The problem I would typically have (not just in Shinjuku) was with directions that did not repeat/update as you continued on through junction points. It made navigation more stressful.
2,797 karma · joined February 27, 2011
From a historic standpoint though Apple came back from near-death because they differentiated by focusing on the consumer first.
While other companies were recycling the same beige boxes meant to be tucked under desks for home use, Apple came out with products in candy colors.
While Microsoft was rolling out new business process tool SKUs, Apple came out with GarageBand and bundled it in for free.
Apple is not the company prioritizing going after a Fortune 500 company to replace their fleet with Macs. So their focus isn't going to be to design products and features to try to get that deal closed.
...for some users. See their "Mac is a truck" analogy.
And it has. My parents haven't owned a Windows or Mac machine in six years, since they got rid of the one I gifted to them a decade ago. Its all iPad and iPhone.
What's rare is that this is a price adjustment on existing shipping models, without a corresponding new model. I remember them doing price drops with a few Intel Macs in 2023, but otherwise the only example that comes to mind is the original iPhone.
Darn close to 0%. They generally go after multiple manufacturers for a part rather than trying to become a manufacturer themselves.
They are trying their decades-old playbook of funding creation of new factories. The problem is the manufacturers are already neck deep in trying to expand out capacity, and the demand/price increases likely weakens both of Apple's negotiating factors (guaranteed sales and a source of capital to build out the facility).
I do not know the VW app, but other electronic key systems do not require you to have physical access to the car in order to make copies. The keys are meant to be device bound and to have policy (such as I'm giving out access for a week), but that can only be assured via a chain-of-custody attestation system from the boot loader to the app and a hardware attestation that the secure element is proper.
They could also launch an alternative browser engine for iOS and iPadOS in the EU.
It would be possible for a surge in contributors to bring it back up to a double digit percentage, but I don't think manifest v3 is going to be the catalyst for that.
The nature of temporary waivers makes this untrue per the post you cited - The Open Group only grants them for 12 months, and the post is over a year old.
IMO, the only significant call-out is APFS case insensitivity by default, which makes the default volume a non-conforming filesystem. However, UNIX certification does not forbid you from mounting non-conforming filesystems (such as FAT32). Instead, this means the majority of software which makes certain assumptions about being used with UNIX conforming filesystems in addition to running on a UNIX conforming operating system are at risk of breaking.
Let's just say I have my doubts the author would have written a similar post if the final HP-UX release had "lied" about their certification by shipping with root login disabled by default and ulimit -c defaulting to zero.
Specifically for image generation. They haven't indicated you have limits for Siri interactions.
But it isn't like this hasn't been the long-running strategy for Google as well - provide more results on search so that people don't go to the site with ads, provide paid product results for shopping, to offer more services to keep people providing personal/behavioral queues to Google and more opportunities for ad placement.
If anything, AI turned up the heat such that the frog noticed what temperature the pot was. But that doesn't really put them in a better position to execute than Google.
Apple has detectors for codes sent via email or SMS, if your email account is one that is configured with the OS mail client.
> A stupid idea of password complexity usually requiring one of a finite set of 5-8 "special characters" which is often only revealed after you've chosen a password that doesn't have them. Or in some cases even banning characters other than the ones they check for. There's a standard for this where you put a regex on the password field, which a good password manager will always use, but the kind of idiots who think limiting the entropy of passwords to increase security is the correct way to do things almost NEVER implement this.
An AI agent can read the failure message and craft a new password
> A maximum password length, even as short as 16 characters in many cases
Same deal
> CAPTCHA etc.
While there's always the complex solution of scanning the image and trying to detect what is going on or slide the puzzle with enough of a curve to act like the motion of a human limb, there's also Private Access Tokens, supported by both Cloudflare and Google-provided captcha systems now IIRC. The OS uses an anonymous system to assert a single bit that there's proper browser chain-of-custody.
> Any effort spent on this would be better spent elsewhere, including even educating other companies on how passkeys should be used.
There are proposals as well to provide API to do upgrades from passwords to passkeys as well automatically. Nobody said the feature has to always use AI - but it may help the feature be robust enough for people to seek it out and try it.
Your 15 Pro Max supports Apple Intelligence. Newer phones can answer more questions without going to cloud infrastructure.
They may have decided that local processing was a MVP feature either for faster responsiveness or to reduce cloud cost. It may have been additional memory pressure or a limitation in processing on the previous A-series chip. Or they may have simply decided it wasn't worth creating and validating Yet Another model.
Apple is also restricted in the sort of consent prompts they give the user. That could matter when a non-technical users is prompted by a third party app to effectively allow unfettered access to all user personal data on the device.
Sometimes when you look at the functional requirements for a feature it turns out to be a bad idea. In the EU, functional requirements can come after-the-fact from regulator interpretation of the DMA. Until Apple determines what those requirements actually are going to be, releasing a potentially harmful feature is irresponsible.
The device won't be able to ask for significantly more permissions than Apple asks for their own model for regulatory reasons, nor will it be able to convey the seriousness of granting the permission (e.g. immediately give unrestricted access to the vast majority of personal information/documents stored on the device).
But Apple also architected their system to justify not having constant permission prompts for access to sensitive data. And for regulatory reasons they also can't mandate that competing models have the same architecture.
The regulators and Apple (along with hopefully other AI companies) will need to work together to determine longer-term stable path forward.
They are a ways away from that for Siri, as they can't guarantee third party tooling meets their security and privacy requirements. Meeting those security and privacy requirements also makes it harder for a third party to monetize their investment or ongoing use of infrastructure.
But I suspect you will see integration in other areas, such as image generation.
Not really, because the business model isn't there (at least not in this iteration.
1. The models are Apple models, co-developed with Google. They are not white-label Gemini.
2. There's not currently a Google failover or UX
3. Because of that, there's no user monetization to share.
Apple does have a ChatGPT integration, with failover UX, and with a suspected revenue share deal. However, one could see this deal in a precarious situation, since at the time it started it was expected Apple would not focus much at all on a model capable with world knowledge.