I don't know this mirroring feature too well, but what's missing that a third party couldn't implement the same thing for android? Like scrcpy works. Its not as polished, but thats a ui/presentation issue. Are there features in macos that enable iOS mirroring that only Apple can use?
It appears there's a third priority then. That's not a criticism, it's true of all of us, I'm curious where it ranks and how you make that work with the other two. I'm in the same boat of being pissed at Google for destroying Android.
And you know what pisses me off the most about that icon? All three of the colored dividers can be seen through the transparent cover. They're all at the same layer, it doesn't even make sense!
What fascinates me the most is not how bad the most recent one is, but how it now relies on you knowing the prior forms of that icon to know what the current one is conveying. Apple fans actually point this out as an artful homage, but to anyone not already steeped in Apple products, it's just a shitty icon made of basic shapes. I wonder if Apple has reached the point where they don't need the affordances of the past since people are familiar enough with their past, good designs. People point out that liquid glass will be amazing in Vision OS, and that's probably the thinking from Apple. It's just a shame that we have to unify a design language to the worst possible case: a transparent screen taped to your face. In my mind, that's an objectively stupid design decision, but the Apple fanboys will say, "Look at those little colored squares on the address book icon, what a brilliant reference!" And will be able to recognize from memory how the thing should work, all while the entire UI gets more and more melted.
I don't think most people care if the information is true; they just want an answer. Google destroyed the value of search by encouraging and promoting SEO blog spam, the horrible ai summary that confidently tells you some lie can now be sold as an improvement over the awful thing they were selling, and the majority will eat it up. I have to assume the ad portion of the business will be folded into the AI results at some point. The results already suck, making them sponsored won't push people any further away.
I honestly don't know if people even care that the search result summaries are completely wrong the majority of the time. Most people I know see an answer given by Google and just believe it. To them that's the value, the accuracy doesn't really matter. I hope it ends up killing Google, but for the majority the shitty summary has replaced even shittier search results. On the surface it's a huge improvement, even if it's just distilled garbage.
Is it the people that are pushing for this though? Apple has long pushed privacy and security as a way to maintain their control over personal devices, the people just believe it and accept it. Google is just taking notes and seeing how profitable that approach is. Provided there's no push back, they'll succeed easily with no one actually asking for this.
I'm expecting us that come up with something better than "give all computing control to two US companies" Yes this idea has flaws that you're an expert at picking at, but there's gotta be some middle ground that doesn't treat all of us as the most tech illiterate or scammable people.
If I'm drunk and give my friend my car keys and ask them to not let me do anything stupid, I'm not giving up my legal rights to autonomy. I don't think this is any different. Legal guardianship is entirely unrelated, unless we're having some slippery slope fun.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have never seen Apple or Google suggest that someone use the parental control tools on a vulnerable adult person's phone to prevent them from hurting themselves. They have never run such a campaign for awareness or changed those tools to make them more palatable to controlling adult's phones (these tools are always sold as things to enable on a child's device). So no, I don't think we've started with that. We've started by adding some toggles and scary warning, and I agree that hasn't worked. I never suggested we stop trying, I suggested we allow the trusted owner/admin of the device to be more easily assigned to someone that person trusts, not just forcing Google into that role without consent.
Well maybe let's start small and cover the people that do first, just to see how that goes. Instead we're starting with all people on the planet, and it will be declared a success because the metrics will say it was, there's no rolling this back.
And it doesn't have to be children of parents, that's just the common example that's brought out every time this comes up.
Then why not lock down their devices. Why aren't people using the parental controls on their parents phones to lock it down and own in on their behalf? I don't understand this idea that because there are some people vulnerable to scams that we all have to give up control to Apple and Google. The option to move the trust and ownership to another party is useful, but it doesn't have to be just those two parties as options.
For now, maybe. Like all discussions on freedoms and rights it's usually not about the day to day impact or the average person, if we optimized for the average person, we'd be in a sorry state.
Damn we should just give up on this whole computer thing outright then, seems pretty dangerous. There are plenty of other things we could strip away that would make people much safer than just installing software, that's thinking small!
Sadly they don't specify why that's not necessary with iOS, I'm so curious how that's any different. They need some ID to send push notifications, and Apple keeps those registered to devices for delivery. I don't get how that's any different from Firebase push notifications and wish they could actually explain that.
Right? I'm confused how APNS could do this differently from FCM. At least an Android app could implement push notifications without involving Google. This seems like a dev that doesn't really understand Android outside of the GMS features.
I think the same is true for when they started using blurs everywhere. They knew Android OEMs would copy it in a worse way and shoot themselves in the foot. That's also why material design doesn't rely on blur effects, it needs to run well on much worse hardware.
Privacy. Except when you want to install software on a computer you own, then Apple has to know about it and approve of it. That's Apple.
It's wild to me they would claim privacy as some human right while making the only computer in the world you can't actually control without their involvement.
That was kind of their whole bet with rebranding vendor lock-in as an "Ecosystem" right? Get people to buy in and make it painful to leave, even when they become shitty.
> However, the lack of the binaries makes the situation with the OS effectively the same. Once the device is EOL it's e-waste.
Agreed, I'm definitely disappointed in this. The coupling of the hardware and software makes the Pixel phones worthless outside of Google's supported android version for it. I'd love to see some kind of consumer protection laws against this, mandating at least some level of usefulness of the hardware outside of the vendor sanctioned OS.
I'm not sure the release of Google Pixel phone binaries is what made Android distinct from iOS. I'm pretty sure I still cant choose what software runs on iOS outside of Apple saying so, and that's one of the largest distinctions that's brought up. If Apple were to change that, then I'd fully agree.