Lawmakers want more tech companies to address privacy legislation

Though Facebook has been in a bright spotlight since the Cambridge Analytica fallout, it’s obviously not the only company that has to deal with issues surrounding how best to protect its users’ privacy. That responsibility falls on all tech companies with online platforms and Congress is now calling on them to step up and do their part. In interviews with CNET, two congressmen express the need for Silicon Valley cooperation and urge executives to accept that this is an issue that isn’t going away.

“I think that as with most industries, it’s far better to be proactive than to be hauled in front of Congress,” Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) told CNET. “And so I would encourage companies to reach out and establish a relationship and be proactive on the issues that they should be on notice now, or are coming up, likely to come up, or go away.” Schiff also noted that Congress had a lot of learning to do before it could adequately design appropriate legislation, a point that was very evident in the some of the uninformed questioning directed towards Mark Zuckerberg during his Senate and House hearings this week. Additionally, Schiff pointed out that privacy isn’t the only issue that needs to be worked out.

When asked if he believed tech companies could do more than they are, Schiff replied, “I think so, absolutely. I don’t want these issues, as important as they are, to obscure the degree to which social media has been an incredible force for good in the sense of connecting people around the world. So the tech companies have the opportunity and, I think, the responsibility to try to further human freedom around the world and make their technologies even more a force for good and less a force for malevolent actors.”

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) mirrors these concerns and he says Zuckerberg isn’t the only one he wants to hear from. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Google co-founder Sergey Brin are also on his list. And it’s not just about chastising these companies for lax standards. Like Schiff, he acknowledges that Congress may not have a strong enough background on these sorts of companies in order to effectively legislate them. “I’ll be the first to acknowledge that if the tech companies leave it to policy makers in Washington alone to figure this out, we’ll probably screw it up,” he said. And about privacy, Warner added, “Obviously that is a huge issue and one that not only Facebook needs to address, but Twitter needs to address, in a sense Google and YouTube as a single entity need to address. All the other social media companies need to grapple with.”

Warner also noted that past efforts to appease lawmakers aren’t going to suffice this time around. “I think for a while the companies thought they could send their lawyers as they did last fall and do real quick hearings and sweep this under the rug and go on as if nothing had changed. That is not going to be the case,” he said to CNET.

A number of Congressional leaders brought up the topics of regulation and legislation throughout Zuckerberg’s 10 hours of hearings and the CEO did commit to working with Congress on developing regulatory proposals. But since this issue isn’t limited to Facebook, it would only make sense that other tech companies participate in these discussions as well. When it asked Zuckerberg to testify, the Senate Judiciary Committee reportedly also extended an invitation to Dorsey and Google’s Sundar Pichai to participate as well.

With multiple sets of legislation already in the works, it’s in everyone’s best interests for more tech companies to get involved sooner rather than later. Only time will tell if that will be the case.

Source: CNET (1), (2)

Mark Zuckerberg got grilled by Congress. Was it worth it?

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Zuckerberg gave testimony to Congress in response to his company’s role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Russian election interference and his website’s utter nightmare of data privacy. He impressed people by wearing his absolute nicest human suit.

Mr. Zuckerberg’s ten hours of dodging lawmakers’ questions in the proverbial hot seat evoked the internet’s best memes about aliens who fool humanity into becoming food. The Cirque du Dystopia atmosphere was enhanced by Zuckerberg’s actual seat, which was fitted with a booster cushion to make him appear taller. His wee seat certainly distracted press from the truly freaky attempts at misdirection flowing from his face hole.

Much virtual ink was spilled fussing over the 33-year-old boy billionaire wearing a suit like a grown-up man to talk to the adults. Wow! They grow up so fast on those diets of purloined data! But yes: he sat on a booster seat, which may have actually been a wireless charging station. And while Zuckerberg let slip little things like his belief that Facebook is basically above the law, far too many writeups goggled at his silly big-boy chair.

It’s a carefully cultivated image. An indulgence granted to a certain kind of white startup jock who gets endless chances to drunk-drive democracy and human rights, as if he’s a freshman intern just learning the ropes of ethics, trust, and professionalism. An image Zuckerberg himself perpetuated throughout the hearing by mentioning Facebook’s college dorm room creation myth on a loop. (See also: “Mark Zuckerberg Cited For Contempt Of Congress After Refusing To Shut The Fuck Up About How He Started Company In Dorm Room.”)

Getting a good, long look at him unsettled much of the general population. Much ado was made of his thousand-yard stare and robotic enjoyment of human water. Star Trek Next Generation fans were rankled by his uncanny resemblance to Data. But any real story lay in Zuckerberg’s responses, which infuriated the bipartisan assembly with clumsy, repetitive avoidance tactics and bizarre, often fact-challenged admissions.

When not clamming up like a busted murder suspect when lawmakers mentioned Palantir, that is.

Let’s just say that fact-checking in the aftermath is not looking good. Zuckerberg said he’d never heard of Facebook’s “shadow profiles,” causing The Guardian to get whiplash from their double-take. He claimed that everyone consents to giving Facebook their data, despite also saying that Facebook tracks non-users for reasons of “security” … and commercial purposes. That’s like consent, right?

Anyway. He practically did a “look, shiny!” when asked about Facebook’s tracking of logged-off users. His answer was politely described as “vague” in press — even though Facebook has been caught doing exactly this, and repeatedly, and their continual activity doing so was ruled illegal. Hey: keeping up with headlines about your own company, one that you lovingly started in your dorm room because you really care about human connection, is hard when you’re a genius. And when asked about collecting transaction data? Nah, he said he didn’t think they did that, nope. But maybe Mark should’ve checked out Facebook’s website before his big day. The Guardian did and Facebook says it does exactly that on its website.

He almost broke the brains of fact-checkers at the New York Times, too. Mr. Zuckerberg told lawmakers that his company first learned of Russia’s Facebook influence operations “Right around the time of the 2016 election itself.” Prior to this week, that answer used to be 2017. When he told lawmakers “We made changes in 2014 that would have prevented what happened with Cambridge Analytica from happening today,” NYT was like, yeah … not so much. The paper flat-out said Zuckerberg’s statement “Cambridge Analytica wasn’t using our services in 2015 as far as we can tell” is false.

And pretty much everyone on the planet laughed when he said “You’re not allowed to have a fake account on Facebook.”

There’s much more, but you get the (distorted) picture. Maybe Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook is a different Facebook than the one we’re all talking about. At this point, this is the only explanation that makes sense.

To put it lightly, like the suggestion of a gentle and invisible breeze, or the concept of consent to a Facebook employee, lawmakers were not pleased with Zuckerberg’s fact-challenged testimony. A few even called him on it. Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) skewered Zuck’s claim that Facebook notified the Trump and Clinton campaigns of Russian attempts to hack in to those campaigns. “But representatives of both campaigns, in the last 24 hours, have said that didn’t happen,” he said. “So we’re going to follow up on that and find out what the real story is.”

In the cut of it all, lawmakers drew out some crazy stuff. When asked to define hate speech, Zuck said it was a hard question (it’s not). He said he believes he’s more responsible with the personal data of millions of Americans than the Federal government — probably not a good look when you’re pretending to obey laws. He admitted there was a discussion in which the company decided not to inform users about Cambridge Analytica.

Generally, Mr. Zuckerberg did what he could to say “regulation is good” while wholly avoiding saying he would support legislation to get user consent for use of their information.

Perhaps the Zuckerbot was just malfunctioning.

When lawmakers asked why anyone should trust Facebook after enduring years of the company’s untrustworthy behavior, they were told (again) that Facebook was started in a dorm room and is about helping people connect.

When asked what happens with user data and third parties, they were told that Facebook doesn’t sell data.

(Lawmakers were consistently befuddled by this, Facebook’s life-preserver defense that they don’t sell data. None of the R-Grampas asked if maybe FB just sells unfettered access to it instead, or trades, or rents, or Airbnb’s our PII. Regardless, if we learned anything it’s that Facebook doesn’t know what happens with our data, and hasn’t cared for generations of users.)

And for at least twenty of this week’s questions (I stopped counting at twenty) Zuckerberg pinky swore his team would get back to them on it.

Unfortunately, his abysmal answers were on par with the overall quality of questions. Ted Cruz clearly relished the opportunity to have a little chat with Zuckerbeg. Cruz dutifully brought an accusation straight off Brietbart’s pre-hearing front page, advancing his party’s victimology myth: The conspiracy theory that Facebook discriminates against conservatives.

Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) followed Cruz’s lead, wasting everyone’s time alleging Facebook had discriminated against pro-Trump bloggers Diamond and Silk by censoring them. This accusation was also a FOX News lead and, to no one’s surprise, it was exposed as a complete hoax on Thursday. Fake news, indeed.

It’s not that these conservatives missed the memo on Zuckerberg’s own neocon views and belief that wealthy white neocon Peter Thiel represents diversity. It’s just that they want Facebook to be their safe space forever. That Facebook bent over backwards to coddle conservatives last time they complained only encouraged them.

Because really: If there’s any group Facebook doesn’t want to appear to discriminate against, it’s conservatives. And maybe only conservatives, for they are certainly better represented at the company than anyone else. I mean, FOSTA-SESTA passed, and Facebook didn’t even feel it because it was already censoring sexual speech and sex workers better than even Orwell could imagine.

Well, they can have it. Facebook has endangered the most vulnerable people in the world, repeatedly, and it will continue to do so. Its employees are so indoctrinated against the outside world, they quite literally don’t care, preferring to rage against threats to their bubble from within. Which is the worst possible quality in a company that pretends to be a steward of human connection.

Overall, American lawmakers expressed they do not trust Facebook to do the right thing. Repeatedly. And then, at the end of it all, no one was satisfied.

So that went well.

Images: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images (Mark Zuckerberg); Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images (Ted Cruz)

NASA’s TESS spacecraft may find 1,600 new planets in the next two years

On Monday evening, NASA plans to launch a brand new satellite into orbit, courtesy of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. Called TESS (the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite), the spacecraft is designed to detect planets outside our solar system (called exoplanets) that are relatively close to our solar neighborhood.

We have a spacecraft that’s currently in orbit of the Sun that has a similar job. It’s called Kepler, and in the nine years it’s been in space, this little satellite has found 2,342 confirmed exoplanets, with 2,245 more candidates that still need to be studied. Thirty of these are confirmed to be within the “habitable zone” of their host star, which is close enough for liquid water to exist on the surface but not so close that the planet is scorched by the star’s heat. (It’s also called the “Goldilocks” zone, though presumably, there are no bears to be found on these distant worlds).

Kepler’s original mission, which was designed to last three and a half years, was to point itself at a single group of stars in the Cygnus-Lyra region. As a result, it constantly monitored the brightness of around 150,000 main-sequence stars using an onboard photometer. By looking at a tiny part of a very big sky, Kepler was able to monitor when the brightness of these stars dimmed even the slightest bit, which signaled that something (like a planet) might be moving in front of it. (This is called transiting). Scientists then analyzed the data that Kepler sent home and were able to confirm its exoplanet discoveries.

The night launch of Kepler.

Thanks to Kepler, we know that exoplanets are incredibly common in our galaxy — scientists have discovered that there are actually 1.6 planets for every star in the Milky Way. Before Kepler, we didn’t know much about these planets at all.

But, armed with the knowledge that Kepler has given us, it’s time for a new planet-hunting spacecraft that can apply what we’ve learned and expand it to new discoveries. And none too soon: Kepler is low on fuel and will become just another piece of space junk soon. It’s time for TESS to take on the fight. (And if the idea of a hard-working spacecraft slowly dying out in the cold vastness of space, struggling to reorient itself towards Earth one last time to send back word of its discoveries makes you weepy, know that you aren’t the only one.)

TESS will operate differently than Kepler did. We don’t need to know whether there are exoplanets out there anymore. Now, we want to know more about the distant worlds we do find. That’s hard with Kepler’s data because so many of its discoveries are far away — too far to really glean most details about these planets. That’s where TESS comes in.

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will carry TESS into space, launching from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s Launch Complex 40 in Florida. The brief launch window opens at 6:32 PM. Unlike Kepler, TESS will actually be in an elongated orbit of the Earth, with an orbital period of 13.7 days. After launch, the closest it will ever come to Earth is 67,000 miles, which will keep it outside the hazards of the Van Allen radiation belts. During its two-year mission (which will probably be extended if the spacecraft works properly), TESS will study over 200,000 stars.

The Falcon 9 payload fairing containing TESS.

As previously mentioned, Kepler worked by examining and measuring the brightness of the stars it was focused on. TESS will do the same, searching for dimming brightness when a planet transits its host star. But there’s a lot more than scientists can tell from a transit than just whether an exoplanet exists. They can tell the size of the planet; when planets orbit their host stars, their gravity actually acts on the star. When that happens, the star “wobbles,” and the bigger the planet, the larger the wobble. Gas giants will cause a much more significant wobble than a small, rocky planet like the Earth.

Rather than honing in on a small section of the sky, TESS’s field of view will be 400 times greater than what Kepler’s was. But even more crucially, TESS will focus on stars that are close to us. This matters for multiple reasons: It will allow for faster readings and confirmations, but more than that, it will let us glean much, much more data about the specifics of the planets we’ve detected.

This is where the stars’ distances become crucial. Many of Kepler’s discoveries were around faraway stars that are are relatively dim as viewed from Earth. As a result, there was limited data to work with. But because TESS is looking at closer, brighter stars, scientists will be able to follow up on the satellite’s discoveries with ground-based telescopes and learn more and more about these new worlds we’re discovering.

The hope for TESS is that it will help scientists discover relatively close rocky worlds within the “Goldilocks” zone, or habitable zone, of their host stars. While TESS itself can’t determine whether a planet has an atmosphere, or what it might be composed of, scientists can follow up on the planets the spacecraft will detect. But with the prediction that TESS will discover in the neighborhood of 1,600 exoplanets during its initial mission, the real challenge is how scientists will choose which planets to follow up on. It’s a daunting task, but you can be sure that the space and science community is eager to find out what TESS has to show us about our solar neighborhood

Images: NASA/KSC

Guinness strips Billy ‘King of Kong’ Mitchell’s world records

Well, that was fast. When Twin Galaxies announced it’d stripped Billy “King of Kong” Mitchell’s high scores from its forums yesterday, the gaming record-keeping outfit said it’d notified Guinness World Records of such. Today, Kotaku reports that Guinness will strip all of Mitchell’s forged video game high scores including entries for Donkey Kong, Pac-Man and Donkey Kong Jr. from its ledger as well.

Guinness used Twin Galaxies as its source of verification, according to Kotaku. The outfit said it will begin looking for the deserving record-holder for the now-vacant Pac-Man high score and perfect score in the next few days, because like Twin Galaxies, Guinness no longer trusts anything that Mitchell has submitted in the past. Thankfully, it looks like we can finally put this whole mess behind us.

Source: Kotaku

Leaked Apple memo urges employees to stop leaking company info

Bloomberg got its hands on a leaked Apple memo today regarding, funnily enough, leaks. The company is well-known for liking to keep things under wraps, but its leadership isn’t pleased with how often Apple employees are leaking information to the press. According to the memo, Apple caught 29 individuals — employees, contractors and supply chain partners — who leaked information last year and 12 of them were arrested. “Leakers do not simply lose their jobs at Apple. In some cases, they face jail time and massive fines for network intrusion and theft of trade secrets both classified as federal crimes,” it reads.

Apple’s memo, posted to an internal blog, warns company employees about getting too cozy with journalists and bloggers. “While it may seem flattering to be approached, it’s important to remember that you’re getting played,” said Apple. “The success of these outsiders is measured by obtaining Apple’s secrets from you and making them public.” It adds that in these situations, Apple staffers have “everything to lose” if they give in.

This isn’t the first time that Apple has tried to discourage leaking. Last year, it held a briefing (which was also leaked) wherein company leaders explained to around 100 employees that leaks originating from Apple’s campus were more common than supply chain leaks in 2016. And though we obviously don’t hear about every firing resulting from unauthorized sharing of company information, the firing of the employee whose daughter leaked the iPhone X was pretty public.

“The impact of a leak goes far beyond the people who work on a project,” Apple argues. “Leaking Apple’s work undermines everyone at Apple and the years they’ve invested in creating Apple products.” The memo ends on a note from executive Greg Joswiak. “Everyone comes to Apple to do the best work of their lives — work that matters and contributes to what all 135,000 people in this company are doing together,” he said. “The best way to honor those contributions is by not leaking.”

Via: 9to5Mac

Source: Bloomberg

MoviePass teams with iHeartRadio for three-month limited movie plan

MoviePass’ various indiscretions with user privacy hasn’t deterred too many people from subscribing to the service, which just added another 500,000 paying subscribers. The typical $10 per month plan supplies you with one 2D movie per day at any participating theater. Now, MoviePass and iHeartRadio are teaming up to provide a $29.95 three-month plan that limits you to four 2D movies per month but adds a free trial of iHeartRadio’s All Access on-demand streaming package.

While calling this deal a $150 value is strictly true, it’s still a more limited proposition than the standard MoviePass subscription. Getting iHeartRadio on-demand might be your cup of tea, but the lure of inexpensive (or “free”) movies is likely the draw, just like the regular service. You’d think that giving potential new subscribers a taste of the real deal would be a better loss leader than a limited set of monthly movies. If nothing else, MoviePass could bring in new subscribers from the iHeartRadio promotion machine, who then might eventually convert to the full MoviePass experience.

Source: MoviePass

Leaked Apple Memo Warns Employees About Leaking Info to Media

Apple recently posted a “lengthy” cautionary memo on its internal website that uses aggressive scare tactics to warn employees against leaking details about future products to the media, reports Bloomberg.

In 2017, Apple said it caught 29 leakers and that 12 of those people were arrested. “These people not only lose their jobs, they can face extreme difficulty finding employment elsewhere,” the company said in the memo.

Images of iPhone X components that leaked well ahead of the device’s launch
The memo details several instances where sensitive data had been leaked to the media, such as the leaked iOS 11 GM, which divulged details on the iPhone X, and meetings where Craig Federighi detailed delays to planned functionality in iOS 12 to focus on improving existing features. The employees who leaked this info were caught and fired, said Apple.

It also warns Apple employees against befriending members of the press, analysts, and bloggers and “getting played.”

Apple told employees that leaking information about an unreleased product can impact sales of current models, lead to fewer sales when the product is released, and give competitors more time to mimic product features. “We want the chance to tell our customers why the product is great, and not have that done poorly by someone else,” Apple’s Greg Joswiak said in the memo, the full text of which is below, courtesy of Bloomberg:

Last month, Apple caught and fired the employee responsible for leaking details from an internal, confidential meeting about Apple’s software roadmap. Hundreds of software engineers were in attendance, and thousands more within the organization received details of its proceedings. One person betrayed their trust.

The employee who leaked the meeting to a reporter later told Apple investigators that he did it because he thought he wouldn’t be discovered. But people who leak — whether they’re Apple employees, contractors or suppliers — do get caught and they’re getting caught faster than ever.

In many cases, leakers don’t set out to leak. Instead, people who work for Apple are often targeted by press, analysts and bloggers who befriend them on professional and social networks like LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook and begin to pry for information. While it may seem flattering to be approached, it’s important to remember that you’re getting played. The success of these outsiders is measured by obtaining Apple’s secrets from you and making them public. A scoop about an unreleased Apple product can generate massive traffic for a publication and financially benefit the blogger or reporter who broke it. But the Apple employee who leaks has everything to lose.

The impact of a leak goes far beyond the people who work on a project.

Leaking Apple’s work undermines everyone at Apple and the years they’ve invested in creating Apple products. “Thousands of people work tirelessly for months to deliver each major software release,” says UIKit lead Josh Shaffer, whose team’s work was part of the iOS 11 leak last fall. “Seeing it leak is devastating for all of us.”

The impact of a leak goes beyond the people who work on a particular project — it’s felt throughout the company. Leaked information about a new product can negatively impact sales of the current model; give rival companies more time to begin on a competitive response; and lead to fewer sales of that new product when it arrives. “We want the chance to tell our customers why the product is great, and not have that done poorly by someone else,” says Greg Joswiak of Product Marketing.

Investments by Apple have had an enormous impact on the company’s ability to identify and catch leakers. Just before last September’s special event, an employee leaked a link to the gold master of iOS 11 to the press, again believing he wouldn’t be caught. The unreleased OS detailed soon-to-be-announced software and hardware including iPhone X. Within days, the leaker was identified through an internal investigation and fired. Global Security’s digital forensics also helped catch several employees who were feeding confidential details about new products including iPhone X, iPad Pro and AirPods to a blogger at 9to5Mac.
Last year Apple caught 29 leakers.

Leakers in the supply chain are getting caught, too. Global Security has worked hand-in-hand with suppliers to prevent theft of Apple’s intellectual property as well as to identify individuals who try to exceed their access. They’ve also partnered with suppliers to identify vulnerabilities — both physical and technological — and ensure their security levels meet or exceed Apple’s expectations. These programs have nearly eliminated the theft of prototypes and products from factories, caught leakers and prevented many others from leaking in the first place.

Leakers do not simply lose their jobs at Apple. In some cases, they face jail time and massive fines for network intrusion and theft of trade secrets both classified as federal crimes. In 2017, Apple caught 29 leakers. 12 of those were arrested. Among those were Apple employees, contractors and some partners in Apple’s supply chain. These people not only lose their jobs, they can face extreme difficulty finding employment elsewhere. “The potential criminal consequences of leaking are real,” says Tom Moyer of Global Security, “and that can become part of your personal and professional identity forever.”

While they carry serious consequences, leaks are completely avoidable. They are the result of a decision by someone who may not have considered the impact of their actions. “Everyone comes to Apple to do the best work of their lives — work that matters and contributes to what all 135,000 people in this company are doing together,” says Joswiak. “The best way to honor those contributions is by not leaking.”

Apple has always been an intensely private and secretive company, but as it has grown, leaks have become harder to contain, both among its own corporate employees and from its supplier partners. In 2012, Apple CEO Tim Cook said Apple was going to “double down on secrecy on products,” but each and every year, details on new products manage to leak out ahead of launch.
Discuss this article in our forums

MacRumors Giveaway: Win a Leather Case for iPhone X, 8 or 8 Plus From Casetify

For this week’s giveaway, we’ve teamed up with Casetify to offer MacRumors readers a chance to win a high-quality Leather Case for the iPhone X, iPhone 8, or iPhone 8 Plus.

Casetify is well-known for its range of fun customizable cases for iOS devices, but the company also makes several simple, stylish, cases with a more traditional design, like the Leather Case.

The Leather Case is made for the iPhone X, iPhone 8, and iPhone 8 Plus, and it comes in two variations: the standard Leather Snap Case for $49 and a Leather Card Case, able to hold a few credit cards, for $59.

Available in Black, Sand, or Cherry, Casetify says its Leather Case is made by hand from a fine Italian leather sourced from top quality tanneries with careful stitching and attention to detail. The case is slim in design and does not add a lot of bulk to Apple’s flagship iPhone lineup.

The Leather Case covers the side buttons of the iPhone, while leaving the mute switch open. There’s also a cutout for the camera on the back, and the Lightning port at the bottom is left open and accessible.

A small lip at the front of the case keeps the display of the iPhone safe when it’s placed facedown, and the leather material the case is made from adds grip.

Casetify’s Leather Snap Case features a smooth back, while the Leather Card Case can accommodate a few credit cards, a driver’s license, or a bit of cash, and there’s an option to have the cases monogrammed with your initials in multiple colors.

All of Casetify’s cases are compatible with wireless charging, so these cases will work with Qi-based wireless charging accessories.

We have seven Leather Cases available for MacRumors readers, with winners able to choose the style, color, and size. To enter to win, use the Rafflecopter widget below and enter an email address. Email addresses will be used solely for contact purposes to reach the winners and send the prizes. You can earn additional entries by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, subscribing to our YouTube channel, following us on Twitter, or visiting the MacRumors Facebook page.

Due to the complexities of international laws regarding giveaways, only U.S. residents who are 18 years or older and Canadian residents (excluding Quebec) who have reached the age of majority in their province or territory are eligible to enter. To offer feedback or get more information on the giveaway restrictions, please refer to our Site Feedback section, as that is where discussion of the rules will be redirected.

a Rafflecopter giveawayThe contest will run from today (April 13) at 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time through 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time on April 20. The winners will be chosen randomly on April 20 and will be contacted by email. The winners will have 48 hours to respond and provide a shipping address before new winners are chosen.

Tags: giveaway, Casetify
Discuss this article in our forums

FCC Filing Confirms Apple Planned on Launching Gold iPhone X

Apple appears to have designed a gold iPhone X, according to documents filed with the United States Federal Communications Commission.

When releasing a new device, smartphone companies must share details with the FCC, which Apple did for the iPhone X in September of 2017. In the document, Apple appears to have used an iPhone X in a gold colorway that was not ultimately released.

The document in question, which again, was filed back in September, includes several images of a gold iPhone X from multiple angles to outline included features and the device’s dimensions. The gold shade of the iPhone X appears to be similar to the gold color of the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus.

Other documents indicate Apple had prepared its FCC filing in July, suggesting the photos were taken as much as several months ahead of the iPhone X unveiling in September. While many of the documents in the filing were available soon after submission, external photos and other sensitive details were subject to a six-month confidentiality clause that only recently expired.

Given the timing of the document, it’s likely Apple planned on releasing the iPhone X in three colors – gold, silver, and space gray – but was ultimately forced to shelve the gold color option ahead of release due to production issues.

Prior to the launch of the iPhone X, most rumors did indeed suggest it would come in three colors. KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, for example, said that Apple was experiencing problems manufacturing a “Blush Gold” iPhone X, and he suggested in September that the gold version could go on sale at a later date to give Apple time to work out the problems.

It’s possible that the stainless steel frame of the gold device was causing issues, as Apple was able to release the iPhone 8 – which uses an aluminum frame – in gold. Whatever the reason, Apple ended up only launching the iPhone X in silver and space gray.

It is not clear if Apple still has plans to debut a gold iPhone X, but recent rumors have speculated that Apple may be aiming to introduce the new color in an effort to boost mid-year sales of the device. If that is the plan, it could perhaps make a debut at the Worldwide Developers Conference.

It would have been logical to introduce the new shade alongside new spring Apple Watch bands or alongside the recently announced (PRODUCT)RED iPhone 8 and 8 Plus, so it’s also possible that Apple is going to hold off on debuting the new color.

Provided manufacturing issues have been worked out by this point, we could see Apple’s 2018 iPhone lineup in the traditional gold, silver, and space gray options, regardless of whether or not Apple releases a gold iPhone X ahead of when those devices debut in September.

Related Roundup: iPhone XBuyer’s Guide: iPhone X (Neutral)
Discuss this article in our forums

Meater review: A wireless smart thermometer for the next-gen kitchen

As we get more and more “connected” around the house, our favorite place to see new smart devices is probably the kitchen. Whether dealing with someone who is adept and knows their way around the room or someone looking to learn more, today’s connected kitchen offers a lot of opportunities — and fun gadgets. One such device is the Meater, a wireless smart meat thermometer.

Ask five people how they like their steak prepared and you may receive five different replies. Rare? Well done? How much longer do you leave it on the grill before taking it off? How many minutes difference is there between medium-rare and medium? How hot is the grill to begin with?

Whether cooking steak on the grill, a ham in the roaster, or chicken in the oven, dealing with meat isn’t always easy. If you’re not preparing something familiar, you may be constantly cutting into the meat to see if it’s ready. Pull it out of the oven, check, put it back. Repeat.

Meat thermometers are not new. They’ve been around quite a while, and can be very helpful. The problem, though, is that some of the so-called smarter ones can have extra hardware pieces, or cables that connect to a probe. These can get damaged or wear out over time. Cleaning and maintenance can be pesky. The Meater ($69) makes aims to address some of those pain points.

What it is and what it does

The Meater has the thickness of a mechanical pencil but is roughly two-thirds the length. It’s a single unit that pairs to your phone over Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi. In short, you stick the Meater into your food and then wait for your phone to tell you when it’s done.

The initial setup and first meal is a breeze to get started. You’ll be walked through the process by the app and then handed off to start cooking. It’s here where, in the app, that you tell it what you’re cooking or grilling and how you like it prepared.

Getting a ham ready for a holiday dinner? Maybe you’re throwing a couple of filets on the grill. Simply tell the app what you’re doing and let it do the rest.

Anything else?

Aside from just registering the internal temperature of your meat, the Meater also measures the ambient temperature, too. This way you know if you even have the right amount of heat. Moreover, it will constantly monitor and report the temps, graphing them and estimating the time for finish.

Don’t worry about keeping your eye on the app; it will push out notifications when things are ready. Give yourself a five minute warning if you’d like that way you can begin setting things aside or prepping to pull the food off.

Charging

The Meater comes in small box about the size of what might house a fancy ink pen. Constructed of bamboo, it is where you’ll charge it up using one (included) AAA battery.

The thermometer is silver with a black handle and features an etched line. This is essentially how far you you’ll want to insert the unit into your food. The black part is what measures the environmental temperatures, tracking how hot it gets under the roaster lid or inside of the closed grill.

We tried cooking using the Bluetooth connection and found it had pretty poor range. When using it with an Easter ham inside of a counter-top roasting oven we found that we couldn’t get more than a couple of feet away. This was a nuisance as it kept us, or the phone, within a small circle in the kitchen.

Fortunately, we have multiple phones and tablets in the home and the thermometer can be setup using Meater Link. In essence, you leave one device close enough to stay in range and then others on the same WiFi network can monitor and manage the cooking. If you have a dedicated tablet for the kitchen, you’ll want to install the app on it right away and use it as the central device.

Conclusion

We had a lot of fun with the Meater and look forward to using it this summer as we grill out. It’s easy to setup, almost impossible to screw up, and simple to clean up. For just $69 you’ll have something that takes the guesswork out of cooking new and exciting meals or precisely-grilled steak. Not only that, but it gives you a cool device that you get to show off and discuss over dinner.