Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…
What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!
Apple uses multiple cloud providers for iCloud functions. That is completely separate from Apple Intelligence.
I’ve been a big fan of Mac Power User. Will be interesting to hear it without Hackett
I see MBW 1011 didn’t cover the story of Apple’s rickety rollout of their F1 TV coverage in the US. Jason Snell had covered speculation about the relationship between F1 TV and Apple a week before the deal had been announced: Looking for the red flags in Apple’s Formula 1 TV deal (October 14, 2025). Gruber picked up that story. He commented at the time:
I want to see Apple do the Apple thing and think deeply about what a software-based broadcast can be and offer — and then create it.
Hear, hear. So far, Apple is doing nothing – nothing better than what F1 TV has been providing over the past few years. At the very least, the hand-holding to transition ESPN fans to the F1 TV coverage is insufficient. And there are no improvements over the F1 TV coverage. It is an improvement over ESPN’s SKY TV coverage, but that’s not really saying a lot.
I sent a note to Jason suggesting that Six Colors cover this story. As Gruber noted, I wish Apple would do the Apple thing with their F1 coverage.
1 Like
I’m curious to see what the F1TV production looks like. I’ve only been watching the Sky broadcasts on ESPN, which was a big improvement over NBC’s coverage with no one on site except Will Buxton.
@leo frequently talked about the [superior] F1 TV coverage for at least the last couple of years. IIRC, he liked the commentary of the hosts far better than the Sky TV team. I thought Sky was fine; I have never been exposed to the supposedly-superior quality of the F1 TV broadcasters.
I presumed Leo would be highly interested in the Bahrain Testing happening now and would talk about his experience transitioning from the paid F1 TV service to getting it through Apple TV.
If you know anyone who has Apple TV, they may be willing to share their account with you. Up to 6 people can share an Apple TV account. Groups of fans new to Apple services could easily organize to share a single Apple TV account. In 2025, F1 TV Pro was $84.99 for the year. Apple TV is $12.99 per month. If 2-4 F1 fans share an Apple TV account, they will be way ahead of the 2025 F1 TV deal.
I’ve had an Apple TV account for years and have linked it to F1TV, so I’m all set. I’ve watched MLS on my Apple TV since Apple took that over a few years ago. This year, like with F1, a separate subscription is no longer needed.
If you’re set up with the accounts, you can go through the authentication procedure now. Simply go to the F1 TV website and present your Apple TV ID.
You can look at the Bahrain tests. You can look through the vast annual archive of many years of F1 races. I think you can answer all your questions now.
Dan Moren [00:18:34]:
But the utility of cameras, like to Andy’s point, like the utility of cameras varies, right? I mean, there’s been a lot of rumors about being an infrared camera. Obviously, if you’re using an infrared camera, it’s gonna tell you something different than if it’s a, you know, camera you’re taking pictures with, is this being used as a sensor, right? Is it being used to see things, objects? Maybe it alerts you when a ball is hurtling towards your head.
What an IR camera can measure is infrared radiation. Red and near-infrared light is vital to our health – mostly for out mitochondrial function. The 2019 paper Melatonin and the Optics of the Human Body notes that we used to have abundant indoor IR radiation from incandescent lights (i.e., Edison Bulbs), but that LED lights limit their spectrum to visible light. Also, “LowE” windows filter almost 100% of IR radiation from the sun. The net effect of these changes means a dramatic reduction in our environmental Red and NIR radiation. One obvious solution is to get out in the sun after sunrise every single day, but many people are unwilling to do that. Another solution is to have some indoor lighting which produces Red/NIR radiation: a NIRA light, a small Red Light Therapy (RLT) panel, covering some LED lights with the PhosphorTech IR-CAP stokes-shift film (which converts visible light to longer red and IR wavelengths), PhosphorTech’s full-spectrum bulbs, or some small number of OG incandescent bulbs. You only need a handful of bulbs strategically placed in locations that you regularly work and play.
The Photobiomodulation Database is a Google Docs spreadsheet curated by Vladimir Heiskanen (Finland). There are currently over 9360 (!!!) published papers on the science of Red/NIR radiation. Early papers in that database cover laser treatments; more recent papers discuss treatments with Red/Infrared LED lights. Noteworthy papers are Light stimulation of mitochondria reduces blood glucose levels (2024; doi: 10.1002/jbio.202300521) and Longer wavelengths in sunlight pass through the human body and have a systemic impact which improves vision (2025). Both of those papers have Glen Jeffery as an author. Interviews with Jefferey are available from a variety of podcasts.
We have always had abundant Red and IR radiation. Only in the past 150 years have we reduced our exposure to IR light, and we have further reduced our exposure in the last 20 years. Is this lack of Red/NIR radiation a public health problem? That is a question for open debate.
Apple’s AirPods Pro 3 contain small IR lights and detectors that measure the heart rate. Light pulses are emitted 256 times a second; the detectors measure how much of that light is absorbed by blood cells to calculate a heartbeat rate. The outward-looking measure of environmental IR light would be much easier. Apple could have been studying the health impact of Red/IR radiation for years to calibrate their sensing algorithms. Those studies could well have been the gating factor in releasing products that measured environmental Red/IR light. Likely products for such measurement are AirPods and the Apple Watch.
1 Like
Please, please, please stop with all the bashing on Tim Cook and his responses (or lack there of) to the president and his policies. I don’t care, I don’t want to listen to you guys say the same thing over and over again week after week. Haven’t you beaten this dead horse enough already? And you guys talk like you have any idea what’s going on when you have no real idea what Tim or the rest of Apple are thinking about. You don’t know all the information they have and what else they are reacting to. You guys just see this from the outside and complain with no real idea of how what you are suggesting would impact the company. Yes, you want Tim Cook to stand up for what you believe in, but he isn’t you and he has a lot more responsibility than you do.
I have been listening to this show for a long time now, but I’m really getting tired of having to listen to 20-30 minutes of rehashing the same thing over and over again each week. Can we move on? Or do you just not have anything else to talk about so you just keep using this topic to fill time? If that’s the case, then say so and move it to the end of the show so I know when to quit listening.
Hear, hear. Leo did throw up a softball to Andy, and Andy let loose. Political commentary is not why I come here. And, no, we’re not really interested if Andy thinks that that Jeff Bezos is an “oligarch”. So many follow-up questions will remain unasked because they are equally inappropriate.
We got some terribly naïve political commentary from Jeff Jarvis and Leo about the billionaire exodus from California in IM #853. I fact-checked their misinformation. I don’t even like doing that; I waited several weeks to see if they would correct their errors. Nope. In the mean time, the billionaires have departed – for very good reasons.
The irony is that Leo noted after that segment that a Club TWiT membership will let you skip over the advertisements. It does – but it doesn’t let you skip over the other stuff that makes the shows tedious.
@j15 : you could prompt an AI to just skip over those undesired sections of the podcasts.
The show does need to move on at some point, but Tim Cook becoming Trump’s plaything is worth discussing and can’t be ignored because people find political talk icky.
Give some past hosts’ open taste for Apple boot leather, we can probably spot the current panel some grace on this subject.
The whole nature of this situation involves Apple and is inherently political, like it or not. In a lot of ways, it’s similar to Google’s “Well, when we said ‘Don’t be evil’, it was more of an aspiration than a goal” walkback. Apple constantly caving to an increasingly authoritarian leader (in some of the most embarrassingly public ways, no less) should be discussed.
Paraphrasing Andy, but it’s a really awful look for a company that’s image is built on two hippies in a garage building a computer for the masses, and they’ll protect your privacy no matter what, at least until Trump starts demanding back doors in all US products, or else.
5 Likes
Correction: people find asymmetrical political talk icky.
Maybe. I’ve found the “South Park” Seasons 27 and 28 simultaneously revolting and encouraging. I find them revolting because the two writers have created a grotesque and essentially unwatchable narrative. I find them encouraging because some “increasingly authoritarian” leader simply tolerates them and lets them produce and broadcast this tripe. Any thinking person about democracy has got to respect that: it’s a poke in the eye to the demagoguery that is spoken every day.
You perfectly demonstrated the extrapolations of Andy. It might be interesting to discuss if those extrapolations actually make sense or they’re fear-mongering. That would be a great thing for Andy to pursue on his blog or podcast or whatever. Paraphrasing @j15, such discussions have no place whatsoever on MacBreak Weekly.
I gave an example where political persuasions completely blinded some TWiT hosts to the facts. Billionaires departed California not because of a proposed 5% “wealth tax” but because the actual number was higher by a factor of 10 for Page and Brin. Their “wealth” would have been calculated with a number that had no correlation whatsoever with reality. How did that error happen? Why did they not correct their reporting – when the media loudly reported on exactly why those billionaires had left? That was covered in the WSJ, and I’m pretty sure that Leo is a subscriber. Their handling of that story was terrible journalism. Did you read up on that, @mattand08?
Well, I think, by now, you should know the overall politics of the hosts of the shows you listen to. If you disagree with their politics you’re free to stop listening to their shows. Some people find the current political situation very concerning, and are compelled to speak out against what they see as fascism. There’s a very famous speech/poem about the situation in German that is relevant in these times
3 Likes
Man, Leo is going to be shocked when he finds out about this. It’s not like he has any editorial control over MBW or agrees with Andy on Tim Cook’s mad groveling skillz.
I gave an example where political persuasions completely blinded some TWiT hosts to the facts. Billionaires departed California not because of a proposed 5% “wealth tax” but because the actual number was higher by a factor of 10 for Page and Brin.
You mean the “Leave the poor billionaires alone” manifesto with the AI-generated infographic? Yeah, I perused it. I didn’t click on the WSJ link because I don’t have a subscription. I have to admit though, that I’m dying to find out if the WSJ will come down on the side of “CA is being mean to the poor defenseless 1 percenters.”
The suspense is killing me.
1 Like
I just looked up the net worth of Sergey and Larry: according to Business Insider, they’re worth $246 billion and $265 billion.
Billion. They’re either worth a 1/4 of a trillion dollars or just shy of it.
They each could lose half of their wealth to taxes and still be worth north of $100+ billion each.
For perspective: I’m a Philly sports fan. All four teams operating in the city are worth just shy of $20 billion. Even if the Google boys lost half their wealth, each man could buy the equivalent of all of Philly’s teams three or four times, and still have like $40+ billion left over.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and what not, but of all the things going on right now, blowing a gasket because the 1% might have to pay taxes proportional to the rest of us is certainly a choice.
1 Like
I watch MBW for news and information about Apple and its products. I agree that it would be great if the political commentary could be left out. I get it. The host and panelists are from the liberal coasts and hate Trump. In one of the recent shows, Leo made a comment about how his 401k took a hit when the market dropped that day. Don’t remember hearing any praise when it topped 50,000. Please give it a rest and stick to Apple / tech topics.
I participate in a sports related forum that has a political section. I know when I go in there, I’m going to see comments and opinions from the extremes of both sides. It’s expected. It’s not expected in MBW.
I actually like political commentary because it shows that the hosts are still people. I don’t necessarily care if I agree with it or not though. Podcasts are allowed to be friends having a chat at some points of the show.
TWIT podcasts aren’t just a news broadcast where it’s the news and nothing but the news. It’s more like a morning radio show hosted by people you like.
1 Like
Look at Andy’s words from the transcript [01:49:01]: “You did not have to go to the movie premiere of a movie that already another oligarch paid $40 million to acquire because it was going to be such a great boon for his streaming service. Did Tim like actually get into a bidding war with Jeff Bezos— with Amazon, excuse me, with Amazon over it?”
Were you listening closely? Andy is using the bizarre label “oligarch” to paint both Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook. Andy is slurring both the CEO of Apple and the former CEO of Amazon. He attacked both CEOs and their companies. If I were a business considering advertising on the TWiT network, I would pay attention to such anti-business rhetoric uttered by a host. I’d wonder: would Andy unleash similar true feelings to any advertisements I purchased on the network. Such behavior would definitely make me think twice before purchasing ads.
Leo would have never used the o-word to label either of these CEOs. Jason would have never done that. I don’t him nearly as well, but I trust that Dan wouldn’t have said that. I’m fondly hoping that Leo requested Andy show some restraint in any future shows. Wouldn’t you? Or do you think it’s fine to use such inflammatory argumentative language on the show?
Did you read this section from my comments? As the Tax Foundation notes:
The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, a California ballot initiative, would ostensibly impose a one-time tax of 5 percent on the net worth of the state’s billionaires. Due, however, to aggressive design choices and possible drafting errors, the actual rate on taxpayers’ net worth could be dramatically higher. […] The poorly drafted initiative creates many scenarios in which tax liability would be VASTLY MORE than 5 percent of net worth.
The proposed legislation is proposing to tax Class B shares differently than other stock. The tax would be closer to 50 percent on the wealth of those individuals with Class B shares. The SEIU-drafted legislation is both irrational and mean-spirited. Many Californians believe that 5% is reasonable; I don’t know a single person anywhere thinking that California should be entitled 50% of their wealth. Do you agree with the SEIU?
In any case, the question has become largely moot. California loses a mind-boggling $1 trillion in wealth in past month alone over fears of ‘Billionaire Tax’: wealth guru. California won’t collect 50% of those individuals’ wealth. California won’t collect 5%. California collects nothing. The mere threat of the Class-B stock multiplier on assets caused many of those billionaires to already exit the state. California loses the yearly tax revenues from those billionaires and the hundreds of staffers they took with them. That is a colossal loss for California. Californian Joni Mitchell got it right many years ago:
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got 'til it’s gone?
Apparently, you’re someone who thinks that the State of California is entitled to confiscate half of the assets of Page and Brin. Because… it’s California! What other reason do you need? SMH.
It’s no longer a choice, because they have departed. Over half the assets have already flown the coop. 5% might have been reasonable, but 50% was never reasonable. Newsom failed to predict that the billionaires would simply depart on the threat of the ballot initiative. Leo and Jeff failed to explain the dreadful multiplier of the proposed initiative. It was never 5%. That was the point of my message, and you completely missed it.
Are you a California citizen?
I think it’s fine for Andy to use words like that. They express passion. Leo isn’t the speech police unless someone is swearing. If an advertiser wants you to curb what you say when not in an ad, they should go fuck themselves. You’re not making content for the advertiser. I mean, some people probably are. But any trustworthy source(not source of news necessarily. just people who have integrity) doesn’t give advertisers any power to police what they can say on their podcast.
Why are you so vehement on defending billionaires? I’m not even an “eat the rich” or “all rich people are a problem!” guy, I don’t have anything against powerful business men. But you seem to be very much on their side. Which is fine. But I wonder what is motivating you. Maybe you just care passionately about it.
They’re not literally an oligarch. But it’s very easy to paint the comparison to a rich person cabal when they all donated so much money to the Trump family, and keep going to the White House for things. Trump even called out Tim for not going to Saudi Arabia. It’s easy to talk about stories like this when you don’t like who’s in power. I know it’s just 3 more years, so maybe things will go back to normal.
1 Like