The issue is that if you're using the Firefox or Chrome apps (which are the same rendering engine underneath), they aren't allowed to implement the "add to home screen" action in their UI.
> Air travelers already submit too much more invasive measures. It's not like the airport is a bastion of civil liberties or privacy. I can guarantee you that the entrances and public parts of the bathroom (including the sinks) are already monitored by cameras.
This is basically the definition of a slippery slope.
Does the distinction actually matter though? By constraining what developers can provide, you're automatically constraining what users can use, so I don't see how it makes a difference.
I mean, it did? Right now on Android or Windows, you have multiple different high-quality browsers you can pick from (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Brave, etc), and because they all have to compete with each other, they're continually improving the user experience. In particular, Firefox and Brave have been able to add improved privacy protections by modifying the rendering engine, which isn't possible on iOS.
This doesn't really seem like a detection issue, but more of a design issue that Google needs to fix. Why is an app able to display ads across the system, even when you aren't running it? And how is it even possible for an app to make itself uninstallable?
In order for Amazon to do that, they would either have to ship from further away (which costs more), or have a separate, Amazon-only set of products in each distribution center (which defeats the point of commingling). Also, the vast majority of people aren't going to turn it off, so how would it help?
The big difference is that iOS/Android are sandboxed, whereas Windows gave every app access to anything. Even if you do manage to install malware on your device, the potential for damage is much more limited.
Google already has a minimum age of 13 to create an account (the maximum age before COPPA no longer applies). The issue here is that if a child didn't sign in or used an account where they claimed to be older, they would still have their information collected - the FTC is arguing that Google should have disabled tracking on all videos targeted towards children, even when they didn't know the age of the person watching.
So far, the trend seems to be for Apple to support devices for 5 years after release [0]. Most apps will support at least 1 previous version of iOS, so your total lifespan is around 6 years total. Given that, you end up with:
XR: $750 / 6 years = $125/year
8: $599 / 5 years = $120/year
7: $449 / 4 years = $112/year
So assuming you plan to keep the device for its entire lifespan, I'm not sure it actually matters very much what you buy.
I think this article accurately identifies Apple's moves towards a more closed ecosystem, but I don't think there's any particular reason to believe that "the future is open". Unlike in the past, Apple has a much broader ecosystem, to the point where you can use only Apple-approved products and services for almost everything you would want to do, so interoperability doesn't matter as much. Additionally, as computers have become more widespread, the demand for customization has declined significantly. Sure, there are still people that want to repair their computer, or install Linux, or customize it in some other way, but as a share of the overall market, it's a really tiny percentage.
As long as smartphones remain most people's primary form of computing, I don't really see Apple beig hurt in any significant way. They've effectively created a monopoly on iOS software, so that developers have to put up with the experience, no matter how bad it gets, if they want to make any money. And until some major new technology comes along that Apple doesn't have, it doesn't seem like there's any reason for consumers to abandon Apple's ecosystem in favor of something else.
VS Code is a lot more than just a text editor; off the top of my head, it has:
* Syntax highlighting and code folding
* Autocomplete
* Integrated file browser
* Integrated git client
* Automatic formatting
* File preview
* Debugger
* ...and a ton more features
Just looking at the screenshots from the release notes (https://code.visualstudio.com/updates/v1_36), I highly doubt this is "the very simplest cross-platform UI you could ever need to design".
Also, as far as I know, the vast majority of the editor is still HTML/CSS/JS, with only a few exceptions (the integrated terminal and project-wide search I think?)
Do they actually do this? AFAIK, almost all the system apps are bundled with the OS, and don't recieve any updates after the next version is released; the last time I remember them ever releasing a security update for an old version was the certificate validation issue a few years ago.
Yeah, it's rather strange that Apple's dropping so many recent devices in iOS 13, especially since they specifically talked about improved performance on the 6 in the iOS 12 announcement [1]. They also dropped the 6th gen ipod touch, which they were still selling up until a few months ago.
If this happens again, you can start typing the first few letters of your username to select it (similar to how typing in a <select> input works), and then hit enter to get the password input. Probably a bit easier than guessing at the location!
(I definitely agree this is a bad design, though).
Right, I agree! My point is that preventing this situation from happening in the first place, through better sandboxing restrictions, is both more fair and more effective than having each app be individually approved. If you try to mitigate this just with app review, then 1) you're going to miss apps that do bad things, and 2) It introduces huge conflicts of interest for the reviewer. But if you were to have effective sandboxing, it wouldn't be possible for Zoom or any other app to do this in the first place, so that you would be able to trust the apps that you install even if they haven't been reviewed.
If you had a sandbox, you wouldn't even need anyone to inspect it - since all the app's files would be contained in one place, uninstalling it would remove everything, and there wouldn't be a way to leave a server behind.
The NYT story also kinda sounds like an ad, actually. Like everything else I've read about Superhuman, it claims that it will somehow revolutionize email, but half the features mentioned in the article already exist in Gmail, and the others sound more like small improvements than something actually new.
As I understand it, Apple increased the peak power usage of the 6S (as a result of making the processor faster), but chose to use the same battery (in order to avoid making the phone thicker). As a result, unexpected shutdowns became much more common - while this did happen on older models, it seems to have been much less frequent.
Strictly compared to the alternative of letting people's phone shut off, throttling seems like the right decision, but I would also argue that Apple produced a defective product, where the battery wore out much quicker than consumers expected (because even if it had sufficient capacity, it couldn't provide the peak power necessary). As a result, Apple's decision seems more like a way to cover up their design flaws, rather than to actually be helpful to consumers.
I can kind of see your point regarding paid apps, but for free apps, you aren't really losing anything, besides maybe a few seconds of your time. If you don't like the authentication options the app offers, you can just uninstall it, and for 99% of the apps in the app store there's multiple alternatives that will offer a different set of options.
Probably user-agent plus better translation of touches into mouse events.
To some extent, though, I'm having a hard time understanding how this is useful. Most sites are responsive these days, and it's been a long time since I remember getting a separate mobile site on an iPad. They showed Google Docs as an example, but even if you could use the desktop version of Docs on an ipad, it seems like it would be really uncomfortable to do so (and I though that was the whole reason for not making a touchscreen mac in the first place)?
I see the same thing in both Firefox and Safari, on a non-P3 display: the original image is solid red, but the copied image shows the logo. So it looks like a conversion did actually happen at some point.
Mapbox actually fired the majority of the people they were paying to work on OSM a few months ago [1]. I don't really know why, and it seems like a really odd decision (unless maybe they're developing their own non OSM-based map), but if anyone knows why I'd love to find out.
The problem with early 2000's-style software delivery wasn't that you could choose which software to install, it was that there was no separation between programs, so that any random program you installed could add toolbars to your browser, steal all your passwords, etc. If iOS or Android made it easier to install apps outside the store, I highly doubt you'd see anywhere near the same level of problems, since everything is so isolated from each other.
If Tesla (or any other company) can show that your modifications actually affect their ability to provide the services as designed, then sure, they shouldn't be required to provide them. But as long as the modifications I make don't actually affect the car's ability to operate, I don't see any reason why that should allow them to deactivate unrelated services.