has been true since they developed the iWork suite. They also had a "trial" version of that, too; but then started simply including the suite for "free" with new Macs.
If OSX comes "free" with their hardware, but is also sold separately - or even just has a defined value separately - they will likely fall afoul of the law.
Both Mavericks (current version) and soon-to-be-released Yosemite versions of OS X are distributed FREE; but are only licensed for use in Apple-Approved hardware.
Just because you might be clever enough to download Cisco's Router firmware from a Cisco download site (read "App Store") into a D-Link router (and even make it work), does not magically transmogrify that Firmware into Libre "OS" code.
They might have a better defence as the OS is free. If anything where it might get interesting is that effectively you are buying the OS and it comes with a machine. Thus there might be a way to convince a judge that where Apple is going legally wrong is to insist that you use their machine.
That will never happen, unless you can make Nikon offer its DSLR cameras' OS ("Firmware") to Canon EOS Rebel owners, too.
When an "OS" is offered only for a particular manufacturer's products (which is undeniably the case for OS X, but not for Windows (or even Linux)), then it is more appropriately termed "Firmware", and should be considered simply one more BOM component, like the CPU or Memory.
The fact that Apple specifically states that OS X is licensed only for Apple-Approved hardware (and the fact that they are the authors and publishers of same), only strengthens their legal position.
Can't wait until the tie in between OS and hardware for Macs is shut down too. Being able to use MacOSX on any x86 compatible computer or buying able to buy a macbook without the OS (and don't give me the "Apple give away the OS!" crap, its value is baked in into the hardware, its just indirect...).
We wouldn't want any double standard here!
All Apple has to do is start calling OS X "Firmware", and that neatly sidesteps the whole issue. No court is going to say that a product can't be sold with Firmware written by the same manufacturer.
Think about it.
If it's really free, can I download and install it legally on my assembled PC?
Do we REALLY have to have this discussion each-and-every-time?
It only applies if the OS and device are really two separate entities. For Macs you could argue that you should be able to buy the device without the OS. For phones, it seems that the OS is part of the device, especially in case of iPhones (what else are you going to run on them). Keep in mind that iOS isn't sold separately either, nor are there any charges for upgrades.
That's because the iPhone (which really should be called a computer) is locked down in the firmware by the manufacturer to only run operating systems provided by them. If they would disable this blocking then alternative operating systems could run on the iPhone. It has in the past when good hackers were able to work around Apples attempt to dominate the user, but that has not been successful recently.
I argue that the iPhone and iPad really should not be called a "computer" (unless you also want to call your microwave oven, TV set, A/V receiver, DSLR, DVD/BD Player, VCR, etc. a "computer"), because there are simply absolutely no practical alternatives for the Firmware "OS" that completes the "product" design.
Even a "jailbroken" iPhone is still running iOS; otherwise it would be useless as a phone. All that the "jailbreaks" do is provide a method whereby "unsigned" software packages can be "side-loaded" into the iPhone. However, that unsigned software must still be developed in XCode to run under iOS.
I the case of the Mac, you may have had a (weak) argument; but now that Apple distributes OS X for free, I'm pretty sure that the Italians won't be interested in going after Apple.
Since computing is moving to tablets and phones, can we get OS refunds for iDevices and Android tablets and phones also ?
Also, is this applicable to Macs?
I wondered the same thing. But now that the most recent two versions (Mavericks and Yosemite) of OS X are free (and iOS has been free for quite a while), I don't think that the Italian gummint could force Apple to assign a "price" to that which they are distributing for free.
Of course, the Fandroids will attribute this to "Apple fanboyism", and the wheel goes round and round.
Fist Prost, BTW.
OK, that is fine, I'm not sure you read "But as a general statement it is completely not true that a competent GPU is capable of doing something on its own."
So if you didn't talk about GPU drivers, you are missing something important.
No. I just assumed that anyone reading and posting on Slashdot understood that in both cases (Windows 8's "Whatever-Replaced-Aero-Glass"', and "OS X's "Quartz Compositor" (or whatever it is called these days)) that the difference between using those APIs (and the lower-level drivers and hardware) to acheive either the Windows 8 "Modern UI" or OS X's "Window and Desktop(s) Management" could not be attributed to having "tightly controlled" Hardware selection (in Apple's case), vs. "Anything Goes" hardware selection (leaving the Windows Approved Hardware List out of it for the moment), because, in each case, the actual underlying hardware and software was almost assuredly capable of presenting essentially the same complexity of display, and that the REAL difference was that Microsoft simply (and IMHO, wrongly) thinks their primitive UI is what "the people" actually want and need (but which "the people" have simply and roundly rejected, as referenced by W8's frighteningly-low adoption rate)..
So obviously, it isn't the tightly-spec'ed hardware (since what Apple is doing could be handled by any competent GPU designed in this century)
Well, (both) the competent GPU makers suck so hard at driver writing, that black holes have developed an inferiority complex. So on top of a competent GPU, one needs a competent GPU writer, or at least hold the hands of GPU makers in writing drivers for an OS and/or test the drivers beyond imagination.
Apple is doing that well with their limited GPUs supported. But as a general statement it is completely not true that a competent GPU is capable of doing something on its own.
Actually, I wasn't actually talking about the GPU-drivers, or their authors (except to attempt to make the point that OS X's advanced use of the WIMP UI (as compared with Windows 8) is not "rocket-science", GPU (or GPU-driver) wise; but rather the authors of the OS (as embodied by their employer, i.e. Microsoft or Apple) are the "Rocket-Scientists" here. Because it is the OS that contains the functions and functionality that enable all that cool (and useful!) Window and "Multiple-Desktops"-Management in OS X, that makes Windows 8 look and feel so downright antediluvian by comparison.
So, what I was saying to the GGP was that "This has NOTHING to do with 'Restricted Hardware' choices (because any number of readily-available hardware combinations could easily handle the task), and EVERYTHING to do with OS Designers and Developers, and their ability to solve the UI challenges in an elegant, easy-to-use way."
When you have a relatively small customer base and are highly restrictive about what hardware your OS will run on, you have a lot of freedom to be very VERY controlling of your environment.
Seriously?
Within a very large "set" of possible motherboards, video cards, etc, What possible bearing would the range of a certain class of hardware that an OS can run on have to do with whether that OS uses featureless, monochromatic "tiles" that look like they were designed by a six-year-old (but which are running on a GPU that can crank out 25 zillion individually shaded and textured polygons per second), and which barely knows how to do an overlapping window, let alone multiple desktops, as opposed to an UI that actually looks like it was designed by someone who not only implemented easy-to-use features to compensate for systems with limited screen real-estate, while taking full advantage of systems with multiple displays? (Yes, I am fully aware that other OSes have supported things like multiple desktops for some time; but this is about Windows "Modern UI" vs. OS X).
So obviously, it isn't the tightly-spec'ed hardware (since what Apple is doing could be handled by any competent GPU designed in this century) (trackpad gestures notwithstanding). So maybe, just maybe, it is something else, eh?
Now that's funny!!!
Mike Dell; is that you?
You do realize, of course, just how ridiculous you sound at this point?
Microsoft decides that it's in their best interest for all customers to use identical UIs, so they make Metro the standard interface on phones, video game systems, tablets, desktops, and servers. Apple decides that it's in their customers' best interest for products to have similar but individualized UIs, so they create tailored interfaces for tiny, small, and large displays.
That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two companies (and why Apple is eating Microsoft's lunch in every category where they directly compete).
Exactly. Someone else, mod parent up, please!
Microsoft has not ever understood one thing. People ***HATE*** "Windows". Windows is associated with work, pain, crazy difficulties, nerds and viruses. The brand name has negative value. So what does Microsoft do? They double and triple down on fucking *Windows*. They had the opportunity with the Metro to finally make people see Microsoft as going beyond Windows. "No this isn't Windows any more, it's not supposed to be Windows, and that's OK. We're more than Windows, so try it on its own terms".
And now with phones they kill the one name, Nokia, which people did have a good association with, in favor of a nothingburger which might as well be a suppository name.
That's because, if you have paid attention these last few years, Microsoft thinks that the name "Microsoft" is what is "tainted"; not "Windows". They're wrong, of course. And all they would have had to do was ask about 100 people randomly off the street, and that would have been well-enough data-sample to show that in abundance.
So they are trying like hell to run away from a pile of dogshit they stepped in, while ignoring the fact that they are still carrying the stench of it with them on their shoes.
All I gots to say is, Run, Ronny, Run!!!
The kernel IS unified. They're literally using the same kernel across all devices since Windows 8 and equivalents. APIs are already optionally unified.
R U Serious?
Are you REALLY saying that a PHONE is running a full-blown NT Kernel?!?
That's actually pretty impressive. But dumb.
MS could have been wise about the whole situation and looked to GNOME and Unity as some attempts at putting a touch screen orientated interface on a desktop environment and the uproar it caused. I am not sure how Microsoft thought they would have any different results. And I think MS is trying to beat Apple to unifying their operating systems; they want to look original when they finish first even though they didn't start first.
Yeah, but you'll notice that Apple is VERY selective about "unifying" the Desktop (pointer-driven) and Tablet/Phone (touch-driven) environments. And I am sure that they have been even MORE selective after seeing the adoption rate of Windows 8...
Because unlike the neck beards, MS is innovating. Why does a view (desktop, tablet, phone) have to be tied to the OS?
For certain activities, it doesn't (and usually isn't in any reasonably-modern OS). However, at some point, the UI "becomes" the driving factor in the OS (and Application) design, and when that is ignored, you get the clusterfuck that is The Interface Formerly Known As Metro.
Hardly, they are trying to catch up with Linux which is already literally one OS running and holding a strong footprint on all these things. Of course Linux runs on platforms both smaller and larger than any form of Windows.
You're joking, right?
Even Linux fans acknowledge that there is anything but "literally one" Linux. In fact, that's either one of its biggest drawbacks or one of its greatest strengths (or both, somehow)...
Or are you new here?
goto fail; goto fail;
So you design a better, practical system.
And of course the intent of a backup system is among other things to keep data that was deleted by mistake - how can iCloud know if you deleted something by mistake or not?
This.
That is precisely why I have set our work backup software to not erase "Deleted" files from our backups. Instead, the backup software just sends me a reminder every month to review the deleted files (which I will do when storage-space or backup-time becomes a problem). Until then, it is pretty cheap insurance against tears...
Exactly.
The people who are dogging on the Apple Watch for not being "autonomous" simply don't understand the state of the art regarding battery capacity vs. Power budgets, or the laws of physics regarding antenna sizes.
People who claim that the Galaxy S is "autonomous" because it has WiFi are not seriously thinking it through. My iPad is WiFi-only, and let me tell you, it does NOT feel particularly "independent" when I have tried to use it out of the range of WiFi. And believe it or not, those places still exist, even in a major metropolitan area such as where I live. Plus, I seriously doubt you're going to see much in the way of battery life if you do much WiFi-ing with the Galaxy S.
No, I too believe that the smart watch in General is best realized right now as an adjunct to a smartphone; but that still allows for some fairly useful applications.
Right but having a more powerful one next to other vital organs is just fine.
Actually! I do worry a bit about that, too. That's why I usually put my phone on the passenger seat when I can, and in my laptop bag's front pocket, or on my desk when at at work. At home, my phone is likely to be anywhere.
And now we go full-circle, with me having to worry about the BT in the Apple Watch as well...
But, quite frankly, nothing scares me quite as much as a diagnosis of Brain Cancer/Brain Tumor. I watched the wife of an extended-family member go from seemingly fine to a corpse (quite unpleasantly) in the space of about six weeks due to brain cancer. It ain't pretty...
So, if I can avoid that fate by avoiding microwave transmitters strapped to my head for hours at a time, I think I will.
BTW, I was given a hand-me-down BT earpiece. Liked the convenience, but just couldn't get by that whole microwave thing...