It's great that they're letting their AI people publish papers (although the last one I saw literally came from interns), but Apple is clearly a couple years behind the state of the art here, and "weirdly interesting" is not how you catch up. Xcode 26 (which is unreleased) is functionally not up to what other companies had out last fall, and by the time it's out in Sept, the situation will be even worse. At this point Apple should get over their "not invented here" syndrome and just license Claude.

Just remember that your "team" is just like a sports team. Their wins are not because of you, and youâ(TM)re not getting a trophy in your house. In fact, your life is probably going to get worse because your "team" openly doesn't care about what happens to you.

"They" is a small group of opportunists using the chaos Trump is causing to smash and grab stuff. Of course it's peanuts compared to the billionaires who were let into the government through the back door and are also now smashing and grabbing stuff, but iPhones are more relatable I guess.

It's pretty easy to spot who gets their news from "alternative sources" (ie. YouTube) because they always think the fringe represents the mainstream.

It may be an alpha with placeholders, but they are using visuals from the game (with the "placeholders") to sell the game. That's blatantly commercial use.

I think you can flip the argument too.. If Apple is allowed to lock people out of 3rd party transactions on a device a consumer bought, in the future with self-driving cars, could car manufacturers demand you only fill up at approved gas stations? Say you can't take your car to certain destinations? Demand a cut of any money you spend at fast food drive thru windows?

If you look at macOS (where the App Store is not required), there are more kinds of apps, more app purchasing models (for ex. upgrades) and consumers overwhelming buy apps outside of the App Store.

It's also pretty easy to see how alternative App Stores become super popular.. For ex. Do you think current Steam users would like to be able to cross-buy games for PC, Mac and iOS? That seems like a no brainer and huge win for consumers by itself.

Apple would like their 30% cut of any thoughts of buying something now.

It's not a good sign that they have to leak potential products for 2027 to Bloomberg to keep the Apple faithful on the hook through 2 dull years. The robot sounds a lot like their car project (ie. why are they making this?) and the smart glasses may have a shot, but are by no means a slam dunk. Under Cook they've had more cancelled or failed new product lines than successes now.

The largest security hole on iPhones is iMessage, which literally nobody turns off. There have been numerous security patches because you could silently and remotely root someone's iPhone through iMessage. And needless to say, malware also can and does appear in the App Store. And you know all of those permission popups in apps? That's literally because Apple has no way of knowing what an app is really doing and they're asking you to confirm that you trust this particular app and the people who made it. Surprise! Deciding if you trust an app and the people who made it is exactly what you would do when you install an app from outside the App Store.

A government creating regulations that benefit the people is exactly what a government should be doing. You can argue the UK government wanted to bypass encryption for self-serving reasons, but side-loading clearly doesn't benefit the Brazilian government while it does benefit consumers.

iPhones flooded with low-quality AI offerings? Is this article talking about apps on the App Store or the release of iOS 18.2?

The App Store for years has insisted it existed for user's safety while requiring a credit card be linked to your account and then letting your kids download $100 barrels of Smurfberries. I'm not sure why anyone would trust Apple or Google to do this either. They both have a strong incentive to classify kids as adults, because otherwise all those crazy purchases they allow kids to make can be called in to question.

Under the rules of feminism, progressivism, etc, women aren't allowed to want certain things. That includes wearing hot pants, being romanced by prince charming, etc.

Your entire comment is ridiculous stuff you made up and attribute to progressives, then you hold that up and say "look how ridiculous this is!" None of it even passes the most basic common sense test... If you spend time any progressives, you'll see girls wearing shorts and tank tops with no bras. There's nobody pulling out rulers to measure skirt length. You might even see guys wearing hot pants. Part of the civil rights movement for women (notably not spear-headed by conservatives) included wearing mini-skirts. Guess who was against it?

Seems to me like that all makes sense.

Except of course, it's obvious bullshit. The reason for disabling web apps is because the Safari engine goes out of its way to cripple the usefulness of web apps. If you could switch to Chrome or potentially another engine, that engine could easily make native OS features available to web apps, making web apps as powerful as native ones. A user could then install a web app icon on the home screen, and you'd have a system as easy to use as the App Store, but completely outside of it.