OMG! That was me and I didn't realize it until you spelled it out right in front of me! I meant to use ^H! How in the eff I typed ^M while typing that is scary and weird. I think I need more sleep or something. Wow. Embarrassed. Thanks for pointing it out. I was wondering what in the heck the initial reply was about! lol! I use ^H for humor all the time... Wow, really, really embarrassed.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
A mind is a terrible thing...;-)
"We are crazy;
We are stupid!
We are lazy;
We are dirty!
If you understand you're gonna win a prize;
If you understand you're gonna win a prize;
If you understand you're gonna win a prize;
If you understand you're gonna win a prize."
-Jean Yves "M.Frog" Labat, We Are Crazy
Not for nothing, but BlackBerry has always had this functionality. Start typing the name of a song, person, web page you've visited, map location or whatever, and it comes up instantly. Always has.
But can it search content in APPS? That is what Google is crowing about.
Palm OS had that at least as long ago as version 3, sometime in the mid 90's, I think. All your app had to do was to respond to the API call. Nothing new here.
All desktops called... they want their "Find"/"Search"/locate features back.
I only have a dumb flip phone. Are you really telling me you couldn't search your phone for something before now? I didn't realize the data was so controlled by their related apps. So instead of browsing then selecting a picture to get the image viewer you had to open the image viewer then browse for the picture? No wonder I keep hearing about new "Send To " features.
Hey, be mad at Google! They're the ones who are touting this as some new Revelation...
The advertising i ads system definitely doesn't connect to any of the other services, anyone can see that! Your purchase history? Nope! Your GPS location even though you have GPS off? NEVER!
Nope, no datamining here!
If you are talking about iAd, Apple discontinued that service in July. Do try to keep up.
As for the GPS stuff, the Gummint mandated that on ALL cellphones several years ago.
Searching though documents was available in Windows nt4 including a plugin system so any app could make its documents content searchable
God DAMN! Next someone will point out grep, then another will point out Sherlock on MacOS, then someone will come up with something that ran on a PDP-8...
Exactly how long has Apple known about these holes though.
They maybe zero days to everyone else,Apple could have known about them all the time and left them open on purpose.
I wouldn't trust Apple or anyone connected with Apple to tell me if I was stood up or laying down..
I'm sure that Tim Cook lies awake at night worrying about your opinion.
Question: What kind of idiot would buy an Android-powered phone which isn't a Nexus phone?
So, what you're saying us that, kind of the supposed strengths of Android, "freedom to pick a phone from any one of several OEMs", actually cones down to "Only pick Nexus if you value Security".
No problem. I may be an Apple fan; but I'm not an idiot.
The different divisions have slowly drifted further and further apart in terms of coordination, so you get these kinds of specs where they say there are only certain cable connections allowed.
Yeah, that is pretty crazy; but you're right: When companies get to be the size of Apple, especially when they become that size kind of "organically", rather than as a result of some Grand Plan, there is always a struggle to keep everyone on the same page, philosophically, technically, and internal-politics-ly. I honestly don't think it was the result of some evil plan to take over the world of adapter cables. And the nonsensical prohibition against USB-C to Lightning will probably be phased out of the spec as Apple transitions more products from USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to USB-C (with TB over USB-C).
And you technically cannot have more than one connector per end of cable, so no splitter cables are allowed,
Well, after having to deal with devices that had a "splitter" cable to provide an "injection point" for power, I can't say I hate that one...
However, is that an iOS-only spec? Wasn't there a "dual-head" video cable for the Mac mini?
Grey markets exist for MFi chips - especially those Chinese units. Don't see the Kensington, Logitech, and other name-brand cables, do you? Just the Chinese knock-off units. Go check the Apple spec - it's not allowed. Doesn't mean you can't buy some grey market chips and build the cables, but Apple says you can't. My guess is you can't look it up because you don't have access to the MFi Developer network, and thus have to just go by your fanboidom for Apple, rather than the real facts about the Apple spec.
After you pointed that out, I did a quick check for Belkin and Logitech cables. Long story short, you appear to be correct. Those aftermarket cables on Amazon likely are made with bootleg MFi chips.
I am an embedded designer by trade, and technically a registered iOS Dev; but I haven't done any iOS stuff for quite a while, and am not really familiar with the spec you cited, since I was not developing a piece of hardware at the time.
So, bottom line: We were both partially right, and partially wrong: You CAN directly connect a USB-C equipped Mac to a Lightning equipped iOS device without going through an adapter-fest; but to do so "legally" requires the purchase of an Apple-only cable. Although I'm not sure a consumer breaks any laws by innocently purchasing and/or using a bootleg pseudo-MFi cable...
Cool, go check out Apple Accessory Interface Specification revs 20-24 (that I know of, I think that includes the latest one but a new one is out pretty soon) and you'll see that it explicitly prohibits 3rd parties from doing USB-C to Lightning connectors. Apple will not allow a Lightning connector to anything other than a Micro USB Type B or full size Type A connector. Oh, and you have to follow that spec if you want to pass through Apple Certification Testing to get your Lightning chips. Doesn't surprise me that Apple bans others from doing it (via their specs and tests) and they do it themselves...
Oh, and BT certification testing is typically a 45-60 day effort. I've only done it a dozen times or so...
No, of course Apple would never allow 3rd party USB-C to Lightning cables. Afterall, it's well known that Apple made its vast fortunes selling $25 cables, while simultaneouslt denying others from doing so.
And I wasn't talking about the BT certification process, I was referring to Apple's OWN Certification and Qualification process for a new chip, regardless of what it is used for.
Apple used Broadcom chips earlier, if they are doing their own - it's already in production (been taped out probably 3-4 months ago) well ahead of the spec release or approval. I would be very surprised if they did 5.0 support for the iPhone 7. Next generation? Sure - but then, everyone else will probably do the same thing as Broadcom, CSR, Qualcomm, Nordic will all have 5.0 chipsets out and in production.
And yes, OSX supports AptX which is why it is so frustrating doing headphones! With Apple, you have two different high-end CODECs to support. But then what do you expect from a company that released a USB-C only laptop and have a spec in-place (and stil there) that prohibits USB-C to Lightning cables - meaning you cannot make a cable that can directly plug your iOS device into their laptop (you must use a USB-C to Micro-USB, then a micro-USB to Lightning cable combination).
That's the thing: I actually check out other people's outlandish anti-Apple claims.
And your statement regarding an Apple designed-Chip being "taped-out" only 3-4 months ago is laughable. I doubt that even Apple could get evaluation/qualification units in that much time. But the fact that they bought Passif a few years ago strongly hints that they plan on moving away from Broadcom; so who cares what they are doing as far as BT 5 goes?
How can I be sure? I'm working on two Bluetooth headphones right now for major consumer electronics companies - and BT 5.0 chipsets are not yet ready for use, not until Q1/Q2 of next year - and that's for sampling. So it's not going to be in the next iPhone.
Unless, of course, Apple designs their own. I agree it would not be typical for that part of the design; but Apple can and does design quite a bit of silicon.
I agree it does sound like a bit of a long shot for this iteration; but for the next one?
I don't know what the licensing for Aptx is like; but Apple DOES support it in OS X. So maybe they'll just go that route for now...
But since that is, AFAICT, just a different CODEC riding on the same ol' BT Transport and PHY layers, how much improvement would that actually even bring, especially in the power-consumption metrics?
I make about four phone calls a month. I listen to music for about six hours a day.
Then you're still an idiot; for paying for cellphone service and a smartphone, when all you really need is an iPod Touch with a VoIP App. They have great audio. Or, since you have an irrational hatred of Apple, a Fiio with a pay as you go feature phone.
That still leaves the many problems with Bluetooth itself and the devices. And rechargeable Li-Ion battery powered devices have a two year life max, due to chronological limit of Li-Ion batteries.
BT 5, which reportedly is what Apple will be using, aims to solve bandwidth, range, and battery life issues in one fell swoop. So, this is not going to be your father's Bluetooth quality.
And you are REALLY full of shit regarding Li-ion batteries. What you are used to is SHITTY charging circuits, that over-current the batteries in the name of fast charging. This overheats the batteries, which kills them dead. But in a properly designed device, Li-ion batteries are QUITE robust, and survive hundreds of charge cycles with negligible degradation. For example, my four year old iPad 2, which I am typing this on, gets HEAVY use on a daily basis, and if the battery capacity has dropped at all, it is not by a noticeable amount. I still get in the 12 hour plus world for surfing, emails, and posting on Slashdot,,,
Audio quality on the 3.5mm output is a primary selection criteria for my phone
Then you're either a liar or a complete moron. It's a PHONE, stupid! I can guarantee you that the engineering team that designed your phone stuck whatever audio circuitry that fit the space and budget into that phone, and that they didn't give two shits about the quality, other than the signal was clear and undistorted.
Apple is continuing the trend of throwing common sense out in favor of style. Gotta have slimmer and slicker every year, who cares about battery life or audio quality.
In case you hadn't noticed, every phone mfg. is obsessed with anorexic phones. It is definitely not just an "Apple thing".
And I'm a fairly critical listener, and even pumped through my stereo at home, my iPhone 6+ sounds great; so, I call "Bullshit" on your Bullshit. And although Apple Music streaming is only 128k AAC, THE "AAC" part makes it equivalent to about 192k MP3; or IOW, quite listenable.
Wait, why would they bundle bt5 earbuds with the new iphone and then start shipping phones with bt5? surely you'd do both at once, unless that's what you meant and the wording threw me off.
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Just because apple do something doesn't mean every single other player will do the same.
At first, you might be right; but the major Android OEMs would most almost certainly follow suit almost immediately, and that would drag most, if not all, of the other OEMs along, too. Then at some point within the nextt 5 years, you will have to choose between a REALLY off-brand Android phone, or one without a 3.5mm jack. Of that I am relatively certain.
BT 5 is still not released as a spec. Expect hardware to follow in Q1 or Q2 next year (meaning not the iPhone 7). And to the best of my knowledge it requires a different chipset as the bandwidth through the modem is 4 times as high. Existing BT sets won't support BT 5 protocols. So in this case - the iPhone 7 will be crippled on an older protocol, without any clean way - short of a dongle - to use literally billions of existing headphones.
According to the Bluetooth Technology site, BT 5 is due to be released as a spec "in late 2016 to early 2017." So obviously, they are pretty far along in the "Draft" process.
So, how can you be sure that this won't be like the 802.11n WiFi spec; where GOBS of devices were released based on the Draft spec, and then updated to support the finalized spec with a Firmware Update? Apple is perfectly capable of designing their own BT 5 chips based on the Draft spec, and it is doubtful that the lowest layers of the BT 5 protocol will change much, if at all, at this late date.
And if Apple includes their BT 5 earbuds based on the Draft spec, too, it at least partially answers the need for compatible BT 5 devices to use with the phone, and if the finalized BT 5 spec somehow renders the Apple earbuds incompatible (and assuming they cannot be updated themselves), Apple can continue to support their own earbuds as a variant of the BT 5 spec.
And of course, the phone would continue to support earlier versions of the BT spec, too.
So, it really doesn't matter if the last "i" hasn't been dotted and the last "t" crossed on the BT 5 spec; it is obviously far enough along that I would be shocked if Apple wasn't simply one among many who were in various stages of BT 5 product designs.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG! That was me and I didn't realize it until you spelled it out right in front of me! I meant to use ^H! How in the eff I typed ^M while typing that is scary and weird. I think I need more sleep or something. Wow. Embarrassed. Thanks for pointing it out. I was wondering what in the heck the initial reply was about! lol! I use ^H for humor all the time... Wow, really, really embarrassed.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
;-)
A mind is a terrible thing...
"We are crazy;
We are stupid!
We are lazy;
We are dirty!
If you understand you're gonna win a prize;
If you understand you're gonna win a prize;
If you understand you're gonna win a prize;
If you understand you're gonna win a prize." -Jean Yves "M.Frog" Labat, We Are Crazy
Newton OS (1993): http://www.unna.org/unna/apple... (page 589)
Sherlock on MacOS may even predate that, though.
Not for nothing, but BlackBerry has always had this functionality. Start typing the name of a song, person, web page you've visited, map location or whatever, and it comes up instantly. Always has.
But can it search content in APPS? That is what Google is crowing about.
Palm OS had that at least as long ago as version 3, sometime in the mid 90's, I think. All your app had to do was to respond to the API call. Nothing new here.
So why is Google announcing this like it is?
You're joking, right?
No. ^M, means Control-M, ASCII 0x0D, or IOW, Carriage Return.
Whereas, ^H means Control-H, ASCII 0x08, or IOW, Backspace-and-Delete, or as often called "Backspace".
The OP used ^M when he obviously meant ^H.
All desktops called... they want their "Find"/"Search"/locate features back.
I only have a dumb flip phone. Are you really telling me you couldn't search your phone for something before now? I didn't realize the data was so controlled by their related apps. So instead of browsing then selecting a picture to get the image viewer you had to open the image viewer then browse for the picture? No wonder I keep hearing about new "Send To " features.
Hey, be mad at Google! They're the ones who are touting this as some new Revelation...
The advertising i ads system definitely doesn't connect to any of the other services, anyone can see that! Your purchase history? Nope! Your GPS location even though you have GPS off? NEVER!
Nope, no datamining here!
If you are talking about iAd, Apple discontinued that service in July. Do try to keep up.
As for the GPS stuff, the Gummint mandated that on ALL cellphones several years ago.
You really are an idiot.
Only one difference: iOS doesn't use it for (yet another) Datamining source
Can you prove that?
Nice try. Can't prove a negative, fucktard.
Searching though documents was available in Windows nt4 including a plugin system so any app could make its documents content searchable
God DAMN! Next someone will point out grep, then another will point out Sherlock on MacOS, then someone will come up with something that ran on a PDP-8...
Right. Good idi
customer.
Think you've mapped your backspace key to carriage return and then forgotten about it.
LOL! I was wondering why he was using Carriage Returns instead of Backspaces...
...and it wants its Spotlight Feature back!
Only one difference: iOS doesn't use it for (yet another) Datamining source, like with Google.
Exactly how long has Apple known about these holes though. They maybe zero days to everyone else,Apple could have known about them all the time and left them open on purpose. I wouldn't trust Apple or anyone connected with Apple to tell me if I was stood up or laying down..
I'm sure that Tim Cook lies awake at night worrying about your opinion.
To Jail Break not just one iPhone but 1 million iPhones is a battle that Apple Inc. thanks to Timmy Cook has already lost.
Could you please speak English? Your comment is utterly incomprehensible.
Question: What kind of idiot would buy an Android-powered phone which isn't a Nexus phone?
So, what you're saying us that, kind of the supposed strengths of Android, "freedom to pick a phone from any one of several OEMs", actually cones down to "Only pick Nexus if you value Security".
Thank you for finally confirming that.
Thank you for that.
No problem. I may be an Apple fan; but I'm not an idiot.
The different divisions have slowly drifted further and further apart in terms of coordination, so you get these kinds of specs where they say there are only certain cable connections allowed.
Yeah, that is pretty crazy; but you're right: When companies get to be the size of Apple, especially when they become that size kind of "organically", rather than as a result of some Grand Plan, there is always a struggle to keep everyone on the same page, philosophically, technically, and internal-politics-ly. I honestly don't think it was the result of some evil plan to take over the world of adapter cables. And the nonsensical prohibition against USB-C to Lightning will probably be phased out of the spec as Apple transitions more products from USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to USB-C (with TB over USB-C).
And you technically cannot have more than one connector per end of cable, so no splitter cables are allowed,
Well, after having to deal with devices that had a "splitter" cable to provide an "injection point" for power, I can't say I hate that one...
However, is that an iOS-only spec? Wasn't there a "dual-head" video cable for the Mac mini?
Grey markets exist for MFi chips - especially those Chinese units. Don't see the Kensington, Logitech, and other name-brand cables, do you? Just the Chinese knock-off units. Go check the Apple spec - it's not allowed. Doesn't mean you can't buy some grey market chips and build the cables, but Apple says you can't. My guess is you can't look it up because you don't have access to the MFi Developer network, and thus have to just go by your fanboidom for Apple, rather than the real facts about the Apple spec.
After you pointed that out, I did a quick check for Belkin and Logitech cables. Long story short, you appear to be correct. Those aftermarket cables on Amazon likely are made with bootleg MFi chips.
I am an embedded designer by trade, and technically a registered iOS Dev; but I haven't done any iOS stuff for quite a while, and am not really familiar with the spec you cited, since I was not developing a piece of hardware at the time.
So, bottom line: We were both partially right, and partially wrong: You CAN directly connect a USB-C equipped Mac to a Lightning equipped iOS device without going through an adapter-fest; but to do so "legally" requires the purchase of an Apple-only cable. Although I'm not sure a consumer breaks any laws by innocently purchasing and/or using a bootleg pseudo-MFi cable...
Cool, go check out Apple Accessory Interface Specification revs 20-24 (that I know of, I think that includes the latest one but a new one is out pretty soon) and you'll see that it explicitly prohibits 3rd parties from doing USB-C to Lightning connectors. Apple will not allow a Lightning connector to anything other than a Micro USB Type B or full size Type A connector. Oh, and you have to follow that spec if you want to pass through Apple Certification Testing to get your Lightning chips. Doesn't surprise me that Apple bans others from doing it (via their specs and tests) and they do it themselves...
Oh, and BT certification testing is typically a 45-60 day effort. I've only done it a dozen times or so...
No, of course Apple would never allow 3rd party USB-C to Lightning cables. Afterall, it's well known that Apple made its vast fortunes selling $25 cables, while simultaneouslt denying others from doing so.
And I wasn't talking about the BT certification process, I was referring to Apple's OWN Certification and Qualification process for a new chip, regardless of what it is used for.
Apple used Broadcom chips earlier, if they are doing their own - it's already in production (been taped out probably 3-4 months ago) well ahead of the spec release or approval. I would be very surprised if they did 5.0 support for the iPhone 7. Next generation? Sure - but then, everyone else will probably do the same thing as Broadcom, CSR, Qualcomm, Nordic will all have 5.0 chipsets out and in production.
And yes, OSX supports AptX which is why it is so frustrating doing headphones! With Apple, you have two different high-end CODECs to support. But then what do you expect from a company that released a USB-C only laptop and have a spec in-place (and stil there) that prohibits USB-C to Lightning cables - meaning you cannot make a cable that can directly plug your iOS device into their laptop (you must use a USB-C to Micro-USB, then a micro-USB to Lightning cable combination).
No, of course you can't have a USB-C to Lightning Cable. Apple doesn't allow that.
That's the thing: I actually check out other people's outlandish anti-Apple claims.
And your statement regarding an Apple designed-Chip being "taped-out" only 3-4 months ago is laughable. I doubt that even Apple could get evaluation/qualification units in that much time. But the fact that they bought Passif a few years ago strongly hints that they plan on moving away from Broadcom; so who cares what they are doing as far as BT 5 goes?
Oh, I finally re-found the article I was looking for. But I would put this firmly in the "rumor" category.
How can I be sure? I'm working on two Bluetooth headphones right now for major consumer electronics companies - and BT 5.0 chipsets are not yet ready for use, not until Q1/Q2 of next year - and that's for sampling. So it's not going to be in the next iPhone.
Unless, of course, Apple designs their own. I agree it would not be typical for that part of the design; but Apple can and does design quite a bit of silicon.
I agree it does sound like a bit of a long shot for this iteration; but for the next one?
I don't know what the licensing for Aptx is like; but Apple DOES support it in OS X. So maybe they'll just go that route for now...
But since that is, AFAICT, just a different CODEC riding on the same ol' BT Transport and PHY layers, how much improvement would that actually even bring, especially in the power-consumption metrics?
I make about four phone calls a month. I listen to music for about six hours a day.
Then you're still an idiot; for paying for cellphone service and a smartphone, when all you really need is an iPod Touch with a VoIP App. They have great audio. Or, since you have an irrational hatred of Apple, a Fiio with a pay as you go feature phone.
That still leaves the many problems with Bluetooth itself and the devices. And rechargeable Li-Ion battery powered devices have a two year life max, due to chronological limit of Li-Ion batteries.
BT 5, which reportedly is what Apple will be using, aims to solve bandwidth, range, and battery life issues in one fell swoop. So, this is not going to be your father's Bluetooth quality.
And you are REALLY full of shit regarding Li-ion batteries. What you are used to is SHITTY charging circuits, that over-current the batteries in the name of fast charging. This overheats the batteries, which kills them dead. But in a properly designed device, Li-ion batteries are QUITE robust, and survive hundreds of charge cycles with negligible degradation. For example, my four year old iPad 2, which I am typing this on, gets HEAVY use on a daily basis, and if the battery capacity has dropped at all, it is not by a noticeable amount. I still get in the 12 hour plus world for surfing, emails, and posting on Slashdot,,,
Audio quality on the 3.5mm output is a primary selection criteria for my phone
Then you're either a liar or a complete moron. It's a PHONE, stupid! I can guarantee you that the engineering team that designed your phone stuck whatever audio circuitry that fit the space and budget into that phone, and that they didn't give two shits about the quality, other than the signal was clear and undistorted.
Apple is continuing the trend of throwing common sense out in favor of style. Gotta have slimmer and slicker every year, who cares about battery life or audio quality.
In case you hadn't noticed, every phone mfg. is obsessed with anorexic phones. It is definitely not just an "Apple thing".
And I'm a fairly critical listener, and even pumped through my stereo at home, my iPhone 6+ sounds great; so, I call "Bullshit" on your Bullshit. And although Apple Music streaming is only 128k AAC, THE "AAC" part makes it equivalent to about 192k MP3; or IOW, quite listenable.
Wait, why would they bundle bt5 earbuds with the new iphone and then start shipping phones with bt5? surely you'd do both at once, unless that's what you meant and the wording threw me off.
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Just because apple do something doesn't mean every single other player will do the same.
At first, you might be right; but the major Android OEMs would most almost certainly follow suit almost immediately, and that would drag most, if not all, of the other OEMs along, too. Then at some point within the nextt 5 years, you will have to choose between a REALLY off-brand Android phone, or one without a 3.5mm jack. Of that I am relatively certain.
BT 5 is still not released as a spec. Expect hardware to follow in Q1 or Q2 next year (meaning not the iPhone 7). And to the best of my knowledge it requires a different chipset as the bandwidth through the modem is 4 times as high. Existing BT sets won't support BT 5 protocols. So in this case - the iPhone 7 will be crippled on an older protocol, without any clean way - short of a dongle - to use literally billions of existing headphones.
According to the Bluetooth Technology site, BT 5 is due to be released as a spec "in late 2016 to early 2017." So obviously, they are pretty far along in the "Draft" process.
So, how can you be sure that this won't be like the 802.11n WiFi spec; where GOBS of devices were released based on the Draft spec, and then updated to support the finalized spec with a Firmware Update? Apple is perfectly capable of designing their own BT 5 chips based on the Draft spec, and it is doubtful that the lowest layers of the BT 5 protocol will change much, if at all, at this late date.
And if Apple includes their BT 5 earbuds based on the Draft spec, too, it at least partially answers the need for compatible BT 5 devices to use with the phone, and if the finalized BT 5 spec somehow renders the Apple earbuds incompatible (and assuming they cannot be updated themselves), Apple can continue to support their own earbuds as a variant of the BT 5 spec.
And of course, the phone would continue to support earlier versions of the BT spec, too.
So, it really doesn't matter if the last "i" hasn't been dotted and the last "t" crossed on the BT 5 spec; it is obviously far enough along that I would be shocked if Apple wasn't simply one among many who were in various stages of BT 5 product designs.