We did something similar +12 years ago with `streaming` AWS running app inside the browser. Basically you can run 3d studio max on chromebook. App is actually running on AWS instance and it just sending jpegs to browser to `stream` it. We did a lot of QoS logic and other stuff but it was actually working pretty nice. Adobe used it for some time to allow user to run Photoshop in the browser. Good old days..
This is becoming comical. iPhone Air only supports USB 2 speeds. Seriously?
Also iPhone Pro only comes with USB 3 speeds while amplifying ProRes RAW support...
I don't think I have ever plugged in my phone, like at all, ever, and it's not even an iPhone. And if I want to get any photos/videos I made with it, they are just in Google photos?
Like I get there are some people who maybe use the thing as an actual camera and they suddenly need to download tens if not hundreds of gigabytes of media off the phone but like.....I guess it's just not the phone for them? And like you said the Pro supports USB3 speeds so what's the issue? 5gbps is really not fast enough?
That is really wrong way of looking at things. USB 4 support doesn't require ANY innovation from Apple, any extra $$$ (maybe pennies) - it's pure representation that they lost focus and simply don't care. That port is CRITICAL for many things they actually focused on in the prerecorded ads we all watched today - video. All add-ons, storage are in 99% of cases directly connected to the phone via USB-C port. To not support the latest technology available but charge premium is really disappointing...
200mbps is still wishful thinking in a typical household with ISP-provided consumer-grade router/AP in a suboptimal location. At the very least it will slow everything else down while it takes ~11 hours at a sustained 200mbps to transfer 1TB.
Not sure that I expect the average hacker news commenters to stick with their ISP-provided router in a suboptimal location - you can pick up a wifi6 router for under $100, that will happily maintain gigabit speeds over a normal-sized house
I got M1 Max with 64GB and 32 core GPU fro $1500 refurbished with zero cycle battery on 100%. As most companies doing refresh/write-off after 3 years 2025 is really a year where you can get a beast of machine for the money. I also have M4 Max for work and differences are only on really heavy tasks but for 3X less money I guess M1 Max is still good deal. This delay also means that M2/M3 ones will be good buy next year as well.
That's what I have too. I upgraded about 9 months ago from an M1 Max 32 GiB + 1 TiB SSD to 64 GiB + 4 TiB SSD, and donated the old one to a FOSS developer in Europe who can now support macOS. The "new" one is used, but had about 15 cycles on it and 99% battery health... like it was in someone's closet for 3 years.
It's a total waste of money paying zillions for tiny improvements.
Great work! I love commitment to make it at no cost as @liamwire mentioned. Still not sure why on Earth car manufacturers would not just release APIs open to all owners (basically issue API key based on VIN) and let them use it. For developers to build apps that will only require API key to be entered would be win/win for everyone....
Like all similar "why don't they have at least a self/community-supported open basic API" questions, the answer is usually the same: They're afraid someone else might create something of value, in part using their API, without them getting their own beaks wet in the process. If you want to integrate with a Nissan Leaf, even if all you wanted were the most harmless read-only access, they'd like you to request a biz dev meeting with them where they'll be happy to talk ruinous terms.
For a related story, see how Chamberlain (MyQ) torched the great, community-built Home Assistant integration it once had for no reason at all. They're afraid somehow they could stop getting the kickbacks from the likes of Walmart and Amazon delivery which they enjoy today, seeing themselves as co-owners of your garage door.
> They're afraid someone else might create something of value, in part using their API, without them getting their own beaks wet in the process.
In most cases it's not about profit, but about having to invest serious amounts of effort to please one or two hackers, who will then DoS your API as soon as you've made a mistake.
This is the kind of thing that they frequently hand-wavingly claim, however, 'compliance'? I'm not aware of any US garage door regulatory body.
These same companies have you click through 1000 pages of legalese (that thoroughly covers their butts) in order to use their own apps, which are probably more likely to be compromised than a public API, so I don't know why that would come with more liability.
Well, that certainly is the disingenuous corporate line. But the 'hackers' required nothing of Chamberlain -- what they built was already working, until they played a cat-and-mouse game to block them until the maintainer gave up. There are hundreds of companies that do support Home Assistant integrations or at least let them exist, and maintainers are always eager to fix any issue that comes up.
It's really not a dichotomy between aggressively blocking users from having any control over their own home, vs. some kind of imaginary concierge red carpet public API service that hijacks the company's product roadmap. The open source community will basically do 100% of the work for any firm which doesn't opt to actively sabotage.
Pretty sure Chamberlain/MyQ was because they made their API go through the cloud for no reason (that garage door opener isn't going to get out of WiFi range), so the only way to make the app reliably work was to hit their servers. Which they then had to pay for.
Had the whole setup been local first, they wouldn't ever had that issue. But again, that makes it hard to charge people for using it.
I agree with you. Of course, they already made the money selling the garage door openers, and make more money on the millions of people who use the Amazon and Walmart integrations (they get a little fee for opening the door for those). But if this cut their cloud bill by $200 a month or something I guess they feel vindicated.
They’re API used to work via just providing a VIN however that also allowed remote control so you could just run through all the VINs Nissan uses and turn on remote heating, etc.
This was reported in the media which caused Nissan to start locking down their API something fierce.
Then the three years free of many services have started to expire for most vehicles, so locking it down more became a potentially profitable exercise so now they actual have development work against it.
They design the chip that powers the phone. Apple designs their chips to include exactly the IO they need, and nothing more. The A18 chip does not have the IO to support USB-3 speeds on the port. No A18 device supports USB 3 speeds.
It's maddening but it is a question of cost; it's just pennies, and Apple is for sure not passing on the savings to us.
Backup/restore is one common usecase. It's painfully slow with current speed. AFAIK only Pro model support USB3 speeds. Someone more knowledgable can maybe explain if there is any technical/cost reason behind it (I honestly don't see one ).
I believe most people do iCloud backup/restore nowadays. I only do manual backup/restore once every few years when I upgrade my iPhone (even then, I could probably do that via iCloud also)
The only issue is now you pay for icloud for life. Terrible service just try pulling a lot of photos off of it. Basically can't be done because no matter the tool you try you get connection timeout issues after a couple dozen photos. I have like 60k photos on a family members icloud account that we can't get at all. Stuck paying icloud now for that person. Frankly at this point I'd pay for physical media mailed if that were an option.
Yep. And the incentive at Apple is to keep making people use more cloud and have them pay more for it so they can say they make more profit from the service division.
It's quite bad, because it's a rug pull that Apple did. Before all the cloud/service nonsense, what differentiated Apple from the rest was your ability to fully own and manage their devices easily without having to rely on some "forever" subscription.
If people wanted some cloud crap, they could have gone with Google or even Microsoft. But current Apple doesn't care, it cares more about money than a fundamental philosophy that sets them apart.
> what differentiated Apple from the rest was your ability to fully own and manage their devices easily without having to rely on some "forever" subscription.
I'm not sure that's ever been true of the iPhone. Apple's app store is the only way to install software, you're tied to their cloud from day 1. Its not a paid subscription that you're locked into, but they make sure everyone pays in some way.
why wouldn't it be cost? even if it's only a few cents per unit, they're still going to sell millions of these, it all adds up and the best place to cut costs is in the places where most people don't actually care.
It's not really convincing what you're saying as Apple have much more money/technology/people then literally any professional hearing aid manufacturer. Just combine total market cap and revenue and it will be in single digits compared to Apple (Oticon parent company Demant is just ~2 billion - Oticon probably way less than that). I would like to see spec sheet of mild hearing loss hearing aid of any of the manufacturers that are charging 10 times more than Apple and see how that hardware is different from what Apple have in AirPods Pro 2. Is there any exact sample you want to share? I really want to see actual spec sheet and see type of hardware they are using as it's complete mystery...
You are underestimating number of people working on them and data that is flowing into Apple from all the people using them for years.
https://presse.economie.gouv.fr/souverainete-numerique-letat...
https://lasuite.numerique.gouv.fr/produits/visio
https://github.com/suitenumerique/meet
reply