Glenn Fleishman writing for Macworld:

A researcher says he’s found a way to exploit a security flaw in newer Macs’ boot firmware. But will malicious parties ever take advantage of it? Probably not.

But if you’re not living your life in fear, are you even alive?

This week we compare and contrast Photos with Photos, look forward to WWDC and I mis-remember Edward Snowden’s name.

A recent survey shows Apple’s only competition is 50 gallon drums of lube.

I’m not sure how I ended up on the Apple TV rumor watch, but Federico Viticci has the latest:

The Apple logo is almost complete at Moscone West and a banner with the event’s “The epicenter of change” tagline is now displayed inside.

Sure as hell looks like an Apple TV to me. If I really wanted to make sure Apple announced a new one I’d order a third generation this weekend. Force their hand.

Brian X. Chen writing for the New York Times:

Yet one much ballyhooed device will be absent from the conference: a new Apple TV,

IDG’s Fred O’Connor:

People looking to control their HomeKit-compatible devices when they’re away from home will need an Apple TV to complete those tasks, Apple confirmed in a support page for its smart home platform.

…

As long as the same Apple ID is used to log in to the iOS device and Apple TV, people can speak commands to Siri to control HomeKit-compatible products.

HomeKit requires at least a third generation AppleTV which is, of course, the only AppleTV Apple currently sells. For at least the next six days.

TechCrunch’s Matthew Panzarino quotes Tim Cook

“I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information,” said Cook. “They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.”

I look forward to the next Forbes contributor network piece about how noble Google is for bringing things to the masses out of the goodness of their hearts.

Again, I don’t care if you use it, I care if you whitewash it.

I joined Jordan Cooper this week on Tech Douchebags to talk about how bad I am at scheduling.

Serenity Caldwell on the implicit costs of using Google’s services:

The millions of people who sign up for free Google services agree to terms and conditions that give the company permission to access certain subsets of any information you put online.

In plain English, that means being able to sell custom ads against your data: showing you a Nordstrom ad for shoes, for instance, because Google knows from search or web history that you looked at some yesterday, or from Gmail that you purchased heels at the store last week.

The company uses this data to sell to advertisers, and advertisers in turn get a much closer look at you, your spending habits, and your daily activities.

Marco Arment has a similar piece about why, though he recognizes both Google and Apple have their pros and cons, he prefers Apple’s products and services. His reasoning is pretty similar to mine.

Over at Business Insider, meanwhile, one of their clumps of wadded up animal by-product waxes poetic about how Google is simply better because it’s available to more people because so many of its services are free and its products are cheaper (I won’t link to it). He doesn’t mention ads or data mining at all, of course.

If you prefer Google’s offerings despite these implicit costs, that’s fine. But if you don’t at least consider them you’re just kidding yourself.

Dan is away so Lex and I talk about our Sonoses and getting the best out of our relationships with Chris Breen.