What monthly fees of this nature are required to use other Apple products?
OS updates are free. The basic version of iCloud is free. "Find My iPhone" is free. Apple Maps is free. The App Store is free. Hell, CarPlay is free on the Apple end of things; it's some car manufacturers who've been charging for it.
"Public will buy into it because the cost of the car is significantly less than their competition."
Also, their entire office suite, GarageBand, iMovie, XCode... these are all things that you would have been shelling out serious $$ for back in the MSFT days.
Excellent point. There has been arguments that subscriptions are mandatory for self-driven cars to keep them updated. But Apple manages to make complex devices without subscriptions with many years of updates.
>What monthly fees of this nature are required to use other Apple products?
Apple conveniently disallows people from making local backups encrypted with your own key, which means in reality you need to pay a monthly fee to store them on iCloud.
I'm backing up my iPhone to a Mac and these backups are encrypted with a password. And then I'm backing up that Mac to a hard drive, and those backups are encrypted with a password as well. All using standard Apple software.
If I wanted to back up into iCloud I would have to pay, which is fair. Instead, I'm using my own hard drive.
Obviously I'm not an Apple customer, but from reading hackernews comments when the M1 came out, I was reading people discussing that you couldn't do that. Or maybe I misunderstood the details but they were definitely complaining about backup methods for encrypted laptops.
I would not trust Apple with all my data, which is essentially what you're doing if they have the key.
Can you do a full-disk encrypted backup of your drive using only your own keys and not sending any data back to Apple?
If you can, then I'm wrong. But "outright lie" is an uncharitable interpretation of my error.
Lol, downvoted with no answers. Apple victims are a thin-skinned bunch.
They could be referring to iPhone, couldn't they? Which to my knowledge doesn't have Time Machine, a macOS feature.
I think it's best not to say something is a "lie" unless you have a strong basis for it, let alone asserting it is a "outright lie".
A lie is an intentionally false statement. It involves an intention to deceive. It's highly unlikely that someone on Hacker News would set out to intentionally mislead people who are familiar with the subject-matter and who know how to fact check.
At best they are "wrong", "misinformed" or "mistaken". Although, as said in the first paragraph, I suspect you're actually at cross-purposes with each other.
That's not what you said. You claimed it was a lie referring to Time Machine, not local backup options on iOS. macOS backup solutions are pretty much irrelevant, because it's obvious you can backup macOS using any tool you like, it's a desktop operating system where the user can run binaries with administrator privileges, unlike iOS. The compelling inference is they were talking about iOS, making Time Machine irrelevant to the discussion.
And there is a significant difference between offering an ill-informed opinion and lying. One can be reckless or negligent, but not a liar. To be a liar, they need to positively know they are wrong but post it anyway.
I was hoping you'd say it was simply used for rhetorical effect. I must say, I'm a little disappointed you're maintaining your position. Sometimes, it's best just to assume good faith.
> You claimed it was a lie referring to Time Machine, not local backup options on iOS.
Like I said, others had already covered the iOS side of things.
There are no Apple devices for which the statement is true, and the certainty of "Apple conveniently disallows people from making local backups encrypted with your own key" makes me quite comfortable considering it to be a dishonest statement rather than merely ignorant.
Similar to "vaccines don't work"; whether it's out of ignorance or maliciousness, it's a lie.
> Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components.
They fucked up not notifying people when it's happening, but technologically the feature itself is entirely the right call. (You can also turn it off, and accept that it'll just die randomly if you do something CPU intensive in the cold.)
Regardless of which setting you choose, there's hardly a monthly fee for it.
That's not "when it's happening"; I think the new approach they've taken of a dialog popping up is far more transparent and user-friendly. I've gotten used to patch notes saying stuff like "Every week we fix bugs and add improvements!"
How is that not "when it's happening"? I would agree that they communicated that change better but to say that they didn't communicate it when it happened is false.
That is absolutely false. They didn't try to coerce people to buy the new model. It's quite the contrary - they were extending the battery life of devices where the overdrawn power would cause them to shut down completely. They also communicated this in the patch notes but most people don't read those.
All they needed to do was to display a "battery degraded" message (or, like on this very Mac I'm using - "Service Recommended".
The behavior they implemented was definitely the right call. And it's still there in other situations - if I have disregarded the "10% battery warning" I'll often notice my device being sluggish at 1%, at which point I'll plug in if I can. The alternative would be for the device to have less runtime, and I'm ok with the implementation.
Had they warned they were doing this, then customers would replace the battery in most cases.
By and large, Apple does NOT do what you are suggesting. As far back as my old iPod touch they released an iOS version that supported wallpapers. It didn't support my device. I thought they were trying to force me to upgrade, so I jailbroke it and enabled the feature anyway. Guess what, the GPU was not enough to display wallpapers, and the home screen had a bad framerate. Rather than giving the subpar experience, they disabled the feature. They could have also simply marked the device as unsupported. iOS (and OSX) updates work on a surprising number of old devices. For many releases, every new OSX release would bring performance enhancements.
There's plenty to complain about Apple - their profit margins are huge, the devices are difficult (in some cases, borderline impossible) to repair, the App Store situation, etc. But making devices obsolete with updates is not what they do.
Is Apple Maps really free, or do they monetize your attention and collect fees from the (suspiciously few, outside major US metros) businesses?
Serious question, I don’t know, I only use Apple Maps for satellite since it doesn’t do transit where I live. But the quality level definitely feels like an “eat what you kill” product without much food, as opposed to a loss leader for the Apple brand.
OS updates are free. The basic version of iCloud is free. "Find My iPhone" is free. Apple Maps is free. The App Store is free. Hell, CarPlay is free on the Apple end of things; it's some car manufacturers who've been charging for it.
"Public will buy into it because the cost of the car is significantly less than their competition."
Are we talking about a different Apple entirely?