I too have just got a new iPhone SE, to replace my old 6S. Looks pretty much identical but i prefer the smaller size.
First one was faulty though, kept just resetting itself during setup.
Anyway, just reading back on G's issues with setup, and realising it's a bit late now ...could you not just do the phone to phone transfer? For mine you just bring your old phone next to the new one, choose a few options and it moves everything wirelessly

Whats the feeling here on Apple blocking data for targeted ads for the likes of Facebook (and I assume Google Ads)

Facebook blasts Apple in new ads over iPhone privacy change (cnbc.com)

I havent had a chance to really look into it but in this day and age a phone that doesnt send much of your data sounds like a good thing and would actually tempt me to an iphone (although not likely to happen for a bit)

I'm doubting Google would ever do something similar due to Google Ads but is it as big a thing as I want it to be or is it just a minor issue?

RamSteelwood wrote:

I too have just got a new iPhone SE, to replace my old 6S.

pantyfire wrote:

I finally went back to iPhone when the new SE came out. I love it.

Hooray for the 2nd gen SE love in. It was that and the way that iOS 14 lets me choose non-Apple stuff as defaults that brought me back into the fold.

Specifically on the Apple tracking opt-in options, rather than general Apple commentary:

1. What Apple are doing (after a delay) is implementing an opt-in whenever it detects that a website or app is using advertising platform trackers.
 
2. What these trackers do is follow you / identify you as you browse from site to site, build up a profile of you, and then sell that profile to advertising platforms (in many cases, like Facebook and Google, they own the whole setup: tracker tech, profile builder, advertising platforms) which in turn, can sell more specifically targeted advertising real estate to companies which want to advertise.

3. Apple are not "blocking" the trackers by default. They are saying that they believe it is a consumer's right to know that they are being tracked across websites and apps, and they are offering the customer the choice to block the trackers.

4. This in turn clearly impacts the bottom line of large advertising tech companies (er, Facebook). But it does also impact the value of online advertising, in terms of a given company's return on their advertisement spend. Where as before, a small local company could benefit from this profiles to ensure that their advert's value to them was highest, by ensuring it only appeared to profiles which are, for eg, local, the right demographic, the right profile, the most likely to actually respond to the ad.

5. The second impact is the corollary beneficiaries to this model. If I'm a website publisher, often I only generate revenue from ads on my site. The ones which generate the most value are those which encourage click-through and potential eventual purchase, aka engagement. If the ads published on your website are targeted specifically at the various people who browse your website, then engagement is more likely, and your revenue benefits.

6. So Facebook's position is - this is not about "defeating evil advertising companies", it's about "salvaging the value that small local businesses can gain from profile-based advertising" and "keeping the internet free". If you cripple ad profiles on apple devices (in the US this is a large swathe of the consumer population), you a) lower the return on investment in advertising by smaller businesses, they suffer and b) you lower the revenue of websites which use advertising, due to lower engagement with the ads

Facebook's "nightmarish" vision isn't just that they lose a lot of money (higher engagement potential = much higher advertising price, which = $$ for Facebook as a platform), but that suddenly we'll have to PAY for things like news, fan sites, community sites and so on, which are currently supported by advertising. This is plausible - hence the multi-million dollar spend on full page ads and lobbying and online videos and so on.

My view is that Apple are monopolists, despite baby steps towards progress in this respect, and profiteers, but in this case are the lesser of two evils. The internet, as great as it is, as great as it can be, should absolutely not be built on advertising, which is the root of much evil (this may seem hyperbolic to some - we can get into that too if you'd like it's fascinating stuff). If that means you have to actually, you know, pay for the services you value, or you have to come to the table with a product that people want to pay for, then so be it. It doesn't have to be everyone who pays, it doesn't have to be an unaffordable payment per person (imagine if your 1 million monthly site visitors all paid 25p per month), it can be packaged into groups of sites (pay once get access to lots), by services, and so on.

Without advertising the internet goes on.

Funkstain wrote:

If that means you have to actually, you know, pay for the services you value, or you have to come to the table with a product that people want to pay for, then so be it. It doesn't have to be everyone who pays, it doesn't have to be an unaffordable payment per person (imagine if your 1 million monthly site visitors all paid 25p per month), it can be packaged into groups of sites (pay once get access to lots), by services, and so on.

The Brave browser seems to be attempting something not too far from this:

https://brave.com/brave-rewards/

I’d like to see a company like Apple offer something along these lines. I’d happily put some money into an account each month that would be paid out directly to website owners based on my activity online each month.

Funkstain wrote:

Specifically on the Apple tracking opt-in options, rather than general Apple commentary: 1. What Apple are doing (after a delay) is implementing an opt-in whenever it detects that a website or app is using advertising platform trackers.   2. What these trackers do is follow you / identify you as you browse from site to site, build up a profile of you, and then sell that profile to advertising platforms (in many cases, like Facebook and Google, they own the whole setup: tracker tech, profile builder, advertising platforms) which in turn, can sell more specifically targeted advertising real estate to companies which want to advertise. 3. Apple are not "blocking" the trackers by default. They are saying that they believe it is a consumer's right to know that they are being tracked across websites and apps, and they are offering the customer the choice to block the trackers. 4. This in turn clearly impacts the bottom line of large advertising tech companies (er, Facebook). But it does also impact the value of online advertising, in terms of a given company's return on their advertisement spend. Where as before, a small local company could benefit from this profiles to ensure that their advert's value to them was highest, by ensuring it only appeared to profiles which are, for eg, local, the right demographic, the right profile, the most likely to actually respond to the ad. 5. The second impact is the corollary beneficiaries to this model. If I'm a website publisher, often I only generate revenue from ads on my site. The ones which generate the most value are those which encourage click-through and potential eventual purchase, aka engagement. If the ads published on your website are targeted specifically at the various people who browse your website, then engagement is more likely, and your revenue benefits. 6. So Facebook's position is - this is not about "defeating evil advertising companies", it's about "salvaging the value that small local businesses can gain from profile-based advertising" and "keeping the internet free". If you cripple ad profiles on apple devices (in the US this is a large swathe of the consumer population), you a) lower the return on investment in advertising by smaller businesses, they suffer and b) you lower the revenue of websites which use advertising, due to lower engagement with the ads Facebook's "nightmarish" vision isn't just that they lose a lot of money (higher engagement potential = much higher advertising price, which = $$ for Facebook as a platform), but that suddenly we'll have to PAY for things like news, fan sites, community sites and so on, which are currently supported by advertising. This is plausible - hence the multi-million dollar spend on full page ads and lobbying and online videos and so on. My view is that Apple are monopolists, despite baby steps towards progress in this respect, and profiteers, but in this case are the lesser of two evils. The internet, as great as it is, as great as it can be, should absolutely not be built on advertising, which is the root of much evil (this may seem hyperbolic to some - we can get into that too if you'd like it's fascinating stuff). If that means you have to actually, you know, pay for the services you value, or you have to come to the table with a product that people want to pay for, then so be it. It doesn't have to be everyone who pays, it doesn't have to be an unaffordable payment per person (imagine if your 1 million monthly site visitors all paid 25p per month), it can be packaged into groups of sites (pay once get access to lots), by services, and so on. Without advertising the internet goes on.

@funkstain  - Thanks for that. Quite informative.

So...I did buy a set of the AirPods Pro, and they did arrive today...and initial impressions are they're very good. Easy to set-up, comfortable to wear, and the sound quality is surprisingly very good.
*Protip*
They were a little overpowering initially, but if you're using them with an iPhone, then go into your settings, Settings:Music:EQ, and switch them to the Flat profile, and boy do they come alive once you've done that. Hell of a difference, and a much more musical sound. 
*Bassheads and teenagers can ignore this.

Anyhoo, the real game-changer is the Tranparency mode, which basically means you never have to take the bloody things out your ears EVER. In that mode, the built in mics on the headphones are active, so if someone is talking to you, you just turn the music off with a simple press, and then you can hear what they are saying without having to faff around with them. It's almost like you don't have them in your ears at all it's that good.
This might sound a bit "so what," but not having to constantly take them in and out of your ears to hear ambient sounds is a brilliant feature.

Only niggle then is the lack of a volume control on the actual headphones, but that's not the end of the world, and hey, they need to add something to get us to buy AirPods Pro2.

So, early days, but initial impressions are two thumbs up, especially with the current £50 off on Amazon.

b0r1s wrote:

Nice one. Forgot to mention transparency mode. It’s such a great feature. I use it when going for walks to be more aware of my surroundings. Now if you want to add to your experience a bit more get a cheap Apple Watch You can do all the volume and controls on that very well. Slowly G becomes an Apple fanboi

Heh. 26years I've been handcuffed to Apple mate. *winkysmiley*
It'll be a cold day in hell before I swap the Rolex for an Apple watch though. That's one piece of tech I just don't have a use for.

Can you ask Siri to turn the volume down? Never tried myself.

I have the watch.

Yeah that’s how it works for volume. It’s surprisingly ok - you can quietly mutter “hey Siri turn this down “ or similar and it just works. You know as long as you’ve got internet and don’t mind a factory full of people listening to your voice.

Siri is good for setting timers for cooking when your hands are covered in dough.

That’s about it.

Hey Siri, turn off all of Uncle's lights.

nnnnnnnnnnggg...

yourfavouriteuncle wrote:

Siri controls all my lights at home and for that I’m forever grateful to her.

I’ve really just started to get into this thanks to the new TV. It’s HomeKit compatible so now I’ve got it setup to switch and switch to PS5 or PS4 or Apple TV or Live TV. Also switches on the Christmas tree lights and my lamp. Next step is gonna be HomePod minis and some automation.

Also read up on Thread technology which sounds great for this sort of stuff. Creates an ultra lower power mesh network. More reliable and faster than Bluetooth and WiFi and self healing so if something drops out the network another device just picks up the slack. Battery powered thread devices can last for months on a battery rather than weeks with BT lot.

Oh and thread devices don’t need a bridge they just talk to each other and or your phone.

I really really want those ridiculous new headphones fwiw. I think they look absolutely astounding and considering how good the AirPods and homepods sound i’m gonna presume they’re even better.