defaultname

But let's be fair and note that there quite certainly a lot of very proud, considerate, intentional designers and developers who are behind this change. People who probably put thousands (millions?) multiples of "thought" in considering the changes, versus someone saying "Whoa...this is different and I don't like different." The whine about site colors bleeding into the chrome seem particularly subjective, yet they're presented as if they're objective truths.

I use a macOS beta 15 device beside a 14 device, all day every day. At first install it was jarring, but then I became acclimated to it and it's fine. Tab groups are fantastic. I appreciate the aesthetics of chrome bleed, but that's just my subjective opinion. My only complaint about the browser is that it's crash-prone right now.

No, I'm not wrong. I'm actually completely right. Control Center has always been a temporary toggle.

Should the police have regulations about this sort of gift? Should, they probably do, and those that don't should.

The Google bit is particularly goofy. No, "Google" doesn't even appear on the charts (you know -- the charts which Apple usually is within the top 2, often leading). Chromebooks do, sold by a wide variety of sellers, as a schoolhouse special. Their great for what they do.

They aren't for you. Move on.

Apple gains nothing from your WiFi re-engaging. But many users do because, as another comment mentioned, people turn it off in control center because their connection is temporarily shit, or more likely just accidentally. Then they get to end of month and they have a monster cell overage.

Someone was using control center wrong (despite it very clearly indicating the use of the button). It's a learning experience.

I have listened to some of the SA samples and they sound good, but I still don't get the technology. If it's sending separate streams and spatially mixing them at the client, it's still ending up with two channels of audio, so why would it differ from normal stereo audio which can be mixed in such a way? And if it doesn't, then it's just a production process?

Indeed, it reminds me a bit of Q-Sound of the Madonna Immaculate Collection. Still the most impressive stereo headphone experience I've enjoyed.

Dolby Atmos makes loads of sense for oddball speaker arrangements -- you tell it that you have three speakers layered above, five spread out across the back, etc, and it can process to that arrangement optimally (versus say 5.1 that was geared for a very specific arrangement). I don't understand how it is relevant for headphones, which is specifically what it is targeting in this case.

And to answer the original guy, no Apple does not add any headers or details to tell the destination what your IP address is. They just see that they're talking to an exit node somewhere approximal of your general region.

The root's observation is that it doesn't use the machine configured DNS. The overwhelming majority of VPNs also don't use the machine configured DNS. Maybe not "any", but if you're using a VPN you're generally going to want your DNS going over it as well.

But it is worth noting if you're on a corporate network, or if you use a DNS solution like NextDNS -- when you turn on PR those no longer play a part, at least to Safari traffic.

I turned it on and actually forgot I did. Performance is decent here. I mean of course it's going to be worse than native, but that's the compromise.

As to trusting Cloudflare -- what do you mean? You understand your connection is still TLS end-to-end encrypted (presuming that's what we're talking about), right? I mean...presuming the site your talking to isn't using Cloudflare SSL. In no way does this reduce that security. If you're talking about HTTP, well everyone in between can already see that.

A pretty decent overview of the scope of the product.

As mentioned in the video, the service also is involved if your app does HTTP over port 80, offering at least some marginal level of improvement. Otherwise it leaves your app traffic as is.

As to Mail, the linked comment mentions that but I don't remember it being a part of the solution (nor does it seem feasible that it could be). Apple offers privacy improvements in mail, but not via the private relay.

Two facts-

-Android is the most popular mobile OS by a long ways

-But in every jurisdiction its representation among web visitors lags, usually significantly, its marketshare. iOS users, despite the horseshit that appears from Apple detractors, use their browser more than they do on alternatives. They are over-represented online.

ROFL. Chrome has the biggest market share because it rose while IE was a pile of dogshit and Firefox was going through a massive rewrite. It became the Microsoft of browsers, and turned lazy and fat as a result.

"It is very common to encounter websites or applications which do not work properly in Safari, and web companies and developers are encouraging users to use Chrome because of that."

Extremely uncommon, and generally a good sign that something is trash because it has a development team following the "IE" model.

Sure there is competition. Buy an Android device. But you know what's super weird? Android users leverage their browsers far less than iOS users. They're underrepresented online. Shouldn't they be enjoying that remarkable panacea afforded by such competition? You know, the competition where Chrome on Android is terrible, doesn't support extensions, etc?

Safari never got slower. Chrome got embarrassed into effectively cleaning up its act a bit and managing the catastrophic memory usage, but it's still slower and less efficient. And it's still a memory disaster compared to its contemporaries.

Neat. Only you replied with that refutation when I specifically asked what people are missing on iOS vis-a-vis Chrome. Neat that Firefox supports those features, but that seems to be so little of a competitive story that its usage on mobile is absolutely minuscule.

Which "major platform" is causing huge pain by the lack of WebM on iOS? LOL.

As to WebM, zero users are missing the lack of WebM. WebM was Google trying to boot-stomp a codec that offered virtually no compelling story for their own reasons, while offering a worse experience for the vast majority of users (e.g. worse energy profile given that little hardware has full hardware support).

This sentence is interesting given that Safari is faster in virtually every single usage model. Safari is lighter on memory. Safari is far more efficient from a CPU cycle perspective (ergo battery life). Particularly notable, iOS web browsing is overrepresented on the web versus marketshare.

"Everyone" is using Chrome because it was the browser in the early 2000s that they used on their Windows box. Do you think Chrome has made a particularly compelling argument over the past five to ten years? It's the incumbent that has been coasting on inertia.

What "features" are people using Chrome for? What do you think iOS users are being deprived of?

Notifications from web apps? Yeah, no.

I have serious grievances with Apple's restrictions on their platforms, and some of these walls will fall at the hands of government demands, however iOS users are being deprived little by not having a full version of Chrome.

I use Safari in a similar way, albeit mostly between my iOS and macOS existence.

The number of times I've missed a Chrome engine feature is somewhere approximating zero.

So saying "most of their value" seems pretty specious. If Chrome were faster, used less power, or had some value proposition rather than integration, sure, but it isn't. Here's a fun hottake - Chrome forced to use webkit on iOS is almost certainly better than Chrome would be if it used Google's own engine.

"because they do not implement crucial features in WebKit, like push notification"

There is always something that becomes the critical missing ingredient. Yet uptake of web apps on Android and the desktop is somewhere in the proximity of non-existent (but always explained away by shaking one's fist at Apple). The suite of features in web apps has grown spectacularly, and now encompasses high performance graphics, a massive VM, game controllers, gyroscopes and cameras and microphones, but there is always just one more thing that Apple is always to blame for.

This is another futile thread that is going to be brigaded by the anti-Apple crew, so please enjoy downvoting to try to assuage whatever hangups you have.

Aside: Paul Graham's blog that is frequently front-paged on here doesn't support HTTPS. That has always seemed odd.

But a lot of things were already very good to excellent. I mean, one of the things you mentioned was developer friendliness yet the company has forever had industry leading developer relations. They've always had great documentation (there are going to be some developers who will still struggle and fail, but that isn't the fault of the documentation which can only drag them so far). SQL Server has been a great product for literally decades. NT was actually a great OS for the era and vis-a-vis its contemporaries. Microsoft has always been very "open" in fields where they are struggling. And on and on.

They did a lot of great things in the past along with bad things. And right now they're doing great things along with bad things. Every org is a mixed bag.

This kind of snotty reply is always interesting. I've been a professional developer for 25 years. For most of those years I was deep in the Microsoft platform. C++, Win32 API, DirectX, COM+/DCOM, OLE, automation, C# / .NET.

For decades they've had exhaustive narrative documentation that would give huge backgrounders on everything. Architectural "how it fits" documentation with wonderful diagrams, hierarchies, etc. I could easily find anything and jump to specific APIs. Shitloads of examples. They clearly have had a great documentation focus for a long, long time. Something like the MSDN Library was years before its time.

Let me repeat, probably with way more experience in saying this, that Microsoft has done documentation well for years, and I seldom felt deprived (aside from occasionally when they do a restructure and search engines/links go to obsolete links). It is specifically in contrast to Microsoft's long excellent documentation that I find Apple's to be a sad joke.

There is some bizarre tendency in here for people to pretend that everything Microsoft does well they've only done well for most recent history, as if this is some sort of odd proselytizing and naysayers should realize that everything has changed.

It truly seems philosophical. Someone there thinks this is a superior solution.

The linked article is a bit off base, I think, because clearly Apple's documentation problem isn't a tool issue. It's a philosophy of documentation. I like going to the documentation for a critical system API class and finding all of the members, examples for each, and then "related" things. Philosophically Apple seems to have decided that people really want a tiny subset of members to have primary documentation, and then a weird collection of orthogonal things mixed in as equal interest so you can't tell what you're looking at. It really is quite terrible.