This has to be the most annoying thing in MacOS. My laptop, soundly sleeping in my backpack, takes over my bluetooth headphones all the time.
I realized a couple weeks later MacOS display continuity (or "sidecar"?) was connecting to my Mac Mini located directly upstairs using it as a 2nd monitor while I'm downstairs.
My apple watch also regularly unlocks my Mac Mini when I'm downstairs (Mac Mini in a bedroom upstairs).
All of these features pose serious security issues if your physical location isn't secure/trusted.
There really should be a "Travel Mode" for MacOS that disables features like these. No one wants airport security to open a laptop and have the apple watch immediately unlock it for them while standing 20 feet away (or in another room).
I’ve used it for years now with a variety of watches and Macs and I’ve always had to be right next to the computer with a fairly clear line of sight between them. Even putting my watch on the other side of my body is normally enough to make it tell me that the WiFi signal isn’t strong enough to unlock it.
[1] For cheapest devices, a physical button that goes to the next available device would still make a world of difference.
I personally boot my laptops to the filevault screen and no further when going through the security checkpoints. Keeps the disk encrypted and requires my password to continue.
"That computer? Oh yeah, I just picked it up, officer; was going to start configuring it when when I arrive at my destination."
1: it depends on the person what that is, but it should be believable, "in character" so to speak.
https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/change-guest-user-s...
That can get you into trouble with customs when the device looks new.
My Apple Watch 7 regularily "forgets" that I am still wearing it. I have to enter my code roughly 2 times a day.
So to me, it feels like presence detection actually fires way to often in situations where the watch is still on the wrist.
Two fingers under the watch (far enough to cover the heartbeat sensor) and a swift upwards yank will pop the strap underneath and it’ll lift right off.
The thing is, if someone has your unlocked watch, what can they really do? This is a question I’ve never really known the answer to and doubt you ever would know clearly.
Certainly banking apps don’t seem to have a lot of functionality on watchOS, but I’m unsure to what extent being signed in on an unlocked watch is the same as being signed in on an unlocked phone. Can i authorise a new phone just from the watch? I can certainly get 2FA codes to the watch, so the answer I guess is maybe.
The good news, however, is that you don't appear to be able to use the Apple Watch mask unlock feature to pass further Face ID checks deeper in the system once unlocked, so your banking apps & password manager is safe... but your messages & e-mails are not...
Now that I have an apple silicon Mac and a keyboard with touch id, I turned that feature off.
It was neat for a couple of days until I was walking out of the room and my mac unlocked itself.
Last I heard
That's really mostly so that I don't lose my iPhone which I actually care about.
Though certain EU courts can “make you give up” your password, as far as I know. Nonetheless, security is only good when it is used — widely-used biometrics with a potentially stronger password (due to not having to enter it all the times) is statistically safer for the population over everyone having “password1” as a secret. Especially with a good fallback like emergency mode on iphone/apple watch. Afterwards only the password can unlock the device, and it is a single long press of two hardware buttons.
“RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person's electronic communications. The Act:
enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's communications in secret;
enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hand over keys to protected information;
allows certain public bodies to monitor people's Internet activities;
prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_...
Point being, I feel this is getting into xkcd://538 territory.
But “going to court” rarely happens. 95% of cases are plea-bargained.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain
Given overwhelmingly evidence and an overworked public defenders office, you’re not going to take a chance on going to court where you will probably lose.
Sadly that is not the Apple way. We'll have to wait years for them to come up with a "solution" that doesn't involve a disable button. If they even decide to work on it.
Have you tried macOS Lockdown Mode?
Per Apple, “Lockdown Mode is an optional, extreme protection that's designed for the very few individuals who, because of who they are or what they do, might be personally targeted by some of the most sophisticated digital threats. Most people are never targeted by attacks of this nature.”
Can you configure it to power off when the lid shuts?
[edit] just following up, it was UnnaturalScrollWheels, which have been notarized: https://github.com/ther0n/UnnaturalScrollWheels/releases/tag...
However, it's often quite opinionated. So Apple's intended functionality may or may not jive with your preferences. This is neither a defense nor criticism of Apple, and it's not a defense or criticism of your preferences either.
I will point out that anecdotally, I don't hear too many people wanting their mouse's scrolling to work in the opposite direction as their trackpad. I think Apple's probably got well over 99% of the userbase covered with the defaults and opinions here. From a software/QA/UX perspective things get wild pretty quickly if you cover every < 1% use case.
you, the user, should expect it to work without any tweaks or workarounds
For example on Apple devices I've often wanted a feature that would let me skip PIN/FaceID authentication when connected to my home network. No such feature exists. But I'd say there's a clear distinction between a missing feature and "not just working."
Of course, "it just works" is a vague marketing phrase that they haven't used in a long time, perhaps a decade or more? So, whatever. You have the power to decide it means whatever you want it to mean, and then decide if Apple meets your made-up standard or not. I freely admit that's what I'm doing.
Really? I always heard it as something more like "we've thought of everything, all the details, and you don't have to fiddle with our products like with Windows." I think essential functionality is always implied, with any product, but with Apple, it seemed like their promise was for a higher level of user experience than that.
Acknowledged that this is an old marketing statement (I believe it was a Jobs-ism, which dates it), but please look at the context of the thread.
it seemed like their promise was for a higher
level of user experience than that.
Whether this is your cup of tea or your worst nightmare, I don't think this is particularly controversial!
Additionally, I think it's also uncontroversial that they're able to pursue/achieve a higher level of polish specifically thanks to the fact that they choose not to pursue the infinitely long tail of hardware combinations and software configurability. After all, as engineers we know that N possible feature toggles and knobs quickly can quickly approach 2^N or even N! combinations that need to be thought about and tested.
In short, I think it's sort of baffling to think that the omission of some pet niche feature equates to a piece of software "not working."
In contrast, if that omission makes you think the software stinks or simply isn't for you, that would make total sense to me.
OK, this is my biggest pain point after switching to MacOS for work, so let me go on a rant. Not only can't I imagine this particular scenario covering 99% of the userbase - I can't imagine anyone wanting this behavior with a regular mouse that has a scroll wheel (as opposed to buying Apple's Magic crap, which Apple wants you to do). Literally every other system is set up so that scrolling the wheel down would scroll the page down. And pretty much every laptop I've used had natural scrolling on a touchpad either by default, or as an option (a separate option from the mouse setting).
I could maybe see it sort of working if your mouse wheel has an infinite scroll feature, but even then it's super unintuitive.
But OK, let's buy into "think different" approach (AKA "we will break every convention ever set by man 'cause we're quirky like that") and assume that this is somehow more convenient if you haven't been contaminated by using other systems. What's the harm in providing a setting for other people? Like you said - it's a preference and a very simple one and a very common one, clearly not a 1% use case. How is this not a part of the system? The only answer I can find is: "we want you to buy Apple Magic Mouse, it feels natural there". The way the Apple pushes you into their shitty ecosystem is so anti-consumer that it boggles my mind that there's not that much pushback for it.
So far my experience after switching to MacOS had a very clear pattern: How do I enable "feature x"? -> Wait, I can't, seriously? This is basic OS functionality, how in the world is this not a default feature? -> (dig through dozens of "you're using it wrong" comments) -> OK, let's download yet another third party app then, I'm sure it will never serve as a vector for a supply-chain attack.
I had to edit some values in Windows Registry to get my gaming machine with Windows and a scroll wheel to scroll the same way my Mac does (which I prefer). Now you can imagine.
The vast amount of MacOS apps built by the community to undo Apple's terrible and backwards UX choices, and the amounts of sales those apps get, disproves your theory that over 99% of people are fine with the defaults Apple forces on its users.
I suspect the same is true in the general case in the ios app store: that there is a long tail of apps used by a tiny %age of users, but with an enormous user base that's enough to make a free or even paid app.
And after about 35 years of mousing and about four years of iphoning I expected to want to revert apple's change to mouse-gesture-scrolling with Lion, but after only a few seconds I was sold. YMMV, of course, but I agree with the "99%" hypothesis.
The more settings you have, the more inevitable this becomes... Assume for a moment that any given default you set, works well for 99% of your userbase. Then, the number of users satisfied with every last default breaks down as follows:
1 setting -> 99% of users satisfied 2 settings -> 98% of users satisfied 20 settings -> 81% of users satisfied 200 settings -> 13% of users satisfied
Apple has a lot of settings. Even if their defaults in general work for greater than 99% of their users, it becomes unrealistic at scale that every single default will satisfy any particular user, let alone all of them. Thus, those third-party apps that you see become popular in aggregate. That doesn't necessarily mean that Apple's defaults are wrong. They could be absolutely killing it on the defaults, and you would still expect to see these results -- in which case you would expect them to devote their attention to the common case, and to let the third-parties pick up the edge cases.
that's a creative re-wording of "you're holding it the wrong way."
Not all Apple fans have been on board with the slow morph from general purpose computer to walled-garden console -- although admittedly that audience is probably mostly gone, anyway.
Apparently you had to use your iPhone 4 without a case and press a finger horizontally over the antenna line. I wasn't even able to trigger it in that pathological way. It was about as realistic as complaining your laptop doesn't work while being roasted in a microwave oven.
There are countless reasons to dislike Apple, including many factual reasons and of course personal taste. Not the biggest fan myself.
But when I see that iPhone 4 antenna issue mentioned, I know there's a particular sort of sentiment behind it.
But yeah, MacOS is a little like Gnome Shell. It requires a few basic apps to make it usable, but after that it's pretty excellent.
Installing random packages to fix OS stuff that should work out of the box was fun for a while :-)
no operating system ever has arrived on a user's computer completely configurable to any given user's preferences.
you're complaining about something that simply isn't possible without third party software and time spent by the user in question.
You're holding it wrong
Airpods/MacOS - listening to background music. Phone call comes in... VERY LOUD facetime 'ring' announces on mac that I'm getting a phone call.
Pick up phone to answer it... holy tamole - it's minimum 8 seconds between clicking 'answer' and... eventually airpods switching over to phone - most of the time. To the calling party, I've 'answered', but they can't hear me - or... can sort of hear me, but I can't hear them. The speed at which the 'switch' takes place, and the visual delay (air pod icons turning on, then off, then on again, then a floating top notification saying "airpods connected"...)... this is always minimum 8 seconds. Usually 10-11.
I just say "hang on, i'm switching my earpiece over..." and wait. Annoying. Given that this is all in their ecosystem, I expect this to get better, not worse. I'd rather this sort of experience get fixed vs more emojis, or 'sidecar' or whatnot.
The long/short of it is, both devices 'know' about the airpods. Call comes in to phone, during an answer, having airpods switch to the phone quickly - like, under 2 seconds - is what I'm expecting. I'm not sure that's an unreasonable expectation (maybe it is?). At some point, I would think, given all the neural-core-AI stuff in the phones and ecosystem, it should know that I always switch airpods to phone to talk... maybe do it automatically at some point?
The phone now knows my daily routine, giving me traffic updates 10 minutes before I normally leave to hit the gym. Yet... the 'fill in your email' prompts on the phone suggest 'my' email address is something I have not actively used in 11 years. I don't understand the 'why' behind some of these things. If the device is going to learn... when will it learn I don't use that email address any longer? Obviously separate issue, but... as has gone on for decades - we get loads of new features, but often little attention paid to clean up and refine last year's new features.
It's far from universal. Most users never expect to understand their software in the first place, and so put a lot more value on new features. If anything I'd say developers put too much effort into polish, since we're the very small demographic that actually appreciates it.
Also: I don’t get a lot of calls anyway. But when I do, I tend to wander around as well. So it makes complete sense.
Fwiw, this seemed to work smoothly two years ago. And then… updates. AirPod firmware updates. iPhone updates. macOS updates. Nothing works the same as it did 2 years ago for maybe … 2 months or so. And there’s no going back. :(
1) It's a distraction. I am also one of those people who turned on "Silence unknown callers" to send everyone I don't know to voicemail. If it's important, you'll get a message there. My phone either lives in my pocket or is on the desk next to me, so it's very unlikely I'd miss something.
2) At least with AirPods, although I have "connect automatically" turned on, I will never intentionally connect them to more than one source at a time.
Therin lies madness and bugs.
I had to reread my own sentence to make sure I wasn't being a complete moron.
NOTE TO SELF: COFFEE COFFEE COFFEE
It means the airPods keep X active connections with any device that says it could emit sound at any time, while also harmonizing sound levels as the devices don’t have the same settings, and mixing it all at the end.
That feels like a lot to ask for tiny devices with limited battery. Now that could be a nice idea for a separate device that keeps all these bluetooth connection alive and deals with all the mess to deliver a single stream to your earbuds (albeit with double the latency)
Let's say you're listening to a Youtube MV on your computer while cleaning the dishes. A Skype call comes on your phone, and you take it.
- Do you still hear the youtube sound in the background ?
- What does the play/pause button do on your earbuds ? Or the volume button ? Which source does it act on ?
- An alarm starts on your iPad somewhere in the house, how do you stop it ? Do you keep getting the sound until you physically find the device and act on it ?
And that's just 2 min of thinking about it. Not saying it can't be done, just that you'd need to deal with all the edge cases as well. Auto switching sources is annoying (I personally disabled it when I had airpods, and don't use it on any headset), but I think having all sources active at all time could be as annoying, or worse. If Apple couldn't solve auto-switching, I wouldn't be holding my breath for them to solve the all-devices at the same times edge cases.
There’s a reason it’s a shambles.
I have my phone, my laptop, my iPad, and two iPads for my kids, all on my account. I literally am unable to make my kid’s iPads forget my AirPods, because it is tied to the apple account. If I have the iPads forget them, it forgets them on all my devices. It is annoying as hell, I have to leave Bluetooth off on my kids iPads.
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/set-up-a-childs-devic...
I think there's a hack involving getting a cheap phone number for each toddler, adding that to iCloud, then disabling message delivery to that number but I haven't tested it.
The ideal solution is iOS on iPad gets multiple user account support (like general purpose Macs and PCs have had for decades....), and you could just quickly throw on a new kid account, but Apple clearly like forcing you to buy one iPad per user account and reinstall everything every time it gets a new user - shared devices aren't as great for the company bottom line.
The sad thing is this support is largely there in the OS already built; its just locked to schools/businesses and is a PITA to setup for private owners:
https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/shared-ipad-overv...
Honestly, the lack of multiple user accounts is borderline criminal in my opinion, especially on the high spec expensive M1 iPad models that cost as much as a multi-user laptop.
I'd be worried that little Timmy would accidentally turn on photo sync or something for the adult's account and see... certain pictures he should not be seeing kinda-thing. Or iMessage and send something to someone. Though; if you're strict about the restrictions feature or guided access you should be safe?
In a world where (generally speaking) people are expensive and hardware is cheap, Apple probably thinks each person having their own device is easier than trying to shuffle around - potentially - 1 TB home directories for each person.
We're getting closer, but storage and networks need to get even better before the majority of regular people can do this and will tolerate it, not just the power users.
There is nothing cheap about iPads, especially the models that have the same M1 processors and similar pricepoints as a MacBook. It's laughable they don't have multiple user support today, and is solely to protect sales of the devices.
I'm genuinely surprised someone would defend this behaviour. Imagine you bought any other computer for north of 1000 dollars and you could only log one person in at a time - its unheard of, and was solved decades ago.
Again, iOS is already a multi-user OS - Apple just choose to artificially restrict how you can use it.
> potentially - 1 TB home directories for each person.
This is just being silly - people log families and many users into drives far smaller than this all the time.
> There is nothing cheap about iPads, especially the models that have the same M1 processors and similar pricepoints as a MacBook. It's laughable they don't have multiple user support today, and is solely to protect sales of the devices.
Compared to the days when people had 1 machine (e.g, mainframes) and connected to it with comparatively dumb terminal devices, yes, hardware is cheap.
For a more recent example, I'll point out that the first computer I was reasonably involved with getting into our house was a Dell 4100 in the late 90's. At the time, it cost ~$1400, a not insignificant portion of that price attributable to a CD-RW.
In short, you probably couldn't really get anything below $1000 - given that baseline, I don't know how you could say things aren't cheap when we now have Chromebooks in Edu/Business which are at best $250-300.
At least publicly, Apple doesn't break out P&L for each product/division, although they do give sales numbers, so it's difficult to say if missing features which let them hit a price point have an impact.
> I'm genuinely surprised someone would defend this behaviour. Imagine you bought any other computer for north of 1000 dollars and you could only log one person in at a time - its unheard of, and was solved decades ago.
iOS/iPadOS still has UNIX underneath, so multiuser is definitely possible, even if it's not exposed in the GUI in all situations. Give it time.
> This is just being silly - people log families and many users into drives far smaller than this all the time.
My point about the size of home directories is colored by my own experience - for example, I don't use streaming music services and am a bit of a video hoarder - ask people with kids how big their photo libraries are and I think you'll be surprised how much the average person is carrying around with them.
I'm sorry but I still find this hilarious. You can spend over 2k on an iPad that already has a cutting edge M2 CPU, the same CPU family that supports multiple users on every other non-iPad device, we are not waiting on anything here. Everything needed exists and has done so for decades.
Time is not required. A change to how Apple runs its iPad business is needed. This hasn't been a technical choice for a long time.
> yes, hardware is cheap.
You can buy an iPad in configurations up to 2500 dollars. For a single user computer. These are not cheap computers by any reasonable definition, given the amount of compute power you can buy for 1000 dollars elsewhere (including from Apple!).
> potentially - 1 TB home directories for each person.
> ask people with kids how big their photo libraries are and I think you'll be surprised how much the average person is carrying around with them.
Almost no kids have 1 TB iPads in my experience - they are far too expensive for children! Almost no adults have 1tb iPads given their cost as well really - it turns an iPad into a 4 figure device. But perhaps you think 1500 dollars + taxes is "cheap" for a single user computer with 1tb of storage too?
My final point - almost all of their competitors can do this today, often on much lower specification hardware too. Windows 11, Android and ChromeOS tablets all can have multiple user accounts, just like almost any other plain ole computer made in the last 20+ years.
However, if a Macbook is sleeping and closed with no peripherals attached, I can’t see any use case for waking from bluetooth. It doesn’t make sense.
Does seem like it'd be nice if the behavior were something you could toggle, though.
I use a USB/bluetooth headphone DAC/amp. Most of the time, I plug it into my work laptop and listen to videos/music while I work. Sometimes, if a video ends or if I pause playback, my iPhone (which INSISTS on connecting to the amp) will take over and start playing music.
I really wish you could turn off auto-connect to bluetooth devices.
I don’t think I’d recommend the preference to anyone who doesn’t already/still share it. But it’s a blissful quiet.
And then there's me who still uses headphones with cables. I plug the cable into the device, it plays from this device, never fails. I also never need to charge my headphone. I still don't understand why anyone would voluntarily replace cables with wireless when it's such a worse use experience.