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.