It died because Safari for iPhone supported only open web standards. Flash was also the leading cause of crashes on the Mac because it was so poorly-written. It was also a huge security vulnerability and a leading vector for malware, and Adobe just straight up wasn't able to get it running well on phones. Flash games were also designed with the assumption of a keyboard and mouse so many could never work right on touchscreen devices.
kirklennon
joined 1 year ago
They position themselves as a thought leader and ethical company, but when push comes to shove, will do whatever it takes to get market access.
One way to look at it is what is best in the real world for actual Chinese citizens. On one hand we have Apple, who generally does the bare minimum to comply with Chinese regulations and occasionally picks its battles on what things are worth pushing back on and which are worth just dealing with. On the other hand we have every Chinese service provider, all of whom bend over backwards not only to comply with their legal requirements to go above and beyond to do whatever the party wants. The government doesn't even really need to censor people's chats because the companies happily do it themselves.
Are Chinese citizens better off without iMessage and FaceTime, fully end-to-end encrypted services? Are they better off with a phone that is sending all of their usage data to a Chinese company?
Apple could refuse to operate in the Chinese market on principle and feel very haughty about itself, but that wouldn't make the life of its former customers any better.
Yeah but there has to be some reason they were so opposed to this.
Because Lightning came out years before USB-C was ready and is already an established de facto standard. There are well over a billion devices in use right now with Lightning ports on them, and billions of Lightning cables. You're balancing the advantages of switching to a "standard" against the reality that their customers already have Lightning stuff. I went several years with my Switch as literally the only thing I owned that used USB-C. Even now it's still common for gadgets to ship with micro-USB. USB-C has taken a long time to reach real ubiquity.
Lightning is also physically smaller and easier to plug in than USB-C.
Anyway, the point is that USB-C was not (and is not) this significantly, obviously superior experience for Apple's existing customers. There are real, tangible downsides that make it more expensive and more environmentally wasteful for at least hundreds of millions of iPhone users who will be upgrading.
"Some carmakers" is a strange way to write General Motors, which is to my knowledge the sole carmaker who has announced they're going to shoot themselves in the foot by dropping a non-negotiable feature required by a majority of new car buyers. I predict they backtrack on this plan pretty rapidly.
Either your phone is straight up broken or your anecdotal measurements are way off. There is effectively no difference in battery life on a phone between using wired headphones and Bluetooth.
Cables doesn’t consume battery
When you plug earbuds into your phone, your phone is literally powering the earbuds. The cables transmit an electrical signal; they consume battery. The consumption is fairly negligible, of course, but so is modern Bluetooth.
Like seriously, what’s the percentage of people that run machine learning algorithms on their phone? 0.0000000001%?
It’s 100%. You use them on your phone all day every day. Your keyboard used machine learning algorithms as you typed your comment to dynamically adjust the size of the tap target of your likely next character and for autocorrect.
Every single photo taken on a phone is run through a huge amount of ML to create it.
All of this is to say, however, that this headline is ridiculous. Aside from Material UI, this is basically a description of every iPhone from the last half decade (with a dedicated “neural engine”). Not really a change in the smartphone world.
You do realize this whole thing is just a little squabble between a big tech company and big banks over money, right? It’s not like there’s even a “little guy” to root for anyway. I’m just pointing out that Apple’s policies force the banks to compete against each other on a more-even footing.
And all you’ve got to contribute is a lazy ad hominem and a straw man.
Except this obviously doesn’t apply to all of these situations, including OP’s very first example. For what it’s worth, I find Apple Music’s recommendations to be pretty good, but in any event, there is no financial motivation to recommend any particular song over another. The only goal is to make you happy so you keep subscribing.
The simple, non-conspiratorial answer is that machine learning is neither perfect nor psychic.
You can also just use the physical card; there are plenty of choices. Consumers want to use Apple Pay specifically though because Apple created a really compelling experience for the end user.
It's also worth pointing out that with Apple Pay, banks are forced to compete against each other for every transaction. Every card is treated exactly the same as every other card from every other bank, and they all get the same (best) user experience. Banks would prefer if their app were the default for NFC, making it more difficult to mix your use of cards from different banks.
Locking down NFC for payments is in many ways, paradoxically, pro-competition.
Apple and Google collaborated on a specification for this and anti-stalking rolled out to Android in August.