First off, Apple isn't selling "scarce hardware"; for the most part it's selling cheap commodity hardware just like everyone else; they just make it look really cool and then use DRM to introduce artificial scarcity by making sure no one but Apple can make hardware to run their software.
One of the guests wondered whether Apple would be able to hold their lead now that the hardware game is different. He's apparently not paying attention: the answer is no and has been for years. iOS has been straight-up hemorrhaging market share ever since Android got to the point where it didn't flat out suck anymore. iOS is already #2 in market share, so they don't really have "the lead" to hold anymore.
"Betting against Apple looks like a bad bet, historically, if you look at the past 10 years.
Try looking at the past 30 years historically, and a very different picture emerges:
In 1984 they launched the Macintosh, which had an amazingly well-designed interface. They tried to keep tight control over the entire ecosystem, and it wasn't long before Steve Jobs, the creative genius behind the system's "coolness", got thrown out. Between the one and the other, they very quickly got devoured by a far more open platform that strongly encouraged more diversity in design and ecosystem and was much more friendly to developers.
Eventually Steve Jobs came back, launched the iPhone, which had a very cool and well-designed interface, and tried to keep tight control over the entire ecosystem. Since then, Steve Jobs has died, (so he won't be coming back again,) and they're currently in the process of losing market share to a more open competitor that strongly encourages more diversity in design and ecosystem and is much more friendly to developers.
History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme, and it's sure rhyming well here. Betting against them is looking better and better every year!
This works both ways. If no one but the manufacturer can create updates, than outsiders can't introduce bugs, but they also can't fix them either. And outsiders are frequently able to fix bugs faster than the original creators, given the opportunity.
Its styling would make it look like a high-end luxury car, and it would be priced like a Ferrari, but it would have comparable performance to a Ford or Chevy sedan.
It would have a "special" gas tank opening so you could only fuel up at an Apple station. Hobbyists would inevitably develop a conversion kit allowing you to fuel up anywhere, but each new model would be subtly redesigned to break existing conversion kits.
It would have no steering wheel, brake petal, turn signal, wiper, or headlights controls; just a single button on the dashboard that says "Drive." Destinations must be input through Siri. Any destination (or route) that was not in the Apple-provided database could simply not be reached.
They would sue Google over using "rounded tires" in their self-driving cars.
Despite all this, for some bizarre reason, millions of iDiots would buy one, making it the best-selling car in its class, for the first few years at least.
Yeah, #2 would sure be nice, except for one thing: even though the mess that ensues is legally the other guy's fault, it still ends up ruining my day, for several days, because my car needs repaired. (And that's the best case scenario. Worst case: I end up injured or dead. No thanks.)
What I really wish I could do... remember that old Bond film where he's got this blade-thing on his car that shreds the tires of the car next to him? Tailgaters make me wish I had one of those, but that deploys to the rear.
...Electric Grandmothers more than willing to maintain safe speed limits and the proper distance between vehicles.
Here's a thought to ponder: how do you maintain both a safe speed and the proper distance between vehicles, when the car behind you is still under manual control and they're tailgating you?
Where I live, tailgating is a chronic problem. Police have a very visible presence on the highways, and I used to wonder why I never see them pulling tailgaters over. Then a couple weeks ago I spent about a mile and a half being tailgated by a police car before I could safely get into the other lane! Ugh.
Anyone who thinks a "golden key" is possible does not know the first thing about information security. I say this literally, because literally the first thing anyone should know is Kerckhoff's Principle: the adversary knows the system. You must begin from the core assumption that the adversary knows all the details of how the system works, everything except the key. If there is any secondary way in, you have to assume by default that the bad guys know all about it.
A "golden key" system violates Kerckhoff's Principle--it assumes that only the good guys know about it and the adversary won't find out--and therefore can never be considered secure. Period. Sometimes things really are that simple, and this is one of them.
Ugh, not just college housing. That happened to me at my old apartment. Apparently whoever used to own my phone number owed someone money. If I had a nickel for every time I had to tell someone "no, Carla doesn't own this phone number anymore, I don't know who she is or how to contact her, please update your records..."
So now it's happened twice. There's a saying in computer programming: "two is just a special case of infinity." In other words, now that it's happened more than once, this is likely to become a thing now.
In our view, the GPS unit in this case is akin to a computer or cell phone.
I certainly hope so, seeing as how a GPS unit literally is a computer. It may not be a PC or smartphone, capable of being directed by the user to load and execute arbitrary apps, but it's definitely a computer device and needs to be treated as one.
It's not an "attack"; it's a well-known psychological principle, and simply because some exceptions exist does not invalidate the basic principle. (Not even when you happen to be an example of the exception in question.)
Who DOES that type of thing just because they disagree with someone? How the _expeletive_ does someone cross that line without realizing he/she is an objectively awful person?
It's known as GIFT, though the psychological principles behind it date back at least as far as Plato. When people believe they are anonymous or that their behavior can't be observed and directly traced back to them, their behavior tends to degenerate incredibly fast.