I think a lot of what Apple has added to their App Store in the name of security is really just to get developers to move to recurring revenue models, which in turns makes Apple a lot more money. An old app that hasn't been updated in a couple years isn't inherently dangerous, but if Apple can convince users that it is, then devs will have to rethink how they do business. It's a shame to watch Google copy this move too on the Play Store.
I'm curious, how would you say they're more open these days? I've always resisted iOS since I can't do the most basic thing on it which is install software independent of the manufacturer saying I can. If that changes I'd be interested, but do you think Apple is moving in that direction?
That's fair, but the point is still that "The Worst Thing Ever" was the online part, which this doesn't do, so the comparison makes little to no sense. I'll check out their write up though, sounds interesting.
I've seen this article circulating other sites, and it's kind of crazy to compare that headline and the content to the reality of what's happening here. In fact, reading the article now, I see it's continuously been edited to add quotes pulled from Reddit, so I have to assume the goal here was largely just rage/engagement bait.
The reality is that it's an app that offer's some on device models to detect nsfw content. Apps can choose to use those models instead of having to implement it themselves and I think that's kind of it. There's no scanning, there's no uploading, the article is even pulling quotes from a random forum that claims it's listening to your microphone and reading your contacts. The gap between what's written and reality is really ridiculous.
There's a discussion to be had around Google's ability to update software on our phones without our control, absolutely. But that's not what this article is doing, and wont lead the majority to that topic. This article is like reading a conspiracy website, it's a flashy headline with a kernel of truth, but just leads to dangerous behavior, like all the people installing stub apks from GitHub to keep this from installing.
Oh that's right, they would upload a hash basically then flag it using whatever criteria they wanted on the server side. I think some of the outrage too was the question of what happens when they detect something, it was the issue of it reporting content outside of your control at all, which again, this Google thing doesnt seem to do.
I'm pretty sure what Apple proposed was an offline system for scanning, but any matches would be submitted to them. This is just the offline parts, and apps can choose to use it to detect nudity or other NSFW images. There's no scanning going on at all actually.
> what differentiated Apple from the rest was your ability to fully own and manage their devices easily without having to rely on some "forever" subscription.
I'm not sure that's ever been true of the iPhone. Apple's app store is the only way to install software, you're tied to their cloud from day 1. Its not a paid subscription that you're locked into, but they make sure everyone pays in some way.
I never said it was a law, it's a rule of thumb used by police to harass and arrest gender non-conforming people. You seem determined to find some formal law that made their existence illegal, and I'm curious why.
The most obvious example is the "Three Article Rule" that enforced that you must wear at least 3 articles of clothing that "match" your assigned sex at birth. These were easy rules for police to use to justify arresting people. I'm sure others more in the know can provide similar laws and ordinances that affected trans and cross dressing people.
But web hosting fees aren't arbitrary, they're based on the cost of distributing the program they've written. Apple can just declare that you have to rebuild your program for $100 a year plus the cost of all their other hardware to build it on, that's the difference.
And that's Apple's goal, isn't it? Make you do enough recurring work and add enough recurring cost to get you to add subscription pricing to your app, that's the most profitable for them. Make you constantly rebuild your app with the latest iOS sdk in their IDE, on their OS, on their hardware, all in the name of security.
I guess my disconnect is that the computer that a person owns isn't the same as a store that Apple runs and can carefully curate that runs on that computer. Combining those into one thing strikes me as dangerous, with not much upside. Everything you described can be true while allowing the user to use their computer how they want, it just doesn't make Apple as much money.
Maybe, but does that mean this app doesn't deserve to exist on user's computers if they so choose? Not sure why Apple has a say in that just because they have a massive advantage over every other dev on their platform.
I largely agree, especially when focused on consumer devices. Professionally I'm building a product built on top of AOSP, and it's been really nice to have a standard target and all the tooling that Android brings. It could be better but the base AOSP does have a lot of value as a general purpose OS.
I'm in the midst of debating moving us to just Linux or sticking with Android, and the list of things to replace isn't insignificant.
Google's announcements around these things always scare me. So many references to Google Play and their own services, its hard to tell if this will be open like Android itself or some locked down appliance like the Vision Pro. Its no surprise Apple chose to follow the iPhone model since it's so profitable for them, I'm not sure Google has the same incentives so maybe they wont copy that part.
Don't they already have this for podcast subscriptions? I feel like this is a direct move to get more customers over to Apple Podcasts, which can now be 30% cheaper for customers.
The problem is that it's the only option across the OS. There's no reason this option couldn't exist with other options, built by the app developer so it cost Apple nothing.
But you can partner with a 3rd party to submit all that text to, and pretend your still privacy conscience? Pretty sure people would rather Apple build a first party server based option than partner with anyone else. When it's Apple violating privacy people are more chill about it.
The vast majority of people complaining about Apple aren't Apple customers because they don't agree with Apple's business practices or treatment of customers, I don't think that's surprising or invalidates those opinions.
I tend to agree that the focus on "3rd party app stores" is stupid, I'd much rather we force computer vendors to have unlockable bootloader's and focus on consumer rights legislation, ensuring people can own the things they buy.
It works pretty well, and it's nice having full control of the smarts. My washer and dryer don't have a built in buzzer for some weird reason, so it's been a nice upgrade.
I put together an esp32 + accelerometer in a little 3d printed box. Made two sets and taped one of each on my washer and dryer, now they detect the start and end of a cycle and send me a notification through home assistant. The tablet in the kitchen get a notification too and makes a special sound when the clothes are done!
I'm not sure the nuance of technically not sending to Apple really matters when we talk about iOS. iOS is Apple's loyal servant, does it really matter if their control is exacted server or client side? That line is pretty blurry when it comes to Apple in general.
So more like recent trends of Apple and iOS specifically then? Where Apple first party apps are the go to option and the very thought of having to install a separate app is enough to keep people using the Apple solution. Sure there's an option to install other apps, but increasingly the trend is to use the stock apps for everything. Sure AOL didn't give you a choice, but maybe we'll see that one day with iOS too.
That's very true, asynchronous isn't a fair way to describe things.
But given a hint about their level of presence, what are you doing with that information? What can you do after sending the message you were already going to send? Worst case it makes people send "???" as a follow up because they can see I'm coherent enough to tap a notification and assume that means I'm available for a full conversation. The opposite example is the typing indicator, which acts as a useful mechanism to keep a conversation ordered and flowing once it's started. Maybe an argument could be made for the "currently viewing" indicator being more useful, since it solves the problem of indicating I'm available for a conversation better than just "read y/n".