The serious security threats on iOS are all attacks that use iMessage to run code remotely, which means the attacks can be observed without a physical device. Just remember this the next time Apple tells you they need the App Store for "security", because of course the real attacks don't require apps or user interaction at all. Just specially crafted messages to an app you can't uninstall.

Exactly. But this is like the hell of sitting through a PowerPoint presentation only much easier for the presenter, so of course it'll probably take off.

It really looks like the stores that have massive increases in shoplifting are the same stores that are moving quickly to cashier-less self-checkout. Those stores then complain about how there's a sudden scourge of shoplifting and how we need better police protection, conveniently shifting the cost of monitoring customers from the store-paid cashiers to the local tax payer-paid police.

Apple really really wants to be seen as a technology company (despite dropping "computer" from their name) instead of being seen as "just" a consumer brand, so they need to attach themselves to AI. They actually have some interesting ML features and I love that they do things on-device, but between the Apple Car project cancellation and the predictable lackluster response to the Apple Vision Pro, they don't have anything big to get Wall Street and investors excited for the future. The fact that they're breaking their taboo of talking about unannounced products and research is a pretty strong sign that actual AI products are really far off. So yeah⦠this is all hype.

We have no idea what gets sent back to Apple. I ran a proxy server for a development project and happened to notice that around 1am every night my iPhone sent a sizable encrypted payload to Apple. What was in it? Only Apple knows. There is literally no way to verify what is or isn't sent back. Plus, their terms of service and privacy policy could easily have holes to allow anything, and even that's assuming you don't specifically change one of the many default settings to allow sending data back during setup or any OS updates.

What I like about the IPhone is that it just works. I don't have to fiddle with it, change settings, turn this off and that on, side-load what I want. Every Android I've ever had was a total mess, and a PITA. Ads, bloatware, malware, disjointed apps. At least with Apple, its only one company selling my data for texting and calling. If people wanted all of the extra stuff, they'd buy an Android.

Glad you're happy, but you literally lose nothing from having other options available on your device. Don't install other apps or turn other options on. Totally fine! Apple making the decision that other options should not be available is illegal under anti-trust law regardless and should be stopped. Android phones are an adware mess because the manufacturers install the crap. Do you really think Apple's going to start installing that crap on iPhones?

How low do we have to set the bar for this to just works?

Forget Copilot, Git support is still iffy in Xcode. So I'd expect this to work about as well as their AI autocorrect that would insert unprintable characters into your text.

To me it seems Sweeney takes everything personally. Before Epic modified Fortnite, they asked Apple to change multiple terms of service for Epic including letting Epic have their own iOS store, reducing the developer cut to 15%, using their own payment system. Apple responded to that with a no listing all the reasons they did not want to do that.

I don't know much about Tim Sweeney, he might be a real dick, but he's right about Apple. And government regulators around the world are coming around to the same point of view. Presumably not because they're "taking it personally". It's always been highly questionable if Apple's position on the App Store was sustainable. Their approach has been to rake in as much cash they could in before someone stepped in and told them to stop. Now that governments are starting to do that, Apple's suddenly making concessions left and right.. like announcing they'll allow an Xbox Cloud gaming app and reinstating Epic's developer account. It's never really been about what "Apple wants to do" and it's always been about what Apple could get away with.

The EPIC chief tricked apple int accepting an app on the store that wax in massive breach of apples t@cs, had a lawsuit prepared, so he knew what he was doing, lost nine of ten points in their court battle, has zero chance of getting their apps on the App Store _ever_, and is surely an objective observer here

The other headline today is that Apple restored Epic's developer account.

Or, could it possibly be that, as Apple Stated, Developer Interest in Web Apps, has Historically been Low; so not much effort was put into that API by Apple (chicken meet egg?). One can only wonder what the situation would be if Devs. started Pushing for Web Apps much earlier.

Possibly, sure, but of course it's not. In the past Apple has broken web app features when it made web apps too competitive with native apps. For ex. You could play music in the background through a web app on iOS up until the release before the one that launched Apple Music. Then suddenly, your phone would no longer let you lock the screen and continue to listen to music. That's not a chicken and egg problem, that's trying to knife the baby before it gets too big.

I thought it was a joke when Apple announced the Vision Pro and told developers to use Unity for games. Unity's poor performance is tolerable for a certain class of games, but when poor frame rates in VR cause motion sickness, you're telling developers to build products that are literally going to make people vomit. I always thought Epic probably tried to time their attack on the App Store close to the release of Apple's VR headset, but got the timing wrong. That gave Unity a chance to catch up, but then of course they didn't.

And of course, since Apple gave Epic the boot, serious game companies have only consolidated more around Unreal Engine, with developers like CD Projekt Red and Bungie planning to ditch developing their own engines for Unreal. It's really just been a matter of time since Apple started figuring out a way to get Epic back. Acting like they had to do it because of the EU law is a good way to save face.

Most people are keeping them but a vocal minority is amplified online and it makes it appear as if a huge number of people are sending them back.

That theory could be true, but it's just as much a theory. The question is really just "does it have a higher return rate than similar products like the Quest?" The answer is probably yes, if for no other reason than because it costs more, so people will be more sensitive to any issues.

Also worth pointing out, that "keeping it" doesn't mean "using it". I would expect that a large number of people would buy it to watch movies, then completely forget about it when the time comes to watch a movie. (Or the time comes and they want to watch a movie with other people so it's not a great option.)

one that is stylish but lacks a band across the top, and another that is more utilitarian and has the top band. I wonder how many people returning them due to the weight of the device did so without giving the utilitarian band a fair chance.

I think this neatly summarizes the problem with the whole device... What people want ("to look cool") and what the reality is (it's a computer on your face) are in direct contradiction. Like it or not, Apple dropped "computer" from their name and became a lifestyle brand, so they're going to disappoint a good chunk of their customer base with the "utilitarian band". And, again like or not, "not looking stylish" is a totally legit reason for someone to reject a stylish product from a lifestyle brand.

Apple seems to think that just slapping their logo on a product is enough to make people think it's great. No, it's only enough to make people want it before they try it. Once they have it in hand, it has to justify itself. It was true of Newton, and it's also true of Vision Pro.

I owned a Newton and loved it as a toy, but could never really figure out what to practically use it for. Looking back, the real problem was the lack of third party apps. Even the ones you could get ate up too much of the limited memory or required a PC card swap to run. My understanding was the Newton was just too different to program for and the market too small to justify writing an app for it.

This is basically the same problem with Apple's goggles. "Real games" requires tons of storage space that the devices just don't have, and developers won't commit to writing apps for a platform that has no installed base. Apple's obviously making the problem worse here, because by requiring the App Store, the size of the installed base needs to be 30% bigger for a developer to offset the Apple tax.

I think it's also good to keep in mind, all of Apple's hit products had comparable competitors' products that were hits and laid the groundwork before Apple made their version:

• Commodore 64 -> Apple ][.
• Creative Nomad / Rio MP3 Players -> Apple iPod.
• Palm Treo -> Apple iPhone

There is no real hit VR product. There are only flashes in the pan (like PSVR) that last for a year and then fade. I'm pretty unconvinced that Apple can create a compelling polished experience for something that people don't seem to really want.

I'm assuming it was Elon and they installed an impulse control chip?