Apple is sticking taxpayers with part of the bill for rollout of tech giant’s digital ID card

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

pretty sure you can tell an officer to “eff off” if they ask to unlock your phone,

Last I checked Biometrics were not protected. Meaning they can force it with Finger Print or Face Unlock. 

[mr moose]

I can't believe people can't see the issue with a private company demanding tax payers pay for a value add for their customers only.

[Zodiark1593]

6 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Last I checked Biometrics were not protected. Meaning they can force it with Finger Print or Face Unlock. 

Fast enough to disable, especially on iPhone, where I can do it through my pocket while sitting in my car. Shutting off your phone pretty much puts the caboose on compelling biometrics too. 

[Zodiark1593]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I can't believe people can't see the issue with a private company demanding tax payers pay for a value add for their customers only.

Hope I’m not included in “people”, as I had specified “Platform-Agnostic” in my post.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I can do it through my pocket while sitting in my car.

And the cop thinks you reaching for a weapon and shoots you in defense. The only place your hands should be is on the steering wheel. 

[Zodiark1593]

Just now, Donut417 said:

And the cop thinks you reaching for a weapon and shoots you in defense. The only place your hands should be is on the steering wheel. 

Yes, because an officer always has their gun trained on me, even when driving up behind me to pull me over. I totally don’t have two seconds to spare in the time it takes to slow to a stop, to when the officer is literally standing next to me. Completely undoable. I may as well just leave my phone off entirely. 

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Hope I’m not included in “people”, as I had specified “Platform-Agnostic” in my post.

The people in my post are those who defend government spending for apple consumers only.  If it was typical government spending that was platform agnostic then it wouldn't matter a hoot, in fact it wouldn't even be news.  

 

EDIT: and yes, that makes apple greedy as they have proven to be time and time again, deal with it people.

[Paul Thexton]

5 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

At least in the US, pretty sure you can tell an officer to “eff off” if they ask to unlock your phone, detained or not

If there’s one thing I’ve been conditioned to believe via movies and TV shows, it’s that not doing everything a US cop tells you to do can be hazardous to your health. 

[Paul Thexton]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I can't believe people can't see the issue with a private company demanding tax payers pay for a value add for their customers only.

Yep. Apple can develop the system sure, but if the state’s paying for it, then at bare minimum other platforms (Android) should be able to plug in to it, and if I were creating the specs then Apple themselves would also develop the android app. 

[Mark Kaine]

I dont get the outrage,  what do you think taxes are for? Building streets? 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

I dont get the outrage,  what do you think taxes are for? Building streets? 

The outrage is because it is only for people who own an iphone.    Apple are asking tax payers to fund an improvement to their product only.   If this was building streets then it would be like toyota asking the government to pay for the development of roads only toyota's can use.

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The outrage is because it is only for people who own an iphone. 

Worse than that - it's a service Apple gets to exclusively profit off of after building it with public money. Then again it's the same with companies like Tesla but people are noticeably quieter about those.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Worse than that - it's a service Apple gets to exclusively profit off of after building it with public money. Then again it's the same with companies like Tesla but people are noticeably quieter about those.

I am sure there is a lot of government money spent on questionable private projects.  All I can say is just because it happens doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't make apple any less greedy for wanting it too.

[Donut417]

3 minutes ago, comander said:

There's relatively little reason why both can't be QR codes. 

Maybe because the hospital doesn’t have the technology or know how to do that. People think that the US is some technology juggernaut, but it’s not. States still use Cobal programmed software to handle unemployment benefits. The company I work for uses software first copy righted in the 1980s. When I left Sams Club in 2015 they still used Windows XP. 
 

I just know every time I’m asked for physical cards and they scan them at the very least. My Doctor and the place I get testing done is all the same company, so it’s not like they don’t have my info. 

[emosun]

21 hours ago, Dominik W said:

Ehhh here in Illinois they have to pass an emissions test. But yeah that's it. Definitely plenty of cars that shouldn't be on the road.

emissions is a county by county thing

[emosun]

18 hours ago, StDragon said:

You must not live in Texas where an annual safety and emission inspection is required.

i dont consider texas a part of this country

[TheEggComputer]

18 minutes ago, emosun said:

emissions is a county by county thing

not always, as some states have it as a state law

15 minutes ago, emosun said:

i dont consider texas a part of this country

just because you do not consider it does not mean that they aren't. Regardless of anyone’s political views, they have the same rights people in the other states have and they pay taxes to the US federal government too

 

idc abt anyones political views nor do I live in Texas

Edited November 17, 2021 by danthe_only_man
added clarity and fixed spelling

[StDragon]

22 minutes ago, emosun said:

i dont consider texas a part of this country

Neither do I, but probably for an entirely different reason 

[emosun]

1 hour ago, danthe_only_man said:

just because you do not consider it does not mean that they aren't.

did i say texas wasn't a part , or did i say I don't consider it a part

[TheEggComputer]

18 minutes ago, emosun said:

did i say texas wasn't a part , or did i say I don't consider it a part

i said in my reply "just because you do not consider it". I never said that you said that it wasnt and that was not what I was addressing in my reply earlier

[CarlBar]

13 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Maybe because the hospital doesn’t have the technology or know how to do that. People think that the US is some technology juggernaut, but it’s not. States still use Cobal programmed software to handle unemployment benefits. The company I work for uses software first copy righted in the 1980s. When I left Sams Club in 2015 they still used Windows XP. 
 

I just know every time I’m asked for physical cards and they scan them at the very least. My Doctor and the place I get testing done is all the same company, so it’s not like they don’t have my info. 

 

This isn't unique to the US, every business in every country on the planet does this to some degree. In general changing the system is expensive enough no one want to foot the bill for it. generally it only gets changed when changing gets significantly cheaper than maintenance.

 

Don't get me wrong, the US has a lot of issues, (if politics wasn't banned here i could probably write a small essay on the matter), but IT obsolescence isn't one, (or at least a unique one).

[StDragon]

6 hours ago, CarlBar said:

generally it only gets changed when changing gets significantly cheaper than maintenance.

That's a perceived assessment that's based on a myopic view of what otherwise should be understood by the entirety of a product's life cycle.

 

What should happen is planned upgrades, migrations, and the budgeting to move the stack forward. In reality more often than not, the budget is just enough to keep the lights on and perform basic maintenance and replace a few pieces of failed hardware here and there (PSUs, HDDs for example). But here's the problem with that, eventually your stack gets so far behind that you can't just upgrade directly to compliance. You can end up left so far behind you have to choose between two paths: staging where you have to upgrade to the next possible upgrade path until you reach the final version that's supported by the vendor, or you have to leapfrog to a whole new platform because the existing solution has been deprecated with existing support unavailable. If the codebase is entirely custom, you're looking at in-house development which is a whole other animal in expense and project management to bring online. So when you wait that long, yeah, it can get effing $$$$$$$ expensive! 

[Mark Kaine]

On 11/17/2021 at 11:25 AM, mr moose said:

The outrage is because it is only for people who own an iphone.    Apple are asking tax payers to fund an improvement to their product only.   If this was building streets then it would be like toyota asking the government to pay for the development of roads only toyota's can use.

False analogy.  This is like Sony asking for help to develop a new thing, and getting the help (from the government) which is precisely one of the things taxes are for, securing jobs in this case (and yes, i decidedly used a none American company because thats an example i know happens for sure,  same with VW, etc, and wouldn't surprise me if American car manufacturers etc also get money from the government) Just because its Apple doesn't change the purpose of what tax money can be used for, IF this is justified is another question,  but the fact alone isn't super remarkable or uncommon. 

 

 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

False analogy.  This is like Sony asking for help to develop a new thing, and getting the help (from the government) which is precisely one of the things taxes are for, securing jobs in this case (and yes, i decidedly used a none American company because thats an example i know happens for sure,  same with VW, etc, and wouldn't surprise me if American car manufacturers etc also get money from the government) Just because its Apple doesn't change the purpose of what tax money can be used for, IF this is justified is another question,  but the fact alone isn't super remarkable or uncommon. 

 

 

The analogy is highly accurate.  Apple want development money to offer only their customers a product.   You are intentionally ignoring the bit where it only benefits apple.

[Mark Kaine]

On 11/19/2021 at 3:31 AM, mr moose said:

The analogy is highly accurate.  Apple want development money to offer only their customers a product.   You are intentionally ignoring the bit where it only benefits apple.

No, i don't,  but you seem to intentionally ignore that this isn't different for other companies,  getting money from government primarily benefits them - and indirectly everyone (securing/creating jobs)

 

You don't have to agree with this practice, 

only acknowledge it (as its what happening irl every day) to see your analogy was far fetched at best