I'd love to see an agent doing work, then launching app on iOS sim or Android emu to visually "use" the app to inspect whether things work as expected or not.
Let me have a look. Do you think the material is of good quality and healthy (no weird questionable materials for wearing/skin contact for long time with sweat etc)?
Cushions (yeah replacable but not super cheap), the cable that connects one earpiece to other, the bit connecting the earpieces, the hinges around the earpieces.
Literally everything. The sound is still great and battery is awesome. But I doubt it will last long.
(Just to be clear: I've used it A LOT over the years, and is already worth every penny I spent on it)
Just curious, which Sennheisers did you give up on in favor of APP3?
I have over-the-ear Momentum 3 and love it, but if APP3 provides better sound quality and better ANC I might consider switching as Momentum 3, while I love it, is bulky, heavy, and started to wear off and break down.
Great. Let's not slow down CPUs coupled with aging batteries and instead have a full system crash suddenly at the most demanding moment. Sure that would be much better.
I don't think forcing a company to open source their IP is a good move, but perhaps there might be some encouragement implemented for opening up their bootloader so the device is more hackable.
Actually I didn't mean anything that contradicts your comment. I do agree with what you are saying.
I don't think we should be expecting moral values from any company over a certain size, be it Apple, Google, or anything else. They "care" about privacy as long as they profit from it directly as device/service sales or indirectly with brand value/trust/PR.
1. Not endorsement, but at least a recognition of some sort that Apple recognized the dev and the app and allowed them to publish this app (regardless of which store).
2. AFAIK Apple isn't doing anything illegal by pulling out this app. Malicious compliance? Perhaps. Illegal? Nope. If Apple doesn't do this, then it would indeed attract legal issues due to the first point.
If an OS needs antivirus for this, that OS has been designed wrong (excluding Linux, FreeBSD etc as the target audience isn't regular end users) in the first place.
An OS should NOT need antivirus, it needs proper sandbox and containerization.
Not to play devil's advocate here and also IANAL but:
If (as as it is) Apple is still controlling apps via notarizarion/digitally signing apps of and recognizing developers, and if the app is developed for something that would land Apple in legal trouble (e.g. it makes it easy to freely and illegally download music and Apple also has legal contracts with record labels as they have Apple Music, and not only legal but it also affects Apple's own music revenue too) as the app has passed explicit notarization of Apple (in other words: Apple "knowlingly" allowed them and greenlighted them by notarizing the app), wouldn't it cause legal trouble for Apple?
For that, it's the logical behavior for a company like Apple to stop allowing the app.
Again, I'm not supporting it, but I can imagine where it's coming from and that makes sense from a business perspective as torrenting on mobile has almost no legal use cases. We all know you have not installed it to download your favorite Linux distro to your iPhone.
One (a big entity with enough resources) should take this as an opportunity and create a new, third truly open alternative to iOS and Android (no, I'm not talking about an AOSP fork, I'm saying something totally new) and let iOS/Android have their thing as they want, letting consumers decide between the three instead of forcing vendors into ridiculous business decisions like forcefully opening their own platforms for others.
iOS 26.4.2, Safari, sound is on.