Apple will never satisfy my lust for cheap, powerful hardware

A couple of initial thoughts.
It does still require you to look at the phone, if you have that turned on.
It also sends a vibration to your watch to let you know the phone is being unlocked.
 
Because a fingerprint was too much work? :rolleyes:

I dunno, I don't like FaceID at the best of times, even when working properly. I don't always want to unlock my phone when I look at it, and whe nI do, it doesn't seem to work half the time. The fact that my brother can unlock my phone about 30% of the time in half light doesn't help.

(that said, I'm in favor of any way to make unlocking easier with a mask on.)
 
Because a fingerprint was too much work? :rolleyes:

I dunno, I don't like FaceID at the best of times, even when working properly. I don't always want to unlock my phone when I look at it, and whe nI do, it doesn't seem to work half the time. The fact that my brother can unlock my phone about 30% of the time in half light doesn't help.

(that said, I'm in favor of any way to make unlocking easier with a mask on.)
Hell, I've unlocked my husband's phone that way and we're not even blood related.
 
Because a fingerprint was too much work? :rolleyes:
I don’t disagree with that. Not having a fingerprint sensor of some sort, even if it’s like the new iPad sensor, is a huge annoyance. I’m just glad there’s a way around it now. They could have just let it go and add a fingerprint sensor in new phones expecting you to just upgrade. I don’t think it’s worth buying an Apple Watch for, but if you have one it’s a nice convenience.
 
Someone else pointed out that 11.6mm is also the thickness of the Apple Watch. It's thinner even than the watch.

--Patrick
 
And it could have been thinner, but the structural pieces most likely need to be that thick to keep it from flexing too much.
 
What am I missing? Why would a silent Mac be bad?

I laughed at the ad on the page: Ford makes gas scent for EV owners. I will keep my jelly belly air fresheners thanks :) I like that my car doesn’t smell like a gas station. I also like that I only go there for McFries.
 
I assume the lack of a fan noise triggers a "there's something wrong" reaction in people's brains because they expect the noise & it's not there.
Subaru added a "fake shift" to their CVTs, because people thought they were broken and "weren't shifting". It drives my husband crazy, because CVTs don't work like that.

I never noticed the lack of a fan on the new MacBook until now. Just never thought about it. (And I like it being silent.)
 
I assume the lack of a fan noise triggers a "there's something wrong" reaction in people's brains because they expect the noise & it's not there.
It's like when you have kids, and you realize it's been quiet for an hour...

Or like how car manufacturers specifically engineer your car door to have a satisfyingly solid sound.
 
Heck, we haven't used bimetal strip-based flasher modules in decades, yet for some reason your car still somehow makes that "tink-tonk-tink-tonk-tink-tonk" sound when your turn signal is activated.

And let's not forget things like the Soundracer:

--Patrick
 
Technically not specifically an Apple thing, but since they've become the poster child for all the world's app store controversies, I'll post it here:
The (proposed) law (PDF) would apply to "companies that own or control an ‌App Store‌ with more than 50,000,000 users," which as near as I can tell is primarily Apple & Google (and maybe Steam, Microsoft, and Amazon -- according to one site there are apparently over 300 app stores out there worldwide). A quick search did not turn up any estimates of the number of users of each app store, only bragging points like the total number of apps downloaded or the amount of revenue generated. The bill does not specify whether a person who buys a phone/tablet/computer automatically becomes a "user" of the respective store simply because they bought an associated device or whether they actually have to create an account and purchase something first, and also the bill does not further define whether "users" only refers to the people (potentially) downloading the apps/content, or whether the developers who create the apps/content are included in the total number of "users."

The bill very much reads like it was written by people who don't understand how computers/operating systems work (If you successfully write/build an app for one platform, then obviously you can successfully write/build that app for EVERY platform, right?), but the main points seem to be that a company that operates an app store Must/May Not:
  1. Mandate that in-app purchases only be processed through the same "store" where you acquired the app.
  2. Offer developers "sweetheart deals" to leave/avoid another platform or require app features be locked to one platform v. another.
  3. Penalize a developer because they have apps on another store.
  4. Block a developer from offering "deals" directly to their app's users from within the app.
  5. Use any inside knowledge gained from distributing an app to develop a competing product to that app.
  6. Restrict/prevent users from using alternate apps/app stores or setting them as the defaults.
  7. Prevent users from removing/hiding preinstalled apps.
  8. Promote their own apps more prominently in searches.
  9. Restrict/reserve APIs and such for its own use--no "undocumented" features that developers aren't allowed to use.
...unless doing so would be a violation of customer privacy and/or applicable law, of course.

Some of this I have no problem getting behind. Sure, a company shouldn't be allowed to tell you where you can/can't market your app, and it shouldn't be allowed to "snoop" your app in order to make their own version that displaces yours, and I'm really happy about the part that says a company shouldn't be allowed to have private, "secret" features/calls/whatever that only it is allowed to use. But #7&#8 just seem petty. My local grocery store pimps their own store-branded products all the time, why shouldn't app stores?

Also there is the elephant in the room that I alluded to earlier. Whose responsibility is it going to be to build and maintain the infrastructure that interconnects all of these app stores? How will company A's app store ever be able to ensure that apps offered by company B's app store are compatible/safe/actually work/etc on company A's device(s) without also being allowed complete and unrestricted access to company B's app store internals? Actually, without being allowed complete and unrestricted access to EVERY other company's app store internals? And it is not lost on me that this law would, by necessity, only apply to the app stores of companies located within the United States, and has no dominion over app stores run by companies located in other countries, or even app stores being run directly by the other countries themselves. The only way I can see this working would be to establish some kind of universal middleware or independent clearing house, but then all THAT does is add another layer to this whole app store thing, possibly a government-run layer, that's going to have to be paid for and maintained and that might end up imposing its own additional layer of fees and requirements and...really this just seems to me to be less about "protect the consumer" and more about "ensure the government gets a cut of the lucrative app store market, and also possibly a first step towards adding a room 641B."

--Patrick
 
I dunno, #7 sounds awesome to me. Being able to remove all pre-installed apps on a phone without having to root it would be great.
Also, I'd guess the Samsung Store, MiStore, and other brands' own store fronts would mostly also fall under this law.
 
#7 sounds awesome to me.
I appreciate it, too. It's the idea that the feature must be mandatory that I don't agree with.
This may be because I provide support, and have already had discussions like the following:
"Ok just open the Xxxxxx app and scroll to the settings."
<a few minutes later>
"I can't find the Xxxxxx app."
"Can you search for it for me?"
"It didn't find anything."
"Ok you must have deleted it in the past, can you go redownload..."
<interrupting> "I didn't delete nothing! It must not have come with it."
<Me, knowing it comes preinstalled on every device> "...okaaaaay well if you can just go redownload it so we can get to the settings, please."

--Patrick
 
I appreciate it, too. It's the idea that the feature must be mandatory that I don't agree with.
This may be because I provide support, and have already had discussions like the following:
"Ok just open the Xxxxxx app and scroll to the settings."
<a few minutes later>
"I can't find the Xxxxxx app."
"Can you search for it for me?"
"It didn't find anything."
"Ok you must have deleted it in the past, can you go redownload..."
<interrupting> "I didn't delete nothing! It must not have come with it."
<Me, knowing it comes preinstalled on every device> "...okaaaaay well if you can just go redownload it so we can get to the settings, please."

--Patrick
Oh yes, I know THAT feeling.
The amount of people who insist they've never X or have always Y before, while I know for a fact that X was mandatory or Y has always been impossible...I'm pretty sure that's half the population.
 
There’s an obvious backfire here. If you don’t want to open it up to third party developers, you just limit the number of apps on your store.
 
Or limit the number of "users" who are allowed to sign up, kind of like liquor licenses.
There's nothing saying I can't make my own company and manually limit it to 40mil users. That way everyone else has to play by the rules, but not me!

--Patrick
 
Top