I am one of the haters. Hate that the shipping takes up to about a month or 2 for the config that I want ?
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.
Intel Mac's beating M1 / M1 Pro / M1 Max at their own game ....
- Thread starter UBS28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right! How the hell! It is beyond pathetic on part of Apple. Intel looks like it is tidying its ship while Apple seems to be bent on sinking its own.
Granted I have never found any web based apps which aren't severely crippled compared to their equivalent mobile/desktop apps, so I guess a mobile app would potentially be the lesser of the two evils. I would always choose a desktop app in preference to either though, all day long.
I think you're missing a few things here.
What they announced was that iOS apps would be available on M1 Macs via the Mac App Store by default, but that developers could opt out of this on an app-by-app basis. That was the policy from the start and Apple has never changed it.
What devs did have to complain to Apple about was execution. (Well, that and the fact that it was opt-out as opposed to opt-in, but once again Apple hasn't gone away from opt-out.) Early on, the opt-out only prevented installation through the Mac App Store. It was far too easy for users to bypass this by getting the app's .ipa bundle through other means, then running it on their Mac. That was the hole which Apple closed in macOS 11.3.
Putting the execution mistakes to the side, I think Apple's big error was not anticipating how many devs would opt out, particularly how many would wait to do so a month or two after M1 Macs began shipping to customers.
While there are genuine UX reasons why an iOS developer might not want their app to be used on M-series Macs I can't help but think the true main reason is desktop apps command a much higher price than mobile apps and it's a way of making desktop users fork out for the full desktop-priced app which is either already available or is in the dev's pipeline.
Maybe some devs will choose to give a discount to those who have already bough the iOS version, but either way, they're still probably going to ask (quite a bit more) money for the same old rope.
Microsoft, bless 'em, tried to harmonise all this by having their mobile and desktop devices run the same OS. That seemed a good idea to me, even though I'll use Windows at home again when hell freezes over, yet that idea bombed.
Maybe some devs will choose to give a discount to those who have already bough the iOS version, but either way, they're still probably going to ask (quite a bit more) money for the same old rope.
Microsoft, bless 'em, tried to harmonise all this by having their mobile and desktop devices run the same OS. That seemed a good idea to me, even though I'll use Windows at home again when hell freezes over, yet that idea bombed.
A distinction that doesn't mean a lot to most people. All they know is that they can install an Android app on an intel based iMac and it will run. The fact that it runs a little slower because each command has to be translated while running first doesn't matter to the person if it works, and isn't horribly slow.
Its not an ability that I care about one way or the other, at least right now because I have no Android devices. But you never know, I could buy an Android sometime in the future and it could become important.
Sure man, look at the M1-Max performance and power consumption numbers...Apple is totally sinking. /s
And even more people have no reason to ever want or need anything of the sort, so more like "hardly any people".
Intel has some problems....
www.techspot.com
Intel issues advisory for 16 new firmware vulnerabilities
Intel says it has discovered no less than 16 new BIOS/UEFI vulnerabilities that allow malicious actors to perform escalation of privilege and denial of service attacks on...
www.techspot.com
Intel has some problems....
Intel issues advisory for 16 new firmware vulnerabilities
Intel says it has discovered no less than 16 new BIOS/UEFI vulnerabilities that allow malicious actors to perform escalation of privilege and denial of service attacks on...
So what? My Intel MAC’s can still run any mobile app without problems, while my 16” M1 Max MBP can’t run **** despite Apple advertising it as a key feature.
At least Intel is disclosing and fixing them unlike Apple that waited for someone else to disclose all the zero-click Pegasus vulnerabilities.
Sorry, no, it can not run any mobile app. It can run Android apps. And who the hell would want that??!!
lol no
Acknowledgements:
Intel would like to thank Hugo Magalhaes from Oracle for reporting CVE-2021-0107, CVE-2021-0111, CVE-2021-0114, CVE-2021-0115, CVE-2021-0116, CVE-2021-0117, CVE-2021-0118, and CVE-2021-0144.Intel, and nearly the entire technology industry, follows a disclosure practice called Coordinated Disclosure, under which a cybersecurity vulnerability is generally publicly disclosed only after mitigations are available.
Last edited:
Pegasus was exploited in the wild for years until disclosed by other parties.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/r...ology-report-how-to-catch-nso-groups-pegasus/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/r...ology-report-how-to-catch-nso-groups-pegasus/
It shouldn't be advertised as a capability of the M? Macs either.
Intel Macs (and Windows PC's) can run the android version.
I can't run the apps I want to run -- ANY of them, so the M1 may as well not have that ability for all the good it does me.
What apps can’t you run? Be specific. Or pint me to an earlier post where you listed them. Thanks.
Sorry, no, that's WAY WAY to much info about myself to post on the web, but I will give you categories. Banking/financial apps, and device control apps, are my main wants, but also an occasional light game and other things. Like I said in another message, I use the kindle android app on my Windows PC's frequently.
And no, just using the web banking and device control apps are a huge downgrade in speed and features. And why I might want to do them n the Mac is i'm sitting in front of the mac and my phone is somewhere else.
I suspect that android emulation will come soon enough since if it is valued enough someone will get it working. I think the fact that either google doesn’t enforce the device compatibility list or app developers don’t care to use it is an interesting difference between the iOS and Android development world. It seems odd that (for example: a banking institution) would allow their Android app to be installed on the desktop but not the iOS version. So that means either the bank has some policy that is kind of strange OR google doesn’t give developers the option/doesn’t do anything to enforce it.
If google is just not enforcing it that isn’t actually a plus from the application vendors perspective and it may leave security vulnerabilities open as well since the emulated environment might not be validated in the same way that the real devices are.
I find it odd that people think this is somehow a problem for Apple… I doubt the number of people this affects is sufficient to warrant them paying any special attention to it when they don’t even seem to care to push iOS devs to make their apps available on the Mac.
If google is just not enforcing it that isn’t actually a plus from the application vendors perspective and it may leave security vulnerabilities open as well since the emulated environment might not be validated in the same way that the real devices are.
I find it odd that people think this is somehow a problem for Apple… I doubt the number of people this affects is sufficient to warrant them paying any special attention to it when they don’t even seem to care to push iOS devs to make their apps available on the Mac.
Yawn:Intel has some problems....
Intel issues advisory for 16 new firmware vulnerabilities
Intel says it has discovered no less than 16 new BIOS/UEFI vulnerabilities that allow malicious actors to perform escalation of privilege and denial of service attacks on...
"The good news is that none of the flaws can be exploited by an attacker unless they have physical access to the target machine."