291–300 of 390 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I totally think open source should attempt to produce an ecosystem with the security of Apple’s ecosystem, there is no evidence that this is even theoretically possible.
According to Gartner and the exploit markets, open source has surpassed iOS's security for a few years now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/apple-m1-hardware-su...
That's interesting, but I don't want to buy apple hardware. When I buy an Apple product, I'm paying for the integration the software and all the other stuff in addition to the hardware. That's a steep tax. I just want an arm chip performance and free software on top of it
Processor: $300
Motherboard: $200
good 256 gb SSD: $100(doesn't seem to come close to apple's)
8 GB RAM: $40
Case/cooling: $100
But yeah, I agree if you want an upgrade of RAM and SSD, it is much expensive than the part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s undeniable that a whole class of ARM software was prevented from even being conceived because it has to pass the App Store’s Byzantine set of rules. On the other hand, I see so many software developers vehemently refuse to notarize their Mac versions. Notarization is far less egregious and it pains me to see so many straight up refuse to even consider it as an alternative to the iron grip of the App Store.
Really? I find this hard to believe, because if this was true, why doesn’t Android have a bunch of unique apps that couldn’t exist on iPhone? Yes, Android does have some apps that can’t exist on iPhone, but I wouldn’t say that most people find them compelling or care about them. Those that do already have Android.
As a developer, I can make apps for my own device without telling (or paying) anybody and use old devices like somebody else might use a Raspberry Pi.
I can use real Firefox with real uBlock Origin.
I can get free apps from Amazon App Store. I can get verified secure open source apps from F-Droid.
I can use separate restricted accounts on my for kids and guests.
I can use a separate launcher experience for driving without needing to purchase a head unit.
I can watch videos (including the "GIFs with sound" that proliferate on Reddit) with the sound off and on-device generated captions. I can copy text from arbitrary screens, even if that text is in a picture.
I can route all my calls through Google Voice or any other calling service. I can open map links in any mapping app I like.
I can use emulators and native apps for game streaming services.
I can have my photos automatically upload in the background.
I can update my browser engine and a lot of other "system software" without a reboot.
I can use headphones without ever charging them. I can unlock my phone while wearing a mask.
I can filter notifications the same way I filter my mail.
Using iOS would be a massive productivity drain as well as an entertainment drain and security loss. Most of the people I have demonstrated these things to have found one or more of these abilities compelling enough to have switched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I'm a little confused about. It isn't just because it is RISC, it's Apple magic? It seems weird that you can emulate other instruction sets with RISC underneath and get the performance they do. I assumed if you could recompile to the native instruction set you would get a really optimized app, but it seems like the interesting work always operates at a different layer. Fascinating stuff.
I am absolutely not an expert on microarchitecture, but I’ve had the same questions and tried my best to figure out answers. Here’s my understanding of the situation: > It isn't just because it is RISC, it's Apple magic? It’s both. We’ve known for decades that RISC was the “right” design, but x86 was so far ahead of everyone else that switching architectures was completely infeasible (even Intel themselves tried and…
All the experts I listened or read to, they told that instruction set doesn't matter and it is the insignificant thing. The part that matters is branch and data prediction, and caching. Also, even intel transforms an instruction into RISC like microinstructions internally.
> Apple does not have to worry about backwards compatibility very much compared to a Windows-based manufacturer
Windows is literal shit in backwards compatibility too. Try to run any windows 7 or before program in windows 10 and most of the time it won't work. Also, windows can also run in ARM and unlike mac the ARM windows didn't had emulation for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re in an echo chamber. By default, iPhones do send diagnostic data, but that data can be disabled in Settings. They also upload your files in an encrypted connection (but without end to end encryption) into your iCloud backup, and that can be handed over with a subpoena, but you can disable iCloud backup or simply not pay for it.
Nope. There is data that it sends that is non optional. Proof: go into settings and disable every tracking options, and then capture traffic from the device through a router with openwrt running tcpdump or wireshark on a computer with a bridge setup with ip forwarding and iptables rule. Did this experiment already twice to prove to people that Apple device do phone home plenty. Then I repeat the same experiment with…
What data are you claiming Apple is sending ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>openness at the expense of security This is a false dilemma. You can have both.
This is an opinion, and Apple does not believe this opinion, nor do they have to. Furthermore, I think that if you look at the comparison of malware prevalence on Android and iOS, the claim that you can have security and openness simultaneously does not appear to be true.
iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2].
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple could start selling ads tomorrow and simply change the terms of service, which they have a right to. In that case the last N years of data they have been collecting on you is fair game to sell to third parties. Is Google a worse example, sure. But plenty of us have been around long enough to remember when Google was restructured into Alphabet and the “Don’t be evil” motto was wiped from their corporate code of…
But the key thing is that with Apple, you're generally the customer. I pay a huge amount of money for an iPhone and Apple wants me to pay a huge amount of money for another iPhone in the future. Google develops Android for free and as such, I, the consumer, am not Google's customer. It's simply a different business model. Apple could change their approach and in response I can change mine. Google could also set up a…
Like any other profit driven company, Apple is incentivized to generate revenue from their customers' data and to advertise to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Gartner and the exploit markets, open source has surpassed iOS's security for a few years now.
You’re not talking about how end users are protected against installing malicious applications, so at best this is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If an iPad Pro can be your next computer, it must be a computer.
I think that quote actually emphasises that Apple describes iPads as not really computers... it only works as an ad line if it’s counter intuitive
1. A device with a screen, a keyboard and some kind of pointing device.
2. A device that can be used for every purpose a computer can be used for.
The Ipad is obviously not 1, so Apple must be claiming it is/will be 2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android hardware is not very compelling as of late. Nor are the users, to be entirely honest.
I assume this is meant as a joke but it is in very poor taste