Andrew Orr

Glenn Fleishman reminds us that iCloud Drive shouldn’t be used solely as your backup service.

Apple doesn’t offer any way to let you backup the data for which it has the only copy. And, in many cases, you may have a mix of information that could make it hard to restore, even if you have a full copy.

I used to use iCloud Drive-only, but now I’ve diversified. An ideal solution is a combination of cloud storage and physical storage. There are cloud services like Backblaze you can use for your Mac, as well as an external hard drive. For iPhones and iPads, you can use a special flash drive like iXpand. Earlier this year I bought a wireless SanDisk that I can use both with my iDevices and Mac.

Michael Kwet says that Google and Apple are secretly tracking you in retail stores, and with a phrase like, “What the media isn’t telling you,” you know it will be juicy.

Apple claims to be better than Google – they are a “hardware company”, not data miners, they insist. Yet iBeacons provide just one example of many to the contrary.

I think the subject is worth discussing, but Michael doesn’t give evidence that Apple is tracking you in the same way Google is. Because of this I think his article is flawed. I don’t know if iBeacons are used outside of Apple retail stores. But it sounds like customers have to opt-in for iBeacon to work. According to TechRepublic, iBeacon is “simply a location tool and doesn’t gather excessive data or track users…” 

One of the big headlines of the day is how Google wants to “kill” Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs.

Google is keeping tight-lipped on its ideas for future URLs and is aware of the enormous uphill task ahead of it. URLs are ubiquitous, and any major change will inevitably be resisted. For now, the Chrome engineers are working to better understand how URLs are used in various contexts before making a new recommendation.

It sounds to me like Google doesn’t want to get rid of URLs. It just wants to hide them like Apple’s Safari does. In 2014 Google did have a project like that called origin chip, but abandoned it because of complaints and security concerns.

Paris Marx writes that Apple is privatizing public space by changing its Apple retail stores. Angela Ahrendts wants Apple retail stores to be town squares, a.k.a. community gathering places. Mr. Marx has an issue with this for some reason.

The issue is with Apple’s plans for the exterior of its stores. The company wants more green space, and more places for people to hang out even if they aren’t shopping. Essentially, Apple intends to create privatized public spaces centered around its pseudo-religious glowing white apple. It hopes these public-private spaces will entice people to indulge their consumerist temptations — to take a bite out of the apple, as it were.

Ah yes, because comparing Apple to a religion hasn’t been done before. He also says that Apple retail stores use private security to “remove those who did not serve these spaces’ newly commercialized purpose (read: poor and homeless people).” I highly doubt Apple is kicking out poor people. As for homeless people? That’s what a homeless shelter is for, which any retail store, let alone that of Apple, is not. But sure, let’s blame “the libruls.”

Credit for the featured image I used goes to Michael Steeber of 9to5Mac.

Redditor u/FizzyBeverage (You can tell I’m on Reddit a lot) found an old forum post on DSLReports.com. A person with the username Cortland predicted the iPhone with an entry called “Why Apple Must Come Out With iPhone:”

This is an important opportunity for Apple. And the window is a good three years. Right now Windows phones are stuck in a dead end with bugs, crashes and an operating system that needs to be purged. But their ego and inertia won’t let them backpedal.

Whether Cortland had inside information or just did some educated analysis, it’s an interesting comment. Not many people believed him/her either. User MacThrasher wrote in response: “I think the phone market is well saturated enough that the iPhone would not be much money for Apple.”

Jennifer wrights (ha) about how we should stop worshipping rich people who are jerks. Ms. Wright is talking more about the fans of these people than the people themselves, but I’m going to talk more about the people.

Now, it’s possible to be both brilliant and cruel, innovative and un-self-aware, successful and miserly. People can create things we enjoy and still be bad people. But you wouldn’t know that from their fan bases. It’s not that they’re grappling with the idea of their heroes being complex individuals, it’s that they see these men as wholly aspirational. Their fans think that they are perfect and are willing to go to war with anyone who thinks otherwise.

I largely agree. When I criticize Elon Musk as I did in a past teaser, I’m not saying that he hasn’t done good in the world. I’m saying that if he goes on Twitter rants and accuses a guy of pedophilia because his submarine would’ve been a waste of everyone’s time, then he shouldn’t be looked up to as some sort of hero.

But this isn’t anything new. Cutthroat capitalism tends to favor sociopathic traits. Henry Ford was a jerk. Bill Gates, notable philanthropist, built his fortune by turning Microsoft into a ruthless monopoly. Jeff Bezos builds spacecraft while his employees suffer.

At the end of the day, it becomes a series of philosophical questions. At what point do their good deeds outweigh their sins? At what point does their money stop being tainted? I don’t hate the rich, really. I just think that hero worship of public figures is silly, especially if they have questionable ethics.

It’s estimated that smart TVs will make up 70% of televisions shipped this year. This will give companies new data on the shows we watch and how long we watch them, which means better TV ad targeting.

Typically, TV and app makers say they don’t collect your data unless you’ve opted-in to share it, and what data they share isn’t linked to any personally identifiable information, but to an identifier that connects to a wealth of other data about you. In any case, Navin and other TV techies generally like to emphasize all that you get in exchange for turning over your viewing data. Samba’s software, for instance, can recommend shows for you to watch based on what you’ve already seen.

On Thursday, the state’s State Assembly voted 58-17 on a California privacy law called S.B. 822. It would implement the strongest net neutrality provisions in the U.S.

Here’s where it goes above and beyond the policy developed under the Obama administration: The bill also bans zero rating, which allows service providers to charge customers for data use on some websites but not on others. If you want to dive deeper into the nitty-gritty, take a look at the bill here.