> Freeform. Freeform is a productivity app where you and your collaborators can bring ideas to life. Jot down notes, share files, and insert web links, documents, video, and audio.
With iCloud Plus you're able to add custom email domains (really nice and tight integration with Cloudflare DNS for all the MX records) -- was a breeze to set up. Haven't put it through it's paces yet, though.
Weirdly, you can only have three email addresses per domain. So you can't really use it for a typical family domain, even though it supports the family group (which can be six people).
The other users in your family group will be able to add 3 addresses of their own; the 3 you see are just the email address for your root@yourdomain.com account. User1 will have their own set of 3; login to iCloud.com from one of the family accounts and you'll see.
It's frustrating, because this likely won't be usable on Desktop, Windows, or the majority of workspaces. I actually don't mind the Reminders app, but like iMessage, I can't use it on my main Windows desktop, so I don't.
I can count on one hand the amount of times I've FaceTimed someone because of fragmentation in my network with Android.
Yes, but not all the features of it; if you're using the most recent "upgraded" Reminders, all you can do on web is create new tasks and add notes. You can't:
- Add or edit lists
- Add reminders or due dates
- Add tagging or priority
- Add things like location-based reminders
I'm surprised they aren't using the iPhone 14 in the promo images.
Anyway, looks like my old iPhone 7 is finally going to have to retire. :/ I can't wait for a good Linux phone.
Edit: 7 years of use isn't bad compared to Android, but the phone is still just fine, and it really bothers me that it's turning into e-waste for no good reason.
Apparently, the reason Apple dropped support for iPhone 7 is performance on the new lock screen. Pretty lame if that's the case, Apple has usually been good with supporting all devices as long as the hardware allows it (for example, hardware level secure enclave was required at a certain version of iOS)
It is a extremely hard to maintain differential software features across hardware product lines. What ‘sounds lame’ may translate into significantly added complexity to the maintenance process.
You can blame their competition for not beating them out at longterm support on that front. Apple is already leading the market supporting iOS this long. I used my last iPhone for 7 years, unfathomable on any other platform than iOS.
I hope their competitors step it up and beat Apple out on grade A support. I'm seeing them fall further behind in every metric. My iPhone 12 mini that I bought on launch day "just works".
How did you manage 7 years. I struggle at the 5 year mark. I have an iPhone X bought dec 2017 that is now ready for replacement. Sometimes it completely drops the cell connection and I have to take out the SIM. Also video calls make it go very hot.
It was closer to six years if I crunch the numbers. It was the original iPhone SE. It was getting a little loose towards the end. But those models weren’t built quite as well as the 5S was. I had both.
I am pretty careful with my stuff. Going as far as to only putting my phone in my left pocket because there’s no metal rivet on that side of most jeans. I also probably only dropped the phone three or four times over that six year span. I don’t use the case, I’m just very careful. I won’t even pull it out if I feel I’m in a risky situation where I could drop it.
Even five years is a lot longer than any of my android phones lasted with daily use. I had the Motorola Droid, the HTC Thunderbolt, and the Samsung GS3, among others. I think you would be lucky to get 2 to 3 years out of those. I’m not sure what would go first, your OS support, or the cheaper hardware that they use in general. I had the best experience with Samsung in the Android market.
Apple does, with all of their resources, dig much deeper and provide OS updates to much older device models than any mobile device manufacturer I know of.
Apparently, the reason Apple dropped support for iPhone 7 is performance on the new lock screen.
It’s more likely the fact the iPhone 7 only has 2GB of RAM and two cores, not to mention missing the Neural Engine, the image processor and other features on Apple’s latest SoCs that iOS 16 requires for some of its features.
Most of major features of iOS 16 would have to be removed to run on an iPhone 7.
I was looking at that, the iPhone 8 (supported) has a 6-core CPU, 4 high efficiency cores, but also 2GB of RAM in the plain iPhone 8, 3GB in the Plus. So if it's anything, it'll be in the GPU or the 2 extra cores, that marks the critical differentiator for performance.
E waste, no no don’t throw it out. You can use 99% of the apps even without ios16. It’s only when individual app developers phase out support for ios15 typically 2-3 years after. Facebook, YouTube etc still supports even iOS 12
OK. I'm convinced. I really don't use any 3rd party apps other than Brave and my banking app, so as long as those work and I keep getting security updates, my cheap ass is good to go.
I have passed on all my iPhones and I must have averaged like 8+ years for all of them. Really old phones get regulated to non critical things like a spare phone for travel or just a backup.
Actually, you can download the newer version of an app on a newer iphone and then download a version that works on the old iphone from the Purchased page.
Apple makes it difficult but keeping my iPhone 5S is still going years after iOS 12 is no longer "cool"
Why would you be keeping an 5S "still going" when you can buy an 8, SE, or an X/Xs/Xr, for a song and get vastly better performance, battery life, wifi and cellular?
The A7 is dogshit slow - I have an iPad with the A7 (or maybe it's the A9) and it's unusably slow for even simple things like apps from newspapers and library e-reader apps; you can watch the page assemble. Even waking the iPad with the home button is slow. On my A11-powered phone these apps run smooth as butter.
A 5S supports 11 of the LTE bands versus 24 bands of the 8. That alone is worth the upgrade, for the greater chance of being able to make or receive an important call.
How much time are you wasting on silly work-arounds just to be a retro-tech hipster pretending it's cool to use a completely outdated and inferior-in-every-way piece of hardware for absolutely no reason?
I stuck with an iPhone SE of the first generation until I really needed multi-sim this year. The form factor is great, no other phone is that small. Battery life was ok, too. Why not stick with hardware that does the job? If it works for him, great. Better for the environment, too. Cheaper as well.
What makes you think I don't own an iPhone XR? I have a lot of phones that I use for random projects and testing and sometimes I just need something I can strap to the side of a car with a suction cup to capture gyro data. If it falls off, it falls off.
By the way, I wasn't the one telling me "this is the greatest iPhone yet" at the yearly capitalism conference.
Yeah but if they’re not guaranteeing security updates then you still can’t rely on it. Which sucks.
I don’t really get it either. You want to charge a premium for your handsets, why not let there be a secondary market all the way down the value chain for prices below where you want to go? It just means you’re selling more iCloud services and locking people in that way so that when they finally do need that upgrade it’s an iPhone rather than an Android.
Apple might release an emergency patch for an old device, but it’s not safe for you to keep using that device unless they’re committing to support the device with security patches on an ongoing basis.
I think they should support even very old iPhones with updates because:
1) They can’t afford to make an iPhone for $50.
2) Even if they could, they don’t want to make a $50 iPhone because it would be terrible and the margin minimal.
3) Supporting old phones allows a second-hand market for iPhones to thrive in the Chinese-Android-phone-bargain price tier where Apple can’t compete with new devices (this is in fact already the case given that there’s a used market for old iPhones).
4) Once someone buys (e.g. an iPhone 6S) used for $50 you can immediately start making them an iCloud customer for recurring revenue.
tldr; I think Apple views used device sales as a lost purchase for them instead of the massive subsidy that it is in terms of the cost associated with onboarding a new customer. (Apple should be overjoyed that someone is willing to sell a first-time prospective Apple customer an iPhone 6S for $50. The factory couldn’t make them the phone wholesale for that price, and it gets someone into the ecosystem).
>if they’re not guaranteeing security updates then you still can’t rely on it
As opposed to Google only offering two years of OS updates and an additional three years of security updates after that on the Pixel 6?
Sorry, but every single flagship iPhone since 2011 has gotten between five and seven years of OS updates. Then there are additional years of security updates after that. For example, the $399 OG iPhone SE got seven years of OS updates.
Google needs to step up their game. They don't even have the Qualcomm excuse now that they are having their own custom SOC fabbed.
For some reason they patched one and only one actively exploited bug in iOS 12. They did not patch the bug in iOS 13 or iOS 14. iOS 14 hasn't received any security updates since October 2021. It's been even longer for iOS 13. And also for iOS 12, except for that one unusual patch. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222
We can't treat the exception as the rule. It would be misleading to claim that Apple is still supporting iOS 12, or 13, or 14. Every other security patch in iOS 15 has been left vulnerable in pre-15 versions.
iOS 12 was the last release for the 6, which was the last phone cut off from updates (and they sold it for an especially long time). The 6s and 7 can update to iOS 15, which is still getting security updates.
Same, I still love my 7 (which still works perfectly fine despite using it everyday, even still has its original battery and screen) and been avoiding the upgrade until now because of the lack of Home button on the newer models.
I use both iPhone 13 Pro & Pro Max everyday because I do iOS development (among many other things), so it's not like I don't know how to use the newer models, but the Home button is so intuitive I can use the 7 even when I'm half awake whereas I need to pay close attention to the screen on 13.
Not having a Home button is like a keyboard without an Esc key.
I've stayed with the SE models for the Home Button. Love the Home Button and not having a phone that's too big or too small. The SE models seem just right. But I hear they don't sell well so who knows how much longer they will be around.
I agree that the home button is invaluable from a UI perspective but for unlocking, it's annoying as hell if you live somewhere it's cold (ie gloves) or get your hands significantly dirty or wet.
iOS 15 will continue receiving security updates for a while yet, so there’s no pressing reason to upgrade. Or you could donate the phone to Apple in case they can melt it down and reuse it instead of shredding it.
Yes, one actively exploited CVE was patched in iOS 12, which is strange. But as your own link shows, that's the only thing that has been fixed in pre-15 versions since October, despite many many vulnerabilities patched since then in iOS 15.
I don't know why Apple patched that 1 bug in iOS 12. But they didn't patch it in iOS 14 or 13. Moreover, iOS 14 hasn't received any security updates since October, and other than that 1 bug, neither iOS 13 nor iOS 12 have received security updates in an even longer time.
You're treating the exception (12.5.6) as if it's the rule, but it's not.
C-f for "Supported OS release" and there's a chart showing which devices support which OS. 12 was "sticky" in that it was the last one supporting the 5S and 6. 15 will be similarly sticky given the range of devices (6S/SE(2016)/7) that will be stuck with it and will probably get several more years of security updates as a result.
That was a weird one, but nonetheless, here's the list of security update, and there's been nothing for older versions since October 2021. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222
Also note that 12.5.6 was for a single actively exploited CVE and no other vulnerabilities.
My daughter as an iPhone 6, so its many versions pass and I think they have stopped security patches with this upgrade. How much risk is she of being hacked without those updates -- is there any way to track identified risks?
It's the iOS app support that suffers. Apple makes it pretty unbearable to get apps for unsupported devices so I take those and relegate them to single use non-data holding devices like dashcams and other uses.
As of at least a couple of years ago, I could still redownload “the last compatible version” for my old iPad 1st gen (2010). I was able to download and run Netflix and Plex.
Yes, but you must have a nicer iPhone on the same iCloud account that downloads the current version, then you can use the "purchased" page on the old device.
I’m pretty sure Apple just released a security patch for the iPhone 6 just a week or two ago. Seems like they are keeping “severe” CVEs patches on (some) out of support devices.
Apple just released a security release - iOS 12.5.6 for the iPhone 5s a few days ago (8/31/2022). I doubt they have stopped releasing security updates for the iPhone 6.
It's not really e-waste given Apple's recycling program, which is generally decent. 7 years of use with an option to recycle it when upgrading is about as good as you'll find.
Their environmental reports that they release each year indicate that they do, yes. It also looks like there's an audit report in there as well that logs the recycled materials as verified (page 109).
It's a bit unclear to me what that page 109 really means. It says a certain amount of materials were removed by recycling contractors whatever that means. Apologies if I'm missing something in that document. What I'd really like are answers to the questions I posed here:
> I see that e.g. screens are removed. How many of them (as a percentage of those sent in) are then re-used? And how many of the internal chips are re-used? How many of the batteries are re-used or how much of the underlying materials in the batteries are made into new batteries?
In any case, thanks for the link. If I have the time/energy someday I might read through that document more closely and see if it sheds light on these questions.
I would assume nothing other than easy to recycle metal/glass/paper actually gets recycled. It just gets shipped to a developing country and dumped there. I assume if a company hires a third party to “recycle”, it is probably cover your ass so they can say they recycled it, and it works pretty well if the third party is in another country.
I'm a little confused. I see that e.g. screens are removed. How many of them (as a percentage of those sent in) are then re-used? And how many of the internal chips are re-used? How many of the batteries are re-used or how much of the underlying materials in the batteries are made into new batteries?
Apple’s call and sms spam filtering remains subpar to say the least. When I had a Pixel, I had the option to let the OS transcribe what the potential spammer was saying and end the call. It’s puzzling why Apple isn’t doing more here.
> Other companies compete over best or newest features. Camera location/exterior shape forces their status-conscious demographic to buy new phones.
Frankly this kind of comment has no place on Hacker News.
There are many, many reasons to be critical of Apple. "Doesn't compete on features and only cares about what the device looks like superficially because their customers are sheep who only care about status" is not only a lazy take, but also doesn't even remotely describe the reality in which we live.
> I don't see what is wrong with calling out a very rational decision to continue making high status products rather than deviate into high tech products.
I genuinely can't fathom how one could conclude that Apple as a company isn't investing in technology. I mean, even at a superficial level, you're talking about a company that in-houses their own chip design and has dominated the mobile CPU market since doing so. They're very competitive in the desktop space in compute power with their very first chip line in this product category, and are absolutely crushing the existing players on performance per watt.
The've leveraged this advantage into being effectively the only meaningful player in the wearables space other than Garmin. Satellite integration into the phone is a direct shot across the bow of devices like the Garmin inReach, and the greater battery life (plus satellite integration) in the Apple Watch Max is going to start eating away at a chunk of Garmin's marketshare for GPS-tracking watches. Though Garmin still wins here for serious backcountry enthusiasts who spend multiple days in a row out of reach, Apple is leaving them a smaller and smaller margin in which to operate.
I stand by my original comment that this characterization of Apple is not reflective about of our reality. For Apple's many faults, they are extremely competitive from a technological perspective. Precisely because they are so unbelievably good at identifying how and when to apply a technological advance to achieve the largest possible impact for their customers.
This is a great feature but it's a huge double-edged sword. I need to remember to turn it off when I'm expecting a call from an unpredictable number, and then I need to remember to turn it back on again after I receive the call. It would be great if I could turn it off for some number of hours or days.
I've had the same issue if I am expecting a call but not sure what number it will ne. But iIf you already know the number, adding that to contacts will solve the problem ?
I use a Google Voice number for all of my delivery, business, etc phone calls. It has built in verbal call screening and the smarter spam filtering, and thus my personal iPhone # can be exclusive for my white listed personal calls.
Sadly, soo many services refuse to accept Voice numbers. Most recent example: I tried to submit positive feedback to an airline and their form rejects any Google Voice numbers, mandating a "real" phone number instead.
I use GV also and use call screening. But it still rings through for me quite a bit with spam, so I now keep DND turned on, and if I get VMs then I return the call. Not ideal, but better than giving out my real phone number.
I would have this on if it wasn't for the fact that I get calls from delivery drivers, who all have unknown numbers, and for whom the notification must be immediate.
Buy a Twilio number that forwards to your real number. Then whoever has that number can call it, and it will ring you from the known Twilio number. Add to address book and voila!
I assume the spammers buy "known active real person phone numbers" from somewhere (probably the awful carriers themselves), so it might be less likely for them to find a new Twilio number. But as soon as you give the phone number to some company that sells (or accidentally leaks) their customer data, that number will be burned too.
My carrier has an option that forces unknown callers to enter a 2 digit number to proceed with call. I add known contacts to my list online and they don't get the prompt. Works well, however I now get a lot of spam texts which it doesn't work for.
It's the biggest thing I've missed after switching from a Pixel to an iPhone this week. In my first day of iPhone ownership, I received more spam/text calls than in an entire year with a Pixel.
There's a 2 week return period, and I wanted to be sure I'd be fine switching to iOS before buying an expensive new device. Part of the reason I'm switching is the new Pro models are a lot closer to Android phones with features like always on display. Based on the rumors, I was pretty sure what to expect today, so I have just been onboarding myself with iOS yesterday and today and can return the phone by the time I should have the new one in hand.
I believe what the gp is really saying is that by the time they get to pick up the iPhone 14 Pro (whether in store or when their pre-order gets delivered), they'll be too close to the date of their departure.
In other words, they would not have had any meaningful time getting accustomed to iOS from Android, which is why they used the strategy of getting an iPhone 13 spend 2 weeks or more with it, in the hopes that if they like the experience, they'd return it for the newer iPhone 14 Pro.
I was disappointed to find that if you return an iphone it gets recycled, as in destroyed and ground up to materials, rather than there being any channel of refurbished/open box sales.
Apple’s call and sms spam filtering remains subpar to say the least.
It's my understanding that this is largely because of the carriers.
Phone and text spam filtering came to the iPhone in China long before it hit other countries. I only know a couple of people in China, and neither are in tech, but they say it's because spam was absolutely rampant so the government leaned on the carriers to fix it, and the iPhone spam filtering appeared a short time later.
There's no shortage of Chinese users on HN, so maybe one of them can explain further, or refute what I've been told.
T-Mobile does this and also labels a lot of numbers "Scam Likely". Its been really helpful. I too wish Apple would do more, but the carrier can do a bit.
Boy do i have a lifehack for you. Buy a phone number with a random area code, like ohio or something, all the spam calls come from surrounding area codes.
But then my calls will come from the random area code too. It’d be neat if you could do a dual phone number, where your CID on outbound calls shows as your local area code, but you give out the foreign area code for inbound calls.
You misunderstand slightly. All the calls from the area code matching your phone number are more likely to be spam (spammers matching you to appear legit). So unless you call people in that particular area, you won't be matching their area code, so you won't look like a spammer. And unless you happen to know a lot of people in that area, you won't get calls from that area that appear to be spam.
> So unless you call people in that particular area, you won't be matching their area code, so you won't look like a spammer
You're misunderstanding them too, I suspect. One could equally assume that a call coming from an area code they've never been to, 5 states away is spam - so this trick works if you do not make a lot of calls.
> One could equally assume that a call coming from an area code they've never been to, 5 states away is spam
Not equally. I have an area code from the opposite coast. If I get a call from that area code, it is 100% spam. Spammers just love outing themselves by spoofing the same area code of the person they are calling.
A call from any other area code is only 30% chance of being spam.
Your missing the point. Spammers call you from a spoofed number so that you think its someone near you based on the area code. I lived just a town over an invisible line in 2009, and ordered a new phone, and got an area code that the only other person I know that has a number in that area code is my wife. (920)
the ONLY calls that call me from that area code are spammers. if I get calls from any other area code, only 20% or so are spammers. Others are sales/marketing for IT companies, etc, and calls from one of the 2 area codes that cover my area where I actually live are usually all local businesses, etc. If I had to guess, I would say 85-90% of the 'spam callers' call and spoof the 920 area code when they dial me. that drastically cuts down on my automated messages about a car warranty that is about to expire.
> But then my calls will come from the random area code too
Nobody will care. Everybody's cell number is just a record of where they lived when they got their first phone; people you call will have you in their contact list most likely.
Spamming, like many other things in life, is a field of bleeding edge technology. :) They were not using your area code a decade back, then they realized your area code works better - it probably did for a while. When it loses effectiveness, they will move on to other patterns they have discovered.
I got a Google Voice number with an area code that's way out in the boonies somewhere. It's super easy for me to identify spam, and to prevent it by not giving my real number to almost anyone.
One of the things I've noticed recently is that spam call numbers have gotten smarter -- somehow they're figuring out numbers corresponding to regions that I spend time in that aren't related to my area code or central exchange...
There's a useful iOS app called Number Shield that lets you block all calls coming from numbers that match the first six digits of your phone number. That's the most common spoofing technique, so it really does help.
E.g. if your number is (555)555-1234 it'll block anything from (555)555-0000 to (555)555-9999.
So true! Area codes (and first three digits) used to indicate where you were. Now, more often than not, they indicate where you bought your first cell phone, i.e. where you lived around the year 2000 for us oldsters.
It was closer to 50% for me since there were two (overlaid) exchanges in my neighborhood. I still remember about a dozen phone numbers of friends from when I was growing up.
This is a great idea; unfortunately now I have dozens of voicemails a week from these numbers instead of just calls. Any option to prevent them leaving voicemail?
I've been using Number Shield since long before Begone existed, so I can't really comment on their comparison.
...though the creator of Begone will hopefully realize that every entry in its version-history starting with that same rant about fake ad campaigns is making it look more sketchy than ignoring the issue would.
Not that I know of? The privacy statement on that App Store page says it collects usage data and diagnostics, and that neither are linked to you personally.
Yeah, I did this. But it's not enough. Most phone number blocking apps get really slow blocking a couple of area codes. Number Shield loads _very_ slowly on my iPhone 13 with just 919 and 984 blocked. But they do fire prober calls from other locations too. The interesting thing is that they never actually say anything on the phone or in text. It's solely some sort of DoS against me. Weird.
I have a 972 number. Caller ID recently made it look like I'd received calls from Israel and Peru, but it was had dropped the US country code (+1) and making it look like the calls were from +971 (Israel) and +51x (Peru).
I love this. Used to live in SF and kept the 415 number after moving. Any of the bay area area codes get instant silenced (manually). And any number from my current area code I know to answer as it is legit
I noticed spam callers are even copying the first 3 numbers of my cell phone.
555-555-1234
All the 5s match my number, which hasn’t happened since I used to live in a small town. That always makes me do a double check but it’s also easier to ignore.
Yep. I have had my number for, forever and I'm now in a different area code. Pretty much everything that comes in from that original area code is spam.
OK, so basically if you have a 650-64 Palo Alto number, you'd block half the VCs in the world. If you have a lower Manhattan 212 number, you'd block a quarter of all finance recruiters? (granted, the latter has moved to Linked In)
I’d like it if you could just have an ephemeral call list. I don’t want to add an estate agent or recruiter to my main contact list, but I’d like to see their name come up if they call back or I get another call from them.
Just make it a contact with like a 7 day TTL or something. If it’s longer term, save it proper.
I mention this because the old Caller ID setup doesn’t really work any more.
That must be a US thing? I never get spam calls on my iPhone and only very rarely a spam text; maybe a couple of times a year I get the 'you've got a parcel with a fee to pay' scam.
I set up a VOIP phone number for this and give that one to anyone that I don't meet personally. Anyone that needs to be able to call me has my real phone number.
appreciated this rec. trying it out, so far looks legit. always worried that these things are free (so what data of mine are they selling) but the permissions seem locked down
Truecaller is not bad in some areas like EU, US etc as there are strong privacy laws. They have slightly different versions based on the country and jurisdiction.
But where there are no strong privacy laws like india, truecaller is straight up spyware
At the very least, it always tells Truecaller who is calling you (your phone doesn't have a copy of the database - it is being looked up).
And at least as of a few years ago, Truecaller would upload a copy of your phonebook to their servers. That's how they bootstrapped their database - from user's addressbooks. I only ever used it on a burner with an empty phone book, and occasionally get Truecaller pearls like "Annoying John - do not answer" as the caller's name.
It's weird there's still genuine uses for phone calls. Tends to be only sort of "official" ones from gov agencies or utilities providers. Both cases should be scheduled via text/email first, otherwise it's rude.
Next to CarPlay it says "Vehicle announcement coming in late 2023" - what is this related to? Showing car-related information in CarPlay, or are they announcing a car of their own?
I’m not sure, but a while ago they announced a sort of expanded CarPlay where things like the speedometer, fuel gage, etc were shown in the CarPlay format, so I assume that.
Likely the former. They announced a new version of Carplay during WWDC. Basically rather than just applying to the infotainment system, it will also include information from the dashboard, and climate systems.
This is something that essentially replaces iDrive and your entire gauge cluster with CarPlay: it will be a very long time before BMW supports it, if ever
Sure, but it's simply what people want. I will refuse to buy a car without carplay. I also want to have a seamless experience from my contacts / music / maps etc. I don't want old crappy outdated and super expansive software in my car, and I'm certain every day more people think the same.
That's fine but they're convinced software is the boring cheap part and people want the car for physical side of things, and nothing will change their mind short of really dire circumstances (and business has never been better for them)
Rolls Royce was still selling $200,000 with iDrive versions almost 2 years behind the version in a base model 2-series until last year, so I also wouldn't underestimate how much money they've made while keeping that mentality
Apple, for iOS 17 can you please let me freely rearrange the apps on the screen? Having them shuffle every time I add or remove an app is really a pain
You can rearrange apps on their screen, you just can't have gaps between them or move them "freely" in a way that they alwasy snap to an invisible grid...which isn't really something I have thought about ever.
I got used to it (especially when things are settled) but when you are fresh from android it can be annoying that you have to fill the top rows before your can place your fav apps within reach of your thumb. It feels very wrong.
You've been able to move apps around pretty easily for at least a decade. You can even remove them and just access them from the app drawer or have multiple copies on the same page. What he's talking about is not have them snap to an app grid.
Read the guidelines for comments, your comment violates almost all of the top rules.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
> Eschew flamebait
> Please don't post shallow dismissals
Many comments on HN break at some of those rules you listed on a regular basis, especially on topics that spark a lot of debate, yet they fly. Even racist ones. Why? Saying my comment breaks all those rules, you must be joking.
If you start to split hairs like that and look for interpretations out of context (which I assume my comment was read out of context, without following the full thread) then I'm pretty sure many, may comments here can be said break some rules.
Look, I mean no disrespect, and I have apologized and corrected my mistake, and I promise I try my best to follow the rules as I love this community and love contributing here for the best, but what you said and what I experienced sometimes, feels like rule enforcement is random, subjective and sometimes personally targeted.
Since this is offtopic and don't want to discuss this here, @dang, could you please delete this thread.
I see comments now and then which seem to break HN rules. When I do I report/flag them and they are almost always removed. I'm sure there are comments dang misses or maybe he and the other moderators think they don't make the cut. I don't claim to know dang's exact reasoning here and I'm sure he's not perfect, but it does seem like you are consistently saying inflammatory things.
You say you mean no disrespect and I believe that, but you also said this immediately before:
> you must be joking
That is disrespectful. I've found though that a lot of people don't realize they are being inflammatory when they use inflammatory language. It's just their natural way of discussing things. There are people who can ignore the flame and not feel anything over those words (myself included), but there are others who are hurt by them, resulting in anger/rage/pissed-off-ed-ness which causes the discussion to deteriorate. It can be hard to go against something that feels so natural, but if you can get the hang of it, it's better for the comments section imo.
Edit: and not to forget this
> exact which part was rude and insulting?
This part for sure (and yes, I did read the comment thread).
> That is disrespectful. I've found though that a lot of people don't realize they are being inflammatory when they use inflammatory language.
Sorry, but how is telling someone they're joking being disrespectful? It's an honest question. These lawyering mental gymnastics to try to nitpick my comments and turn them against me are just unbelievable.
> This part for sure (and yes, I did read the comment thread).
> Source, your ass?
I meant that in a humorous way, not in a hurtful way, that the parent was making stuff up. Didn't mean to insult him. Don't people have a sense of humor anymore? If commenters make stuff up and don't post sources, shouldn't that be pointed out somehow so others also know the truth?
That's why I said these things can be subjective if taken out if context and read on their own.
> Sorry, but how is telling someone they're joking being disrespectful?
Because you know I wasn't joking. You're saying that what I'm saying is a joke when you know I'm serious. They're not lawyering gymnastics. It's instantly felt by those who read it. It's not a monotone reading and retroactive "hey, that was disrespectful". It hurts immediately after reading those words.
> I meant that in a humorous way, not in a hurtful way
It may be humorous to those reading and on your side, but is hurtful to the person you're replying to. That's what we're trying to avoid here.
There are ways to point things out or make arguments without hurting. Like instead of saying
> you must be joking
You could say
> that doesn't make sense to me
Or instead of saying
> Source, your ass?
You could say
> Do you have a source for that?
The key here is that anyone can say "your ass" and "you must be joking" but it doesn't make your argument, a better argument. No new claim was made. No new evidence was given. It was only added because it gave you a little high and it gave you that high because it was an attack.
And I think years back you used to be able to do it from iTunes when the phone was connected with a wire. It disappeared over the years probably when they moved to Finder, but I think maybe even earlier.
On iOS you can also tap on the "search" button on the lower part of the screen above the dock. Or you could swipe to the rightmost pane where apps are sorted alphabetically.
Fire so long as sites implement them. Given how "quickly" yubikeys or even just touch ID webauthn have been going around, it doesn't seem very imminent :( Hopefully Firebase or AWS offer an easily accessible way to add passkeys etc as auth methods.
There's nothing special RPs have to do in order to support Passkeys. It's just WebAuthn that happens to be synced. If the site supports WebAuthn it already supports Passkeys (As long as they're not doing significantly less common things like checking for attestation, which Passkey-enabled credentials won't do).
> FIDO’s current proposal has no mechanism for bulk-transferring passkeys between ecosystems. If you want to switch from an Android phone to an iPhone—or vice versa—you won’t be able to easily move all your passkeys over.
Allowing each tenant to move thousands of highly-sensitive internal tokens to a competitor is something the credit card processing industry, somewhat surprisingly, has more or less solved. Most credit card gateways that store card information on file in a PCI compliant way will allow a merchant to specify another competing PCI compliant service provider, and will export the merchant's information directly to the new service provider in bulk, without needing to provide any of the raw information to the merchant themself.
Via
https://www.chargebee.com/blog/credit-card-portability-impor... it seems Braintree developed an industry standard for this in ~2010, potentially (I don't know the history) as a way to force Stripe to allow its merchants to move elsewhere in the ecosystem without holding their cards-on-file hostage. Based on the list at https://docs.spreedly.com/guides/exporting/ - all of whom support this workflow - it seems this was quite successful.
Its guiding light was to be "patterned after telephone number portability that was part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act" - which is quite telling in this context.
Point is, there is precedent for developing frameworks in which secure token storage platforms can allow you to freely move between them, with secure bulk data transfers. Apple and Google would do well to get ahead of this, lest it become a regulatory or PR nightmare later when high-profile stories accuse them of intentionally promoting lock-in.
There isn’t really a standard beyond processors publish an OpenPGP and you negotiate over support tickets to determine where an encrypted file can be delivered.
There is no standard for the file format used to exchange data. Could be JSON, CSV, Excel, etc.
> a regulatory or PR nightmare later when high-profile stories accuse them of intentionally promoting lock-in.
Aren't there lots of instances of intentionally promoting lock-in on these platforms already? I haven't seen significant measures taken against that. How would this be different?
Not only the transfer issue, there is no way to have the root source of truth be yourself or your corp for corp owned devices, or dealing with mud puddle issues combined with an inability to have proper off device backups. You bring it up in tech talks about it and they sputter and avoid answering it.
Exactly. Planning for emergencies is a big factor in password/secret management.
Currently, managing and using close to a 1,000 passwords, all around 35 characters and completely random, is an absolute breeze using 1Password (and likely any password manager of choice) and my data is securely stored in a cloud I can access from any device (and from my neighbor's laptop if disaster should strike).
No way that I am handing over this functionality to a bunch of private keys that I can only access when logged in using a device from one specific vendor.
The security benefits are vastly less than the loss in portability/emergency use.
So the idea of passkeys is fantastic, but as long as I cannot store them in a central platform agnostic place, it's passwords for me.
No. That would be like having a steel door in your house, and a cardboard one next to it.
I believe the login flow on another device (let’s say a Windows laptop) is that you scan some QR code on the laptop’s screen from your iPhone. Then the iPhone communicates with the site and validates the passkey. And if that is all OK the site on the laptop will proceed to log you in.
Knowing apple they're going to be another avenue to lock in. Now not only does switching your device been that you have to leave apple's ecosystem, it also means you lose all your passwords for all your websites.
The point of passkeys isn't convenience (that's what things like TouchID/FaceID are for); the point is to make phishing, brute-forcing, and credential stuffing all irrelevant. Having a "backup" password removes every one of those benefits.
Time to pay up! Exporting is impossible on Apple's implementation of Passkeys. Even exporting your entire keychain of passwords doesn't result in any WebAuthn keys, just standard passwords. Tested on macOS 13 and iOS 16 betas. I sincerely doubt this will change with the official releases.
Google's implementation is probably the same.
Microsoft hasn't done a thing yet to support passkeys besides what Edge and Windows Hello do.
Interesting, I’m not running the betas and I searched a bunch before I posted and couldn’t find it mentioned one way or the other. I hope that changes sometime in the future, though I only use 1Password anyways.
Not GP but the EFF is the charity most likely to help successfully push for changes here :) I am sending them 50 bucks in your name. Care to double it?
Exporting is purposefully made impossible in many implementations of Passkeys (aka Webauthn authenticators) other than Apple's. For example, Yubikeys are designed so private keys can never leave the authenticator [0]. Enabling the export of private keys from an authenticator greatly increases the attack surface of an authenticator.
This is a long-standing security/usability tradeoff in the Webauthn spec. Various solutions have been proposed, but as far as I know most of them are still just drafts, e.g. [1]. The best practice has been and, as far as I know, continues to be to register multiple authenticators, e.g. a primary and a backup authenticator. This practice has a variety of benefits:
1. Avoids lockout if an authenticator is lost.
2. If you use multiple authenticators from different vendors (e.g. Yubico and Google) you:
1. Avoid vendor lock-in
2. Can rapidly respond in case a security vulnerability is discovered in one of your authenticators, as has occurred for both Yubico [2] and Google [3].
One could use Apple's Passkeys as one's day-to-day "personal" authenticator, and use an authenticator from a different vendor (e.g. Yubico Yubikey or Google Titan Security Key) as their backup key. I don't see how Apple's implementation increases the risk of lock-in beyond that of any of the other major Webauthn authenticator providers.
When I migrated a few years ago there wasn't, I was only able to find some python script in Github and it still required tonnes of manual process to filter out noise
I think the best course of action is to add multiple keys when you sign up. If you follow best practices you should already be adding multiple yubikeys in your account so just keep doing the same.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. But, does WebAuthn really improve authentication? With WebAuthn, instead of a secret password, you store a secret key. Why not just use really long passwords behind password managers? You're using some software to save a secret in either case.
Some malware could steal your keys for example when you have your PM unlocked or snatch it from the clipboard but it’s impossible with hardware keys. It also won’t let you get phished but arguably PMs protect against that too.
For starters, it doesn't release any secret information into the wild. Instead, it uses a public/private key pair to challenge the user to decrypt something that only she or he can decrypt. The website (as an example) no longer stores anything but your public key, which doesn't reveal anything.
Secondly, you can't give away your passkey information so it is for all practical purposes unphishable. (I can't conceive of a way that it might be phished, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.)
In addition, it is super-duper easy on users. They don't have to remember anything, and can login with the touch of a finger or a glance at the camera.
Once again, reliant on the same Big Tech companies. If you think it is a good idea to hold your keys like this then you have never experienced lock in which is very easy to do for these companies.
After all of the iterations of iOS, there is still no way to have only the first new/unread message per SMS/iMessage thread generate a notification--particularly the notification sound or tone.
I find the feature would be useful in all situations, but would be especially useful in group threads. I don't need to hear a ding every time someone in a group thread sends a message if I don't have my phone in my hand. One ding generated when the first unread message is received will do just fine.
Not the same thing by a long shot, but you can turn on "Hide Alerts" for group chats. My wife has all of her long running group chats set to this to prevent alerts all day when her friends are chatting.
I just ordered a 'refurbished' iPhone 8 plus off of Amazon to replace my SE -- it's slightly bigger than the second generation SE but it has a second telephoto camera so... if I'm going to be forced to have a larger phone then that's sufficient compensation. Also it still has a fingerprint sensor!
The 13 mini is only slightly larger than the SE (2016). Dimensions:
Model Height Width Depth
SE 4.87" 2.31" 0.3"
Mini 5.18" 2.53" 0.301" (strangely precise)
Diff +0.31" +0.22" +0.001"
The screen goes from 4" to 5.4", which (for me) was worth the slight increase in size. I'm not going to say it's as compact as the SE (2016), but it's not a huge difference (nowhere near the difference of the regular sized 13 and 14 models). The mini is also smaller than the later SE models (except for depth, they are slightly slimmer).
As a lover of the original SE and a a Mini 13 owner the HUGE increase in thickness is what really bothers me with the size change. Their official thickness spec only measures the main body of the phone which is virtually a zero change in size but the camera bump makes it's thickest point about 50% thicker.
I did forget about the camera bump, but I don't believe the numbers work out that it's adding .15" to the thickness of the phone on its own. I had a recent chance to compare the SE (2016) to my 13 Mini (my mother still has the original SE but is likely to upgrade soon, I was recommending the mini since, other than the home button, it mostly met her needs and would provide a better display for her aging eyes) and it's definitely not 50% thicker at any point. That would have been quite noticeable.
I switched to a 12 mini last year, after my last 1st gen SE took a drop that damaged it beyond practical repair. They aren't that different in size, and it didn't take me as long to acclimate as I'd expected, especially when I found I do quite like having a larger display and smaller bezels - especially since few if any apps or websites are still tested on 4.7"-class displays like the 1st gen SE's.
There's definitely an inflection point - I also have a Galaxy 10+ for work and still find it uncomfortably large. The 12 mini seems to fall right in a sweet spot for me.
I’ve been on the beta for a week, it’s been quite smooth. I understand waiting for reviews but it doesn’t look like a problem release (which has certainly happened before).
I recently published an article[1] on How Apple could improve the VPNs experience on iOS. I hope someone at Apple finally decides to improve it on the next update.
It surprises me how Apple continues to add a lot of fancy feature and ignore basic day to day usability features like these.
True, but I wager they’re vastly more popular than you think, considering the amount of VPN advertising of the last few years. We’re not talking about PGP here.
Not for the "vast majority", but they are quite popular even for non-techy users, thanks to commercial VPN providers buying ads on YouTube and even offline. Narrative: if you don't use a VPN, hackers will steal all your data and your money. The apps from these providers are easy to set up. Even my mom asked me about it, it's surreal.
Still no ability to have separate accounts on an ipad... I sort of understand that a phone is a single user OS, but the ipad most certainly should be a multi user OS.
If you don't mind using MDM you can get something akin to roaming profiles on iPads. It's an enterprise feature, but it was introduced sometime during iOS 13.
I agree though, native multi-user support would be great. Though, I'd hope it's better than what we got on tvOS.
Don’t act like it is either easy or free. You need a verifyable company, and the iCloud accounts need to be managed as well. They can’t be personal or manually created.
It is not a viable solution for either the average user or the advanced user.
"User accounts" in the security sense, maybe isn't the right abstraction.
Have you tried logging in with multiple accounts on a Nintendo Switch? You're sort of just logged into all of them at once; and when you launch a given app/game, it asks you which profile you want to launch it under.
To me, that'd be the perfect multi-user experience for iPad. Any user can unlock it with their own biometrics/credentials; once unlocked, that user can then act as any user that has a profile on the device.
When would you select user? The ipad is designed to swap between apps way more frequently than you swap games on the switch. If you have to select user every time you swap apps on the ipad, it would be horribly annoying.
Probably only as a double-check if the iPad detects that it's been handed to a different person without being locked. In most cases you'd want to continue under the assumption that the user who unlocked the device wants to open things as themselves.
Mind you, the Switch has to do user-switching only at app startup time, because it's an effectively single-tasking OS. Given that you can be running tons of apps (and instances of apps) at the same time on an iPad, there are many other UI possibilities that synergize with an explicit user-chooser. Examples:
- You know the app groups in the new macOS/iPadOS? Imagine a user profile as an app-group-group (in iOS) or a group of spaces (in macOS.) Do the slow-swipe-up-from-the-bottom thing again when you're already in the app chooser, and you get the profile chooser.
- Some gesture you can do while in an app, that means "give me this same app, but viewed as a different user" — which is like a retroactive version of the Switch user-chooser thing. If other users already had the same app open, it'd work like Expose/Mission Control for seeing what their instance of the app looks like. And, as an optimization, apps that detect that you've user-switched away from them soon after launch, when they're still in their toplevel view, could take that as a signal to quit (as they'd assume that you just meant to open the app as a different user.)
> Probably only as a double-check if the iPad detects that it's been handed to a different person without being locked.
Huh? How would the ipad detect that?
> - Some gesture you can do while in an app, that means "give me this same app, but viewed as a different user" — which is like a retroactive version of the Switch user-chooser thing
That sounds horribly confusing and complicated. And it doesn't even address the security problem where you don't want other users to see your stuff. (Eg, my kids shouldn't see notifications for me, or be able to read my email).
I agree that its possible (its software, anything is possible). But I think it would take serious design work to implement user switching like you're proposing in a way thats not horribly complicated.
Probably the easiest way to do it would be at the unlock screen. Have the user lock their ipad then unlock it as a different user via a different profile attached to the fingerprint sensor.
Ambient accelerometer data (like is used in the Apple Watch for car-crash detection et al) triggering a background FaceID scan when the movement subsides.
> And it doesn't even address the security problem where you don't want other users to see your stuff. (Eg, my kids shouldn't see notifications for me, or be able to read my email).
Think of this sort of setup as a kiosk device — like a library computer. If accounts were allowed to be persistently signed into the device at all, then it would be in a low-integrity way, where you wouldn't be able to access your email et al through the device. Instead, the only things that would sync would be things that "don't matter" to expose to others: preferences, [non-private-browsing] history, game saves, etc.
The point wouldn't be to allow a whole family to share one iDevice for all their personal information management needs. You — and anyone else that has PII to manage — would still need a personal iPhone for that.
The point, instead, would be to have something like a game console, or a streaming box, or an eBook reader — the superset of all of those. Something for everyone in a family to just pass around to do "general family stuff" with games, books, music, movies, etc; without needing to worry about security. But, crucially, while still able to have "their own" bookmarked pages in books, watched episodes in TV shows, game saves, music playlists, and so forth; where that stuff does sync from their profile on this shared device, to any personal devices they also own.
You probably won't see the concrete use-case, if you don't have multiple children. None of them has any PII to manage, but they certainly do want their own open tabs and game saves, and protection from their siblings accidentally stomping over those.
> Probably the easiest way to do it would be at the unlock screen. Have the user lock their ipad then unlock it as a different user via a different profile attached to the fingerprint sensor.
iPads don't have fingerprint sensors. Also, you're expecting a lot out of children (again, the central point of this) to re-lock the device (just to unlock it again) after taking it from their sibling. My impression is that they'd see something they want to do and just start trying to do it. The ideal here would be to automatically switch profiles when this happens, such that they seamlessly get the same app, but with state recorded for their profile, rather than their sibling's.
Yes they do. My ipad air from last year certainly does. (And its missing Face ID).
> The ideal here would be to automatically switch profiles when this happens, such that they seamlessly get the same app, but with state recorded for their profile, rather than their sibling's.
Sounds like a version 2 feature for user switching. If I were apple and I cared about this, I'd release a simpler version first and wait for feedback.
I hear what you're looking for. I really do. I just think its very complicated to get the interaction you're looking for right. If FaceID started doing its thing every time I handle my iPad, it would be scanning basically all the time.
> If FaceID started doing its thing every time I handle my iPad
I mean, it already kind of does (on iPhones at least, don't know about iPads) — ever notice that the screen will automatically come on when you pick up the device and tilt it to a certain angle, but only if you're looking at it?
Mind you, that's a trigger from sleep. But you could just as well have one that's a trigger "from stillness" — i.e. when the device hasn't moved in a while, and then it does.
I believe a few months ago HN comments were riffing on a hypothetical "persistent background authentication" system Apple could be developing that would justify their disinterest in bringing back TouchID for iPhones. It would basically work by using every sensor available to try to constantly determine whether the same person that previously unlocked the device, was in continuous physical possession of the device. As long as that was true, the device would remain unlocked (rather than there being any kind of lock-during-sleep timer.) But as soon as the device was passed to someone else, or taken out and left on a table, all authentication would be discarded. (It wouldn't necessarily "lock" in the sense of taking you to the lock screen as soon as you place your phone on a table — you might want to show someone a cat photo, after all — but it'd at least temporarily assume a low-integrity kiosk mode for that app, becoming "locked underneath", in the same way that the photos app viewed from the camera app accessed from the lock screen is low-integrity + "locked underneath.") This would mean that any authentication that is required could take a lot longer / be a lot more thorough — because the most common kind of auth, the "incremental re-authentication" when you take your phone out of your pocket for a second — would no longer exist.
I feel like this kind of thing is totally possible — even plausible/practical — given Apple's fondness for developing low-power sensor-tracking ASICs for the Apple Watch et al.
> If I were apple and I cared about this, I'd release a simpler version first and wait for feedback.
Apple doesn't really do this; they seem to try to "get UX right the first time", in the sense that they'll never really make a UX iteratively better, only ever completely throw a UX away and then create an entirely new UX that's a-bit-more-than-iteratively better, with an entirely different name and branding (E.g. Exposé → Mission Control.) — presumably so that users don't think it's the old thing, try to use it like the old thing, and fail.
But, mind you — the Apple TV's tvOS already has "user profiles" and "user switching" in exactly the "V1" way you're describing! (https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/tv/atvb59ec8e2e/tvos) tvOS doesn't do any kind of automatic switching; it only allows for explicit switching.
So, conveniently, the code for most of this logic is already there in the iOS codebase. It'd just need to be adapted to the iPad's UX; and some annotations added to apps to mark them as "allowed in low-integrity mode" or not, where apps that aren't "allowed in low-integrity mode" apps — i.e. "requires high-integrity" apps — should never be allowed to be run/installed on an iPad set up for sharing (just like "requires high-integrity" apps aren't allowed to be published at all for tvOS to begin with.)
There will never be multi user support on the iPad until the iPad has some real competition. Apple has absolutely no incentive to invest resources in to multi user when it’s much more likely that you will buy two iPads than buy an android tablet.
Yes, but that doesn't work for having one iPad shared by family. That's about writing software to be used for shared iPads.
iPads can be shared in a business or school setting and going through the administrative steps to implement that. https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/shared-ipad-overv... talks about how to do it using a Mobile Device Management (MDM) server. There are various services not from Apple that provide free servers but we've seen over and over how a free service goes paid or is simply cancelled.
There's nothing on the iPad like Macs have for allowing multiple users.
The main limitation I have heard is it requires apps to store everything in the cloud. The multi user system is basically a single sign on for the apps and requires all this infrastructure to power it.
This would be great, but it would never be announced in Sept. It would be announced at WWDC, when they talk about the new features of the upcoming OSes.
Currently hardware-wise they're designed for a single user experience.
E.g. the limit of face-ids in the secure enclave, or more trivially they don't come with a lot of storage to host multiple photo/music/app libraries without having to put every little thing in the cloud.
There is a hardware limit, just like there is with Touch-ID. I don't really see the point in continuing with this if you're going to argue in bad faith - trivial research would have revealed that and other limitations which would prevent this on the current line-up.
Now I'm not saying that Apple can't produce an iPad in the future that delivers on the right experience mix in a multi-user capable setting, but that's not what you're asking for - I've provided just a few of the mant kinds of limitations that will degrade the user experience in a way that makes clear that Apple aren't just trying to juice their customers.
So the answer here is neither "Apple should just make it happen", nor "You should just buy a second iPad" - the answer is: you should buy the tablet that gives you everything you want, or learn how to share, I rdgaf.
That's not the same thing as they're talking about. The account sharing on education devices, which is what you linked, clears the device every time you switch a user and every user has the same apps installed. What the OP is asking for is individual user profiles that let each person customize the device for their own account.
Not on their own but there will be legislation. EU just passed the Digital Services Act which requires the largest of the messengers (e.g. WhatsApp, iMessage) to offer APIs for other platforms to interconnect upon request. Google could use this to connect RCS and iMessage users. Not exactly what they wanted (iOS implementing RCS natively), but same effect.
The iPhone 8 only compatibility means that many teams will be stuck supporting Safari 15.6 for a very long time. Anything under "no support" on this page will continue to be out of reach for years to come https://caniuse.com/?compare=safari+15.6&compareCats=all#res...
I finally swapped to Apple maps permanently. Was ~okay with giving Google my data because it's routing was better, but now Apple is on par, there is no reason to continue to use Google maps.
As someone who tries to avoid Google products more and more, I'm glad they improve Apple Maps. I have zero Google app installed on my iPhone today, but Google Maps is the one I'm the most tempted to use occasionally. I use it in the browser instead but the experience sucks.
On my side I'm kinda excited about live notifications, it looks cool for food deliveries.
Been on the β for a while; it’s a good OS. Particularly like the ability to use the iPhone as a Zoom cam. 3D printed a phone mount and everything works pretty seamlessly. Lock Screen widgets are nice too.
Stage manager on iPadOS doesn’t do it for me though.
441 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 329 ms ] thread> Coming later this year
Apple going to start offering email too?
More importantly you can create unlimited throwaway vendor / site reg emails you can receive to and send from with Hide My Email.
This guide to using imapsync was invaluable: https://blah.cloud/miscellaneous/migrating-google-workspaces...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobileMe
Replaced by iCloud later. So it’s not something they will do, but something they have been doing for over two decades.
I can count on one hand the amount of times I've FaceTimed someone because of fragmentation in my network with Android.
Anyway, looks like my old iPhone 7 is finally going to have to retire. :/ I can't wait for a good Linux phone.
Edit: 7 years of use isn't bad compared to Android, but the phone is still just fine, and it really bothers me that it's turning into e-waste for no good reason.
I hope their competitors step it up and beat Apple out on grade A support. I'm seeing them fall further behind in every metric. My iPhone 12 mini that I bought on launch day "just works".
I am pretty careful with my stuff. Going as far as to only putting my phone in my left pocket because there’s no metal rivet on that side of most jeans. I also probably only dropped the phone three or four times over that six year span. I don’t use the case, I’m just very careful. I won’t even pull it out if I feel I’m in a risky situation where I could drop it.
Even five years is a lot longer than any of my android phones lasted with daily use. I had the Motorola Droid, the HTC Thunderbolt, and the Samsung GS3, among others. I think you would be lucky to get 2 to 3 years out of those. I’m not sure what would go first, your OS support, or the cheaper hardware that they use in general. I had the best experience with Samsung in the Android market.
As someone that has worked on this very problem for 20 years, I can say with somewhat confidence Apples choice is the right one.
It’s more likely the fact the iPhone 7 only has 2GB of RAM and two cores, not to mention missing the Neural Engine, the image processor and other features on Apple’s latest SoCs that iOS 16 requires for some of its features.
Most of major features of iOS 16 would have to be removed to run on an iPhone 7.
* Live Text
* can’t send emojis in iMessage using Siri
* can’t ask Siri about apps
* offline Siri support for HomeKit, Intercom, Voicemail
* being able to smoothly switch between voice and typing when using dictation
* adding medications using the camera
* Door Detection in Magnifier
* Image search in more apps
Apple makes it difficult but keeping my iPhone 5S is still going years after iOS 12 is no longer "cool"
The A7 is dogshit slow - I have an iPad with the A7 (or maybe it's the A9) and it's unusably slow for even simple things like apps from newspapers and library e-reader apps; you can watch the page assemble. Even waking the iPad with the home button is slow. On my A11-powered phone these apps run smooth as butter.
A 5S supports 11 of the LTE bands versus 24 bands of the 8. That alone is worth the upgrade, for the greater chance of being able to make or receive an important call.
How much time are you wasting on silly work-arounds just to be a retro-tech hipster pretending it's cool to use a completely outdated and inferior-in-every-way piece of hardware for absolutely no reason?
By the way, I wasn't the one telling me "this is the greatest iPhone yet" at the yearly capitalism conference.
I don’t really get it either. You want to charge a premium for your handsets, why not let there be a secondary market all the way down the value chain for prices below where you want to go? It just means you’re selling more iCloud services and locking people in that way so that when they finally do need that upgrade it’s an iPhone rather than an Android.
I think they should support even very old iPhones with updates because:
1) They can’t afford to make an iPhone for $50.
2) Even if they could, they don’t want to make a $50 iPhone because it would be terrible and the margin minimal.
3) Supporting old phones allows a second-hand market for iPhones to thrive in the Chinese-Android-phone-bargain price tier where Apple can’t compete with new devices (this is in fact already the case given that there’s a used market for old iPhones).
4) Once someone buys (e.g. an iPhone 6S) used for $50 you can immediately start making them an iCloud customer for recurring revenue.
tldr; I think Apple views used device sales as a lost purchase for them instead of the massive subsidy that it is in terms of the cost associated with onboarding a new customer. (Apple should be overjoyed that someone is willing to sell a first-time prospective Apple customer an iPhone 6S for $50. The factory couldn’t make them the phone wholesale for that price, and it gets someone into the ecosystem).
As opposed to Google only offering two years of OS updates and an additional three years of security updates after that on the Pixel 6?
Sorry, but every single flagship iPhone since 2011 has gotten between five and seven years of OS updates. Then there are additional years of security updates after that. For example, the $399 OG iPhone SE got seven years of OS updates.
Google needs to step up their game. They don't even have the Qualcomm excuse now that they are having their own custom SOC fabbed.
My laptops (Linux) last until they die, and it takes a long time for them to die. I’d love a phone that does that.
We can't treat the exception as the rule. It would be misleading to claim that Apple is still supporting iOS 12, or 13, or 14. Every other security patch in iOS 15 has been left vulnerable in pre-15 versions.
For a very simple reason. All devices that can run iOS 13 and 14 can be updated to iOS 15, which is still being patched.
I use both iPhone 13 Pro & Pro Max everyday because I do iOS development (among many other things), so it's not like I don't know how to use the newer models, but the Home button is so intuitive I can use the 7 even when I'm half awake whereas I need to pay close attention to the screen on 13.
Not having a Home button is like a keyboard without an Esc key.
iOS 14.8 was released on September 13, 2021, iOS 14.8.1 on October 26, 2021, and then nothing else.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222
iOS 15 will be getting patches even if iOS 14 and 13 don't.
You're treating the exception (12.5.6) as if it's the rule, but it's not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
C-f for "Supported OS release" and there's a chart showing which devices support which OS. 12 was "sticky" in that it was the last one supporting the 5S and 6. 15 will be similarly sticky given the range of devices (6S/SE(2016)/7) that will be stuck with it and will probably get several more years of security updates as a result.
Also note that 12.5.6 was for a single actively exploited CVE and no other vulnerabilities.
Their environmental reports that they release each year indicate that they do, yes. It also looks like there's an audit report in there as well that logs the recycled materials as verified (page 109).
> I see that e.g. screens are removed. How many of them (as a percentage of those sent in) are then re-used? And how many of the internal chips are re-used? How many of the batteries are re-used or how much of the underlying materials in the batteries are made into new batteries?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32761701
In any case, thanks for the link. If I have the time/energy someday I might read through that document more closely and see if it sheds light on these questions.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
Frankly this kind of comment has no place on Hacker News.
There are many, many reasons to be critical of Apple. "Doesn't compete on features and only cares about what the device looks like superficially because their customers are sheep who only care about status" is not only a lazy take, but also doesn't even remotely describe the reality in which we live.
> I don't see what is wrong with calling out a very rational decision to continue making high status products rather than deviate into high tech products.
I genuinely can't fathom how one could conclude that Apple as a company isn't investing in technology. I mean, even at a superficial level, you're talking about a company that in-houses their own chip design and has dominated the mobile CPU market since doing so. They're very competitive in the desktop space in compute power with their very first chip line in this product category, and are absolutely crushing the existing players on performance per watt.
The've leveraged this advantage into being effectively the only meaningful player in the wearables space other than Garmin. Satellite integration into the phone is a direct shot across the bow of devices like the Garmin inReach, and the greater battery life (plus satellite integration) in the Apple Watch Max is going to start eating away at a chunk of Garmin's marketshare for GPS-tracking watches. Though Garmin still wins here for serious backcountry enthusiasts who spend multiple days in a row out of reach, Apple is leaving them a smaller and smaller margin in which to operate.
I stand by my original comment that this characterization of Apple is not reflective about of our reality. For Apple's many faults, they are extremely competitive from a technological perspective. Precisely because they are so unbelievably good at identifying how and when to apply a technological advance to achieve the largest possible impact for their customers.
Last month I had a flurry of spam texts and calls. I moved the slider to the "enable" side a few weeks ago and have had zero issues since.
The feature mostly works, but needing to remember to disable it when a call is expected is annoying.
1) You have a kid AND 2) You're not currently looking right at that kid
Then you need to pick up calls from random numbers basically every time. Just the way life is.
It’s a simple read and worth the minute or so if you use the feature.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32757077
I missed a hospital calling about a family member. They should have left a voicemail, but they didn't.
In other words, they would not have had any meaningful time getting accustomed to iOS from Android, which is why they used the strategy of getting an iPhone 13 spend 2 weeks or more with it, in the hopes that if they like the experience, they'd return it for the newer iPhone 14 Pro.
It's my understanding that this is largely because of the carriers.
Phone and text spam filtering came to the iPhone in China long before it hit other countries. I only know a couple of people in China, and neither are in tech, but they say it's because spam was absolutely rampant so the government leaned on the carriers to fix it, and the iPhone spam filtering appeared a short time later.
There's no shortage of Chinese users on HN, so maybe one of them can explain further, or refute what I've been told.
But then you mess up callbacks.
You're misunderstanding them too, I suspect. One could equally assume that a call coming from an area code they've never been to, 5 states away is spam - so this trick works if you do not make a lot of calls.
Not equally. I have an area code from the opposite coast. If I get a call from that area code, it is 100% spam. Spammers just love outing themselves by spoofing the same area code of the person they are calling.
A call from any other area code is only 30% chance of being spam.
the ONLY calls that call me from that area code are spammers. if I get calls from any other area code, only 20% or so are spammers. Others are sales/marketing for IT companies, etc, and calls from one of the 2 area codes that cover my area where I actually live are usually all local businesses, etc. If I had to guess, I would say 85-90% of the 'spam callers' call and spoof the 920 area code when they dial me. that drastically cuts down on my automated messages about a car warranty that is about to expire.
Nobody will care. Everybody's cell number is just a record of where they lived when they got their first phone; people you call will have you in their contact list most likely.
In the age where most phones are mobile, this whole "scheme" is pitifully ignorant.
Also, A/B testing is not just for good guys.
E.g. if your number is (555)555-1234 it'll block anything from (555)555-0000 to (555)555-9999.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/number-shield/id1319082167
Now that number is 0%.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/begone-call-blocker/id15968181...
...though the creator of Begone will hopefully realize that every entry in its version-history starting with that same rant about fake ad campaigns is making it look more sketchy than ignoring the issue would.
Settings > Phone > Call Blocking & Identification
I assume they do this to muddy the block lists that get used to filter their calls.
I know this because every now and then I will get up to 5 or so calls or texts of people claiming I called them.
555-555-1234
All the 5s match my number, which hasn’t happened since I used to live in a small town. That always makes me do a double check but it’s also easier to ignore.
Huh.
Just make it a contact with like a 7 day TTL or something. If it’s longer term, save it proper.
I mention this because the old Caller ID setup doesn’t really work any more.
But where there are no strong privacy laws like india, truecaller is straight up spyware
https://restofworld.org/2022/how-truecaller-built-a-billion-...
And at least as of a few years ago, Truecaller would upload a copy of your phonebook to their servers. That's how they bootstrapped their database - from user's addressbooks. I only ever used it on a burner with an empty phone book, and occasionally get Truecaller pearls like "Annoying John - do not answer" as the caller's name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_16#Supported_devices
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/09/apples-2023-carpl...
- Don't give up control of a safety critical interface
- Don't give up data (which they think they can monetize) by not controlling the full stack
- Don't give up a branded differentiator like "iDrive" for what everyone else is offering
- Don't pay a tax on our cars to big tech if we can avoid it (see how they dragged their feet on Carplay to start)
Rolls Royce was still selling $200,000 with iDrive versions almost 2 years behind the version in a base model 2-series until last year, so I also wouldn't underestimate how much money they've made while keeping that mentality
BUT tighter Apple/CarPlay integration with existing brands is most definitely coming.
Soon your iPhone will handle the whole instrument cluster and infotainment for your car as well as functioning as a key.
https://david-smith.org/blank.html
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Sorry, my bad, I didn't see your other message since it got buried in hundreds of nested replies and there's no way I was gonna see it.
Also, what guidelines did the other message it break?
Read the guidelines for comments, your comment violates almost all of the top rules.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
> Eschew flamebait
> Please don't post shallow dismissals
And exact which part was rude and insulting?
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
> Eschew flamebait
> Please don't post shallow dismissals
Many comments on HN break at some of those rules you listed on a regular basis, especially on topics that spark a lot of debate, yet they fly. Even racist ones. Why? Saying my comment breaks all those rules, you must be joking.
If you start to split hairs like that and look for interpretations out of context (which I assume my comment was read out of context, without following the full thread) then I'm pretty sure many, may comments here can be said break some rules.
Look, I mean no disrespect, and I have apologized and corrected my mistake, and I promise I try my best to follow the rules as I love this community and love contributing here for the best, but what you said and what I experienced sometimes, feels like rule enforcement is random, subjective and sometimes personally targeted.
Since this is offtopic and don't want to discuss this here, @dang, could you please delete this thread.
You say you mean no disrespect and I believe that, but you also said this immediately before:
> you must be joking
That is disrespectful. I've found though that a lot of people don't realize they are being inflammatory when they use inflammatory language. It's just their natural way of discussing things. There are people who can ignore the flame and not feel anything over those words (myself included), but there are others who are hurt by them, resulting in anger/rage/pissed-off-ed-ness which causes the discussion to deteriorate. It can be hard to go against something that feels so natural, but if you can get the hang of it, it's better for the comments section imo.
Edit: and not to forget this
> exact which part was rude and insulting?
This part for sure (and yes, I did read the comment thread).
> Source, your ass?
> That is disrespectful. I've found though that a lot of people don't realize they are being inflammatory when they use inflammatory language.
Sorry, but how is telling someone they're joking being disrespectful? It's an honest question. These lawyering mental gymnastics to try to nitpick my comments and turn them against me are just unbelievable.
> This part for sure (and yes, I did read the comment thread).
> Source, your ass?
I meant that in a humorous way, not in a hurtful way, that the parent was making stuff up. Didn't mean to insult him. Don't people have a sense of humor anymore? If commenters make stuff up and don't post sources, shouldn't that be pointed out somehow so others also know the truth?
That's why I said these things can be subjective if taken out if context and read on their own.
Because you know I wasn't joking. You're saying that what I'm saying is a joke when you know I'm serious. They're not lawyering gymnastics. It's instantly felt by those who read it. It's not a monotone reading and retroactive "hey, that was disrespectful". It hurts immediately after reading those words.
> I meant that in a humorous way, not in a hurtful way
It may be humorous to those reading and on your side, but is hurtful to the person you're replying to. That's what we're trying to avoid here.
There are ways to point things out or make arguments without hurting. Like instead of saying
> you must be joking
You could say
> that doesn't make sense to me
Or instead of saying
> Source, your ass?
You could say
> Do you have a source for that?
The key here is that anyone can say "your ass" and "you must be joking" but it doesn't make your argument, a better argument. No new claim was made. No new evidence was given. It was only added because it gave you a little high and it gave you that high because it was an attack.
Clear Spaces https://apps.apple.com/us/app/clear-spaces/id1532666619
iEmpty https://iempty.tooliphone.net/
MAKEOVR https://www.makeovr.io/
(photo deduplication is nice too btw, been a long time coming)
That being said, I was hoping to see more touch ID webauthn so I'm not super hopeful. But we can hope!
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90755838/theres-a-big-problem-wi...
The article does talk about how tools like 1Password could allow for PassKey sharing without vendor lock-in.
Allowing each tenant to move thousands of highly-sensitive internal tokens to a competitor is something the credit card processing industry, somewhat surprisingly, has more or less solved. Most credit card gateways that store card information on file in a PCI compliant way will allow a merchant to specify another competing PCI compliant service provider, and will export the merchant's information directly to the new service provider in bulk, without needing to provide any of the raw information to the merchant themself.
Via https://www.chargebee.com/blog/credit-card-portability-impor... it seems Braintree developed an industry standard for this in ~2010, potentially (I don't know the history) as a way to force Stripe to allow its merchants to move elsewhere in the ecosystem without holding their cards-on-file hostage. Based on the list at https://docs.spreedly.com/guides/exporting/ - all of whom support this workflow - it seems this was quite successful.
Ironically, the standardization site has been down since 2019, but I suppose it was no longer needed. https://web.archive.org/web/20190212151438/http://www.portab...
Its guiding light was to be "patterned after telephone number portability that was part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act" - which is quite telling in this context.
Point is, there is precedent for developing frameworks in which secure token storage platforms can allow you to freely move between them, with secure bulk data transfers. Apple and Google would do well to get ahead of this, lest it become a regulatory or PR nightmare later when high-profile stories accuse them of intentionally promoting lock-in.
There is no standard for the file format used to exchange data. Could be JSON, CSV, Excel, etc.
Aren't there lots of instances of intentionally promoting lock-in on these platforms already? I haven't seen significant measures taken against that. How would this be different?
Currently, managing and using close to a 1,000 passwords, all around 35 characters and completely random, is an absolute breeze using 1Password (and likely any password manager of choice) and my data is securely stored in a cloud I can access from any device (and from my neighbor's laptop if disaster should strike).
No way that I am handing over this functionality to a bunch of private keys that I can only access when logged in using a device from one specific vendor.
The security benefits are vastly less than the loss in portability/emergency use.
So the idea of passkeys is fantastic, but as long as I cannot store them in a central platform agnostic place, it's passwords for me.
Otherwise if I login by passkey to a website on an Apple device, how do I login outside Apple’s walled garden?
I believe the login flow on another device (let’s say a Windows laptop) is that you scan some QR code on the laptop’s screen from your iPhone. Then the iPhone communicates with the site and validates the passkey. And if that is all OK the site on the laptop will proceed to log you in.
Knowing apple they're going to be another avenue to lock in. Now not only does switching your device been that you have to leave apple's ecosystem, it also means you lose all your passwords for all your websites.
I'm honestly hoping this does not take off.
I mean it's just Webauthn under the hood, I'd bet money you can export them from keychain into another tool like 1Password or similar.
> Time to pay up!
What’s your favorite charity?
Not GP but the EFF is the charity most likely to help successfully push for changes here :) I am sending them 50 bucks in your name. Care to double it?
[0] https://imgur.com/a/J6LPAO3
This is a long-standing security/usability tradeoff in the Webauthn spec. Various solutions have been proposed, but as far as I know most of them are still just drafts, e.g. [1]. The best practice has been and, as far as I know, continues to be to register multiple authenticators, e.g. a primary and a backup authenticator. This practice has a variety of benefits:
1. Avoids lockout if an authenticator is lost.
2. If you use multiple authenticators from different vendors (e.g. Yubico and Google) you:
1. Avoid vendor lock-in
2. Can rapidly respond in case a security vulnerability is discovered in one of your authenticators, as has occurred for both Yubico [2] and Google [3].
One could use Apple's Passkeys as one's day-to-day "personal" authenticator, and use an authenticator from a different vendor (e.g. Yubico Yubikey or Google Titan Security Key) as their backup key. I don't see how Apple's implementation increases the risk of lock-in beyond that of any of the other major Webauthn authenticator providers.
[0]: https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/865#issuecomment-3804...
[1]: https://github.com/Yubico/webauthn-recovery-extension
[2]: https://www.yubico.com/support/issue-rating-system/security-...
[3]: https://security.googleblog.com/2019/05/titan-keys-update.ht...
If I get arbitrarily locked out of a Google/Apple/Microsoft account then my logins for absolutely everything go up in smoke too.
(Assumes the key is a composite pair of local passkey + cloud account secret)
I’m just saying, I’ve seen a lot of sites demand mobile 2FA and also allow for nothing else shudder.
For starters, it doesn't release any secret information into the wild. Instead, it uses a public/private key pair to challenge the user to decrypt something that only she or he can decrypt. The website (as an example) no longer stores anything but your public key, which doesn't reveal anything.
Secondly, you can't give away your passkey information so it is for all practical purposes unphishable. (I can't conceive of a way that it might be phished, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.)
In addition, it is super-duper easy on users. They don't have to remember anything, and can login with the touch of a finger or a glance at the camera.
This is a huge step forward in authentication.
I find the feature would be useful in all situations, but would be especially useful in group threads. I don't need to hear a ding every time someone in a group thread sends a message if I don't have my phone in my hand. One ding generated when the first unread message is received will do just fine.
Looks like my other options for a small phone are 12/13 mini or possibly the 2nd/3rd gen SE. But not nearly as compact as the 4" SE.
Still, it's too bad there isn't a 14 mini.
There's definitely an inflection point - I also have a Galaxy 10+ for work and still find it uncomfortably large. The 12 mini seems to fall right in a sweet spot for me.
There's something about general availability that just hits different, exposing bugs to be fixed in the eventual .1 release.
It surprises me how Apple continues to add a lot of fancy feature and ignore basic day to day usability features like these.
[1] https://medium.com/@contact_54652/how-can-apple-improve-the-...
I agree though, native multi-user support would be great. Though, I'd hope it's better than what we got on tvOS.
It is not a viable solution for either the average user or the advanced user.
Have you tried logging in with multiple accounts on a Nintendo Switch? You're sort of just logged into all of them at once; and when you launch a given app/game, it asks you which profile you want to launch it under.
To me, that'd be the perfect multi-user experience for iPad. Any user can unlock it with their own biometrics/credentials; once unlocked, that user can then act as any user that has a profile on the device.
Mind you, the Switch has to do user-switching only at app startup time, because it's an effectively single-tasking OS. Given that you can be running tons of apps (and instances of apps) at the same time on an iPad, there are many other UI possibilities that synergize with an explicit user-chooser. Examples:
- You know the app groups in the new macOS/iPadOS? Imagine a user profile as an app-group-group (in iOS) or a group of spaces (in macOS.) Do the slow-swipe-up-from-the-bottom thing again when you're already in the app chooser, and you get the profile chooser.
- Some gesture you can do while in an app, that means "give me this same app, but viewed as a different user" — which is like a retroactive version of the Switch user-chooser thing. If other users already had the same app open, it'd work like Expose/Mission Control for seeing what their instance of the app looks like. And, as an optimization, apps that detect that you've user-switched away from them soon after launch, when they're still in their toplevel view, could take that as a signal to quit (as they'd assume that you just meant to open the app as a different user.)
Huh? How would the ipad detect that?
> - Some gesture you can do while in an app, that means "give me this same app, but viewed as a different user" — which is like a retroactive version of the Switch user-chooser thing
That sounds horribly confusing and complicated. And it doesn't even address the security problem where you don't want other users to see your stuff. (Eg, my kids shouldn't see notifications for me, or be able to read my email).
I agree that its possible (its software, anything is possible). But I think it would take serious design work to implement user switching like you're proposing in a way thats not horribly complicated.
Probably the easiest way to do it would be at the unlock screen. Have the user lock their ipad then unlock it as a different user via a different profile attached to the fingerprint sensor.
Ambient accelerometer data (like is used in the Apple Watch for car-crash detection et al) triggering a background FaceID scan when the movement subsides.
> And it doesn't even address the security problem where you don't want other users to see your stuff. (Eg, my kids shouldn't see notifications for me, or be able to read my email).
Think of this sort of setup as a kiosk device — like a library computer. If accounts were allowed to be persistently signed into the device at all, then it would be in a low-integrity way, where you wouldn't be able to access your email et al through the device. Instead, the only things that would sync would be things that "don't matter" to expose to others: preferences, [non-private-browsing] history, game saves, etc.
The point wouldn't be to allow a whole family to share one iDevice for all their personal information management needs. You — and anyone else that has PII to manage — would still need a personal iPhone for that.
The point, instead, would be to have something like a game console, or a streaming box, or an eBook reader — the superset of all of those. Something for everyone in a family to just pass around to do "general family stuff" with games, books, music, movies, etc; without needing to worry about security. But, crucially, while still able to have "their own" bookmarked pages in books, watched episodes in TV shows, game saves, music playlists, and so forth; where that stuff does sync from their profile on this shared device, to any personal devices they also own.
You probably won't see the concrete use-case, if you don't have multiple children. None of them has any PII to manage, but they certainly do want their own open tabs and game saves, and protection from their siblings accidentally stomping over those.
> Probably the easiest way to do it would be at the unlock screen. Have the user lock their ipad then unlock it as a different user via a different profile attached to the fingerprint sensor.
iPads don't have fingerprint sensors. Also, you're expecting a lot out of children (again, the central point of this) to re-lock the device (just to unlock it again) after taking it from their sibling. My impression is that they'd see something they want to do and just start trying to do it. The ideal here would be to automatically switch profiles when this happens, such that they seamlessly get the same app, but with state recorded for their profile, rather than their sibling's.
Yes they do. My ipad air from last year certainly does. (And its missing Face ID).
> The ideal here would be to automatically switch profiles when this happens, such that they seamlessly get the same app, but with state recorded for their profile, rather than their sibling's.
Sounds like a version 2 feature for user switching. If I were apple and I cared about this, I'd release a simpler version first and wait for feedback.
I hear what you're looking for. I really do. I just think its very complicated to get the interaction you're looking for right. If FaceID started doing its thing every time I handle my iPad, it would be scanning basically all the time.
I mean, it already kind of does (on iPhones at least, don't know about iPads) — ever notice that the screen will automatically come on when you pick up the device and tilt it to a certain angle, but only if you're looking at it?
Mind you, that's a trigger from sleep. But you could just as well have one that's a trigger "from stillness" — i.e. when the device hasn't moved in a while, and then it does.
I believe a few months ago HN comments were riffing on a hypothetical "persistent background authentication" system Apple could be developing that would justify their disinterest in bringing back TouchID for iPhones. It would basically work by using every sensor available to try to constantly determine whether the same person that previously unlocked the device, was in continuous physical possession of the device. As long as that was true, the device would remain unlocked (rather than there being any kind of lock-during-sleep timer.) But as soon as the device was passed to someone else, or taken out and left on a table, all authentication would be discarded. (It wouldn't necessarily "lock" in the sense of taking you to the lock screen as soon as you place your phone on a table — you might want to show someone a cat photo, after all — but it'd at least temporarily assume a low-integrity kiosk mode for that app, becoming "locked underneath", in the same way that the photos app viewed from the camera app accessed from the lock screen is low-integrity + "locked underneath.") This would mean that any authentication that is required could take a lot longer / be a lot more thorough — because the most common kind of auth, the "incremental re-authentication" when you take your phone out of your pocket for a second — would no longer exist.
I feel like this kind of thing is totally possible — even plausible/practical — given Apple's fondness for developing low-power sensor-tracking ASICs for the Apple Watch et al.
> If I were apple and I cared about this, I'd release a simpler version first and wait for feedback.
Apple doesn't really do this; they seem to try to "get UX right the first time", in the sense that they'll never really make a UX iteratively better, only ever completely throw a UX away and then create an entirely new UX that's a-bit-more-than-iteratively better, with an entirely different name and branding (E.g. Exposé → Mission Control.) — presumably so that users don't think it's the old thing, try to use it like the old thing, and fail.
But, mind you — the Apple TV's tvOS already has "user profiles" and "user switching" in exactly the "V1" way you're describing! (https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/tv/atvb59ec8e2e/tvos) tvOS doesn't do any kind of automatic switching; it only allows for explicit switching.
So, conveniently, the code for most of this logic is already there in the iOS codebase. It'd just need to be adapted to the iPad's UX; and some annotations added to apps to mark them as "allowed in low-integrity mode" or not, where apps that aren't "allowed in low-integrity mode" apps — i.e. "requires high-integrity" apps — should never be allowed to be run/installed on an iPad set up for sharing (just like "requires high-integrity" apps aren't allowed to be published at all for tvOS to begin with.)
https://developer.apple.com/education/shared-ipad/
iPads can be shared in a business or school setting and going through the administrative steps to implement that. https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/shared-ipad-overv... talks about how to do it using a Mobile Device Management (MDM) server. There are various services not from Apple that provide free servers but we've seen over and over how a free service goes paid or is simply cancelled.
There's nothing on the iPad like Macs have for allowing multiple users.
At this point, any feature that exists on their laptops is lacking on the iPad only by choice.
So let me ask you directly: How would you propose to get around the limitations of the secure enclave for Face-ID on existing iPads?
TBH I’m not sure what you see as an issue, and why it couldn’t be the same secure enclave management as on the MBP with touch-ID.
Now I'm not saying that Apple can't produce an iPad in the future that delivers on the right experience mix in a multi-user capable setting, but that's not what you're asking for - I've provided just a few of the mant kinds of limitations that will degrade the user experience in a way that makes clear that Apple aren't just trying to juice their customers.
So the answer here is neither "Apple should just make it happen", nor "You should just buy a second iPad" - the answer is: you should buy the tablet that gives you everything you want, or learn how to share, I rdgaf.
https://developer.apple.com/education/shared-ipad/
Ergo I’d rather not have shared devices anyway. It was hell when we shared a family windows 2000 computer back in the day.
But the bigger surprise is that there's literally nothing in it that I care about despite being an iOS user.
Also, multiple stops on Maps? That's Google maps 15 years ago.
Google Maps UI is a mess - only real advantage is (usually) better POI data. Routing quality is the same in my experience.
On my side I'm kinda excited about live notifications, it looks cool for food deliveries.
Stage manager on iPadOS doesn’t do it for me though.
Would love to try it first, before buying the expensive Apple licensed one.