John Gruber, writing at DaringFireball: In my piece yesterday about email tracking images ("spy pixels" or "spy trackers"), I complained about the fact that Apple -- a company that rightfully prides itself for its numerous features protecting user privacy -- offers no built-in defenses for email tracking. A slew of readers wrote to argue that Apple Mail does offer such a feature: the option not to load any remote resources at all. It's a setting for Mail on both Mac and iOS, and I know about it -- I've had it enabled for years. But this is a throwing-the-baby-out-with-bath-water approach. What Hey offers -- by default -- is the ability to load regular images automatically, so your messages look "right", but block all known images from tracking sources (which are generally 1 x 1 px invisible GIFs).

Typical users are never going to enable Mail's option not to load remote content. It renders nearly all marketing messages and newsletters as weird-looking at best, unreadable at worst. And when you get a message whose images you do want to see, when you tell Mail to load them, it loads all of them -- including trackers. Apple Mail has no knowledge of spy trackers at all, just an all-or-nothing ability to turn off all remote images and load them manually. Mail's "Load remote content in messages" option is a great solution to bandwidth problems -- remember to turn it on the next time you're using Wi-Fi on an airplane, for example. It's a terrible solution to tracking. No one would call it a good solution to tracking if Safari's only defense were an option not to load any images at all until you manually click a button in each tab to load them all. But that's exactly what Apple offers with Mail. "Don't get me started on how predictable this entire privacy disaster was, once we lost the war over whether email messages should be plain text only or could contain embedded HTML. Effectively all email clients are web browsers now, yet don't have any of the privacy protection features actual browsers do," he adds.

A US magistrate judge has ordered Valve to provide sales data to Apple in response to a subpoena issued amid Apple's continuing legal fight with Epic Games. From a report: In addition to some aggregate sales data for the entirety of Steam, Valve will only have to provide specific, per-title pricing and sales data for "436 specific apps that are available on both Steam and the Epic Games Store," according to the order. That's a significant decrease from the 30,000+ titles Apple for which Apple originally requested data. In resisting the subpoena, Valve argued that its Steam sales data was irrelevant to questions about the purely mobile app marketplaces at issue in the case. Refocusing the request only on games available on both Steam and the Epic Games Store makes it more directly relevant to the questions of mobile competition in the case, Judge Thomas Hixson writes in his order.

"Recall that in these related cases, [Epic] allege that Apple's 30% commission on sales through its App Store is anti-competitive and that allowing iOS apps to be sold through other stores would force Apple to reduce its commission to a more competitive level," Hixson writes in the order. "By focusing... on 436 specific games that are sold in both Steam and Epic's store, Apple seeks to take discovery into whether the availability of other stores does in fact affect commissions in the way [Epic] allege." The California judge overseeing Apple's attempts to drag Valve into an ongoing beef with Epic Games admitted that Apple "salted the Earth with subpoenas, so don't worry, it's not just you."

Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook fielded questions on mergers and acquisitions, the impact of Covid-19, and the company's supply chain during a virtual shareholder meeting on Tuesday. From a report: Narrating a slide show, Cook summarized many of the company's new products and initiatives announced over the past year. He spoke about the latest iPhones and the growing potential of the Apple Watch, while noting that the AirPods Max headphones have quickly become "hugely popular" with users. He also discussed Apple's efforts to combat the pandemic, climate change, and the San Francisco Bay Area housing crisis. During a question and answer session, Cook said Apple is on track to meet its environment goals, including becoming carbon neutral by 2030 and transitioning its products to using recycled materials. He also reiterated Apple's recent privacy changes, including an imminent plan to limit ad targeting on its devices. Cook said the company bought almost 100 smaller companies over the past six years and makes a deal about every three to four weeks. Asked about gender pay equity, the CEO said Apple pays men and women equally across the world and has stopped asking applicants about their salary history to help ensure equity.

Apple is going to make one of the most powerful types of attacks on iPhones much harder to pull off in an upcoming update of iOS. From a report: The company quietly made a new change in the way it secures the code running in its mobile operating system. The change is in the beta version of the next iOS version, 14.5, meaning it is currently slated to be added to the final release. Several security researchers who specialize in finding vulnerabilities in and crafting exploits for iOS believe this new mitigation will make it much harder for hackers to take control of an iPhone with a technique known as a zero-click (or 0-click) exploit, which allows a hacker to take over an iPhone with no interaction from the target. Apple also told Motherboard it believes the changes will impact 0-click attacks.

"It will definitely make 0-clicks harder. Sandbox escapes too. Significantly harder," a source who develops exploits for government customers told Motherboard, referring to "sandboxes" which isolate applications from each other in an attempt to stop code from one program interacting with the wider operating system. Motherboard granted multiple exploit developers anonymity to speak more candidly about sensitive industry issues. Like the name suggests, zero-click attacks allow hackers to break into a target without needing the victim to interact with anything, such as a malicious phishing link. This means that the attack is generally harder for the targeted user to detect. These are generally very sophisticated attacks. These attacks may now become much rarer, according to several security researchers who look for vulnerabilities in iOS.

Long-time Slashdot reader b0s0z0ku quotes Ars Technica: A previously undetected piece of malware found on almost 30,000 Macs worldwide is generating intrigue in security circles, which are still trying to understand precisely what it does and what purpose its self-destruct capability serves.

Once an hour, infected Macs check a control server to see if there are any new commands the malware should run or binaries to execute. So far, however, researchers have yet to observe delivery of any payload on any of the infected 30,000 machines, leaving the malware's ultimate goal unknown. The lack of a final payload suggests that the malware may spring into action once an unknown condition is met.

Also curious, the malware comes with a mechanism to completely remove itself, a capability that's typically reserved for high-stealth operations. So far, though, there are no signs the self-destruct feature has been used, raising the question why the mechanism exists. Besides those questions, the malware is notable for a version that runs natively on the M1 chip that Apple introduced in November, making it only the second known piece of macOS malware to do so...

The malware has been found in 153 countries with detections concentrated in the US, UK, Canada, France, and Germany.
Red Canary, the security firm that discovered the malware, has named it "Silver Sparrow." Long-time Slashdot reader Nihilist_CE writes: First detected in August of 2020, the Silver Sparrow malware is interesting in several unsettling ways. It uses the macOS Installer Javascript API to launch a bash process to gain a foothold into the user's system, a hitherto-unobserved method for bypassing malware detection. This bash shell is then used to invoke macOS's built-in PlistBuddy tool to create a LaunchAgent which executes a bash script every hour. This is the command and control process, which downloads a JSON file containing (potentially) new instructions.

Besides the novel installation method, Silver Sparrow is also mysterious in its payload: a single, tiny binary that does nothing but open a window reading "Hello, World!" (in v1, which targets Intel Macs) or "You did it!" (in v2, which is an M1-compatible fat binary). These "bystander binaries" are never executed and appear to be proofs-of-concept or placeholders for future functionality.

A new court filing has revealed that, as part of the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, Apple subpoenaed Valve Software in November 2020, demanding it provide huge amounts of commercial data about Steam sales and operations going over multiple years. From a report: Apple subpoenaed Valve under the basic argument that certain Steam information would be crucial to building its case against Epic, which is all about competitive practices. Yesterday a joint discovery letter was filed to the District court in Northern California relating to the subpoena, which contains a summary of the behind-the-scenes tussles thus far, and both sides' arguments about where to go from here.

[...] Apple wants Valve to provide the names, prices, configurations and dates of every product on Steam, as well as detailed accounts of exactly how much money Steam makes and how it is all divvied-up. Apple argues that this information is necessary for its case against Epic, is not available elsewhere, and "does not raise risk of any competitive harm." Needless to say, Valve does not agree. Its counter-argument to the above says that Valve has co-operated to what it believes to be a reasonable extent -- "Valve already produced documents regarding its revenue share, competition with Epic, Steam distribution contracts, and other documents" -- before going on to outline the nature of Apple's requests: "that Valve (i) recreate six years' worth of PC game and item sales for hundreds of third party video games, then (ii) produce a massive amount of confidential information about these games and Valve's revenues." In a masterpiece of understatement, Valve's legal counsel writes: "Apple wrongly claims those requests are narrow. They are not." Apple apparently demanded data on 30,000+ games initially, before narrowing its focus to around 600. Request 32 gets incredibly granular, Valve explains: Apple is demanding information about every version of a given product, all digital content and items, sale dates and every price change from 2015 to the present day, the gross revenues for each version, broken down individually, and all of Valve's revenues from it.

Valve says it does not "in the ordinary course of business keep the information Apple seeks for a simple reason: Valve doesn't need it." Valve's argument goes on to explain to the court that it is not a competitor in the mobile space (this is, after all, a dispute that began with Fortnite on iOS), and makes the point that "Valve is not Epic, and Fortnite is not available on Steam." It further says that Apple is using Valve as a shortcut to a huge amount of third party data that rightfully belongs to those third parties. The conclusion of Valve's argument calls for the court to throw Apple's subpoena out. "Somehow, in a dispute over mobile apps, a maker of PC games that does not compete in the mobile market or sell 'apps' is being portrayed as a key figure. It's not. The extensive and highly confidential information Apple demands about a subset of the PC games available on Steam does not show the size or parameters of the relevant market and would be massively burdensome to pull together. Apple's demands for further production should be rejected."

Apple launched its first iPhones with 5G wireless speeds a few months ago. Now it's looking to start work on sixth-generation cellular connectivity, or 6G, indicating it wants to be a leader in the technology rather than relying on other companies. From a report: The Cupertino, California-based company this week posted job ads seeking wireless system research engineers for current and next-generation networks. The listings are for positions at Apple's offices in Silicon Valley and San Diego, where the company works on wireless technology development and chip design. "You will have the unique and rewarding opportunity to craft next generation wireless technology that will have deep impact on future Apple products," according to the job announcement. "In this role you will be at the center of a cutting-edge research group responsible for creating next generation disruptive radio access technologies over the next decade." People hired for the positions will "research and design next generation (6G) wireless communication systems for radio access networks" and "participate in industry/academic forums passionate about 6G technology." Industry watchers don't expect 6G to roll out until about 2030, but the job listings indicate Apple wants to be involved at the earliest stages in the development of the new technology.

New numbers show 2020 was the first year that Chromebooks outsold Macs, posting impressive market share gains at the expense of Windows. From a report: Computers powered by Google's Chrome OS have outsold Apple's computers in individual quarters before, but 2020 was the first full year that Chrome OS took second place. Microsoft's Windows still retained majority market share, but also took a big hit as both Chrome OS and macOS gained share. The milestone is based on numbers provided by IDC, which doesn't typically break out sales based on device operating system. But when we went looking to see how the pandemic may have impacted the PC market, IDC analyst Mike Shirer confirmed the findings to GeekWire. This is a big win for Google and a warning for both Apple and Microsoft. It also signals to app and game developers that Chrome OS can no longer be ignored. Frankly, any business that provides a product or service over the internet should be setting aside resources to ensure the Chrome OS experience is comparable to Windows and macOS.

Epic Games is taking its legal battle against Apple global, filing an antitrust complaint in Europe against the iPhone maker. From a report: The move adds another layer to the protracted dispute and brings it to a jurisdiction that has historically been tougher on U.S. tech companies. Last September, Epic added its own in-app purchase mechanism to Fortnite, knowingly setting up a confrontation with Apple, which doesn't allow payment systems other than its own. Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store and Epic immediately filed suit. A similar chain of events took place with Google on the Android side, though in that case, Epic can continue to distribute Fortnite on its own outside the Google Play store, while no similar option exists for iOS. Apple also countersued Epic in October, claiming breach of contract.

The North Dakota state senate voted 36-11 on Tuesday not to pass a bill that would have required app stores to enable software developers to use their own payment processing software and avoid fees charged by Apple and Google. From a report: The vote is a victory for Apple, which says that the App Store is a core part of its product and that its tight control over its rules keeps iPhone users safe from malware and scams. North Dakota's bill is the first major U.S. state-level legislation to address the Apple and Google app stores, which take fees from app store sales up to 30%, including in-app purchases of digital items. If the state senate had passed it, it would still have been debated and voted on in the North Dakota house. The North Dakota bill targeted Apple's fees by requiring companies that make more than $10 million per year in the state through app stores -- essentially, just Apple and Google -- would be required to offer alternative payment processors for purchases through the app store, allowing developers to avoid Apple or Google's cut. It would only apply to companies based in North Dakota. Further reading, from last week: Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens To Destroy the iPhone As You Know It'

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney said: "The Coalition for App Fairness organized the outreach, lobbying, and developer participation. Can't take credit for it, but Epic is proud to be a part of it!"

Apple commentator Jason Snell writes: Why does this product still exist, and is there anywhere for it to go next? Gruber and Thompson [two other columnists] suggest that perhaps the way forward is to lean into an identity as a low-end gaming console. Maybe amp up the processor power, bundle a controller, and try to use Apple Arcade to emphasize that this is a box that is for more than watching video. The thing is, that's really been the story of the Apple TV for the last few years, and so far as I can tell, it's basically gone nowhere. Apple isn't Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft when it comes to gaming. Apple's track record with gaming products isn't solid, to say the least. It's hard for me to see this succeeding -- but it doesn't mean Apple won't try. The other possibility that I've come up with is to merge the Apple TV with some other technologies in order to make something more than just a simple TV streamer. Gaming can be a part of that, yes, but there needs to be more.

Broader HomeKit support, perhaps with support for other wireless home standards, would help, as would a much more sophisticated set of home automations. And if Apple really wants to continue to play in the home-theater space, I've been saying for years that there's room for an Apple SoundBar, that could integrate the big sound of HomePod with the Apple TV software to create a solid music and video experience. Then there's the final possibility: No more Apple TV. Removing it simplifies Apple's product naming scheme (Apple TV is a hardware box, an app, and a streaming service, but not yet a dessert topping), and allows the company to focus on other things -- perhaps including other home-themed products that might be more up its alley. I don't think Apple is going to kill the Apple TV, even though I might recommend that it do so. If I had to predict a next step, I'd go with Gruber and Thompson: Apple TV Arcade, an updated, premium-priced box that will lean into games and other features that competing TV boxes don't offer. I'm not optimistic that it'll be successful, but it does seem like something Apple would try.

Volkswagen's CEO Herbert Diess isn't intimidated by Apple, even though the tech company potentially has an electric car on the way. From a report: "The car industry is not a typical tech sector that you could take over at a single stroke," Diess said in an interview with German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. "Apple will not manage that overnight." For years, industry observers have speculated that Apple will release its own electric, self-driving car. That conversation was reignited in December 2020, when Reuters, citing unnamed sources, reported that Apple planned to produce a passenger vehicle by 2024.

In April 2017, Apple received a permit from the California Department of Motor Vehicles to test self-driving vehicles there. "There's just so much going on in [electric and autonomous vehicles] and connected tech," Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note to investors in December 2020. "It is perhaps a fitting time of the world's most valuable company to play its hand in the $10 trillion global mobility market." Volkswagen is also aiming to be a dominant force in the electric car field. The car company sold 231,600 battery electric vehicles in 2020, according to figures published by the company in January.

Nissan Motor said on Monday it is not in talks with Apple, following a report that the iPhone maker approached the Japanese company in recent months about a tie-up for its autonomous car project. From a report: The Financial Times said the companies had had brief discussions that faltered over Nissan's reluctance to become an assembler for Apple-branded cars, adding that the talks had not advanced to senior management level. "We are not in talks with Apple," a Nissan spokeswoman said. "However, Nissan is always open to exploring collaborations and partnerships to accelerate industry transformation." Hyundai and Kia also said earlier this month that they were not engaging with Apple on any car project.

When Tim Cook told an interviewer that Apple wouldn't get in a Facebook-style data-collection controversy, "Mr. Zuckerberg shot back that Mr. Cook's comments were 'extremely glib' and 'not at all aligned with the truth,'" reports the Wall Street Journal.

But "In private, Mr. Zuckerberg was even harsher. 'We need to inflict pain,' he told his team, for treating the company so poorly, according to people familiar with the exchange." It wasn't the first time — or the last — that Mr. Cook's comments and actions would leave Mr. Zuckerberg seething and, at times, plotting to get back at Apple...

Apple has positioned itself as the protector of digital privacy, upholding a greater good, while often leveling criticisms at Facebook's business model — without naming the company. All of that grates on Facebook, which sees Apple as overreaching in a way that threatens Facebook's existence, and hypocritical, including by doing extensive business is China where privacy is scarce. A 2017 attempt to address tensions through a face-to-face meeting between the two CEOs resulted in a tense standoff.

The trigger last month was a new privacy tool the iPhone maker plans to roll out that will further restrict Facebook's ability to collect data. Mr. Zuckerberg accused Apple on an earnings call of using its platform to interfere with how Facebook apps work. Mr. Cook, without naming Facebook, delivered an online speech condemning "conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms" — a jab that came just days after the Capitol riot.

At stake is how the internet will evolve and which companies will dominate it. Facebook and Apple's visions are diverging and increasingly incompatible. Facebook wants to capture and monetize eyeballs on every possible device and platform. Apple wants to draw users to its own hardware-centric universe, partly by marketing itself as a privacy-focused company. The outcome of the battle could affect what kinds of information users see when they browse the internet.

The war of words and ideas will ultimately play out in court, regulatory agencies and user decisions as both companies defend themselves against antitrust investigations. The potential regulatory settlements and legal decisions are likely to affect hundreds of millions of consumers' phones in coming years.
The Journal describes Zuckerberg as "a hacker-turned-Harvard-dropout who once touted the end of privacy as a social norm," and notes that Facebook assisted Epic in its lawsuit against Apple with supporting materials and documents, and "placed full-page ads on the matter in several newspapers, including the Journal. 'We're standing up to Apple for small businesses everywhere,' the ads said...."

"Some people familiar with Mr. Zuckerberg's thinking said he has taken Apple's broadsides personally, running the risk of distracting him at a time when Facebook is fighting many other battles in the U.S. and abroad over antitrust and content moderation..."

"Privately, he and other Facebook employees have been waging a campaign against Apple, asserting in meetings and communications with government officials, antitrust regulators and advertisers that the company is abusing its power and deserves more regulatory scrutiny, according to people familiar with the matter."

Apple's upcoming iOS 14.5 release will ship with a feature that will re-route all Safari's Safe Browsing traffic through Apple-controlled proxy servers as a workaround to preserve user privacy and prevent Google from learning the IP addresses of iOS users. From a report: The new feature will work only when users activate the "Fraudulent Website Warning" option in the iOS Safari app settings. This enables support for Google's Safe Browsing technology in Safari. The Safe Browsing technology works by taking an URL the user is trying to access, sending the URL in an anonymized state to Google's Safe Browsing servers, where Google accesses the site and scans for threats. If malware, phishing forms, or other threats are found on the site, Google tells the user's Safari browser to block access to the site and show a fullscreen red warning. While years ago, when Google launched the Safe Browsing API, the company knew what sites a user was accessing; in recent years, Google has taken several steps to anonymize data sent from user's devices via the Safe Browsing feature. But while Google has anonymized URL strings, by sending the link in a cropped and hashed state, Google still sees the IP address from where a Safe Browsing check comes through. Apple's new feature basically takes all these Safe Browsing checks and passes them through an Apple-owned proxy server, making all requests appear as coming from the same IP address.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: Google is rolling out its virtual private network (VPN) service for subscribers of its Fi network that should help people when they're using online services on public Wi-Fi. "We plan to roll out the VPN to iPhone starting this spring," Google notes. Google is also bringing its privacy and security hub to Android devices, offering users a shortcut to features available to Android users, such as its VPN.

Finally, Fi users can expect free spam call warnings and blocking to stop identified robocalls and scams and the company is stepping up its game to protect users from SIM swapping scams. "Your Fi number is tied to your Google Account and comes with security features that protect your phone number from threats like SIM swaps -- that's when bad actors try to take someone's phone number and assign it to another SIM card without their consent," Google said. "On Fi, you receive extra layers of protection by default, including a robust account recovery process and notifications for suspicious activity. You can also enable 2-step verification for more protection."

The North Dakota Senate recently introduced a new bill that would prevent Apple and Google from requiring developers to use their respective app stores and payment methods, paving the way for alternative app store options.

In response, Apple Chief Privacy Engineer Erik Neuenschwander said that it "threatens to destroy the iPhone as you know it" by requiring changes that would "undermine the privacy, security, safety, and performance" of the iPhone. Neuenschwander said that Apple "works hard" to keep bad apps from the App Store, and North Dakota's bill would "require us to let them in." MacRumors reports: According to Senator Kyle Davison, who introduced Senate Bill 2333 yesterday, the legislation is designed to "level the playing field" for app developers in North Dakota and shield customers from "devastating, monopolistic fees imposed by big tech companies," which refers to the cut that Apple and Google take from developers. Specifically, the bill would prevent Apple from requiring a developer to use a digital application distribution platform as the exclusive mode of distributing a digital product, and it would keep the company from requiring developers to use in-app purchases as the exclusive mode of accepting payment from a user. There's also wording preventing Apple from retaliating against developers who choose alternate distribution and payment methods.

Apple does not allow apps to be installed on iOS devices outside of the "App Store" and there are no alternate app store options that are available. Apple reviews every app that is made available for its customers to download, something that would not happen with a third-party app store option. Apple also does not let app developers accept payments through methods other than in-app purchase except in select situations, a policy that has led to Apple's legal fight with Epic Games.

No federal legislation has been introduced as of yet, and the North Dakota Senate committee did not take action on the bill. Senator Jerry Klein said that there's "still some mulling to be done" in reference to the bill.

RBC Capital Markets says Apple should follow in Tesla's footsteps by getting into cryptocurrencies. Bloomberg reports: The iPhone maker could create a sizable new market for growth if it were to develop its Apple Wallet into a crypto exchange, said analyst Mitch Steves. "The wallet initiative appears to be a clear multi-billion dollar opportunity for the firm (potential for well over $40 billion in annual revenue with limited R&D)," Steves wrote in a note to clients. Companies like Square and PayPal, along with closely held exchanges like Coinbase, have all validated the exchange model as a real business, he said, and Apple would immediately gain market share if it were to enter the industry. In addition, Apple's ecosystem would offer improved security relative to the companies that would be its competitors.

While Apple's biggest cryptocurrency opportunity would be in building an exchange, it could also consider adding Bitcoin or another digital currency to its balance sheet, RBC wrote. "This would send even more users to 'Apple Exchange,'" Steves said, and would likely further boost Bitcoin prices. Yesterday, Elon Musk announced that Tesla invested $1.5 billion in Bitcoin and said it may accept the cryptocurrency as a form of payment in the future. As a result, Bitcoin prices climbed as much as 16%, cresting $44,000 and hitting a record.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Bad news for lovers of smaller phones: the iPhone 12 mini has sold poorly compared to other phones in the iPhone 12 lineup -- poorly enough that analysts wonder whether Apple will remain committed to the smaller phone design moving forward. A data firm called Counterpoint Research found that the iPhone 12 mini accounted for just 5 percent of overall sales from the company's smartphone lineup in early January. And J.P. Morgan analyst William Yang told Reuters that screens under 6 inches now account for only 10 percent of smartphones sold industry-wide.

The data from Counterpoint is not the first to tell this story. Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP) broke down iPhone 12 lineup sales in detail last month. They found that the iPhone 12 Pro and 12 Pro Max made up about 20 percent of sales from the larger iPhone 12 lineup during the launch window, while the non-Pro, 6.1-inch iPhone 12 accounted for 27 percent. But they also said the iPhone 12 mini "likely disappointed Apple" with only 6 percent of sales during the period measured -- pretty close to the number Counterpoint shared a couple of months later.

While all this data shows that the iPhone 12 mini has underperformed, it doesn't tell us why. According to CIRP's data, the also-small iPhone SE performed a little better (likely due to its significantly lower price) but it still didn't make up a huge chunk of sales. So while it's possible that the iPhone 12 mini's slow sales are partially a result of cannibalization by the cheaper SE, small phones are clearly not doing well in general. There are a lot of reasons small phones are less popular now. For one thing, users are consuming more rich media content. Many people watch as much TV and film on their phones as they do on their TVs now, and some social media platforms like TikTok and Snapchat are focused on rich media that may be more enjoyable to some on a larger display. But if anything, these sales numbers make the future of one-handed smartphones look even dimmer than before.

PCWorld reviews Intel's recently-released benchmarks claiming Apple's M1 isn't faster than their 11th gen Core i7-1185G7 processor, among other things. Here are the claims Intel makes (visit the article to read PCWorld's "take" on each claim): MacBook M1 is slower than Core i7: Intel says in the WebXPRT 3 test, using the same version of Chrome for both the Core i7 system as well as the Arm-native MacBook, Intel takes the lead. The Intel chip was largely ahead in WebXPRT 3, and the x86 chip was nearly three times faster in finishing the photo enhancement test. Intel doesn't just use WebXPRT 3, though. It also shows the Core i7 pummeling the M1 in a PowerPoint-to-PDF export, and in multiple Excel macros by a factor of 2.3x. And yes, Intel used the Arm-native versions of Office for its tests.

Core i7 Crushes M1 in AI: For content creation tasks, Intel showed the Core i7 to be about 1.12x faster than the M1 in performing a 4K AVC-to-HEVC/H.265 file conversion. In this benchmark, they had the MacBook using the M1-native version of Handbrake. But the real destruction happens once you get to Topaz Lab's Gigapixel AI and Denoise AI, with the Intel Core chip crushing the M1 in AI-based noise removal and enlargement. Or maybe "crushing" is too nice a term, as it's more like the Core i7 outpaces the M1 by so much, the M1 wishes it had never been designed.

M1 doesn't support all the features: Intel also gives itself the lead in Adobe Premiere Pro, using the beta M1 native version in Auto Reframe, exporting to H.264 and H.265. They're decent wins, but come on, the code is still in beta for the Mac. That said, Intel points out that important features like Content Aware Fill are outright disabled on the beta version, and that's a concern. If the native version of Photoshop comes out, and there are critical features missing from it, that's a huge problem for Apple (and Adobe).

You can't be faster if you can't run it: For gaming, we see a bit of a back and forth between the Apple M1 and Core i7 in games that actually work on the MacBook. Intel doesn't let it end there, though, and decides to embarrass Apple further by showing the numerous games where the MacBook scores a 0 because game support just doesn't exist. Intel points out that "countless more" games "don't run on the M1," and then for good measure, it rushes Apple's bench with a list 10 more games you can't play on the M1 MacBook: Overwatch, Crysis Remastered, Halo MCC, Red Dead Redemption 2, PUBG, Monster, Hunter World, Doom Eternal, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, Apex Legends, and Rainbow Six Siege.

MacBook wouldn't win Evo certification: You know that fancy Intel Evo program that tries to improve laptop performance in key areas that annoy consumers? Well, Intel pretty much says that if Apple submitted the M1 MacBook to the same program that Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo, MSI, Acer and others go through, it would be rejected. The reason? Intel says the M1 MacBook is too slow in doing things that anger consumers, such as "switch to Calendar" in Outlook, "start video conference Zoom" and "select picture menu" in PowerPoint.

Great battery life?: Perhaps the most shocking claim Intel showed deals with battery life. While performance tests can be cherry picked by those looking to prove an outcome, battery life usually can't be disputed. Apple's official claim gives the M1 MacBook up to 18 hours of battery life using Apple TV app to watch a 1080p video with the brightness set to "8 clicks from the bottom." Apple also claims up to 15 hours browsing 25 "popular" websites with the same "8 clicks" criteria. When Intel pitted a MacBook Air M1 against an Acer Swift 5 with a Core i7-1165G7, however, it found both basically dead even. The MacBook Air came in at 10 hours and 12 minutes, and the Acer Swift 5 lasted 10 hours and 6 minutes. The difference? Intel said it used Safari to watch a Netflix stream with tabs open with the screen set to a relatively bright 250 nits. On the Acer, Safari was subbed out for Chrome, but the brightness and Netflix remained the same. Intel did add that Apple's "8 clicks up" is about 125 nits of brightness on the MacBook Air which is pretty dim.

All kinds of things just don't work on the M1: Intel didn't just get into the performance of the M1. It also said it found the MacBook Pro had serious shortcomings, such as an inability to use more than one display with a Thunderbolt dock. And while the PC can use gaming headsets, eGPUs, a third-party finger print reader, Wacom Drawing tablet and Xbox Controller, Intel said it found the MacBook Pro simply doesn't work with eGPUs, and had multiple issues with other devices. That's just hardware incompatibility. Intel's rap battle with Apple also highlights issues with plug-ins for Ableton, Bitwig Studio, Avid Pro Tools, FL Studio, Motu and many others.