cait-sith
Aug 11, 10:10 AM
Apple may or may not have a phone. It may launch this month, or a year from now.
Gee... :confused:
Gee... :confused:
manu chao
Aug 27, 05:31 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
ArkabaS
Aug 7, 03:45 PM
Why does no one ever mention the Dock? It is a HUGE part of OS X and hasn't changed since Jaguar. It could be so much more useful if it allowed for dividers, more customization, etc. I hope the Top Secret stuff includes major improvements to Finder, the Dock, and Expose.
asterizk
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
Yup.. Gruber made a similar statement (http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/buy_that_for_a_dollar) recently.
Yup.. Gruber made a similar statement (http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/buy_that_for_a_dollar) recently.
Dorkington
Apr 27, 09:54 AM
It baffles me that someone who has a US Passport, security clearance, was a Senator and is now the President, would somehow avoid all background investigations by various departments in the US Government. He must have a lot of connections.
blahblah100
Mar 31, 07:31 PM
true, but the smugness and self righteousness of Google fanboys are so much worse.
HA HA. You have got to be kidding me.
HA HA. You have got to be kidding me.
Sydde
Apr 27, 06:17 PM
The bigger deal here is the tendency of some fathers to name their kids the EXACT same name they have and add a "2nd". I've always thought that practice couldn't be stupidier. :P
Reminds me of how the producers felt compelled to drop the three from the movie "The Madness of King George III" because they were afraid people would give a pass as they had not seen the first two parts.
Reminds me of how the producers felt compelled to drop the three from the movie "The Madness of King George III" because they were afraid people would give a pass as they had not seen the first two parts.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 05:59 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already. I'm sure that all the developers will be looking at how to use all the cores Intel can throw at them at this year's WWDC. :)
I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to fill up four cores with work and max out what you can do simultaneously on the G5 Quad. So for those of us who do the kind of work that needs a lot of cores, 8 core Macs won't come soon enough.
In this example, all of the applications are running slower than they would with 8 cores. They are already slowed down by virtue of only having 4 cores to work in. Both Toast 7 and Handbrake can use more than two cores for each instance. I sometimes run as many as three of each simultaneously. They each have to run dog slow in that circumstance due to lack of core volume. So 8 is a start. 16 would be much more helpful to me immediately.
Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.
Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!
Let's hope so!!!Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already. I'm sure that all the developers will be looking at how to use all the cores Intel can throw at them at this year's WWDC. :)
I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to fill up four cores with work and max out what you can do simultaneously on the G5 Quad. So for those of us who do the kind of work that needs a lot of cores, 8 core Macs won't come soon enough.
In this example, all of the applications are running slower than they would with 8 cores. They are already slowed down by virtue of only having 4 cores to work in. Both Toast 7 and Handbrake can use more than two cores for each instance. I sometimes run as many as three of each simultaneously. They each have to run dog slow in that circumstance due to lack of core volume. So 8 is a start. 16 would be much more helpful to me immediately.
triceretops
Apr 27, 08:59 AM
I wonder if this is why I can no longer get more than a days charge on my iPhone 4 with minimal use since it seems like it's an always on thing.
If you are having battery issues and you have Apple Care on the phone, you can take it to a store and have them replace the battery.
If you are having battery issues and you have Apple Care on the phone, you can take it to a store and have them replace the battery.
Object-X
Jul 14, 03:37 PM
What about SLI video card support? They should try and appeal to high end gamers by having a configuration comparable to Alienware or Dell's XPS. If Apple's hardware can now run Windows, Apple should really take a stab at this market. It will be hard to justify $3000 for a computer that doesn't have the latest cutting edge hardware. Dual 512MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GTX would be a nice start. Otherwise, the accusation of overpriced computers will be appropriate. Why would someone running Windows consider this purchase, if they can get better components for less money elsewhere. Is Apple really serious about taking market share away from PC companies? Or are they going to play it safe and target only the market that they already have?
840quadra
Apr 25, 02:55 PM
I love how Media and most everyone was asleep about this known issue, until just recently, and now it is some kind of emergency.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
Mr. Mister
Jul 14, 04:31 PM
If There's No BTO Option For A Single-processor 2.66 Configuration, That Will Be Frustrating™.
Denarius
Mar 22, 03:22 PM
A government in power is responding against a rebellion.
If a rebellion sprang up in the United States, our government would respond with force as well.
"Slaughtering his own people" sounds a little propogandish to me. Are you saying that Qaddafi is taking people who have no connection to the rebellion at all and slaughtering them?
How can any government meet armed internal rebellion without qualifying as "slaughtering their own people"?
It wasn't a rebellion when it first started, it was an unarmed march protesting against the number of people in Benghazi that had just disappeared in Benghazi over many years. They had some footage from the start of the protests on BBC's Panorama last night showing the march. Some guys in yellow builder's hats came in with a mixture of sticks and guns and started killing people at random, which is when it started escalating into a full-blown rebellion.
If a rebellion sprang up in the United States, our government would respond with force as well.
"Slaughtering his own people" sounds a little propogandish to me. Are you saying that Qaddafi is taking people who have no connection to the rebellion at all and slaughtering them?
How can any government meet armed internal rebellion without qualifying as "slaughtering their own people"?
It wasn't a rebellion when it first started, it was an unarmed march protesting against the number of people in Benghazi that had just disappeared in Benghazi over many years. They had some footage from the start of the protests on BBC's Panorama last night showing the march. Some guys in yellow builder's hats came in with a mixture of sticks and guns and started killing people at random, which is when it started escalating into a full-blown rebellion.
greenstork
Jul 31, 12:25 PM
Apple will never ship a desktop machine so close in size to the mini. Impractical and too much market confusion. I'm expecting a ~25% decrease in size of the current G5 tower, making it more mid-tower sized. This would still be an improvement to the current behemoths.
Wow, you're pulling out my deep cuts with your sig. They never did fit a G5 in a notebook, I guess that was my intention with that quote. The G4 was never a great chip. It ran hot and the only way to make it faster was to make it run hotter, Apple needed a new chip and they knew it. Because they couldn't find a producer of efficient PPC chips, they switched to Intel, and I don't think anyone saw that coming.
Sometimes, chip makers move backwards to an architecture that works. Look at Intel's latest chips, they're an evolution of the Pentium M architecture and a departure from what previously was their "best" and fastest, the Pentium 4.
Wow, you're pulling out my deep cuts with your sig. They never did fit a G5 in a notebook, I guess that was my intention with that quote. The G4 was never a great chip. It ran hot and the only way to make it faster was to make it run hotter, Apple needed a new chip and they knew it. Because they couldn't find a producer of efficient PPC chips, they switched to Intel, and I don't think anyone saw that coming.
Sometimes, chip makers move backwards to an architecture that works. Look at Intel's latest chips, they're an evolution of the Pentium M architecture and a departure from what previously was their "best" and fastest, the Pentium 4.
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
MyDesktopBroke
Mar 22, 03:22 PM
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is any more. It started by claiming Obama was elected in part due to being an anti-war candidate, but that was refuted since he openly advocated escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is multiple interviews.
Now it seems to be about attacking without congressional approval, but I think he has a 30 day window in which to act (http://www.google.com/search?q=30+days+to+attack+without+congressional+approval&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) before that becomes a legal issue.
Is it about bias coverage? DailyKos is highlighting stories like (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance) this (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85509/the-case-against-our-attack-libya), HuffPo has a column about Obama's "Imperial Presidency (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/libya-and-obamas-embrace_b_839046.html)." Yahoo's already covering the cost of the Libya mission, and MSNBC's article states that "Obama�s stance is striking: not only hasn�t he addressed the question of congressional authorization, but acting without it appears to be at odds with what he stood for when he ran for president (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42201792/ns/politics/)."
Now it seems to be about attacking without congressional approval, but I think he has a 30 day window in which to act (http://www.google.com/search?q=30+days+to+attack+without+congressional+approval&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) before that becomes a legal issue.
Is it about bias coverage? DailyKos is highlighting stories like (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance) this (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85509/the-case-against-our-attack-libya), HuffPo has a column about Obama's "Imperial Presidency (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/libya-and-obamas-embrace_b_839046.html)." Yahoo's already covering the cost of the Libya mission, and MSNBC's article states that "Obama�s stance is striking: not only hasn�t he addressed the question of congressional authorization, but acting without it appears to be at odds with what he stood for when he ran for president (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42201792/ns/politics/)."
BC2009
Apr 12, 06:06 PM
Are you serious? Your comments are not only incorrect but just flat out ignorant. Whoever said that angry birds is not available on android obviously can't read or just does not know how to use the app store because I have all three on my Thunderbolt and they are full versions and they were free to boot. So before you go make comments about people being ignorant you might want to do some research first!!
Perhaps you should re-read my post since obviously you either "can't read" or you are "flat out ignorant". I said that my brother-in-law who loves Android claimed that Angry Birds was only available on Android and not iOS. I never contested that it was available on Android, only that I had to show him that it was in fact available on iOS in many variants (Free, Paid, HD for iPad, Seasons, etc...). It was my brother-in-law's belief that this game was not available to iPhone and iPad users. I had to tell him that it was available on iOS long before Android.
Easter Eggs Coloring Pages
Easter Eggs Coloring Pages 1
Perhaps you should re-read my post since obviously you either "can't read" or you are "flat out ignorant". I said that my brother-in-law who loves Android claimed that Angry Birds was only available on Android and not iOS. I never contested that it was available on Android, only that I had to show him that it was in fact available on iOS in many variants (Free, Paid, HD for iPad, Seasons, etc...). It was my brother-in-law's belief that this game was not available to iPhone and iPad users. I had to tell him that it was available on iOS long before Android.
deconai
Aug 11, 03:48 PM
No, not EVERYONE. I own 4 cell phones. By your logic, I would be counted as 4 people.
I suppose you would be by the cell company.
I suppose you would be by the cell company.
Reach9
Apr 11, 02:28 PM
I don't think that's the market Apple wants. They already have the #1 selling smart phone. They make more profit than all competitors combined off of the iPhone. The Cell phone market is very fluid and Apple knows it just has to keep producing the coolest and more desired phone and they will always have a decent share of the market and make tons of money.
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
Are you talking about hardware? Because software wise Android is the #1 selling. It has a greater market share than iOS. (only because there are more of them though).
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
Are you talking about hardware? Because software wise Android is the #1 selling. It has a greater market share than iOS. (only because there are more of them though).
AppleScruff1
Apr 10, 02:49 AM
Rockwell doesn't exist anymore, it's Broadwell now ;) After that it will be Sky Lake (16nm) and Skymont (11nm).
If these latest names hold true. :D
If these latest names hold true. :D
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:52 AM
I'm old-fashined I guess because I have no interest in having a smartphone in the first place. I just have a standard flip-phone. By owning a smartphone, you are always going to be faced with privacy issues because if you are using facebook/twitter and whatever else you are using to broadcasting your information. If you don't want advertisers to use your information, stop using social networking sites and search engines and stop being connected.
I also use a flip phone. It's cheaper, less likely to be stolen, better for calling, and inspired by Star Trek's tricorder :)
But I have an iPod Touch which I nearly lost...
I also use a flip phone. It's cheaper, less likely to be stolen, better for calling, and inspired by Star Trek's tricorder :)
But I have an iPod Touch which I nearly lost...
heels98
Sep 19, 07:08 AM
Sure, some people will always have a need for the fastest computer in the world. Some will find themselves stressing over the slightest increase in processor performance, screen resolution, graphics memory, whatever. No one here doubts that. But most of those people spend much more time working than reading and posting on internet message boards. Professionals use the tools that for them get the job done. I feel that the main point of using the Mac is lost on most PC users, and especially on those that cry out for the absolute fastest turbo-charged, slick, top benchmark machines. Maybe our processors are "outdated," but Mac OS X is not, nor is the work that I see coming from Mac professionals inferior to those with faster computers. The fact that OS X makes doing our jobs more elegant and faster, is far more important than whose processor is the fastest, or as Freud would put, whose >>>> is bigger.:o
Actarus
Apr 12, 02:45 PM
Just what do all you whiners NEED in a smartphone that you can't wait for a 3 month "delay" in release of a phone? Cracks me up.
And if any of you actually switch, I'll bet 2 months after the release of the iPhone 5 you'll be so jealous of its superiority over your current smartphone that you'll end up coming back to Apple. Apple knows this, which is why they laugh in your face.
Apple iPhones are everywhere. I think I saw a gal in line at the supermarket on food stamps whip out an iPhone.
And over 95% of iPhone owners are "dumb" users. They don't visit sites like this and if they are on iPhone 3G will probably upgrade to iPhone 4 if that is all that is available in June/July. And they will be happy. They will hear a little about iPhone 5 in Sept. but won't really care. That's the pulse of the American people. Geeks on this forum are in the minority.
Stop telling silly things. 3 months? you really know that? It could be much more. The lack of info will make me buy an Android with a 4" screen, and that's all. If you don't like my post don't read it. Really fed up of fanboys. The day you will realize that Apple won't never give you anything in exchange, what will you do?
And if any of you actually switch, I'll bet 2 months after the release of the iPhone 5 you'll be so jealous of its superiority over your current smartphone that you'll end up coming back to Apple. Apple knows this, which is why they laugh in your face.
Apple iPhones are everywhere. I think I saw a gal in line at the supermarket on food stamps whip out an iPhone.
And over 95% of iPhone owners are "dumb" users. They don't visit sites like this and if they are on iPhone 3G will probably upgrade to iPhone 4 if that is all that is available in June/July. And they will be happy. They will hear a little about iPhone 5 in Sept. but won't really care. That's the pulse of the American people. Geeks on this forum are in the minority.
Stop telling silly things. 3 months? you really know that? It could be much more. The lack of info will make me buy an Android with a 4" screen, and that's all. If you don't like my post don't read it. Really fed up of fanboys. The day you will realize that Apple won't never give you anything in exchange, what will you do?
manu chao
Apr 25, 02:00 PM
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
No comments:
Post a Comment