It says, “ Though all iPhone 12 models contain more magnets than prior iPhone models, they’re not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” doesn’t that mean that they are saying iPhone 12 is poses no greater risk than the first iPhone released and every iPhone release in between for over a decade? So no new dangers just they are now formally writing about the risk all iPhones have always had for people with pacemakers?
100% Untrue. I use many extensions in Safari just like I use to in Chrome, my needs for customization are the same regardless the browser I use, but like many choose Safari for his performance, privacy ui, among other benefits. Find it very frustrating that many of the big products don't have Safari extensions. Often when I email there tech support they give a reason why, and then I try to explain there are referring to how extensions worked before, rather than how Safari extensions work now. So imagine a lot of companies don't know about the changes, or think they don't need to because they don't have enough people asking for them, but people probably did ask for them but were told it was not possible before, so they stopped asking.
While only guessing, it would seem more likely that Apple knows they do what they are doing, which keeps most people's data safe and private (and people who don't use icloud backups can have complete privacy), vs if they encrypt all backups, FBI will make sure to remind the public and congress more loudly everytime they can't catch someone because of it, and then much more likely they congress will ban encryption completely resulting in far less security and privacy for all users. With so many people moving to Telegram and Signal, that might end up happening any way, but what they are doing would simply seem a way of avoiding/delaying that.
Knew it was only a matter of time, and told their support on multiple occasions they had so much potential but there were simply to many fundamental issues they weren't addressing to get mass market appeal and be sustainable. I was one of the first customers, (early beta), and was absolutely thrilled to try it out back in 2011. It had a lot of shortcomings, but was hopefully it would iterate quickly, and was a beautiful modern interface compared to the horrible experience at the big banks (Which are still awful in comparison but a million times better now). There were so initial deal breaker issues, notably no support for written checks, no option to deposit checks in person (only mail), and very low mobile upload limits, slow transfers (no next day transfers for a fee like others offered), no joint checking, no business accounts, and countless other issues. The lack of checks and joint checking were major issues that while I dealt with, were things that prevented any non beta/technical friends and family from ever considering it. I'm someone who certainly very rarely writes checks so I was an ideal customer, alas when I did need to write checks... it was because I had to. Maybe you need to write a check for a service provided on the spot, buying a house at closing, among other scenarios. And for the the average person there are countless more use cases. Simple's approach was to avoid fees, and if they allow checks (other than mailed certified checks) then people could overdraft and thus need ability to charge fees, and the safe to use amount would be off. While I get that, if I over draft, I'm fine paying for it, and I understand if I write a check the safe to use would be less. Instead of dealing with those issues they just ignored them. There were times when needing to transfer money next day, and was not an option. Once again, when that need arrises it's because it's needed and thus completely fine paying for it accordingly. Support was amazing back in 2011 and 2012, but as they grew support become much worse since that level of support is hard to scale. Once again I was an ideal user in most ways, ad I HATED having to go to branches, and would much rather mobile deposit all checks and rarely ever used cash, but because of the very low deposit limits had to often mail in checks instead which was no good. If you don't have branches you have to have high mobile limits. Luckily other banks did offer such high limits. I spent so many years providing long emails with all the issues in detail as I wanted to see it grow and improve, and while over the years some of the issues were resolved, other deal breakers remained and then they got new ownership and still no big changes, so new it was only a matter of time until it would shut down.
Apple Maps is for from parity with Google Maps. I use both extensively. I tend to use Apple Maps more since I like how the Apple Watch integration works, and prefer the UI on CarPlay, among some other benefits. Though I usually always and going to places I know that are not far, and use it more so I now if say their is unexpected traffic and I should take a different route, and well as gentle reminder that a turn is coming up when the kids are distracting me. I'm in New England we have the 'new' maps, though when going some where new I more often than not still always run into issues with Apple Maps, where the place I'm going the location on the map isn't correct, or directions stop prematurely when there is a small road your suppsoe to take or who knows what else, where is I almost never have those issues with Google Maps/Waze. Also anytime say I store closes and moves, or a new store opens, Google Maps shows it within a day or so, where is Apple Maps most often can go weeks or months, and often I am the one submitting the issue to Apple Maps (Which they then correct but takes a while vs Google Maps where I submit an issue and its fixed very quickly). So while Apple Maps is getting much better, there reporting feature is far behind Google Maps and until that changes I don't see how they will be able to be as good. And for many of us Waze is preferred over Google Maps or Apple Maps, when on the highway, since knowing when police are ahead, or a road hazard in real time is invaluable. Though for me, like many Apple Maps is usually good enough, and when it shows the wrong end result, I simply quickly open up Waze or Google Maps to get me the last mile.
Google creates endless new products and services and will only provide it love and attention if it does well, but it won't do well unless it gets love and attention, thus a seemingly endless cycle of new things that get killed before many even are aware of them. And of course, people are aware of this trend so when Google launches something that does sound interesting many may choose to not use it because they know it will be taking away just as they start to rely on it.
Facebook is standing up for Facebook. Hard to imagine them getting much sympathy from any customers. Only other large companies that make money after using customer data extensively and would prefer customers not be aware of that.
While I love shooting in RAW on Sony A7RIV which of course the iPhone can't hold a candle to (except maybe in full right for non moving objects that don't need a shallow depth of field). That being said far more often that not, I don't have that camera with me, or the ability to grab it and take a photo in seconds when a moment is fleeting, so certainly use my iPhone camera very often since it's always with me, always on. And being able to get more out of those photos in raw editor that I would use for my normal mirrorless photos, is a great benefit. So while of course shooting raw in general is niche and shooting proraw would of course be more niche, certainly don't think it would be infinitesimal in any respect.
I imagine the difference is at those customer facing jobs they are wearing masks all day, where is at dinner everyone will have their masks off (at least while eating/drinking but in reality most will probably end up leaving them off after eating or even before eating because unlike at work where they maybe surrounded by strangers at home they will feel more comfortable maskless around extended family).
Huh, you are saying that something that is so important you want for free, and that the company building this product for you should forgo money and work simply for free? Wouldn't the opposite make far more sense that something that is so important you should pay 'more' for? They are free options that you are welcome to, but for people who want more they pay for it.
When they originally announced the Windows version there was a lot of fine print such as the resolution being horribly low. I don't see that listed this time at least on this page, so was wondering if that was resolved, or just more hidden now? I use the 4K Cam Usb stick and get full resolution and works great with Sony A7Riv though ideally of course always nicer to have one less thing to plugin but sounds like this isn't meant to come close to competing with those options but rather just better than nothing?
I've dreamed of a great bookmark system that works everywhere. Instapaper has been my favorite, but then it was sold then it was bought back and little growth in features, and more importantly it seems on borrow times, which is the issue with most all of these that the point of them it save data that you can reference later on, sometimes many many years. Like how I can reference emails from over decades ago. But other than things like Gmail most services don't stick around. Which is why I hope eventually it's something that is offered natively in iOS. They have reading list which is the start of that, but it only has about 1% of the needed features, and so far has seen little to no attention from Apple. Open source self hosted options can solve some of those problems, but typically then don't integrate with countless services as much as premium ones do, and requires a lot more ongoing maintenance and don't have the polish or the native apps like the premium options. Having said all that, since there is no ideal long term solution, using something like this in the meantime maybe worth it, but 100% would require being able to export all the data at anytime.
Apple did not pick a fight. Epic did by explicitly doing something to knowingly break the rules to cause this issue and even had a heavily produced marketing video about it prepared day one. While people can debate the value of what is provided for 30% cut, intentionally breaking the rules / picking a fight has consequences that were laid out ahead of time.
Was pretty surprised no mac option or even a timeline for mac availability but looking at the resolution supported which isn’t even HD seems we are not missing out on much and more just a feature that want to be able to say they have like the competitors even if not useable.
If you cancelled your account and you were still being charged, did you reach out to your credit card company to let them know about the fradulent charges? They should be able to block billing on their end, once they contacted google's billing to verify you cancelled your account.
Was considering moving some domains to CF registrar as have used CF for DNS for myself and clients and love it. But so get terrified that while I would never do anything intentionally to get banned/suspended that if someday was wrongly suspended that there isn’t a clear path to reach a real person to get the issue resolved. I imagine there are an unbelievable number of bad actors and so CF and other providers have to balance that. But for people to feel comfortable using very popular services like CF there needs to be a clear path for people to prove there case and get issues resolved quickly without having to always resort to trending on HN. And hopefully the process would always involve emailing the person first with steps on how to resolve the issue. I have faith CF will be able to improve in this area as they seem to have a brilliant set of people working there.
What did Apple say when you contacted them? The dev phone support with real people has always been quite good for me, or the general Apple online support system or their Twitter support system? As those methods would probably be the most helpful since they would be able to see what’s going on with your particular account.
File a bug report on https://webkit.org/reporting-bugs/. Unlike the apple bug reporter where it goes into an abyss and might be years before a resolution or even a reply, with the webkit reporting system I usually get a response from apple employees very quickly and majority of the items fixed in the next release or two.
The webkit engineer behind "Safari’s Intelligent Tracking Prevention" on Twitter confirmed when asked there have been no changes to how it blocks GA in the new version, it just is now visible in the report. And details, ITP doesn’t block loads, it blocks cookie access, deletes cookies and website data for sites you don’t interact with, downgrades referrers, and more. Its cookie blocking applies to all third parties." I responded that it seems all the new sites are reporting that GA is now being blocked/prevented in the new version are incorrect then. And these headlines appearing on Hacker News it looks like will only further unintentionally spread that misinformation.
While it certainly blocks it by default in the new Safari beta, can anyone confirm if the existing Safari which already blocked third party trackers explicitly blocked google analytics?
For sure. Their thinking is probably let's see how popular it is before offering custom domains which are typically for businesses (or techies). The problem with that is, that the techies are the ones they really need to target first, since if they get hooked and loved it, then consumers will follow. I started writing a tweet when I first saw this about the typo then realized they intentionally misspelled it, and sighed. Reminded me of the days of working for a company where they felt ever employee needed a special crazy title. Often clarity is best. Sometimes plays on words work, but in this case I feel it certainly doesn't.
They mentioned that Gmail, Apple, and others don't do anything to stop you from getting emailed from people you don't want to hear from, but this new tool does. I've only gotten a probably less than 10 spam messages in the past decade, they all go into Spam. I check spam every once in a while for the occasional time there is a false positive, but otherwise requires no action from me. Vs basecamp approach which is more akin to having every first time email sender go to a spam folder (screener), where I have to manually approve or deny it. Unless I'm missing something that sounds like an incredible amount of work, vs the spam feature of Gmail and others. Yes you only have to do it once per sender, but most all the spam in my spam folder is always from unique email addresses so would be a nightmare with this tool. And even if they still have a seperate spam system, then all the normal emails I'd have to manually approve. Eek. And they are asking you to switch to a "hey" email which is a major ask for most of us who maybe have had our emails for a decade or more. And that email address could go away at anytime if the system fails since hard to imagine hey.com existing in a decade.
As you noted they are aiming it at ‘their’ driveway. You house presumably just happens to be there, I doubt they have any desire to look in your house window. Aiming it at their driveway for most of us is not a fascination, rather you can see who is coming and going. Such as when Amazon says they delivered to your front door but you have footage of them throwing in your driveway, or video of someone driving by and looking in your mailbox, or when a snow plowed denies having hit your mailbox, and countless other relatively common scenarios beyond that of course capturing a burgler.
There message sounds like a clear apology, unless the poster is hoping to hear the actual words "I'm sorry". They screw uped and came clean, even though like in most cases takes trending on Hacker News to get that resolution.
This is like when Apple said their Music platform would be more human curated rather than algorithms like competitors such as Spotify. But the reason why I love Spotify's recommendations and not Apple's is because Spotify focuses on algorithms and does them so well.
Same with Netflix, in my experience they truly know what I will like to watch, they seem to know what shows I'll love and what shows I won't love but will help pass the time, and seem to show it to me just when I want it.
I imagine it takes a lot of time and lots of past history and data on users to create those algorithms so when starting out the human curation method is required. And for companies like Apple, may be the long term strategy because the alogrithm method that YouTube and Spotify comes at the cost of potential tracking and privacy concerns.