Well they did do $84B last quarter, second best ever. So it does seem they are doing more things right than wrong.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Group FaceTime Still Partly Broken After Security Update, Apple Aware
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Many things it would seem, if not most.
[doublepost=1550520947][/doublepost]
Ah, yes, "destroyed"...
Good to hear that you made the decision that works better for you.
Somebody is working really hard to try and convince the world that apple’s bug is intentional. Samsung? Who’s paying?
You shouldn't even mention Facebook’s “supposedly” security /privacy issues when FaceTime had the biggest possible security /privacy bug of history.
You can do chat,group chat,voice call,group voice call,video call,group video call,send files,video,pics,leave voice message etc with WhatsApp.and all very intuitive and smoothly.
With FaceTime you can only do voice and video call.
Also don’t forget you can only use FaceTime for Apple users,so very limiting and you you will need another similar App anyway.WhatsApp covers all.
WhatsApp is hands down ,WAY BETTER.
A healthy balance sheet is not necessarily indicative of quality. See Microsoft in the 1990s.
That's true, but Microsoft had a near monopoly on corporate desktop and server installations. Apple does not as evidenced by market share. But a healthy balance sheet can be indicative of quality also.
The monopoly aspect is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. Strong financials are not an indicator of product quality.
One is a bug and the other a policy decision. You can decide, which one is which.
Yes, but you can't do them all simultaneously, just like facetime. You can initiate a facetime call from imessage or send a message from facetime. Knowing the company who makes facetime values your privacy. I cannot send files(except the same things that can be sent from facetime) from whatsapp, so you must have a special version.
Not true.
That is the plus, don't have to wrangle with any installation and can use facetime and imessage from any iphone signed into your apple id.
That's not my conclusion. YMMV.
[doublepost=1550529614][/doublepost]
No, the "monopoly" aspect was very important to the point. Didn't like windows, where would a company go. I suppose Mac, but Microsoft had the desktop and server market, so yes this point is essential to the point you are attempting to make. Strong financials can be indicative of product quality.
First of all, if that's how you want to view it, that only solidifes the point that strong financials are *not* indicative of product quality. If the Microsoft "monopoly" drove everyone to buy Windows, they weren't doing it for quality reasons. Secondly, the same argumentation you and others make today about Apple's strong financials somehow being an indicator of product excellence are *exactly the same* arguments people put forward about Microsoft in the 1990s. ("Everyone buys Windows, look how much money they're making, Windows is awesome!")
The correlation between Microsoft and Apple is a dotted line at best, conjured up only to try to bolster an internet argument with an agenda of putting down Apple. One can believe what they want about Apple quality it doesn't change the financials, nor will it move any needle. I personally believe Apples financials are the result of producing good products/quality products that people want to buy.
I've actually read others believe people by apple products because they are the lesser of all evils. Go figure.
Nobody is "conjuring" up anything and I have no more of an "agenda" in putting Apple down than you have an "agenda" in propping them up.
Who said anything about moving needles?
I personally think you're partially right: they *used* to be the result of producing good/quality products. Now they're comfortably riding the coat-tails of their prior success.
I don't agree they are riding any coat-tails and that is something that has been said in the past, but to each their own on that particular opinion of Apple.
I was using group FaceTime before the bug was announced, and this is exactly the behaviour before all the changes - you had to set up a group chat, and initiate a FaceTime call from the chat to the group. You definitely could not start a FaceTime call to 1 person and add someone else in - that only worked with phone calls.
If its a bug (and I don't like the behaviour so lets call it that), its not one that was introduced in 12,1.4
If its a bug (and I don't like the behaviour so lets call it that), its not one that was introduced in 12,1.4
Except the behaviour in the article is the SAME as the behaviour before 12.1.4 - Group FaceTime was always like this.
You can argue it should not have been, but the claim that 12.1.4 introduced the behaviour is false.
This isn’t true. The entire procedure for the security bug was:
Step 1. Call someone
Step 2. Add yourself before they answer
If what you are saying is true, then it would be impossible to have ever done the exploit.
Edit: proof
arn
Not at all. Both observations can be true.
I never tried to add someone before the call was answered - so I never tested the bug case. I had however tried to set up multiple Group FaceTime calls and had consistent begavior before and after 12.1.4
You are making an assumption that the state checking during call establishment is/was the same as after the call was established.
I’d argue that we know that is circumstantially (but not definitively) false because the bug that drove the need for 12.1.4 was only in the “still ringing” phase, and never after a call was established. That implies at least a branch in the state machine logic.
So at least based on half a dozen Group FaceTime calls before 12.1.4, I think this isn’t a “thing”. But none of us can prove it one way or the other now as it’s now untestable : pre-12.1.4 can’t do Group FaceTime now
I would have thought it was do-able... At least 2 people, in order to add others ..,.. While its not the norm. it 'does fix the issue' while Apple is working on it.
The other way they could have gone, is to prevent people from 'joining'' That would be even more frustrating.
The other way they could have gone, is to prevent people from 'joining'' That would be even more frustrating.