All things Apple, the tech not the fruit

[hornbri 1428]

17 hours ago, Captainant said:

The issue is SMS messaging, which is specifically NOT any of the data based messaging services you mentioned. On android I could have signal or messenger or WhatsApp or Textra whatever the fuck else handle my texts. On iPhone I can only use iMessage and nothing else - and nobody but iPhone users can use iMessage.

Microsoft got fuckin WAXED in the 90s/00s for waaaay lesser fuckery with Internet Explorer with a very similar legal fact pattern.

Are you saying you cannot have those apps on a iPhone? All of those app’s are in the App Store. I use WhatsApp frequently on my iPhone. 

[Captainant 27941]

8 minutes ago, hornbri said:

Are you saying you cannot have those apps on a iPhone? All of those app’s are in the App Store. I use WhatsApp frequently on my iPhone. 

Oh good I can sign up and go give my data and message history to facebook so that I can send a video better than potato quality! TBH my wife and I use signal for that usecase, but the various family texts are always needlessly made worse by Apple's policy decisions around iMessage. 

It's very much a significant barrier to anyone who is completely uninclined to technology. There is a real impact of green bubble vs blue bubble because the experience is actively made worse for apple users to talk to non apple users. That's an anticompetitive tactic. 

[immamac 43465]

TIL Apple users didn’t know that texting and calling is possible from other apps using the literal service you pay for from a different company than Apple. 

[hornbri 1428]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:59 PM, Captainant said:

Oh shit, this is actually huge news - Apple announced RCS support is coming next year

https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/

That's a fair middle ground to appease the looming EU regulatory action without opening up iMessage to non-iOS

Haha - you even knew that they had announced RCS support. 

[KYHorn 17250]

44 minutes ago, immamac said:

TIL Apple users didn’t know that texting and calling is possible from other apps using the literal service you pay for from a different company than Apple. 

Am I correct that any app you use that would allow you to get around these issues would require both sender and receiver to use that app? 

[Captainant 27941]

22 minutes ago, hornbri said:

Haha - you even knew that they had announced RCS support. 

Yeah and that's part of the equation - apple also actively prevents users from using any other client but iMessage for handling texts, by virtue of their walled garden app store. Text messaging is just one facet of the lawsuit and antitrust action being brought 

[hornbri 1428]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yeah and that's part of the equation - apple also actively prevents users from using any other client but iMessage for handling texts, by virtue of their walled garden app store. Text messaging is just one facet of the lawsuit and antitrust action being brought 

But thats just not true, you can download any of the other messaging apps. Apple is not preventing you from using something other than iMessage to handle texts. (Nor is it even what the DOJ is accusing them of). 

[Jkwellborn 6860]

Damn, sounds like folks are big mad about being the green text bubble.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10409]

12 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

Damn, sounds like folks are big mad about being the green text bubble.

That would bug the crap out of me as a user. I'm glad android figured out how not to have that problem.

[immamac 43465]

23 hours ago, KYHorn said:

Am I correct that any app you use that would allow you to get around these issues would require both sender and receiver to use that app? 

No. It’s shocking that people don’t understand the basics. 

Network carrier based services are completely locked down on iPhone. Only the phone app can make network based voice calls (Cellular or Wifi from your number) and only the messaging app can make network based texts. (SMS or RCS), they also keep the walled garden in tact by seamlessly integrating proprietary protocols transparently to the user like FaceTime Video/Audio and iMessage from these two apps. That’s keeping competition from existing both functionally and actually  

that’s exactly the point. Your phone shouldn’t require the other user to have something installed, logged in etc to receive a call or text from you. 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3314]

On 3/22/2024 at 9:21 PM, Jkwellborn said:

Damn, sounds like folks are big mad about being the green text bubble.

I'd be big mad too if I was a green bubble loser...

 

[Updawg 2295]

https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/hackers-can-extract-secret-encryption-keys-from-apples-mac-chips/

A newly discovered vulnerability baked into Apple’s M-series of chips allows attackers to extract secret keys from Macs when they perform widely used cryptographic operations, academic researchers have revealed in a paper published Thursday.

The flaw—a side channel allowing end-to-end key extractions when Apple chips run implementations of widely used cryptographic protocols—can’t be patched directly because it stems from the microarchitectural design of the silicon itself. Instead, it can only be mitigated by building defenses into third-party cryptographic software that could drastically degrade M-series performance when executing cryptographic operations, particularly on the earlier M1 and M2

[52-80 19277]

Petition for @immamac to turn everyone who posts from an android into a big green bubble 

[Captainant 27941]

Put the tapatalkers in the green bubble lmao

[Captainant 27941]

That's a pretty freshman level analysis that's focusing on a single facet of a lawsuit and ignoring the rest of it. I appreciate you bringing it unsourced and uncited, in place of your own opinion. Never change, Chrispy lol.

[hornbri 1428]

I recognize it from Ben Thompson’s newsletter this week. Here is the whole article if you want to dig deeper he finds things troubling for both Apple and the DOJ. It should be noted he is a tech writer not a legal writer so it is from that perspective. 

https://stratechery.com/2024/united-states-v-apple/

Edited March 25 by hornbri

[Evil Bill Obrien 3314]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Petition for @immamac to turn everyone who posts from an android into a big green bubble 

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Put the tapatalkers in the green bubble lmao

[Jkwellborn 6860]

Put the tapatalkers in the green bubble lmao

Fuck that.

[Foosters 17908]

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

That's insane to me (Apple won't let the inferior Android use it's all-around better blue bubbles). This guy puts it best (and the bold is hilarious):

This entire section is pretty nuts. The core complaint is that Apple doesn’t allow 3rd-party messaging apps like WhatsApp to access private API’s for SMS; the vast majority of the complaint, though, is effectively accusing Apple of acting anti-competitive by not building iMessage for Android, and making teenagers feel bad about green bubbles. Leaving aside the fact that green bubbles actually serve a product function — they are not encrypted, while blue iMessage bubbles are — the entire idea that Apple needs to proactively build features to facilitate communication with Android flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent in Verizon v. Trinko:

Firms may acquire monopoly power by establishing an infrastructure that renders them uniquely suited to serve their customers. Compelling such firms to share the source of their advantage is in some tension with the underlying purpose of antitrust law, since it may lessen the incentive for the monopolist, the rival, or both to invest in those economically beneficial facilities. Enforced sharing also requires antitrust courts to act as central planners, identifying the proper price, quantity, and other terms of dealing — a role for which they are ill-suited. Moreover, compelling negotiation between competitors may facilitate the supreme evil of antitrust: collusion. Thus, as a general matter, the Sherman Act “does not restrict the long recognized right of [a] trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal.”

I expect Trinko to be a substantial obstacle for the DOJ in this case. It is one thing to change the rules or withdraw capabilities to maintain a monopoly; there was a Supreme Case called Aspen Skiing where a company was found guilty of doing just that, but the Court drew a clear distinction in Trinko between changes in policy and never actually providing pro-competition capability in the first place

lol

[Jkwellborn 6860]

What do the Germans have to do with this?

[deft 6897]

Well to start, the DOJ didn’t give up after they bombed Pearl Harbor

[Captainant 27941]

Just now, BeardIP said:

Some people can't be objective, unbiased, or keep a curious and/or beginner's mind because they are so politicized-- that's actually not funny, it's very sad.

It's hard to be curious about something when you consistently fail to cite the opinion that you're copy/pasting. I'm spending more thought being curious if you're trying to launder some crazy oped that you found on substack, which NEVER happens on surly lol. 

You presented it as if the entire thesis was around texts, so I responded as such. Stop playing stupid gotcha games Crispy and just link to your source when you want other people to engage with your borrowed idea. You've been bad about that for years. 

[Captainant 27941]

20 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

What you are missing is that I chose that snippit of the the longer analysis because it was in direct response to your post, which was quoted. You didn't need the full article to understand the refuting of your point. But the fact that it did refute you point and you were sad about it, you went on to unknowingly disparage someone whose analysis is highly respected (and smarter than you or I ever will be, on most holistic tech industry matters) and to say, "but that's only one part of the entire lawsuit" -- which again, I was only responding to the singular point you were trying to make.

Capiche, Capitan?

I disagree with the entire framing of the straw man that the author is taking down, which is why I called it a "freshman" analysis. The problem is not that apple is not "building iMessage for Android" as the author states - there is no compulsion for apple to build diddly squat. The problem is that apple is actively blocking their competitors from building their own and distributing it by virtue of their app store monopoly and inability to install your own software on your own device that you own.

I've been making this point repeatedly throughout the thread - that the core problem is the constraint on the app store and restriction on anyone else but apple having a say on what is installed on their personally owned iOS device. So again, when you're framing it all as if I'm only talking about green bubbles and successfully burning the straw man of "but there's WhatsApp!!!" I didn't really grok that you were ignoring the other things that I had posted in the thread about the DOJ AAPL suit.

 

And seriously, the fact pattern alleged in the current action against Apple is very similar to what got DOJ their successful suit against MSFT back in the early 2000's. 

Edited March 25 by Captainant

[atomheartbevo 89967]

5 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

What do the Germans have to do with this?

Apple currently doesn’t allow scat porn apps in the App Store.

[KYHorn 17250]

A daily newsletter I subscribe to (The Morning Dispatch) seemed to hit the sweet spot between detail and readability on this topic. It is spoilered below.

Spoiler

‘Buy Your Mom an iPhone’ 

Apple products are offered for sale at an Apple store on March 21, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
If you’re anything like your Morning Dispatchers and fretted deeply in middle school over whether it was illegal to “jailbreak” your iPod Touch to get access to more features—all the cool kids were doing it—competition authorities have finally heard your struggle.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), along with the attorneys general of 15 states and Washington, D.C., filed a landmark antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday, alleging the company has attempted to monopolize the smartphone market through anti-competitive practices that hurt users and degrade innovation. The suit—the culmination of a years-long investigation—sets the stage for a fierce legal battle with one of the world’s largest companies as Biden administration appointees attempt to reimagine American antitrust policy.

The White House has made expanding antitrust enforcement one of its signature issues. Proponents of the “hipster antitrust” or Neo-Brandeis movement—a school of thought that wants to broaden the approach of antitrust beyond a legal focus on low prices and consumer protection—heralded President Joe Biden’s selection of Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, and Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan as a big win for the trust-busting cause. Supporters believe antitrust policy should target market concentration as inherently harmful and corrosive to competition and economic equality, even if that concentration isn’t necessarily reflected in higher prices.

Tim Wu, a former competition policy czar in the Biden White House, explained in a New York Times opinion essay published yesterday how antitrust policy fits into the administration’s approach to the economy. “The Biden administration, in a break with center-left orthodoxy, seeks to address economic inequality not through taxation and transfers but through policies that allow more people and businesses to earn wealth in the first place,” he wrote. “It is at the heart of the Justice Department’s continuing New Deal-style antimonopoly campaign, which has already prevented dozens of unwise mergers.”

Kanter clearly sees the Apple lawsuit as a large piece of that campaign, comparing the suit to the major antitrust cases the government won against Standard Oil and Microsoft that bookended the 20th century. “Today, we add to that distinguished legacy by announcing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolizing smartphones,” he said at a press conference on Thursday.

Antitrust authorities sometimes target a few practices by a company they believe are anti-competitive and sue for remedies. However, with Apple, the DOJ complaint presented a broader case that the tech giant—the world’s second-largest company by market capitalization—“has long relied on contractual restrictions rather than competition on the merits to fortify its monopoly power.”

The Justice Department homed in on five areas where Apple allegedly suppresses competition to protect its profits and hurts users in the process. The scrutinized practices include Apple’s alleged restriction of so-called “super apps”—multifunctional applications like WeChat that are popular in Asian markets—and kneecapping of cloud streaming game apps that lift some of the computational burden from devices by running games in the cloud, enabling users to play games on older hardware. The DOJ alleges that Apple tried to make the gaming experience on your four-year-old iPhone untenable by restricting cloud gaming apps, thereby increasing the likelihood you buy a shiny new iPhone to support your gaming habit.

The complaint also alleged the company prevents text message interoperability—in other words, those green text bubbles for messages from non-Apple devices—“deliberately degrading quality, privacy, and security for its users,” and suppresses iPhone compatibility with third-party smartwatches. Lastly, the suit argues Apple blocks cross-platform digital wallets, hampering users’ ability to switch between iPhones and alternative devices.

Competition enforcers argue these allegedly anti-competitive behaviors have enabled Apple to exercise monopoly power among smartphone companies. According to the complaint, Apple maintains control of 65 percent of the American smartphone market. In the fourth quarter of 2023, tech research firm Counterpoint found that Apple had a 62 percent market share—with the next closest competitor, Samsung, at 17 percent.

Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which the DOJ says Apple is violating, makes “monopolizing”—but not monopoly—illegal. “Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal,” the Federal Trade Commission explains. “However, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.” To win its case, the government will have to show that Apple not only has a monopoly but also that the company maintains it through anti-competitive practices. 

Apple strongly disputed the allegations in the suit. “We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it,” the company said in a statement. “If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple—where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology.” 

The case will hinge on whether Apple can justify its distinctive practices—creating a so-called “ecosystem” for its products—as providing value to consumers. Critics of the complaint believe Apple has a strong defense. Alden Abbott, former general counsel at the Federal Trade Commission, said the company “will undoubtedly explain that its actions are all aimed at creating a curated experience for customers with enhanced security, conferring major benefits on Apple consumers—and a major economic efficiency.”

“Such actions are not ‘exclusionary’ in the antitrust sense,” Abbott argued, “and thus there is no monopolization or attempted monopolization under Sherman Act Section 2, which bars such practices.” 

To that end, some argue that the government has no place in making business decisions for Apple. “Why should Apple have to make its smartwatch compatible with smartphones other than iPhones?” asked Elizabeth Nolan Brown in the libertarian Reason magazine. “Perhaps this helps steer Apple Watch owners to buy iPhones. But it may instead (or also) be true that owning an iPhone steers people to buy an Apple Watch, or that the exclusive arrangement leads some people to avoid both Apple Watches and iPhones. In any event, none of this is the government’s business.” 

Other observers, however, warn against dismissing the DOJ’s entire suit as frivolous. “It is a complex case,” Brian Albrecht, the chief economist for the International Center for Law and Economics, told TMD. “Anyone who mocks [it] as obviously ridiculous overall, is overstating it.” 

Rebecca Allensworth, an antitrust law professor at Vanderbilt University and proponent of the suit, said the outcome of the case will come down to Apple’s ability to justify its practices. The DOJ will have to prove that “there’s something that consumers want that Apple is denying them, not because it’s unsafe for their data, not because it will degrade the overall Apple experience, but just because it gives a competitive toehold to their competitors,” she told TMD. “The question is just will it hold up when Apple says, ‘No, that’s not why we’re doing it. We’re doing it because this is truly a better experience for the consumer.’”

If you’ve ever received an exceptionally grainy picture from an Android-using friend or relative, the DOJ would argue you’ve been a victim of Apple’s anti-competitive behavior. The iPhone messaging app, iMessage, does not work with non-Apple devices. Instead, iPhones receive messages from Android phones via SMS and MMS, outdated services that can’t share high-quality images and don’t encrypt text messages. “If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone and other smartphone users,” the Justice Department argued. Security concerns aside, critics of the case knocked the complaint for taking things too far by also arguing that the “social stigma” of “green bubble” texters “reinforces switching costs” and discourages people from making the leap to a non-Apple device.

The complaint cites emails from Apple executives acknowledging that supporting better cross-platform messaging “would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones” and that “moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us.” When asked publicly about messaging issues at a conference in 2022, Apple CEO Tim Cook told a questioner frustrated that he can’t send his mom videos, “Buy your mom an iPhone.” Apple announced last fall that it plans to enable iPhones to receive Android messages via Rich Communication Services (RCS). The change would support image sharing and encryption but would not fully integrate RCS into iMessage.

A challenge for the government, if it can defeat Apple’s arguments, is sorting out effective court remedies for highly technical practices. Allensworth acknowledged critics’ worries about the danger of allowing the court to micromanage business decisions. “I think those are real concerns,” she said. But she went on to argue that the “stakes of not doing that are so high that it’s a necessary trade-off.”

The Apple suit—which, if not dismissed, could take years to litigate—will serve as yet another indicator of whether competition enforcers can succeed in reorienting antitrust law. “This case is a perfect example of what happens when somebody who wants to, in some ways, radically reform antitrust has to do so through the common law process,” Allensworth told TMD, arguing that the Justice Department’s approach “is totally possible under the law as it is right now.”

Despite some bipartisan enthusiasm, the new antitrust movement has had decidedly mixed results in court so far, drawing equally bipartisan criticisms from left-leaning commenters and libertarians alike. Jason Furman, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers during President Barack Obama’s second term, warned against using antitrust too broadly. “It is good to step up antitrust enforcement,” he tweeted yesterday in response to Wu’s essay. “But go too far and you can end up harming everyone else in the process of preventing people from innovating, starting new businesses, and growing.” 

 

Edited March 26 by KYHorn

[tokamak 6452]

8 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Ben Thompson clarifies more in his newsletter this morning (I’ll link when I get to a computer; I am mobile this AM) but I thought this was pretty pertinent to the discussion (below). All in all this feels like a lawsuit of people with sour grapes and hurt feelings more than facts and law:

My contention is that Apple users buy iPhones first-and-foremost because they want to use iOS; Apple has durable market share and pricing power because they are the sole provider of iOS-based devices. Yes, this may seem obvious, but as I explained yesterday, it was not at all obvious that this approach would succeed a decade ago; most observers thought it wouldn’t. Indeed, the DOJ case reads like it was written by one of those early 2010’s pundits certain that Apple would soon fade away precisely because they were trying to sell an integrated product in an inevitably modularized market; instead of accepting that they (and Professor Christensen) were wrong, they insist that customers are being held captive for *checks calendar* over a decade by Apple’s evil scheming to lock them in. It’s an approach that ignores consumer choices and the very real innovation that Apple has undertaken to create and continually update the iPhone for the last 17 years.

At the same time, to reiterate my conclusion from yesterday, the fact that “integration” does in fact mean a “monopoly” (on iOS), which leads to durable pricing power, is precisely why it behooved Apple to not even risk gaining the attention of antitrust regulators in the first place; at a minimum, it is hard to explain why the company can charge so much for so long! Unfortunately, management has been so myopically focused on the self-perceived righteousness of its App Store position that it utterly missed the far greater danger inherent in coming across as a greedy bully. In other words, I think this lawsuit is a mistake, but I also think management bears a not insignificant portion of the blame for it existing in the first place.

Personally, I buy iPhones because Apple's core business is selling me devices, whereas Google's core business is showing me ads. Whether it's justified or not, that leads me to trust Apple with my privacy more than I do Google.

I'm not exactly an Apple fanboy. I find the notion of giving a fuck about any megacorporation ludicrous. I do however have concerns that forcing Apple to do this or that could ultimately lead to unnecessary enshittification of its platform. Apple's walled garden may very well be anticompetitive, but it has also caused a lot of consternation for other tech companies that see me as a product rather than a user (thinking mainly about Meta's complaints about tracking on iOS devices). I view that as a win.

[Captainant 27941]

7 hours ago, BeardIP said:

Ben Thompson clarifies more in his newsletter this morning (I’ll link when I get to a computer; I am mobile this AM) but I thought this was pretty pertinent to the discussion (below). All in all this feels like a lawsuit of people with sour grapes and hurt feelings more than facts and law:

My contention is that Apple users buy iPhones first-and-foremost because they want to use iOS; Apple has durable market share and pricing power because they are the sole provider of iOS-based devices. Yes, this may seem obvious, but as I explained yesterday, it was not at all obvious that this approach would succeed a decade ago; most observers thought it wouldn’t. Indeed, the DOJ case reads like it was written by one of those early 2010’s pundits certain that Apple would soon fade away precisely because they were trying to sell an integrated product in an inevitably modularized market; instead of accepting that they (and Professor Christensen) were wrong, they insist that customers are being held captive for *checks calendar* over a decade by Apple’s evil scheming to lock them in. It’s an approach that ignores consumer choices and the very real innovation that Apple has undertaken to create and continually update the iPhone for the last 17 years.

At the same time, to reiterate my conclusion from yesterday, the fact that “integration” does in fact mean a “monopoly” (on iOS), which leads to durable pricing power, is precisely why it behooved Apple to not even risk gaining the attention of antitrust regulators in the first place; at a minimum, it is hard to explain why the company can charge so much for so long! Unfortunately, management has been so myopically focused on the self-perceived righteousness of its App Store position that it utterly missed the far greater danger inherent in coming across as a greedy bully. In other words, I think this lawsuit is a mistake, but I also think management bears a not insignificant portion of the blame for it existing in the first place.

Apple is getting sued because their business model is "you can't update your ear pods unless you buy an iPhone to connect to them". They are getting sued because their business model has become "punish users who have products outside our ecosystem through actively blocking integration standards".

The entire argument that you're parroting hinges on the circular logic of "well they wouldn't be buying apple products 10 years later if they were locked in amirite???" Yes, antitrust action will harm apple. Their business model is built around getting locked into their ecosystem (and by connection their app store) and guaranteeing a 30% rake on anything ever installed onto an iPhone for forever. 

Where you lose me is when you argue that apple charging a 30% universal tax is ACKSHUALLY fuelling innovation 

[Captainant 27941]

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/oregon-governor-signs-nations-first-right-to-repair-bill-that-bans-part-pairing/

Huh, Apple would not be in compliance with the new Oregon law due to their practice of using serialized parts to block repairs

[hornbri 1428]

5 hours ago, Captainant said:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/oregon-governor-signs-nations-first-right-to-repair-bill-that-bans-part-pairing/

Huh, Apple would not be in compliance with the new Oregon law due to their practice of using serialized parts to block repairs

That’s interesting. It starts with devices produced in 2025, I think the only parts Apple does that today are displays on iPhones right?

I wonder why they did carve outs for things like HVAC systems, video game systems and electric toothbrushes. 

[Captainant 27941]

1 minute ago, hornbri said:

That’s interesting. It starts with devices produced in 2025, I think the only parts Apple does that today are displays on iPhones right?

I wonder why they did carve outs for things like HVAC systems, video game systems and electric toothbrushes. 

They do it on the screens, batteries, cameras, ports, etc. The linked ifixit article from the iPhone 14 teardown touches on a few, but Apple does that on iPads, watches, MacBooks, etc. The carve-outs are BS IMO, but hey I guess their checks cleared first and that's the system we live in ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[atomheartbevo 89967]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:52 AM, tokamak said:

I do however have concerns that forcing Apple to do this or that could ultimately lead to unnecessary enshittification of its platform. Apple's walled garden may very well be anticompetitive, but it has also caused a lot of consternation for other tech companies that see me as a product rather than a user (thinking mainly about Meta's complaints about tracking on iOS devices). I view that as a win.

If they are forced to open up the iOS App Store to every shitty app, my headaches as the family tech support guy are going to skyrocket.  I already have to deal with enough shit from phishing emails and malware/sketchy websites.  I was able to cut the time spent doing tech support for the computer illiterates in the family way down by moving them to Apple products. 

I have enough family members on Google products as it is, and they still don’t understand that they are the product and advertisers are the buyers.

[atomheartbevo 89967]

I just want a modern Apple iPhone in the form factor of the iPhone 4 or 5 series.  Don’t have to have three cameras or anything.

[52-80 19277]

On 3/29/2024 at 3:44 AM, atomheartbevo said:

I just want a modern Apple iPhone in the form factor of the iPhone 4 or 5 series.  Don’t have to have three cameras or anything.

the tall profile of the 5 is ugly.  the 4 will live on in a design museum for decades from now.

[Texas Jeff 1950]

How it started:

How it's going:

[immamac 43465]

Yeah this is indicative of complete collapse in any category leadership. Apple intelligence is a complete joke. 

[tokamak 6452]

It’s all iPhone 15+ only. So Siri on my HomePods will still be fucking useless. 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3314]

22 minutes ago, tokamak said:

It’s all iPhone 15+ only. So Siri on my HomePods will still be fucking useless. 

I'm sure Apple will be happy to sell you new HomePods with AI sometime in the near future...or sell you a new Apple TV that has the AI stuff onboard that old HomePods can talk to locally for AI requests... Think Apple is in too deep with HomePods to just let them die, they ain't Google 

[TwiceHorn 31671]

Not really in the habit of defending Apple, but we're gonna go ahead and ignore google's attempt to integrate Bard into Assistant and Search?

I don't know anything about MSFT because except Swiftkey, my existence is MSFT-free.  But even Swiftkey, a fucking keyboard app, tries to get me to use Bing AI search.

[hornbri 1428]

2 hours ago, tokamak said:

It’s all iPhone 15+ only. So Siri on my HomePods will still be fucking useless. 

The stock market seems to like the effect on the upgrade cycle. 

[Gravy Train 974]

Finally an opportunity to sell AAPL and harvest gains

[Captainant 27941]

Interesting announcement with health tech for Apple

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/09/apple-introduces-groundbreaking-health-features/

I think the biggest one is the clinically validated hearing aid functionality for air pods pro. I may get those for my grandmother

[Nice Guy Eddie 13537]

16 hours ago, Captainant said:

Interesting announcement with health tech for Apple

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/09/apple-introduces-groundbreaking-health-features/

I think the biggest one is the clinically validated hearing aid functionality for air pods pro. I may get those for my grandmother

The Vison goggles get so much attention, good and bad, but I find the AirPods to be one of the best tech products that Apple has ever made. In terms of AI everyone envisions a VR or AR in your line of sight but it’s more achievable to have AI in your ears talking to you. Whether from giving you info to perhaps translating the person talking to you in another language.

i suffer from being unable to distinguish voices in loud environments. Everyone has that to some extent but I really struggle in loud restaurants and you can feel left out. While admittedly I don’t want to be wearing AirPods at dinner with people, I would love tech that would drown out inconsequential noises and focus on nearby voices.  Maybe eavesdrop of the couple fighting at the next table as well. 

[tokamak 6452]

22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The Vison goggles get so much attention, good and bad, but I find the AirPods to be one of the best tech products that Apple has ever made. In terms of AI everyone envisions a VR or AR in your line of sight but it’s more achievable to have AI in your ears talking to you. Whether from giving you info to perhaps translating the person talking to you in another language.

i suffer from being unable to distinguish voices in loud environments. Everyone has that to some extent but I really struggle in loud restaurants and you can feel left out. While admittedly I don’t want to be wearing AirPods at dinner with people, I would love tech that would drown out inconsequential noises and focus on nearby voices.  Maybe eavesdrop of the couple fighting at the next table as well. 

AirPods are cool when they work but I think between my wife and I we’ve had 3 pairs crap out on us with regular use. I’m out on them. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13537]

1 minute ago, tokamak said:

AirPods are cool when they work but I think between my wife and I we’ve had 3 pairs crap out on us with regular use. I’m out on them. 

I had a regular pair go static-ey on me and Apple replaced them for free. They also sometimes struggle to quickly pair with my phone to handle an Incoming call but that has improved.

[Anton Chigurh 3320]

Agree that AirPods Pro are the shit. I have never used the regular ones so I can’t comment on those.

My mic stopped working on one of them (other side was fine so I just forced it to use that side) on the pair of first gens I had, but I eventually got them replaced for free. This was after I had just decided to buy a pair of Pro 2s, so they just kinda sit there unused now, but the Pro 2 has been an incredible product for me.

Music, work meetings/zoom calls, etc etc.

[hornbri 1428]

The AirPods seem like a huge deal and something moving in an exciting direction, with the hearing aid technology, Apple intelligence etc they have to be only 1 or 2 generations away from in ear live translation. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13537]

When thinking about Apple and their AirPod Pro 2 hearing test/hearing aid feature, I give them props that they work to release new features for existing products. It would be easy for them to have added this feature plus a tiny hardware improvement and call it AirPod Pro 3. Other companies do this all the time.

Now I wish Apple Intelligence would work on more older iPhone models but I give them the benefit of the doubt that there is a hardware limitation preventing it.

[52-80 19277]

a bit funny apple has the balance sheet and cash stash to shrug off the $13B european fine like it was a monthly cell phone bill

[Captainant 27941]

19 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

a bit funny apple has the balance sheet and cash stash to shrug off the $13B european fine like it was a monthly cell phone bill

Then it's not really a fine, it's just the cost of doing business 

[Celery Man 21025]

I was way slow on buying airpods because I hated the Apple earbuds and didn’t think I had a need. My wife got me the airpod max a few years back, and that spiraled into eventually buying the airpod pros as well and now those are in my pocket all the time along with my keys wallet phone etc. Great product. There’s something too about the noise cancelling that is extremely calming for me.