[geeks] Apple applications phoning home

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Oct 23, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Mark wrote:

> Wow this turned out quite long... you might need a coffee to read
> this over... Oh and I'm sorry if I screwed any quotes up anywhere ;)

Nah, it's pretty clear without coffee.  I like tea better anyway.

>> Apple is famous for highly detailed design, so this isn't a major
>> expectation given their attention to detail elsewhere.
>
> Apple also are a fan of things working seamlessly and limiting user
> input to what is really necessary. See Apple's account authentication

I guess those two can conflict at times.  I'm sure it makes it  
harder, but since they have handled this situation gracefully in  
other apps...

> it fails I suspect. Address Book head architect needs a smack on the
> head with a heavy book from Uncle Steve I think...

Address Book needs a lot of work anyway.

Having said that, like most Apple software, it has some surprising  
features that really help you get things done.

> Like I said, technically it doesn't, it just issues a notice if it
> 'can't do something', and carries on t o work as normal. If it
> *required* internet access it'd fall over in a huge heap of sharp
> bits and stop working.

Well, I can't get it to trigger a notice.  It just keeps failing, and  
now I do have a .Mac account so I understand it trying to get out.

But why did it try before I got one?

Oh well, not a big deal, just annoying for now.

> Hmmm... welcome to the world of Apple and 'we use open standards
> where we feel it's appropriate' :).

Seems to me the main thing is they just don't give out the details.

The whole .Mac site seems to be based on bog standard Apache and WebDAV.

They just don't describe its configuration to the public.

> who have tried to launch competing services that spoof OS X have
> quietly sunk without trace.

Probably true.

It's just that I can see it being very useful to set up a .Mac server  
of your own for a lot of reasons, including private and secure  
networks in Apple shops.

> Simply, I got mine from Apple first because it was free, then they
> pulled the double-dirty on us and started charging for it. I've
> almost ditched it several times now but it's finally starting to
> mature in to a very useful service, especially with the new 'Back to
> my Mac' features apparent in Leopard.

I thought about buying it just to save time in getting content out  
for family and things like that.  It's certainly convenient, and it  
seems to work well even with non Mac machines, the website I mean.

I guess it really doesn't cost any more than most other hosting  
services either.

I just wish I could use Apple's tools to export to other websites  
too.  Even if I get .Mac, I'd still want to publish some stuff to  
other sites, and it would be nice to use the same tools.

They don't even provide basic exports like galleries and the more  
popular website content systems.

Oh well, third parties do it.

> I'm sure... What'd really make my day is Rails hosting on .Mac. They
> seem to like Ruby on Rails and have adopted it as a platform right
> through 10.5, even into X-Code by the looks of it. Will be mega fun
> to play around with.

Me, I want to learn Objective C and Cocoa.

Of course, C++ and Qt is an option to keep it portable.

> I have had a .Mac account since they existed. There's more or less no
> configuration options in Snitch that would affect it (if there are
> any at all!?). What version are you using?

I let it update, so it is probably the latest version.

>> ...which means it doesn't need to... :)
>
> Damn it, I knew you'd say that ;)

I tried to resist...

> I use Windows XP at work and have few if any major grumbles outside
> the usual Windows UI gripes, but it is a tool at work that I use as a
> means to an end so it's not that much of an issue.

The UI gripes for me are a major problem, but I also use it for a few  
things now and then.

I just can't use it as a daily OS.  It just drives me nuts and I  
can't get things done.

In fact, right now if not for the games, I'd probably ditch it  
completely.

> Yep. And with it it's also secure and full of UNIX goodness. Not only
> that but *some* (by no means all) of Apple's hardware products are
> several leagues above the competition and not any more expensive.

Although, I'm kind of surprised at the airflow problems in the Mac  
Pro.  It is a neat system, but it has three huge flaws:

- one of the *VERY* hot bridge chips is underneath the first two  
DIMMs and it heats them up a *LOT*
- the airflow intake to the memory passed through the CPUs first, and  
the entry is severely restricted
- the SMC fan control runs too slowly, and doesn't react to  
temperature increases properly

RAM can hit 190F before SMC boosts fan speed.  This has been a  
problem since the Pro came out, and Apple still hasn't released a fix  
for it.

If you have a cold home or office, it won't matter, but if your  
computer room hits 80F now and then, the ambient temp in the Mac will  
easily hit 90F, and the RAM overheats.

SMC appears to favor being quiet over keeping the machine cool.

> Hey, we'd lose like 50% of the conversation from this list if we
> split it off, and what would all the non-Apple users laugh at us for
> then huh? ;) ;)

Yeah, well...

> It's not vastly different from 10.4 to e honest, I've played with it
> and I'm sorta impressed but the new desktop is a bit repulsive,
> especially when you've been used to the simple elegance of 10.4 and
> earlier.

I've already noticed that.  I'm not a fan of Finder looking like  
iTunes, which I've never found to be a great UI anyway.

However, some of the other features look nice.

For $10.50, I'll give it at try... :)

I wish I could try it now while I have more free time, but I probably  
won't get my copy for some time since I ordered Monday.


-- 
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."