The interesting thing was that Google dumped some of the AI talent they accumulated
The first obligation of M&A is to eliminate redundant staff, and that includes 'talent'.
Because YT is primarily a content delivery service with far less R&D involved in its day to day operations?
The writing was on the wall when Apple introduced Time Machine for the average user, but Retrospect was an excellent utility for people who might have had more than one type of backup set for their Macs. Here's to hoping it finds a new home.
What a bitter, reductionist approach to describing the field.
It is also entirely correct.
I'm super glad you're paying to read Bloomberg, NYT etc. but this is marketing if you only link paywalled sites.
The important thing is that without doing any research, you formed an opinion then asked us to validate or refute it. Good job!
The use of a nonce to prevent record/replay attacks was not new in 2011, it had already been a practice for preventing Flash streaming media playback from being spoofed by that point and I doubt Adobe were the first to think of it. The PTO were idiots to grant that patent but they're clear that they don't take responsibility for establishing novelty. To be blunt, most of the IP patents related to the Web between 2000–2015 are questionable at best; the Microsoft Word XML patent splitting raw text from formatting has direct prior art in Nisus Writer (which used plain ASCII text files, storing formatting in the files' resource forks; its former developers refused to comment on all requests regarding this) and many of the rest are submarine patents from noncoders.
And the year of the Spoony
Tell me your lawyers told you to post this without telling me your lawyers told you to post this
Allowing a third party App Store means "software that gets around our API and/or uses undocumented APIs living in the same ecosystem of user data" which is ironically less threatening on desktop/laptop systems than a handheld device which is increasingly becoming a centralized key, payment system and proof of identity. iOS/iPadOS' exploits make it clear Apple is not paying enough for security audits prior to release, and ignoring all of that, Apple still wants the console game economic model where the real income is a third of application revenue AND the right to block an application for entirely arbitrary reasons.
If they relaxed sufficiently on one or more of the other points, they wouldn't be as attractive a target by legislators pretending they care about equal opportunities.
If she hasn't successfully directed a software team never mind coded herself, her opinions on what's possible are second-hand at best. I don't trust Tim Cook much, but he at least has been in charge of teams capable of telling him "We tried, but X isn't possible with current resources" (e.g. the AirPower) and he isn't Steve Jobs who believed tantrums change reality.
Ballmer had the cojones to tell the DoJ "you're asking for something we can't deliver and we won't comply with demands for it" during an actual antitrust trial. Apple told the FBI "we won't give you a backdoor into someone's phone, fullstop" and reiterate the same point regardling legislation demanding backdoors, and in both cases the companies continued to do as they intended to.
The issue here isn't privacy, it's Apple desperately trying to cover the shortcomings in their platform by gating what applications are allowed to run on it. For example, the recent M1 exploit that allows any two processes to communicate without triggering any security mechanisms whatsoever; it was discovered on a MacBook Pro but it's inherent to any computing device running off that chip (which now the iPhones and iPads are) and is so inherent to the architecture it can't be corrected with a microcode update.
Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's ego.
