Are Hardware Subscriptions a Bad idea? Perhaps, but it might be perfect for power users
There has been, over the last few years, a gradual push within Apple (and, god knows the world at large) for more subscriptions and more bundling of products across the entire ecosystem.
This is also, in my view, part of a larger planned convergence of all products and services into a giant Apple universe of products that ‘just work. The rumors are based on the new report by Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman where he claims to have knowledge of the matter and says he expects this concept to launch in late 2022 or early 2023.
There is already an iPhone upgrade program which allows you to pay as you go and get a new iPhone yearly, however this is no a true subscription model. A closer analog would be the Apple One bundle, an all-in-one subscription program for up to six apple services.
They include Apple Music, Apple TV +, Apple Arcade, iCloud+, Apple News +and Apple Fitness +. The monthly charge for Apple One ‘Premier’ which as it sound is the full package is only a little more than half of what the cost would be for the individual items.
And since an iCloud storage upgrade to 2 TB is included, the actual cost benefit is even higher for users that wold be upgrading to that level of iCloud storage anyway.
The fact is that many so called ‘power users’ upgrade often at full price and get a new Apple device yearly, or even buy multiple new devices at least every other year.
Good for Apple, of course, how about the rest of us?
While many industries and companies are working hard to make a transition to monthly subscription services that include hardware, for everything from web sites trying to re-imagine the auto-leasing program parameters in a way that is permanent with the ability to upgrade periodically, to a hardware subscription service like the software plus hardware bundle from Peloton Interactive inc.
Although this relentless drive to create a new subscription service for hardware products in addition to the already nearly ubiquitous presence of subscriptions in digital services, which is, generally, a set fee per month is standard for a plethora of software and web based products.
With Apple products becoming more integrated into the ecosystem of software, hardware and services that interact and even synergistically support each other, it only makes sense that this has the potential, again, to make the most sense for the most avid users of Apple hardware.
From the perspective of tech giants like Apple Inc., having a large percentage of recurring sales guaranteed through monthly payments, would enable the financing of the inevitable new yearly iterations of new versions of its major devices, and could be seen as a new way, perhaps a better way, to capitalize for the research and development those many new hardware deices require.
Having long since committed to a schedule that guarantees new models for nearly all it’s hardware every year, which often include a reduction in the price of the device, free upgrades (mostly for software), a hardware subscription program such as the one we could imagine (based on the Apple One example above but for hardware) would be a hot topic, if not Apple’s biggest push internally.
A hardware subscription bundle, by any other name…
Naturally there are many ways this could play out. How the cost of an iPhone (based on a one to two year upgrade cycle) would jive with the cost of the phone divided by twelve or even twenty four is one possible configuration.
There’s also the question of current installment plans and how they would be handled for presumed upgraders, if various perks such as fresh hardware, free Apple Care, the freedom to move to the iPhone of their choice, all, however, with lack of true device ownership. Or perhaps even the merger of Apple One services such as the Apple Music Subscription into a huge ‘bundle of bundles’.
Bottom line? Make it juicy and they will come…
Of course, those like myself (and maybe you?) who might be potential users of the program are waiting to hear… drumroll please…. a specific price, a date, either this year or next year, and the hardware lineup included.
Would this be just iPhone or also iPad or Apple Watch, even Mac? Or a truly massive new program that would be the biggest of all monthly installment programs in the world today, and would include everything from fitness content, to a menu of hardware and software, to a magical calculation of your Apple Worth Rank that would allow you to get more devices, software and services the higher that the cost of devices would be.
And all of the above, or whatever actually comes to pass, divided by a second magic number between 12-18 and then calculated to be a little more than half (oh Apple is so clever at this) of the full original prices and then charged to Apple Card users at a slight discount and the rest of us on a normal monthly basis.
If your head is spinning but you are still reading this, you might actually be one of the few that would embrace the upcoming service and would be happier with a determined monthly fee for the plethora of Apple products that you know you will consume anyway for the rest of your life.
By the same token, if you are insanely upset at even the notion, let us know in comments below.
Why go pro? Well, anyone who uses an iPhone in a work or business context can clearly benefit from the power under the hood (A15), and the new, better ways to communicate (messages, FaceTime, email improvements, etc) and manage information exchanges (notes upgrade, photo searching, live text, etc.).
And, let’s be honest, who that uses an iPhone for business doesn’t always want the newest and best? And who actually does have the funds to pay the lofty prices? On the face of it the slogan and the superficial idea it proposes is a simple extension of the demographics of Apple’s customer base.
The motto iPhone 13 has received is just the newest in a venerable pantheon of slogans created for some of the most successful and forward thinking ad campaigns. There are even those that feel that steve jobs had even more talent for choosing a marketing strategy than for anything else. Starting with the now historic super bowl ad for the original mac, which to this day is heralded as one of the best one-minute commercials ever Apple has ever since been known as a cult-like company that took an unfamiliar product, at a time when desk-top computers were virtually non-existent and sold them as something that could magically bestow a better life, and even contribute to the building of a better world.
The ad told the story of the apple home computer as the next big thing, and cast the macintosh product line as a true hero that would stand up to a projected story of corporate tyranny, embodied in IMB, Apple’s rival at the time. This was potentially the first tv commercial to sell a corporate identity, the Apple story as a cultural story, rather than as the first low cost microcomputer system.
Based on George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984 the ground breaking ad had one of the most unusual business mottos as the closing credit; “On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like ‘1984.’ “
Though the commercial has been considered a huge success ever since, the rest of the story is that the general population was not quite ready for apple’s iconic game-changer at the time, and the high price of the first product version was, responsible for poor sales ultimately a commercial disaster.
Nevertheless, the technical revolution of the product, including the first graphic command interface, would eventually create millions of Apple fans, imbue the public with a sense of identification with the company as underdog, and the commercial would gain its rightful place as the best marketing tool of that era.
Decades later the legacy would be part of the road that Apple took to becoming a profitable company and eventually one of the world’s most powerful global enterprises.
The second, and possibly even more influential and best marketing campaigns would be ‘think different’ slogan, launched on August 8th, 1997.
This motto and the ad campaign that famously followed represented a whole new vision for not only how to promote the brand and increase sales without featuring a single Apple product, but also served to introduce apple fans to the idea of a different kind of change.
It signaled a new direction, both internally with the return of ad agency TBWA Chiat/Day after a ten year hiatus, but also making clear reference to the break from the downward trajectory that company had faced in the absence of Steve Jobs between 1985 and 1997, both leaving and returning on the same day, September 16.
This eternally iconic campaign with it’s clever yet engaging slogan, emphasized the concept of iconic misfits, and how they, as the “crazy ones” would embrace new ideas and change the world.
‘Think different’ ultimately became the most successful and famous tagline in the history of Apple. The text from one of the first commercials in the campaign had a brilliant script, read by Richard Dreyfuss;
“Here’s to the crazy ones,” Dreyfuss intoned. “The misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers — the round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently.”
Among the 17 great historical icons whose images were used in the first one minute ad, meant to link Apple innovation to the worlds all time great 20th century thinkers and doers, were; Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Martin Luther King, Bob Dylan, Amelia Earhart, Mahatma Gandhi, Maria Callas, Richard Branson, Muhammad Ali, Jim Henson (and Kermit the Frog), Ted Turner, Thomas Edison, Martha Graham, Frank Lloyd Wright and John Lennon (with Yoko Ono).
Subsequent to the launch other tv ads as well as print, posters and billboards featured a variety of these plus additional icons.
Here’s what Apple says about the A15 Bionic chip in the iPhone 13 Pro:
With 5-nanometer technology, A15 Bionic — the fastest chip in a smartphone — features a new 5-core GPU in the Pro lineup that brings the fastest graphics performance in any smartphone, up to 50 percent faster than the leading competition, ideal for video apps, high-performance gaming, and the slate of new camera features.
On the surface then, it’s all good, the three terse words evoke the natural and logical, it’s a simple, clever slogan that targets the upper “Pro” demographic with an expensive but really cool device.
Lurking beneath is a mountain of meaning that connects to decades of research and innovation at Apple
But, wait, all the new iPhone 13s, along with any that use iOS 15, share many of the same “Pro” features, and thus we must all adapt to the embarrassment of riches, on some level.
Many questions arise; with “Pro” cameras (3x +) and software that leverages advanced chips, the neural engine, machine learning to extend our senses further in multiple directions at once, is there more going on here than meets the (camera’s) eye?
neural
Here’s more from Apple about the A15 Bionic chip in the iPhone 13 Pro:
A faster Neural Engine in A15 Bionic, new ISP, and advancements in computational photography power the all-new camera features on iPhone 13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro Max. Photographic Styles allows users to bring their personal photo preferences to every image while still benefitting from Apple’s multiframe image processing.
If we are all aspiring toward a Pro iPhone for our Pro digital lives are there trade-offs and lurking benefits that are not as obvious as better photos, videos and more digital eye candy? If we are all destined to be Pro then is Pro destined to be just “normal”?
The evolution from analog to digital to a pre-metaverse life
Work from Home has now been dubbed “Fully Distributed Workforce”, meaning work from anywhere. This is conceivable due to the accelerated transition to an economy where everything is digital, computerized and removed from atoms (other than robot assisted tasks like building Teslas, etc).
Less than total, but more and more pervasive, the lives we lead are not enhanced by our cyborg extensions (previously known as “smart phones”) but rather the life itself takes place in this soon to be enhanced alternate reality.
The new 6-core CPU with two new high-performance cores and four new high-efficiency cores, is up to 50 percent faster than the competition and handles demanding tasks smoothly and efficiently. A new 16-core Neural Engine capable of 15.8 trillion operations per second enables even faster machine learning computations for third-party app experiences, as well as features like Live Text in Camera with iOS 15. And major advancements to the next-generation ISP provide improved noise reduction and tone mapping.
Long before a video-game-like AR and VR metaverse emerges, we are already experiencing a large part of our waking hours, both for work and “leisure” through the portal of our devices and the internet.
In many ways, this is so obvious as to need no mention, and yet, what is a Pro life in this digital universe worth compared to a “non-Pro” version of the same life?
The new Apple silicon hardware / software and all eco-system transition – already long underway and projected to converge into an early stage Kurzweilian Singularity of Apple in around 2024, is what will determine the nature of existence for the rest of the decade.
With software, hardware, and now AI and machine learning, all having a continuous and presumably infinite upgrade cycle, isn’t that like a kind of eternal life, at least for our digital selves, if not for our biological baggage?
Enter the iPhone 13 Pro; suddenly the experiences we wear as we take part in the fully distributed workforce sparkle and dazzle and become more effective and pleasurable to navigate.
The human link in the chain, absorbing, adapting, learning, digesting all these upgrades and improvements and how they change our work and play is a game of catch-up that will never end.
At this moment, the new “memories” feature in photos, combined with the new cameras in the iPhone 13 Pro Max are going to change how I view my immediate past (as reflected in the “memories” created by AI and machine learning forays into my ever growing photo library).
And that will make my ancient iPhone 5 photos seem as antiquated as a polaroid from 1984. And how will the current, insanely crisp, macos lensed food snaps look next to my “only great” iPhone 12 Pro portrait mode plates?
Not that these are weighty problems or even musings, but when your world is in the pre-metaverse of the Apple ecosystem in 2021, these thoughts do arise.
Are we all heading to a life where everything is Pro?
While, on the one hand, the goal of eternally enhanced digital communication is a very useful and important one, a possibly essential upgrade to our species just in time to prevent a climate apocalypse, on the other hand, how will the fully distributed workforce look once we are all Pro.
The transition from brink & mortar, skin, sinew and gray matter to a digitally enhanced cyborg communication center in our pocket is at a very early stage, to be sure.
At the same time things, including the relentless Apple upgrade cycle are going very, very fast, indeed.
If we are all destined to measure our contributions to work and society based on enlarged, enhanced communication capabilities, that enhancement will include what was once called “multi-media”. Hi resolution photos and videos, video calls with portrait mode, hell, feature films we shoot on the weekend, all the bells and whistles that once seems like a “hobby” for pleasure and in a rare case profit, all will now be central to our very existence.
Starting now, we are all Pro. The brightest and best will be more, they will be Oh. So. Pro.
Bitcoin’s history and origination is an important factor for more than just true believers and maximalists. Created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and with evidence that it was intended, by its founder, known only as Satoshi Nakamoto, as remedy for the failed system that had nearly collapsed the world economic system at that time.
In a recent CoinDesk post, Nathan Thompson wrote: Bitcoin’s genesis block is historic, not just because it contained the first 50 bitcoins, but because it had a message coded in the hash code: “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
The bank bailouts and various financial system failures were integral, then, in the creation and purpose of bitcoin, and one could even say, coins and systems that followed, starting with Ethereum in 2015.
After a few weeks of tweets revolving around the Twitter buyout brouhaha, Elon Musk, in a reply, added, in a more introspective tone than has been seen of late, some of his thoughts on the subject;
The axiomatic error was that housing prices only go up. I don’t support predatory lending, but many of those lenders were severely wounded or didn’t survive.
They dug their own graves – a lesson we should all take to heart, including me.
Interesting timing and a nice shift from the obsession with prices
The recent “crash” and panicked voices over the drop of the bitcoin price below $30k is the unspoken background addressed in this exchange, it appears.
Decrying the erroneous belief that “prices only go up” held by the public at large during the doomed run up to the 2008-2009 crisis could be seen as a hint that, perhaps, prices of assets like Bitcoin, and Tesla shares, for that matter, can not “only go up” and anyone who seeks such a preposterous nirvana is digging their own graves, having failed to learn from all the times in history that fools took the path of peak greed and self-delusion.
Worse, and worth being singled out specifically, are those that profited from the delusion of others in “predatory lending” practices, which Elon Musk “doesn’t support”.
Ultimately for this tweet thread, it was Elon Musk’s Twitter buddy @BillyM2k that nailed it with a series of tweets explicitly spelling out the divergence between the founders and believers in the original, positive, intent of bitcoin and the massive bubble of speculators and scammers that has, in his view unfortunately, grown up around it.
Pointing out that DogeCoin, as an example, was created to highlight the stupidity of speculation and excess greed that came with the avalanche of meme-coins and “shitcoins” etc, that flooded the market and, to a great degree, obscured the original, positive force that bitcoin and decentralized finance was invented to be.
Maybe, some of the various challenges and stumbles that Elon Musk is experiencing lately, seemingly for the first time, after a string of incredible triumphs, culminating with the Person of the Year designation and the buyout launch that is now in limbo, will inspire him to be more reflective and use his powerful position as a “Twitter-sage” to draw more attention to the need for a voice of “reason”, rather than as a cheerleader for the bonfires of vanity and speculation.
What is the purpose of making NFTs and what makes some of them so costly? – Tanvi, aged 16, Delhi, India
An NFT is a technology that proves who the owner of a digital object is. This digital object could be a song, a picture, a video, a tweet – or even a piece of digital land in an online game or virtual world. Recently, pieces of digital land in a forthcoming virtual world called Otherside sold for nearly US$6,000 (£4,791) each. What’s more, people were so keen to buy them that they also paid thousands of dollars in transaction fees.
NFT stands for non-fungible token. If something is non-fungible, this means that it cannot be replaced or exchanged for something of identical value. An example of something fungible is a current coin, such as a one pound coin, because this can be exchanged for another pound coin. It doesn’t matter which of the coins you have – you still have £1.
Something like a painting, though, is non-fungible. That particular painting only exists once. If you bought a painting, you could take that painting and hang it up in your bedroom. It would be yours – no one else would own that exact painting.
Owning something is more tricky for digital objects, because they can be copied. For instance, if you find a picture online that you like, you can right-click it, save it in your computer, and use it as a background if you want. This is where NFTs come in.
If you bought an NFT of a digital painting from the person who made it, a record of your purchase is kept in the blockchain. The blockchain is a giant database maintained by many people in their computers, and it is almost impossible to alter. Once the blockchain keeps a record of a transaction, it’s there forever. Everyone can see that you bought the NFT – and it proves that you are the only owner of the digital painting.
High values
Some digital objects have been bought for large sums of money. For instance, in 2021, the first tweet ever sent was sold for almost US$3 million. But why would someone pay so much money for an NFT?
First of all, most NFTs actually have a low price. We just only get to hear about them whenever there has been a record sale. It is the same with physical art. We hear about it when someone paid millions for a painting by a famous artist like Picasso, and never about all the paintings sold for much less.
Like physical things, the value of digital art or other digital objects depends on how much someone is willing to pay for it – and that can come down to a lot of factors.
The person buying it might think it is very beautiful or important, and so is happy to pay a lot of money for it. The person who bought the first tweet, businessman Sina Estavi, wrote about it on Twitter, saying, “This is not just a tweet! I think years later people will realise the true value of this tweet, like the Mona Lisa painting”.
The Mona Lisa, a painting by the Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, is one of the most famous pieces of art in the world. It hangs in the Louvre gallery in Paris, and millions of people go to see it each year.
As well as the fact that the first tweet is unique and historical, buying it is also a matter of status. Only one person in the world can say that they own the first tweet ever sent.
In a bubble
Another reason NFTs might be so expensive is because of something economists call a bubble. We say that there is a bubble in a market when investors buy things with the main prospect of selling them shortly afterwards at a higher price. This pushes the price up.
Bubbles tend to occur whenever new technology appears. Plenty of investors come with their money after hearing about the astronomical price of a new technology, or about celebrities buying them. They buy them without fully understanding them, just attracted by the money they might be able to make by selling them on. Some people think this is what is happening with NFTs.
This is not to say that NFTs have no value: it is to say that some of the people buying them are doing so solely to obtain a profit, not because they are interested in owning an image.
Another reason NFTs might be so expensive is because of the potential they have to link with the metaverse. The metaverse is a virtual universe in which people would be represented by avatars and own digital space, like the digital land sold in the Otherside virtual world.
In the future, NFTs could be displayed in this digital space, in the same way we might hang a painting up in a physical house. It will probably also be possible to convert some of them into unique avatars that the owner can use to interact in that world. Since Otherside is owned by the same company that created a famous collection called the Bored Ape Yacht Club, maybe there will be a way in future for avatar versions of these apes and other NFTs to move around in the Otherwise metaverse.
Perhaps in a moment of incoherence, this three-tweet set was launched. It is just plain goofy (unless he is buttering up “the right” for after mid-terms…?)
In what looks like some kind of twisted attempt at being diplomatic, Elon Musk’s latest tweet manages to clarify his stance regarding “free-speech“ about as much as a mud bath clarifies a cupcake.
Leading off with a bizarre attack on what he Calls “the far left “, he explains that it is his contention that they “hate everyone including themselves”.
Standing alone this is already a bizarre statement, which seems like a far right talking point, typical of the Joe Rogan school of anti-cancel culture and anti-so-called “woke-mob”.
He follows this up with a disclaimer of sorts, as bland as it can be stating that he is “no fan” of the far right, either.
One would have to be forgiven if they thought that this implied, in its very wording, an actual bias toward the far right which is what many already believe.
Ending his three-tweet soufflé on the flat “Let’s have less hate and more love” the responses, not surprisingly, were a very loving mix of WTF and ????
To be fair, there were also lots like this:
If you ever run for President of United States 🇺🇸 you definitely have my vote 🗳 You are awesome my friend 🙏
But, the way his tweets were so oddly posted, there was definitely a sense among “lefties” that he was biased. And it didn’t take a genius, but merely @cjwalker21, to retort:
It actually seems odd, that Elon Musk would wade (or dive head first) into a “left vs. right” argument that has no hope of any kind of resolution. And pretending that the disagreements are equal on some level and love can just be ratcheted up as if it was cheap rocket fuel, seems odd…
In the US, far left is free healthcare and education, far right is no abortions allowed.
Honestly, if you just look at the numbers, maybe you don’t see taxes as the answer, but considering the company Elon is in (Zuckerberg and Bezos?) there’s clearly something wrong with this picture?
Freedom of Speech is declared driving force for Takeover
Twitter Inc. announced that it has agreed to be acquired by an entity that is wholly owned by Elon Musk. The news comes after it was widely leaked that negotiations were underway over the weekend and that a deal was imminent.
Going forward the company will be privately held and current stockholders will be compensated at $54.20 for each share of common stock that they own as of completion of the deal. This represents a 38% premium over the closing price on April 1st when Musk’s 9% stake was announced.
The board voted unanimously to the proposal and, though subject to the approval of Twitter’s shareholders, and applicable regulatory approvals the agreement is expected to go through in 2022.
What will follow is unknown, but speculation is rampant
Since the announcement on April 1st that Elon Musk had purchased approximately 9% of Twitter and this Saga began, there has been a busier than usual frenzy of speculation regarding the possibility that has now come to pass.
On the most superficial level, there was an odd kind of measured jubilation on the political Right, with speculation that Musk might re-instate Trump and others who have been permanently banned (although Trump himself indicated that he would decline if invited back) and a sense of horror on the Left – with an implied mistrust of the world’s richest human, connecting this situation to ongoing debates over wealth taxes and economic inequality overall.
On a deeper track are those closer to the situation – such as Jack Dorsey, who expressed support and openly criticized the current board and public structure in elucidating tweets, such as the one below.
it’s consistently been the dysfunction of the company
Looking back at some of the harmony and love shared over bitcoin and other major topics an alliance, or at least a consulting status for @Jack could be amazing in terms of what could come of this – a private Twitter with Musk at the helm, in terms of a new direction for social media and all online business and how they evolve going forward.
While it may seem presumptuous to think it won’t be a disaster, there are deeper issues that would indicate that a lot more thought might have gone into this than a superficial look reveals.
I have zero interest in making money. I have every interest in fixing it. I also have zero interest in cryptocurrencies.
Elon Musk has proved, and explained to anyone that will listen, that his motives and goals for any business endeavor are in a new category of entrepreneur, and his success, often against incredible odds, are a testament to the power of this mindset.
With Tesla, he took on nothing less than the most powerful, entrenched (and arguably corrupt) special interest group in history, the fossil fuel industry, and somehow, due perhaps as much to timing as to any particular strategy or plan, prevailed.
That this takeover could mark the beginning of real change in “Web2” and social media, regarding of the risk of a private individual excepting near absolute control, it is a welcome change, based on the reality that the status quo, at Twitter and basically all the so-called internet giants could not be any worse.
Let’s hope that the public and very visible lead up to this deal will be followed in the near future by a continuation of that openness and that changes and plans will be announced as they happen, which would be entertaining at the least, and exhilarating at best.
There’s a lot more to unpack in this, not just in the reactions and opinions that will surely flood now that the next step is upon us. but in a fruitful and valuable deeper look into the real motivations and potential of this new deal.
For that, please stay tuned, and for now, please let me know what you think about Twitter’s decision and new owner.
To most people, a solar farm or a geothermal plant is simply a power producer. Scientists and engineers see far more potential.
They envision offshore wind turbines capturing and storing carbon beneath the sea, and geothermal plants producing essential metals for powering electric vehicles. Electric vehicle batteries, too, can be transformed to power homes, saving their owners money.
photo credit / pexels
With scientists worldwide sounding the alarm about the increasing dangers and costs of climate change, let’s explore some cutting-edge ideas that could transform how today’s technologies reduce the effects of global warming, from five recent articles in The Conversation.
1. Solar canals: Power + water protection
What if solar panels did double duty, protecting water supplies while producing more power?
California is developing the United States’ first solar canals, with solar panels built atop some of the state’s water distribution canals. These canals run for thousands of miles through arid environments, where the dry air boosts evaporation in a state frequently troubled by water shortages.
“In a 2021 study, we showed that covering all 4,000 miles of California’s canals with solar panels would save more than 65 billion gallons of water annually by reducing evaporation. That’s enough to irrigate 50,000 acres of farmland or meet the residential water needs of more than 2 million people,” writes engineering professor Roger Bales of the University of California, Merced. They would also expand renewable energy without taking up farmable land.
Putting solar panels over shaded water can also improve their power output. The cooler water lowers the temperature of the panels by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit (5.5 Celsius), boosting their efficiency, Bales writes.
2. Geothermal power could boost battery supplies
For renewable energy to slash global greenhouse gas emissions, buildings and vehicles have to be able to use it. Batteries are essential, but the industry has a supply chain problem.
Most batteries used in electric vehicles and utility-scale energy storage are lithium-ion batteries, and most lithium used in the U.S. comes from Argentina, Chile, China and Russia. China is the leader in lithium processing.
Geologist and engineers are working on an innovative method that could boost the U.S. lithium supply at home by extracting lithium from geothermal brines in California’s Salton Sea region.
Brines are the liquid leftover in a geothermal plant after heat and steam are used to produce power. That liquid contains lithium and other metals such as manganese, zinc and boron. Normally, it is pumped back underground, but the metals can also be filtered out. https://www.youtube.com/embed/oYtyEVPGEU8?wmode=transparent&start=0 How lithium is extracted during geothermal energy production. Courtesy of Controlled Thermal Resources.
“If test projects now underway prove that battery-grade lithium can be extracted from these brines cost effectively, 11 existing geothermal plants along the Salton Sea alone could have the potential to produce enough lithium metal to provide about 10 times the current U.S. demand,” write geologist Michael McKibben of the University of California, Riverside, and energy policy scholar Bryant Jones of Boise State University.
President Joe Biden invoked the Defense Production Act on March 31, 2022, to provide incentives for U.S. companies to mine and process more critical minerals for batteries.
3. Green hydrogen and other storage ideas
Scientists are working on other ways to boost batteries’ mineral supply chain, too, including recycling lithium and cobalt from old batteries. They’re also developing designs with other materials, explained Kerry Rippy, a researcher with the National Renewable Energy Lab.
Concentrated solar power, for example, stores energy from the sun by heating molten salt and using it to produce steam to drive electric generators, similar to how a coal power plant would generate electricity. It’s expensive, though, and the salts currently used aren’t stable at higher temperature, Rippy writes. The Department of Energy is funding a similar project that is experimenting with heated sand. https://www.youtube.com/embed/fkX-H24Chfw?wmode=transparent&start=0 Hydrogen’s challenges, including its fossil fuel history.
Renewable fuels, such as green hydrogen and ammonia, provide a different type of storage. Since they store energy as liquid, they can be transported and used for shipping or rocket fuel.
Hydrogen gets a lot of attention, but not all hydrogen is green. Most hydrogen used today is actually produced with natural gas – a fossil fuel. Green hydrogen, in contrast, could be produced using renewable energy to power electrolysis, which splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, but again, it’s expensive.
“The key challenge is optimizing the process to make it efficient and economical,” Rippy writes. “The potential payoff is enormous: inexhaustible, completely renewable energy.”
4. Using your EV to power your home
Batteries could also soon turn your electric vehicle into a giant, mobile battery capable of powering your home.
Only a few vehicles are currently designed for vehicle-to-home charging, or V2H, but that’s changing, writes energy economist Seth Blumsack of Penn State University. Ford, for example, says its new F-150 Lightning pickup truck will be able to power an average house for three days on a single charge. https://www.youtube.com/embed/w4XLBOnzE6Q?wmode=transparent&start=0 How bidirectional charging allows EVs to power homes.
For example, he writes, “some homeowners might hope to use their vehicle for what utility planners call ‘peak shaving’ – drawing household power from their EV during the day instead of relying on the grid, thus reducing their electricity purchases during peak demand hours.”
5. Capturing carbon from air and locking it away
Another emerging technology is more controversial.
Humans have put so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past two centuries that just stopping fossil fuel use won’t be enough to quickly stabilize the climate. Most scenarios, including in recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, show the world will have to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as well.
The technology to capture carbon dioxide from the air exists – it’s called direct air capture – but it’s expensive.
Engineers and geophysicists like David Goldberg of Columbia University are exploring ways to cut those costs by combining direct air capture technology with renewable energy production and carbon storage, like offshore wind turbines built above undersea rock formations where captured carbon could be locked away.
The world’s largest direct air capture plant, launched in 2021 in Iceland, uses geothermal energy to power its equipment. The captured carbon dioxide is mixed with water and pumped into volcanic basalt formations underground. Chemical reactions with the basalt turn it into a hard carbonate.
Goldberg, who helped developed the mineralization process used in Iceland, sees similar potential for future U.S. offshore wind farms. Wind turbines often produce more energy than their customers need at any given time, making excess energy available.
“Built together, these technologies could reduce the energy costs of carbon capture and minimize the need for onshore pipelines, reducing impacts on the environment,” Goldberg writes.
Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.
Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Apple / Telegram
The chairman of a congressional subcommittee has asked Apple and Google to help stop fraud against U.S. taxpayers on Telegram, a fast-growing messaging service distributed via their smartphone app stores. The request from the head of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis came after ProPublica reports last July and in January revealed how cybercriminals were using Telegram to sell and trade stolen identities and methods for filing fake unemployment insurance claims.
Rep. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., who chairs the subcommittee (which is part of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform), cited ProPublica’s reporting in March 23 letters to the CEOs of Apple and Alphabet, Google’s parent company. The letters pointed out that enabling fraud against American taxpayers is inconsistent with Apple’s and Google’s policies for their respective app stores, which forbid apps that facilitate or promote illegal activities.
“There is substantial evidence that Telegram has not complied with these requirements by allowing its application to be used as a central platform for the facilitation of fraud against vital pandemic relief programs,” Clyburn wrote. He asked whether Apple and Alphabet “may be able to play a constructive role in combating this Telegram-facilitated fraud against the American public.”
Clyburn also requested that Apple and Google provide “all communications” between the companies and Telegram “related to fraud or other unlawful conduct on the Telegram platform, including fraud against pandemic relief programs” as well as what “policies and practices” the companies have implemented to monitor whether applications disseminated through their app stores are being used to “facilitate fraud” and “disseminate coronavirus misinformation.” He gave the companies until April 7 to provide the records.
Apple, which runs the iOS app store for its iPhones, did not reply to a request for comment. Google, which runs the Google Play app store for its Android devices, also did not respond.
The two companies’ app stores are vital distribution channels for messaging services such as Telegram, which markets itself as one of the world’s 10 most downloaded apps.The company has previously acknowledged theimportance of complying with Apple’s and Google’s app store policies. “Telegram — like all mobile apps — has to follow rules set by Apple and Google in order to remain available to users on iOS and Android,” Telegram CEO Pavel Durov wrote in a September blog post. He noted that, should Apple’s and Google’s app stores stop supporting Telegram in a given locale, the move would prevent software updates to the messaging service and ultimately neuter it.
By appealing to the two smartphone makers directly, Clyburn is increasing pressure on Telegram to take his concerns seriously. His letter noted that “Telegram’s very brief terms of service only prohibit users from ‘scam[ming]’ other Telegram users, appearing to permit the use of the platform to conspire to commit fraud against others.” He faulted Telegram for letting its users disseminate playbooks for defrauding state unemployment insurance systems on its platform and said its failure to stop that activity may have enabled large-scale fraud.
Clyburn wrote to Durov in December asking whether Telegram has “undertaken any serious efforts to prevent its platform from being used to enable large-scale fraud” against pandemic relief programs. Telegram “refused to engage” with the subcommittee, a spokesperson for Clyburn told ProPublica in January. (Since then, the app was briefly banned in Brazil for failing to respond to judicial orders to freeze accounts spreading disinformation. Brazil’s Supreme Court reversed the ban after Telegram finally responded to the requests.)
Telegram said in a statement to ProPublica that it’s working to expand its terms of service and moderation efforts to “explicitly restrict and more effectively combat” misuse of its messaging platform, “such as encouraging fraud.” Telegram also said that it has always “actively moderated harmful content” and banned millions of chats and accounts for violating its terms of service, which prohibit users from scamming each other, promoting violence or posting illegal pornographic content.
But ProPublica found that the company’s moderation efforts can amount to little more than a game of whack-a-mole. After a ProPublica inquiry last July, Telegram shut some public channels on its app in which users advertised methods for filing fake unemployment insurance claims using stolen identities. But various fraud tutorials are still openly advertised on the platform. Accounts that sell stolen identities can also pop back up after they’re shut down; the users behind them simply recycle their old account names with a small variation and are back in business within days.
The limited interventions are a reflection of Telegram’s hands-off approach to policing content on its messenger app, which is central to its business model. Durov asserted in his September blog post that “Telegram gives its users more freedom of speech than any other popular mobile application.” He reiterated that commitment in March, saying that Telegram users’ “right to privacy is sacred. Now — more than ever.”
The approach has helped Telegram grow and become a crucial communication tool in authoritarian regimes. Russia banned Telegram in 2018 for refusing to hand over encryption keys that would allow authorities to access user data, only to withdraw the ban two years later at least in part because users were able to get around it. More recently, Telegram has been credited as a rare place where Russians can find uncensored news about the invasion of Ukraine.
But the company’s iron-clad commitment to privacy also attracts cybercriminals looking to make money. After the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Congress to authorize hundreds of billions of small-business loans and extra aid to workers who lost their jobs, Telegram lit up with channels offering methods to defraud the programs. The scale of the fraud is yet unknown, but it could stretch into tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Its sheer size prompted the Department of Justice to announce, on March 10, the appointment of a chief prosecutor to focus on the most egregious cases of pandemic fraud, including identity theft by criminal syndicates.
Not a problem but an opportunity to get ahead of the trend
In episode 3 of season 21 of ‘Law and Order’, aired last week, an attempt at a joke was made. It was only half-a-chuckle worth of humor and mildly outdated. The upshot was that anyone under 30 is a wannabe social media influencer and anyone over 30 hates social media and influencers.
This is true only in the sense that there is a perception that the new and ubiquitous side-hustle is to selfie-video yourself into a million followers on TikTok mindset is exploding, which it is.
And that it’s happening concurrent with the post-pandemic rejection of traditional employment. The logic being that to start a YouTube channel (TikTok etc) and get a life as a creator that is worth more ( albeit with well known downsides) than a 9 to 5.
Once again there’s a disconnect between Apple with its finger on the pulse of society and high tech appetites, and the ‘media’, ever stuck in an imaginary war between ‘consumers’ and ‘pros’.
So what is “Pro” in a world where everyone wants to produce pro content?
A, now funny, bunch articles published on the eve of Apple’s recent hardware reveal event on March 8th, detailed exactly why there would definitely not be a release of an upgraded ‘mac-mini style’ workstation. The general idea was that the consumer market is bigger and more important and, therefore, Apple would be smart ad postpone the ‘less important’ pro products.
Of course, that turned out to be wrong and the highlight of the event was the release of what’s now called the Mac Studio, including the double stacked mac-mini-styled knock off of the insanely expensive Mac Pro and the partner Studio Display. Many of those articles have been deleted, likely due to the embarrassment of being 100% dead opposite of what transpired.
Next Mitchell Clark , in The Verge, writes that Apple has a “Pro Problem” and is somehow lost in its branding. Apparently, according to the post, Apple is too quick on the trigger to brand something Pro and will have no choice but to start a new, presumably, semi-pro line up using the the new ‘Studio’ moniker.
While this has, in a sense, um, already happened, it is a sign of something entirely different and much more meaningful that is being either willfully ignored or lost in the forest for the trees.
To be fair, the article is, ultimately taking a positive spin on this, positing that changing all “pro” products to the tag “studio” would be smart and that the term “pro” is too restrictive.
What this side-steps is the reality of what the entire Pro-plus-Studio product category is all about. The idea that anyone that uses Apple desktop or MacBook Pro gear for digital content creation would also own an iPhone and possible an iPad is now a given.
What’s new is the huge strides that Apple is making on a daily basis in the ability for all Apple products to add value to all other Apple products. This is a complex transition that literally began at the inception of each product line and will reach a peak of interoperability in around March of 2024 (prediction).
And the Pro lineup, whatever it will be called at that time is, and will continue to be, at the forefront of that transition and insanely great transformation.
Always cheering makes for a dull story
As an aside, it is a well known media technique to couch an Apple ‘puff piece’ in the guise of a takedown. It makes sense, if you endlessly gush on the genius of Apple’s strategy and products, you come across like a fan-boy-ass-kisser and worse, like a shill trying to make bank on Apple just by applauding anything that comes down the pike.
The truth is that this anti-but-really-pro thing works.
The premise of this article, that Apple knows exactly what it’s doing and that there is a monumental shift taking place in society where the meaning of ‘Pro’ is not getting muddied by Apple, but rather, expanding and morphing into something new and huge, is less sexy than just saying, Apple’s lost and they muffed it, dude.
With or without Apple, the meaning of ‘Pro’ is changing, by the minute
The imaginary line that exists between a Pro user and a consumer is blurring. And, according to the verge article, it’s Apple’s fault by designating its high end Phones as Pro and Pro Max, while at the same time also ‘real’ pro gear like the Mac Pro and the Pro Display XDR.
What is really happening is that there is a rapidly growing demographic that needs the kind of computational prowess that was once insanely expensive, but at a semi-pro price.
If you are an influencer or a wannabe (supposedly this is ‘everyone under 30’, right?) and you are getting by on skimpy iPhone apps but want to get into software like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro and so on, but need the power to produce in a hurry, what are your options?
Until the new Mac Studio Lineup those options were very pricy. Very. But now imagine a world where you could have an iPhone 13 Pro or Pro Max, a Mac Studio set up and, if you get a few sponsors or subscribers, a MacBook Pro with M1 Max for the road.
By all accounts you now have a full production ensemble with the power (more powerful than Mac Pro is already the headline) to do what would have had a price of tens of thousands of dollars, closer to 20k, just a year ago.
Now it’s only slightly more than what the non-pro cost in 2021.
The tail wags the dog or does it?
The real, and obviously more complex reality, is that Apple is both leading and following the real demographics in the Pro revolution that is already afoot.
The shift from influencers using glamorous instagram photos of lavish lifestyles (fake or not) to get status has changed into video driven authenticity and art leading the way and this trend is already impacting everything.
Facebook has a TikTok account now. Instagram has shifted to video first and is trying to escape photos altogether, the ‘creativity’ element in being a content creator is off the charts and getting more competitive by the second. NFTs are still not dead and being added as a thing to mainstream apps and platforms.
So, no, Apple does not have a “Pro Problem” they are trying to tailor the solution to the market. And the solution is more pro users than ever (what used to be called ‘pro-sumer’ in a now archaic and ridiculous sounding phrase) are getting more powerful tools and at a lower than ever cost.
Sorry not to be able to do a faux Apple take-down on this time. Does Apple make mistakes? Hell yes. Just this time it is the biggest non-mistake ever, and it wold be incredulous or worse to say otherwise. Glory to the Mac Studio and ‘Pro” users everywhere.
Bitcoin and Crypto’s reached a major turning point: why is cryptocurrency worth anything?
In a recent interview clip Jack Dorsey quietly states his opinion on the difference between people who “get” blockchain and crypto, and those that will forever be married to the past:
This is the simply stated portion that says it all:
“People who have questions in the world, people who have curiosity (and are) recognizing that the current systems, wether they be corporate financial systems or the government financial systems just aren’t working for them…”
Although the context of his statement is regarding bitcoin as the native currency for the internet, and in particular how people are responding to the fact that financial systems “just aren’t working for them” it is, nevertheless, a perfect statement of how the world is changing.
It has already changed into two distinct groups: those that are clinging to the status quo, since it has worked very well for them, and those that want to find a new and better way, because, in most cases, the current system did not work for them.
It’s important to realize that this statement is not coming from a disgruntled outsider, but from the hugely successful founder of Square, now called Block.
The fact that a large group of highly successful business leaders, such as Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk, although benefiting massively from the current financial systems, are at the same time embracing a new way of thought and action for the future, is at the crux of the issues addressed in this post.
Buffet vs Musk & Dorsey and the zero sum mindset of Malthusian Capitalism
There is a war waging between those that are open to, and welcoming of, bitcoin, crypto, blockchain, DeFi and other new financial innovations and those that reject all of it and would like nothing more than to see it stopped, by any means necessary.
The derision, insults and disdain lobbed at bitcoin, crypto and anyone that believes in them, by the “old guard” epitomized by Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger are now well known and documented:
A few quotes:
“Probably rat poison squared.” — Warren Buffett in Fox Business interview at 2018 meeting
“I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interests of civilization” – Charlie Munger vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway
“I certainly didn’t invest in crypto. I’m proud of the fact I’ve avoided it. It’s like a venereal disease or something. I just regard it as beneath contempt.” – Charlie Munger vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway
Interestingly, if you look deeper at the interviews and quotes, you’d see that, in spite of the headline grabbing hyperbole, it’s the price speculation that is at the heart of the criticism.
The comments that crypto and bitcoin “don’t produce anything” are ridiculous on their face, as if the fiat dollar “produces” products, services or anything else.
Oh, wait, the dollar does “produce” inflation (loss in value), and has done so very dependably over the last 100+ years.
Take a stat so well known that it is almost a cliché, any way you put it: a 2013 U.S. dollar (the year the federal reserve was created, not coincidentally) would be worth more than 16x what a dollar is worth today. One has to ask where that value is now?
Bitcoin, however, has over time only gained value. A lot. If bitcoin is rat poison, maybe the fiat system and the federal reverse are the rat?
100 year old billionaires are, aparently, not inclined to speak from enlightened self-interest. Or, to be kind, perhaps they are blinded by the success they enjoyed in a system that favors anyone at the top of the pyramid, one built on value theft?
One very big caveat, however, is clearly that the “everything bubble” is bursting, price speculation always ends in price crashes, and the massive gains in the value of various cryptocurrencies are a symptom of a larger systemic emergency, rather than a quality inherent to crypto itself. There’s that.
The gap between this kind of thinking vs. that of the forward looking cryptocurrency proponents, and what they consider to be positive innovations, is vast. In a time where divisive thought is nearly ubiquitous this is not news.
However, the fact that the legions of those that “get it” are as large as they are, and that they are constantly growing, has clearly taken the debate past the point of no return.
To get the full view of this divide it’s important to look also at just how the nearly 100 year old duo of Buffet & Munger got to be the “legends” that they are.
All the best known names they are associated with, from the initial Berkshire Hathaway purchase in 1962 to more recent investments in companies such as CocaCola, GEICO Insurance, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Sees Candy, Clayton Homes and so on, paint a clear picture of extreme hierarchal and exploitative capitalism that is solely based on making themselves and shareholders rich, and doing it on the backs of consumers.
In an example of the thinking of those that do not worship the duo, in The Nation, David Dayen wrote: “America isn’t supposed to allow moats, much less reward them. Our economic system, we claim, is founded on free and fair competition. We have laws over a century old designed to break up concentrated industries, encouraging innovation and risk-taking. In other words, Buffett’s investment strategy should not legally be available, to him or anyone else.”
Exactly this kind of double standard, corrupt to the core, is built on systemic greed founded on a Malthusian “zero-sum mindset”. This is what has led millions to conclude that the system just isn’t working for them.
Being championed ad nausea for this lifetime of “achievement” is part and parcel of the status quo that many, from many in the 99% to the “nouveau 1%”, such as Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, Vitalik Buterin and many others, are actively seeking alternatives to.
That distinction, being rich and powerful and yet not satisfied with the legacy of corruption and greed, is at the heart of the new wave of thought that has made bitcoin, crypto and DeFi a force to be reckoned with.
Moreover, seeing the state of the world that centuries of this kind of thinking has engendered, it’s natural for the young and more enlightened to want to search for other ways for things to work, ways that perhaps champion something other than monopolistic greed and exploitation.
In a recent Interview Elon Musk addressed precisely this issue – how many in the current system are focused on prospering at the expense of others and maintaining a zero-sum mindset. In the clip he outlines how important it is to understand the failure of that approach.
The idea that crypto will disappear is wishful thinking by those that cling to the systems of the past
A clip of Harrison Ford speaking at the Global Climate Action Summit was banned on some platforms as incendiary. Why? Because he passionately accuses those that are financially linked to fossil fuels of working to spread disinformation and misinformation, in order to perpetuate their massive incomes, even while the planet is on the brink of climate disaster.
Blocking this opinion, from a rich and famous film star, no less, is typical in the way that the established system works to suppress the idea that you should do anything about the fact that “it’s just not working” for you.
This is the same divide, mentioned above, that is nearly all pervasive today, but will never stop innovation in thinking about financial systems. It will not stop DeFi or DAOs or crypto or bitcoin.
It will not stop sustainable energy from becoming an ever bigger part of the world’s energy infrastructure. The point of going back has long since passed.
How money works according to Musk
Jack Dorsey has an understated and somehow “quiet” way of expressing revolutionary ideas. Elon Musk, on the other hand, is well known for controversial and flamboyant statements, and especially tweets.
But to get a taste of just how radical his thinking really is, particularly to those that disagree, you have to dig deeper into lengthy interviews, such as those with Lex Fridman, where he reveals his thinking more specifically on money, crypto and the governments role in the system of money.
Coming from the wealthiest person on earth, some may find it odd, yet his thoughts on crypto vs fiat money are well documented. It’s just this kind of stance, taken by so many in the “new” establishment at the top of the current financial pyramid, who also see the necessity for change toward new ideas and systems that can so away with the worst of the status quo, well represented above by Buffet & Munger and other “crypto haters”.
Government is a corporation in the limit
In yet another interview excerpt, Musk goes even deeper into his belief that – in his exact words: “if you don’t like corporations should really hate governments”
While this particular statement arose out of a spat with Senator Elizabeth Warren regarding taxes, the overall concept of challenging the status quo and the, clearly failed, systems perpetuated, remains in play.
Web3, and how Web2 and legacy financial structures are linked
Although fraught with infighting – the typical bitcoin vs. Ethereum vs. Doge vs. Shiba Inu internal debates and criticisms are not on the magnitude of the division between those that generally support and benefit from, for example, status quo financial structure and fossil fuel business, vs those that favor Blockchain and Sustainable energy.
Further, the spirit of the clash between Web2 and Web3 rests not on the tech or the systems themselves, which it can be argued are the same, but on the beliefs and intent of each camp.
The surveillance capitalism business models of web2, epitomized by Facebook and Google are diametrically opposed to the spirit and stated goals of web3, just as bitcoin was created out of a time that, not coincidentally, corresponded to the 2008 crash and crisis born of the greed and corruption of the legacy economic establishment.
There are two distinct camps that have emerged.
Those, such as Tesla and Elon Musk, that reject the traditional holy grail of shareholder value and instead embrace, for example, a more enlightened mission “to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy”. This aligns with any individual choosing the support crypto as a “Hodler” or at least believer, vs. those that support the legacy systems of finance, the fossil fuel industrial complex and Web2’s exploitative business model.
This divide is the ultimate test of our time and it will only grow in stature and importance.
The correspondence between forward looking innovation in all human thought, communication and action is already too big to stop and cannot be wished away.
There will undoubtedly be setbacks to these new directions, and there will be attacks using more than insults, such as those quoted above, but the time for the unstoppable force to be quelled is long since past. Coke and a smile? No thanks.
Governments increasingly use algorithms to do everything from assign benefits to dole out punishment—but attempts to regulate them have been unsuccessful
In 2018, the New York City Council created a task force to study the city’s use of automated decision systems (ADS). The concern: Algorithms, not just in New York but around the country, were increasingly being employed by government agencies to do everything from informing criminal sentencing and detecting unemployment fraud to prioritizing child abuse cases and distributing health benefits. And lawmakers, let alone the people governed by the automated decisions, knew little about how the calculations were being made.
Rare glimpses into how these algorithms were performing were not comforting: In several states, algorithms used to determine how much help residents will receive from home health aides have automatically cut benefits for thousands. Police departments across the country use the PredPol software to predict where future crimes will occur, but the program disproportionately sends police to Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. And in Michigan, an algorithm designed to detect fraudulent unemployment claims famously improperly flagged thousands of applicants, forcing residents who should have received assistance to lose their homes and file for bankruptcy.
New York City’s was the first legislation in the country aimed at shedding light on how government agencies use artificial intelligence to make decisions about people and policies.
At the time, the creation of the task force was heralded as a “watershed” moment that would usher in a new era of oversight. And indeed, in the four years since, a steady stream of reporting about the harms caused by high-stakes algorithms has prompted lawmakers across the country to introduce nearly 40 bills designed to study or regulate government agencies’ use of ADS, according to The Markup’s review of state legislation.
The bills range from proposals to create study groups to requiring agencies to audit algorithms for bias before purchasing systems from vendors. But the dozens of reforms proposed have shared a common fate: They have largely either died immediately upon introduction or expired in committees after brief hearings, according to The Markup’s review.
In New York City, that initial working group took two years to make a set of broad, nonbinding recommendations for further research and oversight. One task force member described the endeavor as a “waste.” The group could not even agree on a definition for automated decision systems, and several of its members, at the time and since, have said they did not believe city agencies and officials had bought into the process.
Elsewhere, nearly all proposals to study or regulate algorithms have failed to pass. Bills to create study groups to examine the use of algorithms failed in Massachusetts, New York state, California, Hawaii, and Virginia. Bills requiring audits of algorithms or prohibiting algorithmic discrimination have died in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington state. In several cases—California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Vermont—ADS oversight or study bills remain pending in the legislature, but their prospects this session are slim, according to sponsors and advocates in those states.
The only state bill to pass so far, Vermont’s, created a task force whose recommendations—to form a permanent AI commission and adopt regulations—have so far been ignored, state representative Brian Cina told The Markup.
The Markup interviewed lawmakers and lobbyists and reviewed written and oral testimony on dozens of ADS bills to examine why legislatures have failed to regulate these tools.
We found two key through lines: Lawmakers and the public lack fundamental access to information about what algorithms their agencies are using, how they’re designed, and how significantly they influence decisions. In many of the states The Markup examined, lawmakers and activists said state agencies had rebuffed their attempts to gather basic information, such as the names of tools being used.
Meanwhile, Big Tech and government contractors have successfully derailed legislation by arguing that proposals are too broad—in some cases claiming they would prevent public officials from using calculators and spreadsheets—and that requiring agencies to examine whether an ADS system is discriminatory would kill innovation and increase the price of government procurement.
Lawmakers Struggled to Figure Out What Algorithms Were Even in Use
One of the biggest challenges lawmakers have faced when seeking to regulate ADS tools is simply knowing what they are and what they do.
Following its task force’s landmark report, New York City conducted a subsequent survey of city agencies. It resulted in a list of only 16 automated decision systems across nine agencies, which members of the task force told The Markup they suspect is a severe underestimation.
“We don’t actually know where government entities or businesses use these systems, so it’s hard to make [regulations] more concrete,” said Julia Stoyanovich, a New York University computer science professor and task force member.
In 2018, Vermont became the first state to create its own ADS study group. At the conclusion of its work in 2020, the group reported that “there are examples of where state and local governments have used artificial intelligence applications, but in general the Task Force has not identified many of these applications.”
“Just because nothing popped up in a few weeks of testimony doesn’t mean that they don’t exist,” said Cina. “It’s not like we asked every single state agency to look at every single thing they use.”
In February, he introduced a bill that would have required the state to develop basic standards for agency use of ADS systems. It has sat in committee without a hearing since then.
In 2019, the Hawaii Senate passed a resolution requesting that the state convene a task force to study agency use of artificial intelligence systems, but the resolution was nonbinding and no task force convened, according to the Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau. Legislators tried to pass a binding resolution again the next year, but it failed.
Legislators and advocacy groups who authored ADS bills in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Washington told The Markup that they have no clear understanding of the extent to which their state agencies use ADS tools.
Advocacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) that have attempted to survey government agencies regarding their use of ADS systems say they routinely receive incomplete information.
“The results we’re getting are straight-up non-responses or truly pulling teeth about every little thing,” said Ben Winters, who leads EPIC’s AI and Human Rights Project.
In Washington, after an ADS regulation bill failed in 2020, the legislature created a study group tasked with making recommendations for future legislation. The ACLU of Washington proposed that the group should survey state agencies to gather more information about the tools they were using, but the study group rejected the idea, according to public minutes from the group’s meetings.
“We thought it was a simple ask,” said Jennifer Lee, the technology and liberty project manager for the ACLU of Washington. “One of the barriers we kept getting when talking to lawmakers about regulating ADS is they didn’t have an understanding of how prevalent the issue was. They kept asking, ‘What kind of systems are being used across Washington state?’ ”
Ben Winters, who leads EPIC’s AI and Human Rights Project
Lawmakers Say Corporate Influence a Hurdle
Washington’s most recent bill has stalled in committee, but an updated version will likely be reintroduced this year now that the study group has completed its final report, said state senator Bob Hasegawa, the bill’s sponsor
The legislation would have required any state agency seeking to implement an ADS system to produce an algorithmic accountability report disclosing the name and purpose of the system, what data it would use, and whether the system had been independently tested for biases, among other requirements.
The bill would also have banned the use of ADS tools that are discriminatory and required that anyone affected by an algorithmic decision be notified and have a right to appeal that decision.
“The big obstacle is corporate influence in our governmental processes,” said Hasegawa. “Washington is a pretty high-tech state and so corporate high tech has a lot of influence in our systems here. That’s where most of the pushback has been coming from because the impacted communities are pretty much unanimous that this needs to be fixed.”
California’s bill, which is similar, is still pending in committee. It encourages, but does not require, vendors seeking to sell ADS tools to government agencies to submit an ADS impact report along with their bid, which would include similar disclosures to those required by Washington’s bill.
It would also require the state’s Department of Technology to post the impact reports for active systems on its website.
Led by the California Chamber of Commerce, 26 industry groups—from big tech representatives like the Internet Association and TechNet to organizations representing banks, insurance companies, and medical device makers—signed on to a letter opposing the bill.
“There are a lot of business interests here, and they have the ears of a lot of legislators,” said Vinhcent Le, legal counsel at the nonprofit Greenlining Institute, who helped author the bill.
Originally, the Greenlining Institute and other supporters sought to regulate ADS in the private sector as well as the public but quickly encountered pushback.
“When we narrowed it to just government AI systems we thought it would make it easier,” Le said. “The argument [from industry] switched to ‘This is going to cost California taxpayers millions more.’ That cost angle, that innovation angle, that anti-business angle is something that legislators are concerned about.”
The California Chamber of Commerce declined an interview request for this story but provided a copy of the letter signed by dozens of industry groups opposing the bill. The letter states that the bill would “discourage participation in the state procurement process” because the bill encourages vendors to complete an impact assessment for their tools. The letter said the suggestion, which is not a requirement, was too burdensome. The chamber also argued that the bill’s definition of automated decision systems was too broad.
Industry lobbyists have repeatedly criticized legislation in recent years for overly broad definitions of automated decision systems despite the fact that the definitions mirror those used in internationally recognized AI ethics frameworks, regulations in Canada, and proposed regulations in the European Union.
During a committee hearing on Washington’s bill, James McMahan, policy director for the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, told legislators he believed the bill would apply to “most if not all” of the state crime lab’s operations, including DNA, fingerprint, and firearm analysis.
Internet Association lobbyist Vicki Christophersen, testifying at the same hearing, suggested that the bill would prohibit the use of red light cameras. The Internet Association did not respond to an interview request.
“It’s a funny talking point,” Le said. “We actually had to put in language to say this doesn’t include a calculator or spreadsheet.”
Maryland’s bill, which died in committee, would also have required agencies to produce reports detailing the basic purpose and functions of ADS tools and would have prohibited the use of discriminatory systems.
“We’re not telling you you can’t do it [use ADS],” said Delegate Terri Hill, who sponsored the Maryland bill. “We’re just saying identify what your biases are up front and identify if they’re consistent with the state’s overarching goals and with this purpose.”
The Maryland Tech Council, an industry group representing small and large technology firms in the state, opposed the bill, arguing that the prohibitions against discrimination were premature and would hurt innovation in the state, according to written and oral testimony the group provided.
“The ability to adequately evaluate whether or not there is bias is an emerging area, and we would say that, on behalf of the tech council, putting in place this at this time is jumping ahead of where we are,” Pam Kasemeyer, the council’s lobbyist, said during a March committee hearing on the bill. “It almost stops the desire for companies to continue to try to develop and refine these out of fear that they’re going to be viewed as discriminatory.”
Limited Success in the Private Sector
There have been fewer attempts by state and local legislatures to regulate private companies’ use of ADS systems—such as those The Markup has exposed in the tenant screening and car insurance industries—but in recent years, those measures have been marginally more successful.
The New York City Council passed a bill that would require private companies to conduct bias audits of algorithmic hiring tools before using them. The tools are used by many employers to screen job candidates without the use of a human interviewer.
Illinois also enacted a state law in 2019 that requires private employers to notify job candidates when they’re being evaluated by algorithmic hiring tools. And in 2021, the legislature amended the law to require employers who use such tools to report demographic data about job candidates to a state agency to be analyzed for evidence of biased decisions.
This year the Colorado legislature also passed a law, which will take effect in 2023, that will create a framework for evaluating insurance underwriting algorithms and ban the use of discriminatory algorithms in the industry.
From ‘metaverse’ to ‘NFT’ – here’s a wrap-up of the key buzzwords that shaped 2021 in the tech industry.
These subjects were the talk of the town in 2021, as the tech industry transitions into a new age.
A DAO tried to buy a rare copy of the U.S. Constitution, whilst NFTs took the art world by storm.
This year, tech CEOs drew inspiration from a 1990s sci-fi novel, Reddit investors’ lexicon seeped into the mainstream as “diamond hands” and “apes” shook Wall Street, and something called a DAO tried to buy a rare copy of the U.S. Constitution.
If you’re still drawing a blank as 2021 wraps up, here’s a short glossary:
Metaverse
The metaverse broadly refers to shared, immersive digital environments which people can move between and may access via virtual reality or augmented reality headsets or computer screens. read more
Some tech CEOs are betting it will be the successor to the mobile internet. The term was coined in the dystopian novel “Snow Crash” three decades ago. This year CEOs of tech companies from Microsoft to Match Group have discussed their roles in building the metaverse. In October, Facebook renamed itself Meta to reflect its new metaverse focus.
Web3
Web3 is used to describe a potential next phase of the internet: a decentralized internet run on the record-keeping technology blockchain.
This model, where users would have ownership stakes in platforms and applications, would differ from today’s internet, known as Web2, where a few major tech giants like Facebook and Alphabet’s Google control the platforms.
Social audio
Tech companies waxed lyrical this year about tools for live audio conversations, rushing to release features after the buzzy, once invite-only app Clubhouse saw an initial surge amid COVID-19 lockdowns. read more
NFT
Non-fungible tokens, which exploded in popularity this year, are a type of digital asset that exists on a blockchain, a record of transactions kept on networked computers. read more
In March, a work by American artist Beeple sold for nearly $70 million at Christie’s, the first ever sale by a major auction house of art that does not exist in physical form.
Decentralization
Decentralizing, or the transfer of power and operations from central authorities like companies or governments to the hands of users, emerged as a key theme in the tech industry.
Such shifts could affect everything from how industries and markets are organized to functions like content moderation of platforms. Twitter, for example, is investing in a project to build a decentralized common standard for social networks, dubbed Bluesky.
A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) is generally an internet community owned by its members and run on blockchain technology. DAOs use smart contracts, pieces of code that establish the group’s rules and automatically execute decisions.
In recent months, crowd-funded crypto-group ConstitutionDAO tried and failed to buy a rare copy of the U.S. Constitution in an auction held by Sotheby’s.
Stonks
This deliberate misspelling of “stocks,” which originated with an internet meme, made headlines as online traders congregating in forums like Reddit’s WallStreetBets drove up stocks including GameStop and AMC. The lingo of these traders, calling themselves “apes” or praising the “diamond hands” who held positions during big market swings, became mainstream.
GameFi
GameFi is a broad term referring to the trend of gamers earning cryptocurrency through playing video games, where players can make money through mechanisms like getting financial tokens for winning battles in the popular game Axie Infinity.
Altcoin
The term covers all cryptocurrencies aside from Bitcoin, ranging from ethereum, which aims to be the backbone of a future financial system, to Dogecoin, a digital currency originally created as a joke and popularized by Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
FSD BETA
Tesla released a test version of its upgraded Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, a system of driving-assistance features – like automatically changing lanes and make turns – to the wider public this year.
The name of the much-scrutinized software has itself been contentious, with regulators and users saying it misrepresents its capabilities as it still requires driver attention.
Fabs
“Fabs,” short for a semiconductor fabrication plant, entered the mainstream lexicon this year as a shortage of chips from fabs were blamed for the global shortage of everything from cars to gadgets.
Net zero
A term, popularized this year thanks to the COP26 U.N. climate talks in Glasgow, for saying a country, company, or product does not contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s usually accomplished by cutting emissions, such as use of fossil fuels, and balancing any remaining emissions with efforts to soak up carbon, like planting trees. Critics say any emissions are unacceptable.
We’ve all been there. In a dark room or other less than ideal faceID environment and trying unsuccessfully to open an iPhone just by swiping up and looking. It can be frustrating, especially if it takes multiple tries and then you still have to type in a passcode. Which is not always possible if your hands are not free etc.
If I’m wearing a mask or it’s too dark in my bedroom and iPhone doesn’t recognize my Face, and won’t unlock right away, there is now an easy alternate option to open it with Apple Watch. Rather than having to type in my passcode, the watch will “magically” open unlock the phone!
In the video above you can see how you can save time and hassle when you need to unlock your phone (if FaceID doesn’t work for any reason). Apple first introduced this feature back with the iOS 14.5 and WatchOS 7.4 update earlier in 2021.
The great news is you don’t have to have the latest iPhone 13 or Apple Watch 7 to use this feature – all you need to have is the iPhone 6s or Apple Watch Series 3 or newer.
On your iPhone: Open up Settings, Scroll down until you see FaceID & Passcodes, You will be promoted to enter your passcode (or not!).
Scroll down to “Unlock with Apple Watch” and tap on the toggle to turn it on (will be green if on). Then a pop up will appear for you tp confirm you want to unlock your iPhone with your Apple Watch. Click Turn on.
If you have not yet set a passcode for your Apple Watch you will be required to create a simple 4 digit pin.
When you need to unlock your iPhone without your face (due to mask, low light etc) just swipe up.
If the passcode screen shows up or the phone doesn’t immediately open you can hold your Apple Watch near your iPhone to unlock.
You should get both haptic vibration on your wrist along with a prompt alerting you that your Apple Watch has unlocked your iPhone.
In multiple tests with various iPhone models / watches, we saw various results, sometimes the iPhone would just open by itself, other times it was necessary to swipe and then, in the rarest cases, we had to hold the watch near the phone.
It appears that the phone was “learning” to use the watch to open whenever needed. That is all you have to do, in the future when you go through the process of unlocking your phone and Face ID isn’t working.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg had repeatedly promised to stop recommending political groups to users to squelch the spread of misinformation
Leaked internal Facebook documents show that a combination of technical miscommunications and high-level decisions led to one of the social media giant’s biggest broken promises of the 2020 election—that it would stop recommending political groups to users.
The Markup first revealed on Jan. 19 that Facebook was continuing to recommend political groups—including some in which users advocated violence and storming the U.S. Capitol—in spite of multiple promises not to do so, including one made under oath to Congress.
The day the article ran, a Facebook team started investigating the “leakage,” according to documents provided by Frances Haugen to Congress and shared with The Markup, and the problem was escalated to the highest level to be “reviewed by Mark.” Over the course of the next week, Facebook employees identified several causes for the broken promise.
The company, according to work log entries in the leaked documents, was updating its list of designated political groups, which it refers to as civic groups, in real time. But the systems that recommend groups to users were cached on servers and users’ devices and only updated every 24 to 48 hours in some cases. The lag resulted in users receiving recommendations for groups that had recently been designated political, according to the logs.
That technical oversight was compounded by a decision Facebook officials made about how to determine whether or not a particular group was political in nature.
When The Markup examined group recommendations using data from our Citizen Browser project—a paid, nationwide panel of Facebook users who automatically supply us data from their Facebook feeds—we designated groups as political or not based on their names, about pages, rules, and posted content. We found 12 political groups among the top 100 groups most frequently recommended to our panelists.
Facebook chose to define groups as political in a different way—by looking at the last seven days’ worth of content in a given group.
“Civic filter uses last 7 day content that is created/viewed in the group to determine if the group is civic or not,” according to a summary of the problem written by a Facebook employee working to solve the issue.
As a result, the company was seeing a “12% churn” in its list of groups designated as political. If a group went seven days without posting content the company’s algorithms deemed political, it would be taken off the blacklist and could once again be recommended to users.
Almost 90 percent of the impressions—the number of times a recommendation was seen—on political groups that Facebook tallied while trying to solve the recommendation problem were a result of the day-to-day turnover on the civic group blacklist, according to the documents.
Facebook did not directly respond to questions for this story.
“We learned that some civic groups were recommended to users, and we looked into it,” Facebook spokesperson Leonard Lam wrote in an email to The Markup. “The issue stemmed from the filtering process after designation that allowed some Groups to remain in the recommendation pool and be visible to a small number of people when they should not have been. Since becoming aware of the issue, we worked quickly to update our processes, and we continue this work to improve our designation and filtering processes to make them as accurate and effective as possible.”
Social networking and misinformation researchers say that the company’s decision to classify groups as political based on seven days’ worth of content was always likely to fall short.
“They’re definitely going to be missing signals with that because groups are extremely dynamic,” said Jane Lytvynenko, a research fellow at the Harvard Shorenstein Center’s Technology and Social Change Project. “Looking at the last seven days, rather than groups as a whole and the stated intent of groups, is going to give you different results. It seems like maybe what they were trying to do is not cast too wide of a net with political groups.”
Many of the groups Facebook recommended to Citizen Browser users had overtly political names.
More than 19 percent of Citizen Browser panelists who voted for Donald Trump received recommendations for a group called Candace Owens for POTUS, 2024, for example. While Joe Biden voters were less likely to be nudged toward political groups, some received recommendations for groups like Lincoln Project Americans Protecting Democracy.
The internal Facebook investigation into the political recommendations confirmed these problems. By Jan. 25, six days after The Markup’s original article, a Facebook employee declared that the problem was “mitigated,” although root causes were still under investigation.
On Feb. 10, Facebook blamed the problem on “technical issues” in a letter it sent to U.S. senator Ed Markey, who had demanded an explanation.
In the early days after the company’s internal investigation, the issue appeared to have been resolved. Both Citizen Browser and Facebook’s internal data showed that recommendations for political groups had virtually disappeared.
But when The Markup reexamined Facebook’s recommendations in June, we discovered that the platform was once again nudging Citizen Browser users toward political groups, including some in which members explicitly advocated violence.
From February to June, just under one-third of Citizen Browser’s 2,315 panelists received recommendations to join a political group. That included groups with names like Progressive Democrats of Nevada, Michigan Republicans, Liberty lovers for Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders for President, 2020.
Digital rights advocates on Tuesday welcomed Facebook’s announcement that it plans to jettison its facial recognition system, which critics contend is dangerous and often inaccurate technology abused by governments and corporations to violate people’s privacy and other rights.
“Corporate use of face surveillance is very dangerous to people’s privacy.”
Adam Schwartz, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who last month called facial recognition technology “a special menace to privacy, racial justice, free expression, and information security,” commended the new Facebook policy.
“Facebook getting out of the face recognition business is a pivotal moment in the growing national discomfort with this technology,” he said. “Corporate use of face surveillance is very dangerous to people’s privacy.”
The social networking giant first introduced facial recognition software in late 2010 as a feature to help users identify and “tag” friends without the need to comb through photos. The company subsequently amassed one of the world’s largest digital photo archives, which was largely compiled through the system. Facebook says over one billion of those photos will be deleted, although the company will keep DeepFace, the advanced algorithm that powers the facial recognition system.
Facebook has announced they will be deleting over a billion face recognition templates as they shut down their entire face recognition system. This is great news for Facebook users, and for the global movement pushing back on this technology. https://t.co/0ErdCBhkCT
In a blog post, Jerome Presenti, the vice president of artificial intelligence at Meta—the new name of Facebook’s parent company following a rebranding last week that was widely condemned as a ploy to distract from recent damning whistleblower revelations—described the policy change as “one of the largest shifts in facial recognition usage in the technology’s history.”
“The many specific instances where facial recognition can be helpful need to be weighed against growing concerns about the use of this technology as a whole,” he wrote.
Facial recognition technology, which has advanced in accuracy and power in recent years, has increasingly been the focus of debate because of how it can be misused by governments, law enforcement, and companies. In China, authorities use the capabilities to track and control the Uighurs, a largely Muslim minority. In the United States, law enforcement has turned to the software to aid policing, leading to fears of overreach and mistaken arrests.
Concerns over actual and potential misuse of facial recognition systems have prompted bans on the technology in over a dozen U.S. locales, beginning with San Francisco in 2019 and subsequently proliferating from Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon.
Caitlin Seeley George, campaign director at Fight for the Future, was among the online privacy campaigners who welcomed Facebook’s move. In a statement, she said that “facial recognition is one of the most dangerous and politically toxic technologies ever created. Even Facebook knows that.”
"Facial recognition is one of the most dangerous and politically toxic technologies ever created. Even Facebook knows that," @caitlinseeley of @fightfortheftr told ABC News, "and even as algorithms improve, facial recognition will only be more dangerous." https://t.co/XBZGfyE6mp
— Evan Greer is on Mastodon and Bluesky (@evan_greer) November 2, 2021
Seeley George continued:
From misidentifying Black and Brown people (which has already led to wrongful arrests) to making it impossible to move through our lives without being constantly surveilled, we cannot trust governments, law enforcement, or private companies with this kind of invasive surveillance.
“Even as algorithms improve, facial recognition will only be more dangerous,” she argued. “This technology will enable authoritarian governments to target and crack down on religious minorities and political dissent; it will automate the funneling of people into prisons without making us safer; it will create new tools for stalking, abuse, and identity theft.”
Seeley George says the “only logical action” for lawmakers and companies to take is banning facial recognition.
So Facebook is deleting one billion facial recognition scans, but it's keeping DeepFace, the model that is trained on all those faces. Note that "the company has also not ruled out incorporating facial recognition into future products." Very meta. 👀 https://t.co/8ntPg5Hyf9
Amid applause for the company’s announcement, some critics took exception to Facebook’s retention of DeepFace, as well as its consideration of “potential future applications” for facial recognition technology.
Originally published on Common Dreams by BRETT WILKINS and republished under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
The metaverse is a network of always-on virtual environments in which many people can interact with one another and digital objects while operating virtual representations – or avatars – of themselves. Think of a combination of immersive virtual reality, a massively multiplayer online role-playing game and the web.
The metaverse is a concept from science fiction that many people in the technology industry envision as the successor to today’s internet. It’s only a vision at this point, but technology companies like Facebook are aiming to make it the setting for many online activities, including work, play, studying and shopping.
Metaverse is a portmanteau of meta, meaning transcendent, and verse, from universe. Sci-fi novelist Neal Stephenson coined the term in his 1992 novel “Snow Crash” to describe the virtual world in which the protagonist, Hiro Protagonist, socializes, shops and vanquishes real-world enemies through his avatar. The concept predates “Snow Crash” and was popularized as “cyberspace” in William Gibson’s groundbreaking 1984 novel “Neuromancer.”
There are three key aspects of the metaverse: presence, interoperability and standardization.
Presence is the feeling of actually being in a virtual space, with virtual others. Decades of research has shown that this sense of embodiment improves the quality of online interactions. This sense of presence is achieved through virtual reality technologies such as head-mounted displays.
Interoperability means being able to seamlessly travel between virtual spaces with the same virtual assets, such as avatars and digital items. ReadyPlayerMe allows people to create an avatar that they can use in hundreds of different virtual worlds, including in Zoom meetings through apps like Animaze. Meanwhile, blockchain technologies such as cryptocurrenciesand nonfungible tokens facilitate the transfer of digital goods across virtual borders.
Standardization is what enables interoperability of platforms and services across the metaverse. As with all mass-media technologies – from the printing press to texting – common technological standards are essential for widespread adoption. International organizations such as the Open Metaverse Interoperability Group define these standards.
Why the metaverse matters
If the metaverse does become the successor to the internet, who builds it, and how, is extremely important to the future of the economy and society as a whole. Facebook is aiming to play a leading role in shaping the metaverse, in part by investing heavily in virtual reality. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained in an interview his view that the metaverse spans non-immersive platforms like today’s social media as well as immersive 3D media technologies such as virtual reality, and that it will be for work as well as play.Hollywood has embraced the metaverse in movies like ‘Ready Player One.’
The metaverse might one day resemble the flashy fictional Oasis of Ernest Cline’s “Ready Player One,” but until then you can turn to games like Fortnite and Roblox, virtual reality social media platforms like VRChat and AltspaceVR, and virtual work environments like Immersed for a taste of the immersive and connected metaverse experience. As these siloed spaces converge and become increasingly interoperable, watch for a truly singular metaverse to emerge.
With live view in Find My and ETA in Maps, iOS 15 is on a whole new level with keeping track of traveling significant others
Find My App (left) in iOS 15
In an update that is “just there” there has been an upgrade to the performance of the oft overlooked Find My app for iOS 15. In case you don’t use it, it’s the app that will help you find your iPhone or other iCloud connected device, as well as AirTags (or third-party geolocation products) and the devices they are attached to.
When you are following a person, generally with an iPhone or iPad (though, again the above additions and exceptions apply) you can click on that person’s name or icon (once they’ve allowed you to see their location (by turning on share my location in the FindMy app on their iPhone), in Find My and the their current location will show on the screen.
This is especially helpful, of course, if they are driving home from work, or on a road trip and you would like to follow along to see when they arrive, as examples. This level of intimate knowledge may not be necessary or appropriate for every contact in your address book (!) but between significant others (one obvious example) it can be incredibly useful.
One caveat, however, is that since this is a “stealth” update that “just works” your actual results may not be the same. Our video example was accomplished with two connected iPhone 13 Pro Max phones, both having 5G connectivity. Your results may vary.
With live view and in conjunction with the Maps app location tracking is now in a whole new universe
The update, which has been in a gradual roll-out since the public release of iOS 15 and upgraded in iOS 15.1 is a live feature where you can literally see the person (the icon or photo they have set) as they are driving, or even walking, and follow along with a moving map that updates in real time.
If used, for example while driving and using maps for the route, the map will update incrementally, showing the progress with a highlighted route all the way to the destination, while in FindMy there will be a second by millisecond live map showing the actual location as it changes. See the video above for the full effect!
The Maps app will also send notices and updates with an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) and will re-notify if the arrival time is significantly sooner or later (the exact amount that is deemed enough of a change to trigger a notification is unclear.
Just plain fun to watch, but also useful if the movements of a loved on are critical
There is also a secret, exclusive tip that we can divulge, which we stumbled on through trial and error. If you are watching someone driving, say on a freeway with little traffic, and they are moving smoothly along, but you want to see them at full speed, you can do the following:
Use a two-finger pinch-and-zoom gesture 3-4 times – the 3 or 4th gesture will zoom in to-the-max
Repeat #1 to maintain zoomed in status
Allow Find My live view to re-set to the standard zoom (medium)
Repeat as desired
Using this technique the person / car will be seen in an extreme close-up of the road (highway, freeway, etc.) and will appear to be traveling at the actual speed they currently are in relation to the zoom.
Think of it like a virtual drone that is following the car / person and then dives in close and has to keep pace to keep the subject in frame. Crazy.
In zoomed in mode it is also possible to do a one-finger-swipe in the direction of movement in order to keep the car / person in view (rather than letting them drive starlight off the edge of the iPhone screen).
The future is out there, and already here on your phone (with enough bandwidth and other possible requirements).
Increasing this feature to this degree of intensely detailed functionality may not be much more than a basic useful feature on overdrive, but applications for the future, for example the same feature but with satellite imagery, or maybe a simulated live view, could be a metaverse standard communication activity. We might all need to get used to having the ability to stay literally connected (in a virtual way) even as we hurtle through space. In a self-driving Apple Car, perhaps?
A huge but little-known industry has cropped up around monetizing people’s movements
Companies that you likely have never heard of are hawking access to the location history on your mobile phone. An estimated $12 billion market, the location data industry has many players: collectors, aggregators, marketplaces, and location intelligence firms, all of which boast about the scale and precision of the data that they’ve amassed.
Location firm Near describes itself as “The World’s Largest Dataset of People’s Behavior in the Real-World,” with data representing “1.6B people across 44 countries.” Mobilewalla boasts “40+ Countries, 1.9B+ Devices, 50B Mobile Signals Daily, 5+ Years of Data.” X-Mode’s website claims its data covers “25%+ of the Adult U.S. population monthly.”
In an effort to shed light on this little-monitored industry, The Markup has identified 47 companies that harvest, sell, or trade in mobile phone location data. While hardly comprehensive, the list begins to paint a picture of the interconnected players that do everything from providing code to app developers to monetize user data to offering analytics from “1.9 billion devices” and access to datasets on hundreds of millions of people. Six companies claimed more than a billion devices in their data, and at least four claimed their data was the “most accurate” in the industry.
The Location Data Industry: Collectors, Buyers, Sellers, and Aggregators
The Markup identified 47 players in the location data industry
“There isn’t a lot of transparency and there is a really, really complex shadowy web of interactions between these companies that’s hard to untangle,” Justin Sherman, a cyber policy fellow at the Duke Tech Policy Lab, said. “They operate on the fact that the general public and people in Washington and other regulatory centers aren’t paying attention to what they’re doing.”
A Catholic news outlet also used location data from a data vendor to out a priest who had frequented gay bars, though it’s still unknown what company sold that information.
Many firms promise that privacy is at the center of their businesses and that they’re careful to never sell information that can be traced back to a person. But researchers studying anonymized location data have shown just how misleading that claim can be.
The truth is, it’s hard to know all the ways in which your movements are being tracked and traded. Companies often reveal little about what apps serve as the sources of data they collect, what exactly that data consists of, and how far it travels. To piece together a picture of the ecosystem, The Markup reviewed the websites and marketing language of each of the 47 companies we identified as operating in the location data industry, as well as any information they revealed about how the data got to them. (See our methodology here.)
How the Data Leaves Your Phone
Most times, the location data pipeline starts off in your hands, when an app sends a notification asking for permission to access your location data.
Apps have all kinds of reasons for using your location. Map apps need to know where you are in order to give you directions to where you’re going. A weather, waves, or wind app checks your location to give you relevant meteorological information. A video streaming app checks where you are to ensure you’re in a country where it’s licensed to stream certain shows.
But unbeknownst to most users, some of those apps sell or share location data about their users with companies that analyze the data and sell their insights, like Advan Research. Other companies, like Adsquare, buy or obtain location data from apps for the purpose of aggregating it with other data sources. Companies like real estate firms, hedge funds and retail businesses might then turn and use the data for their own advertising, analytics, investment strategy, or marketing purposes.
Serge Egelman, a researcher at UC Berkeley’s International Computer Science Institute and CTO of AppCensus, who has researched sensitive data permissions on mobile apps, said it’s hard to tell which apps on your phone simply use the data for their own functional purposes and which ones release your data into the economic ether.
“When the app asks for location, in the moment, because maybe you click the button to find stuff near you and you get a permission dialog, you might reasonably infer that ‘Oh, that’s to service that request to provide that functionality,’ but there’s no guarantee of that,” Egelman said. “And there’s certainly usually never a disclosure that says that the data is going to be limited to that purpose.”
Companies that trade in this data are reluctant to share which apps they get data from.
Companies like Adsquare and Cuebiq told The Markup that they don’t publicly disclose what apps they get location data from to keep a competitive advantage but maintained that their process of obtaining location data was transparent and with clear consent from app users.
“It is all extremely transparent,” said Bill Daddi, a spokesperson for Cuebiq.
He added that consumers must know what the apps are doing with their data because so few consent to share it. “The opt-in rates clearly confirm that the users are fully aware of what is happening because the opt-in rates can be as low as less than 20%, depending on the app,” Daddi said in an email.
Yiannis Tsiounis, the CEO of the location analytics firm Advan Research, said his company buys from location data aggregators, who collect the data from thousands of apps—but would not say which ones. Tsiounis said the apps he works with do explicitly say that they share location data with third parties somewhere in the privacy policies, though he acknowledged that most people don’t read privacy policies.
“There’s only so much you can squeeze into the notification message. You get one line, right? So you can’t say all of that in the notification message,” Tsiounis said. “You only get to explain to the user, ‘I need your location data for X, Y, and Z.’ What you have to do is, there has to be a link to the privacy policy.”
Only one company spokesperson, Foursquare’s Ashley Dawkins, actually named any specific apps—Foursquare’s own products, like Swarm, CityGuide, and Rewards—as sources for its location data trove.
But Foursquare also produces a free software development kit (SDK)—a set of prebuilt tools developers can use in their own apps—that can potentially track location through any app that uses it. Foursquare’s Pilgrim SDK is used in apps like GasBuddy, a service that compares prices at nearby gas stations, Flipp, a shopping app for coupons, and Checkout 51, another location-based discount app.
GasBuddy, Flipp, and Checkout 51 didn’t respond to requests for comment.
A search on Mighty Signal, a site that analyzes and tracks SDKs in apps, found Foursquare’s Pilgrim SDK in 26 Android apps.
While not every app with Foursquare’s SDK sends location data back to the company, the privacy policies for Flipp, Checkout 51, and GasBuddy all disclose that they share location data with the company.
Foursquare’s method of obtaining location data through an embedded SDK is a common practice. Of the 47 companies that The Markup identified, 12 of them advertised SDKs to app developers that could send them location data in exchange for money or services.
Placer.ai says in its marketing that it does foot traffic analysis and that its SDK is installed in more than 500 apps and has insights on more than 20 million devices.
“We partner with mobile apps providing location services and receive anonymized aggregated data. Very critically, all data is anonymized and stripped of personal identifiers before it reaches us,” Ethan Chernofsky, Placer.ai’s vice president of marketing, said in an email.
Into the Location Data Marketplace
Once a person’s location data has been collected from an app and it has entered the location data marketplace, it can be sold over and over again, from the data providers to an aggregator that resells data from multiple sources. It could end up in the hands of a “location intelligence” firm that uses the raw data to analyze foot traffic for retail shopping areas and the demographics associated with its visitors. Or with a hedge fund that wants insights on how many people are going to a certain store.
“There are the data aggregators that collect the data from multiple applications and sell in bulk. And then there are analytics companies which buy data either from aggregators or from applications and perform the analytics,” said Tsiounis of Advan Research. “And everybody sells to everybody else.”
Some data marketplaces are part of well-known companies, like Amazon’s AWS Data Exchange, or Oracle’s Data Marketplace, which sell all types of data, not just location data. Oracle boasts its listing as the “world’s largest third-party data marketplace” for targeted advertising, while Amazon claims to “make it easy to find, subscribe to, and use third-party data in the cloud.” Both marketplaces feature listings for several of the location data companies that we examined.
Amazon spokesperson Claude Shy said that data providers have to explain how they gain consent for data and how they monitor people using the data they purchase.
“Only qualified data providers will have access to the AWS Data Exchange. Potential data providers are put through a rigorous application process,” Shy said.
Oracle declined to comment.
Other companies, like Narrative, say they are simply connecting data buyers and sellers by providing a platform. Narrative’s website, for instance, lists location data providers like SafeGraph and Complementics among its 17 providers with more than two billion mobile advertising IDs to buy from.
But Narrative CEO Nick Jordan said the company doesn’t even look at the data itself.
“There’s a number of companies that are using our platform to acquire and/or monetize geolocation data, but we actually don’t have any rights to the data,” he said. “We’re not buying it, we’re not selling it.”
To give a sense of how massive the industry is, Amass Insights has 320 location data providers listed on its directory, Jordan Hauer, the company’s CEO, said. While the company doesn’t directly collect or sell any of the data, hedge funds will pay it to guide them through the myriad of location data companies, he said.
“The most inefficient part of the whole process is actually not delivering the data,” Hauer said. “It’s actually finding what you’re looking for and making sure that it’s compliant, making sure that it has value and that it is exactly what the provider says it is.”
Oh, the Places Your Data Will Go
There are a whole slew of potential buyers for location data: investors looking for intel on market trends or what their competitors are up to, political campaigns, stores keeping tabs on customers, and law enforcement agencies, among others.
Fast food restaurants and other businesses have been known to buy location data for advertising purposes down to a person’s steps. For example, in 2018, Burger King ran a promotion in which, if a customer’s phone was within 600 feet of a McDonalds, the Burger King app would let the user buy a Whopper for one cent.
Of the location data firms The Markup examined, the offerings are diverse.
https://bookshop.org/a/565/9781479837243
Advan Research, for instance, uses historical location data to tell its customers, largely retail businesses or their private equity firm owners, where their visitors came from, and makes guesses about their income, race, and interests based on where they’ve been.
“For example, we know that the average income in this neighborhood by census data is $50,000. But then there are two devices—one went to Dollar General, McDonald’s, and Walmart, and the other went to a BMW dealer and Tiffany’s … so they probably make more money,” Advan Research’s Tsiounis said.
Others combine the location data they obtain with other pieces of data gathered from your online activities. Complementics, which boasts data on “more than a billion mobile device IDs,” offers location data in tandem with cross-device data for mobile ad targeting.
The prices can be steep.
Outlogic (formerly known as X-Mode) offers a license for a location dataset titled “Cyber Security Location data” on Datarade for $240,000 per year. The listing says “Outlogic’s accurate and granular location data is collected directly from a mobile device’s GPS.”
At the moment, there are few if any rules limiting who can buy your data.
Sherman, of the Duke Tech Policy Lab, published a report in August finding that data brokers were advertising location information on people based on their political beliefs, as well as data on U.S. government employees and military personnel.
“There is virtually nothing in U.S. law preventing an American company from selling data on two million service members, let’s say, to some Russian company that’s just a front for the Russian government,” Sherman said.
Existing privacy laws in the U.S., like California’s Consumer Privacy Act, do not limit who can purchase data, though California residents can request that their data not be “sold”—which can be a tricky definition. Instead, the law focuses on allowing people to opt out of sharing their location in the first place.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation has stricter requirements for notifying users when their data is being processed or transferred.
But Ashkan Soltani, a privacy expert and former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission, said it’s unrealistic to expect customers to hunt down companies and insist they delete their personal data.
“We know in practice that consumers don’t take action,” he said. “It’s incredibly taxing to opt out of hundreds of data brokers you’ve never even heard of.”
Companies like Apple and Google, who control access to the app stores, are in the best position to control the location data market, AppCensus’s Egelman said.
“The real danger is the app gets booted from the Google Play store or the iOS app store,” he said.” As a result, your company loses money.”
Researchers found, however, that the companies’ SDKs were still making their way into Google’s app store.
Apple didn’t respond to a request for comment.
“The Google Play team is always working to strengthen privacy protections through both product and policy improvements. When we find apps or SDK providers that violate our policies, we take action,” Google spokesperson Scott Westover said in an email.
Digital privacy has been a key policy issue for U.S. senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, who told The Markup that the big app stores needed to do more.
“This is the right move by Google, but they and Apple need to do more than play whack-a-mole with apps that sell Americans’ location information. These companies need a real plan to protect users’ privacy and safety from these malicious apps,” Wyden said in an email.
Bokeh into a corner; the coming of age for smartphone photography
Much has been said about the new camera system, and in particular, the top end iPhone 13 Pro and Pro Max versions. Cinematic mode is one new feature that has generated a lot of interest, some admiration and some confusion.
Apple marketing has not helped to clarify – the emphasis with the name and all the marketing materials and ads are jumping into the claim that this is a high-end pro replacement for prime lenses and a human focus puller. And you should make professional movies with it.
This is a valid idea, to a point, and it’s a fantastic accomplishment to have a cinematic mode at all, especially in your pocket. And, perhaps, the limitation at HD video and no 4k capability will be overcome, either in software or with the iPhone 14.
But, in reality, none of that matters. In reality this mode was absolutely necessary, with or without the autofocus “robot-focus-puller” trick.
Including the telephoto camera made the cinematic effect absolutely mandatory
So taking a small step back for a moment, let’s look at the big changes in the iPhone 13 Pro cameras compared to the iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro. The big change was the ultra-wide camera / lens combo along with the 3X 77mm telephoto camera / lens. In total making 6x optical zoom range possible.
It’s the 77mm that is the huge move. Why? Well, if you are a photographer and have ever worked with a prime or zoom lens of 77mm or above you will be aware of a couple of things. The size, length and weight of the lens is massive. And to duplicate that in a tiny camera module as part of a three camera array on an iPhone presents a pretty big challenge.
Obviously the size limitation makes it impossible for a “real” 77mm lens to be strapped to the back of an iPhone. And, even if the magnification was possible, what about the “look” and the quality of the image?
And what constitutes, in photographic tradition, the beauty and style that makes a long lens like a 77mm artistically desirable? Because just having the ability to get a closer view or shot of an subject without moving the camera closer is a small and relatively insignificant part of the challenge.
Bokeh because it’s beautiful and highlights the subject (often a human or animal) in the video or photo.
Now, to be clear, we are really talking about video recording, not just photos. Because the portrait mode on iPhone has been around, and improving, for years, and cinematic mode is creating similar effect and adding a new level for video.
Adding a 77mm lens, however, if it was not getting the bokeh effect in the video recording, would have been a disappointment of monumental proportions for photographers and would not have been an option.
And, good news folks, the bokeh in cinematic mode when using the 77mm lens is very usable and takes the cinematic style potential into a creative realm that is “Pro”, with or without the focus pulling tricks, and / or the panning or dolly shots with a moving camera.
Both the addition of “portrait mode” backgrounds for FaceTime video, which is a look that has become standard for YouTube videographers, and, more impressively and more importantly, the ability to shift through the lens “kit” as a feature film director would, using different focal lengths (like swapping out prime lenses on a feature film shoot) is a game changer.
However, none of this would be even remotely possible if the switch from a virtual 26mm wide angle prime lens to a virtual 77mm prime did not have some emulation of the unique qualities such as depth or field and, above all, bokeh that shifted as well.
And, thankfully this works the way a director or DP would want – not the same, of course, as a rig that has lenses that cost as much as a dozen iPhone 13 Pro Maxes, but one that is unique and able to produce beautiful, soulful and human effects that are a computationally assisted approximation. That look, or at least something with a similar feel, is akin to what has inspired generations of filmmakers to love what a 77mm or 85mm or even a 100mm (my personal favorite) does for a human subject in the wild.
It is now possible to produce images that have the convenience of an iPhone and the creative mix of styles that could previously only be found in a full professional kit with multiple prime lenses, and that is something that will change and impact the quality and style of everything we watch, particularly in production areas where million dollar kits are not an option.
Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / J. Flavia / Unsplash
Ear related! 2nd best and more are also interesting
With so many new features on the iPhone 13 Pro models, and with so many of them made possible by iOS 15, the A15 bionic chip, the 16-core Neural Engine, which performs up to 15.8 trillion operations per second, and power features like Cinematic Mode and Smart HDR 4, machine learning and other hard to explain facets of the overall experiential upgrade, sound playback (and recording) are often barely mentioned, it seems.
Ever since there was the biggest Apple success story near the turn of the century there has been a special relationship between the fruit company and music / sound. I’m talking, of course, about the iPod.
Long before the iPhone was even a rumor, the iPod was a huge success, taking over the mp3 player market and, with the iTunes store for music downloads, launching the software and services division, for all practical purposes.
It’s hard to imagine now, but there was doubt that Apple could make it in the competitive cell phone market, with behemoths like Nokia and Blackberry so well established. It was the iPod’s success that made it seem plausible.
There was one thing that the iPod never had, however; speakers. And even the recent iPhones, with speakers for voice and music, if you didn’t use your AirPods for that, had speaker and sound quality that was not on the quality level of the larger iPads.
With a much larger area to hide speakers, the iPad was always an obvious choice for watching movies and listening “out loud” via the built in speaker system. With an iPad pro that could be pretty spectacular with a relatively full frequency spectrum and, more recently via software upgrades, spatial audio.
With iPhone 13 Pro models the audio barrier has finally been shattered
In a tiny, nearly forgotten passage at the very end of a list of new specs and enhancements in the iPhone 13 line, Apple adds one more thing; a stereo speaker at the top where the notch is located and a second stereo speaker at the bottom next to the Lightning port.
What it doesn’t mention is the improvement in the sound quality. Like so many features in the newer generation of devices and software, this unassuming, seemingly simple statement is just the tip of the iceberg and does not divulge what’s really going on.
Once more a combination of all the recent software and hardware upgrades combine to produce an experience that goes beyond what you could expect with these tiny, nearly invisible, speakers.
First, the two stereo speaker sets are, sound wise, equal in quality. So when you are watching a movie in landscape mode there is a distinct stereo effect. This is enhanced by spatial audio and dolby atmos depending on your set up.
The actual experience is noticeably “iPad like” and in some ways even goes beyond. Having the phone relatively near you, due to its size, and listening to a high quality movie score, there’s a feeling that your phone has morphed into a personal theater – as long as you can let the sound out into your local environment.
Try “SharePlay”, once it’s live in iOS 15.1, or just manually sync with your partner, assuming you each have a new iPhone 13 (!) and you will get a glorious room filling surround experience from the 4x stereo output (8 speakers?!) into the room.
And the mysterious mics also hidden in multiple places, are also a big upgrade – the seem to switch roles for video, calls etc and maximize the audio quality in live recording situations.
Apple’s software and service bundles and ambitions are driving hardware and iOS upgrades
As jubilant as this may sound, there is also an ulterior motive lurking. Some of the audio features work best (or at all) with an Apple Music subscription. And having more subscriptions, Apple TV, Apple News, Apple Music, iCloud Extra Storage, along connected devices, with so many available, it becomes an ecosystem of plenty for Apple, already the largest company by market cap.
On the optimistic side there’s always Apple One Premiere, the top of the line for bundled services (see below) and looking more and more like a steal at $29.95 per month.
Perhaps, one day not to far away, there will be a Apple One Premiere plan that also includes all Apple devices and you just trade them in every two years (every year?) or maybe you never own them at all?
The way the upgrades in hardware, software and the rest are becoming more interdependent and how crazy it already is to upgrade various devices (assuming you have more than one or two) yearly or bi-annually it’s an interesting idea to try and imagine.
And with an Apple Car perhaps on the way (self driving and outfitted with all the rest of the tech and service bundles) this could be a whole-house, whole-office (will there still be offices?) all transport bundle too. Apple haters will be in trouble, and have to move to Google Island, but otherwise, hey, why not?
Apple One Premiere example package:
Speakers after tear down by iFixit:
credit: iFixit
Audio Playback
Audio formats supported: AAC‑LC, HE‑AAC, HE‑AAC v2, Protected AAC, MP3, Linear PCM, Apple Lossless, FLAC, Dolby Digital (AC‑3), Dolby Digital Plus (E‑AC‑3), Dolby Atmos, and Audible (formats 2, 3, 4, Audible Enhanced Audio, AAX, and AAX+)
Spatial audio playback
User‑configurable maximum volume limit
Video Playback
Video formats supported: HEVC, H.264, MPEG‑4 Part 2, and Motion JPEG
HDR with Dolby Vision, HDR10, and HLG
Up to 4K HDR AirPlay for mirroring, photos, and video out to Apple TV (2nd generation or later) or AirPlay 2–enabled smart TV
Video mirroring and video out support: Up to 1080p through Lightning Digital AV Adapter and Lightning to VGA Adapter (adapters sold separately)9
Upgrades for hard and software, though groundbreaking and exciting, do have limitations and problems
The new upgrades for iOS 15, iPad OS 15, mac OS 12 Monterey and the rest are in many ways amazing, feature filled wonders, as we’ve discussed at every opportunity. The multi-year transition to a more unified system across all apple devices is underway and we are big supporters of the benefits.
However, nothing is perfect, and particularly in the early days it is to be expected that glitches and strange twists and turns in the journey can disappoint and confuse along the way.
Below we’ve outlined a few.
Various less than perfect ideas and execution in the OS software
Some issues are not really issues at all but things that people just don’t like. One example is the move of the address bar on safari in iOS 15 to the bottom. Many people had trouble getting used to this so a button was added to move it back to the top.
Other glitches include a false warning that you are out of storage space. Others have reported a reduction in perceived (if not real) battery life. Although these are minor annoyances and will be fixed with future updates, such as iOS 15.1 due any minute now, they show that this bug hunting is, unfortunately part of the process of any upgrade, much less a huge and important one like iOS 15.
There are also specific limitations though that should be mentioned about the iPhone 13 Pro camera system.
This issues are less bugs or errors and just limitations that may, or may not, be improved at a later date.
The new high end Pro camera system for the iPhone 13 Pro series is a major upgrade that has so many features and new capabilities that it is hard to even list them all, let alone illuminate the multitude of options and enhancements that they create.
On the obvious down side, however, a few things have jumped out at users now that these phones are in the wild.
Cinematic mode only works (currently) in 1080p. This is a serious limitation, since the whole idea of “Pro” is 4k and above. Many even go so far as to say that 1080p aka HD is no longer the standard for video and even obsolete. While there are rumors that this could get a software upgrade, perhaps even before the next iPhone model next fall, but it is not at all clear if, or when, that might happen.
This limitation is a fairly serious one, since an entire project would have to be shot at 1080p HD rather than 4k to make any use at all of the beautiful and fascinating rack-focus effects available in cinematic mode.
Less and issue but often mentioned is the inability to shoot 4k slow motion footage.
The lack of slo-mo at any resolution above 1080p is also something that has surprised aficionados. There is an option for 1080p at 240 fps, but unless you are shooting ultra high speed action that is not a hugely useful setting.
It seems odd, since a large part of the limitation is likely the large amount of data required to make this happen at 4k but there is a silver-lining here that few have mentioned in recent articles decrying the lack of 4k slow-mo options.
Since the system is already capable of shooting 4k at 60fps, and a final project setting for editing could be 4k at 30 or even 24fps, the 4k 60fps could be seen as a double speed slo-mo setting for a 4k video projects shot at 30fps for standard and 60fps for footage to be slowed to 30fps for the 1/2 speed slo-mo effect.
In the feature film 35mm celluloid days this was a very common and useful way to get slow-mo without eating up tons of expensive film stock.
Also, shooting at 4k 60fps for a 4k 24fps project would yield a 1.5 ratio of frame rate, giving an even more extreme slow-mo effect. For most slow motion effects 1 to 1.5x speed in-camera for later playback at the project rate is more than adequate.
The 120fps rate, since the top frame rate at 4k is 60fps, is, indeed, double which, as stated above, standard.
Therefore, for all practical purposes, there is already a way to produce beautiful 4k slow motion effects in a 30fps or 24fps project and have those be in camera pristine slo-mo and not the less desirable edit-only EFX.
Summing up, even with glitches and minor disappointments, it’s a beautiful world and now we just have to shoot it
If no more serious glitches or known issues pop up during the transition from iOS 14 to iOS 15, and iPhone 12 Pro to iPhone 13 Pro, we can be satisfied that this is a monumental job well done by the gang at Apple.
Though there are a lot of shortcomings that we may perceive in the new world topping combo-pack; iPhone 13 Pro Max running iOS 15.1, these are when compared to far more costly and cumbersome alternatives, or simply, when compared to our wildest dreams. Those will have to wait a few years, in all likelihood.
Human greed is a powerful thing. When given a photographic system that even attempts to approximate a profession system based on prime and zoom lenses and accessories, there’s a tendency to want it all, right now!
Of course, instead, what we get is an amazing extension of the iPhone photo tradition – taken up a bunch of notches at once. The computational enhancements are incredible and will only get better – in many cases without a new phone as they are based on AI and machine learning, which as the name implies, are continually improving while you sleep.
It is also the reason why real lenses and traditional DLSR cameras still have an important use and value.
The new system unveiled with the iPhone 13 pro is revolutionary precisely because of the potential for people to create new visual expressions and ways of communicating.
These photographic traditions and the efforts that were made in the design to emulate them are important and valuable. However, the future will benefit from the spontaneous and new ways that people will decide to use this evolving system and the current extensions of our eyes, ears and minds….
The cameras are at the center of what makes an iPhone 13 a Pro investment
Direct hands on experience with something as complex and interesting as the new iPhone 13 Pro Max is invaluable for a useful assessment. After a few days and also taking into account some observations of others I will attempt to shed light on the state of the art of iPhone as of September 2021.
Comparing this iteration of iPhone with the previous versions is meaningful for buying decisions, but it must also be compared based on what it can do for a professional that has a need for a higher grade of gadget.
Judging and comparing the machine as a whole is also necessary, since the cameras are not cameras at all be just one part of an integrated system of visual (and audio!) production tools.
Big changes that begat others and on the circle goes
The first thing I noticed, out of the box was the sheer size of the 13 Pro Max, particularly compared to the 11 Pro Max, which was my previous workhorse. From photos I had gathered that the three cameras stuck out more and, yet they do, so much so that it is almost comical.
If you brave the world sans case and put this monster in your the back pocket of your loose fitting jeans, the bulge from the cameras will feel like you are doing something crazy, as it is as if they are rubbing against anything they touch, continuously.
That’s not all about the physical size, though. Looking at the diameter of the three circles (lenses) they appear significantly larger. Believe me, they are. Since the 11 Pro max and the 12 Pro Max have the same size triple camera layout (spec upgrades notwithstanding) this is an immediate and obvious change.
Above: Photo / Lynxotic
The increased size and weight of the camera itself is noticeable, more than I expected. The screen appears far larger due to the new specs and it is a bit of a shock at first, but the level of quality is the biggest and most noticeable feature.
The design logic has an implied history that jumps out once you start to use the camera system.
The changes to the three cameras are significant. After two years of using the 2019 11 Pro Max the framing options, based on the three lenses is a complete new experience.
The ultra wide 13mm equivalent is a bit of a bold and crazy choice. If I was ordering a set of lenses for a music video shoot the ultra wide might go as far as 11mm (very wide!) but that is basically an EFX look and causes an almost fish-eye look.
The 13mm is literally as wide as you can get without getting into potential “clown” territory, which is fun but not usable for a non-EFX composition.
What is odd, in a way, is that the “main” lens at 26mm equivalent is still very wide meaning that the standard 40mm equivalent, which was always considered the closest to a neutral look, is absent here.
Similarly, the telephoto lens at a 77mm equivalent is exactly the same type of choice – once again in my kit this would have been a 100mm for a deep bokeh and a noticeable sweet spot that is ultra-flattering for close ups and head shots.
The 77mm, therefore, is a long enough lens to get the magnification and emulate the look of a telephoto style. But wait, no glass no bokeh.
Both the 13 Pro and 13 Pro Max have the same sensors, optics, stabilization and features. The three cameras in the Pro models span a 6x optical focal length range.
This is where the logic of the design and how the system works, as a whole, begins to get deep.
Once you have made the commitment to not only extend the range of the entire optical focal length range to 6x the differences between a glass & steel 77mm prime lens and a “cell phone camera” must be addressed.
The 77mm requires the bokeh and relatively narrow in-focus range of a “real” telephoto lens is the stylized creative uses that a full kit of prime lenses makes possible is to be achieved.
This is addressed with the already present portrait mode – with enhanced functionality made possible by the A15 chip, the machine learning, AI and neural network – in other words software and computational assists.
And for video, cinematic mode is an absolute must – since the same bokeh effect and stylized effects are needed and desired for video.
All of this does not include the macro effects that effectively extend the range into the nearly microscopic. This feature requires a whole article, which you can check out here.
Getting to a full photographic system in your pocket, and beyond.
Once the effects and artifacts of the 77mm style glass prime lens have been added to the mix, emulated things get more interesting.
Since the bokeh and artifacts in the cinematic mode for video are computational and not photographic, they are stored separately and can be altered after the fact, just like has been the case with portrait mode all along.
This is a big deal in one way, since it could never be conceived of with traditional lenses and cameras. It also, however, one more variable to consider when putting together a large batch of footage for a project. This adds a new layer of creative flexibility, and choices to contend with.
Further, since the long lens stylizations are a byproduct of and influenced by focus settings, that has to be in the mix also. That produced the need for the cinematic mode which you can think of as a slightly stoned robot focus puller. who is also a little bit psychic.
The first robot camera assistant is already in the box when your phone arrives
Let me explain…. A real life focus puller (doing rack focus settings) in real life would function roughly as follows:
A shot is planned that requires a focus pull from one subject to another – this could be a close shot of a face panning to another face, or a close up that refocuses from the foreground to the background, for example. The focus must also factor in any movement of the camera / dolly.
The two desired subject distances are measured (using a tape measure) and the focus settings noted. In complex shots this can be multiple focus settings and a particular speed of the “rack pull” from one to the next.
Often such complex focus / dolly set ups must be rehearsed multi times just for the focus puller – so that his error does not ruin a perfect take when, for example, the actors get their best performances.
So, in the robot world practice is also good – and a plan is almost essential, but the virtual focus puller will go with the flow, and try to anticipate and predict what you want him to focus on in real time as you shoot.
This is pretty incredible and also, much like autocorrect typing, sometimes very successful and sometimes comical in the outcome. What is tricky is how to get the robot puller to know what you are trying to have as a subject if it is not a persons head or face.
Also, if the action is fast or if you are shooting something that has no pre-determined outcome or script, like a political protest or a sporting event, you will get somewhat random results.
This makes the name apt, since cinematic also implies a movie with a plot and a script.
Conclusions and a few known limitations and caveats
Human greed is a powerful thing. When given a photographic system that even attempts to approximate a profession system based on prime and zoom lenses and accessories, there’s a tendency to want it all, right now!
Of course, instead, what we get is an amazing extension of the iPhone photo tradition – taken up a bunch of notches at once. The computational enhancements are incredible and will only get better – in many cases without a new phone as they are based on AI and machine learning, which as the name implies, are continually improving while you sleep.
There are specific limitations though that should be mentioned about the iPhone 13 Pro camera system.
Cinematic mode only works (currently) in 1080p. This is a serious limitation, since the whole idea of Pro is 4k and above. There are rumors that this could get a software upgrade during the year but it is not clear if or when that will happen.
Along with the lack of slo-mo at any resolution above 1080p there is a lot of disappointment in this issue. It is the reality of how difficult the computational “assist” really is to achieve that makes this a big step that is still in the future.
It is also the reason why real lenses and traditional DLSR cameras still have an important use and value.
The new system unveiled with the iPhone 13 pro is revolutionary precisely because of the potential for people to create new visual expressions and ways of communicating.
These photographic traditions and the efforts that were made in the design to emulate them are important and valuable. However, the future will benefit from the spontaneous and new ways that people will decide to use this evolving system and the current extensions of our eyes, ears and minds….
![READY PLAYER ONE - Official Trailer 1 [HD]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cSp1dM2Vj48/hqdefault.jpg)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22877338/earpiece_ifixit.png)
