giant touchscreen
In the 2007 tech press lull between announcement and launch, there was briefly a made up scandal of accusing Apple of using models with really large hands in promotional photos/videos to make the iPhone look smaller than it was. It’s wild to think about now.
Have you heard of game consoles?
Such an app would violate the App Store rules:
4.2 Minimum Functionality: Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website. If your app is not particularly useful, unique, or “app-like,” it doesn’t belong on the App Store.
Why not chuck the data when it’s no longer being used, though?
They do. Apple is sending literally trillions of push notifications per year and certainly doesn’t want to save them longer than necessary (a useless expense), but the government can also ask that information for a targeted user be retained, going forward from the request, even though it would normally be purged.
The developer of the app sends the push notification through Apple’s service. Developers have always been able to encrypt it, at which point it can be decrypted only by their app, but not all developers do this. There’s also still limited metadata about the fact that a notification was sent, even if the contents are encrypted.
I’m not clean bubble anymore.
I’m assuming you meant green. Are you aware that received messages on iPhone all look the same regardless of whether they’re iMessages or SMS? You were gray before and you’re gray now.
This headline is ridiculous; I expect better from Ars Technica. You “admit” to things you shouldn’t have done. In this case the government compelled Apple to disclose certain data and simultaneously prohibited Apple from disclosing the disclosure. Thanks to a senator’s letter, Apple is now free to disclose something that they previously wanted to disclose, about something they were forced to do in the first place.
Compare to the Reuters headline: “Governments spying on Apple, Google users through push notifications - US senator.” The emphasis and agency are correctly placed on the bad actors.
This person is an actress and comedian. This is not an iPhone error; it’s just a manually-edited photo from three separate takes that she pretended came out of the phone as-is. It’s a hoax for laughs/attention.
So just start a government subsidy program for news, and increase corporate taxes. That would at least be honest. The lie that this is somehow compensation for something of value is the part that I can’t abide. There’s not even any advertising on Google News. It’s literally just linking out to news articles. If you search for news topics, you usually won’t find any paid links on that either. People bid on search terms related to stuff people might buy, not on hard news topics.
That’s the BS line publishers have been trying to trick people with but that extra stuff such as the lede and photo are explicitly provided by the publisher to enable rich preview cards/links. They literally add extra code in the page for that exact purpose. View source on any of their articles and you’ll see Open Graph metadata tags, which were created by Facebook.
They added code specifically so their links from Facebook would look better, and are now pretending like the rich preview cards are stealing their content.
The World Wide Web is a web of links. Websites link to other websites. These publishers want to be paid when certain companies link to them. That’s an affront to a core functionality of the web.
What a disgrace. This law is hostile to the basic principles of an open web; Google should have refused like Meta is.
You know, when I wrote it I actually questioned whether I should use the word “lying,” or if doing so would cause an overly nit-picking response, but I decided to expect the best in people. Surely they’d see that I was establishing a shared premise that he wasn’t lying, which is the usual opposite of “telling the truth,” while pointing out that he wasn’t necessarily telling the truth. There’s a middle ground of ignorance.
But by all means, thank you for interjecting yourself in the conversation to state the obvious.
I think he’s experienced enough to know that when your movie is out in theaters right now, the studio always wants you to use every possible opportunity to talk up the film, and would prefer you not go off on tangents. If nothing else, that’s a reasonable request.
I’m aware, but at the moment on stage, it wasn’t possible for him to know the truth in the first place so it’s not about whether we think De Niro was “telling the truth.” He was speculating.
It is very easy for CEOs or upper management or middle management to pass down orders that are worded in a way that imply what they want workers to do without saying it in a legally binding way.
Seriously, just think through this. Be super conspiratorial if you want to. There’s no upside for Apple as a company. There’s no reason anybody in power would even be involved in the speech in the first place. It’s a minor awards ceremony that effectively nobody watches. If it were a conscious decision, it would obvious piss off De Niro, which seems like an extra stupid idea.
What’s more likely? A: Intentionally anger a big-name actor by trying to force him to change a speech that nobody was going to hear, or B: Someone accidentally sent the wrong final draft.
why is it the first conclusion that De Niro and many others came to?
He said it before he had any time to reflect on it or carefully choose his words to parse out the nuance we’re discussing now.
Apple admitted they made a mistake with the teleprompter. We can only speculate why it happened.
We don’t have any statement from Apple. “A source close to the film” said it was a mix-up with different versions of the draft and that Apple didn’t know De Niro hadn’t signed off on that one as the final version. The source anonymous to us, but not to Variety, and they judged the person credible.
If Apple wanted him to only talk about certain things during his speech they could’ve communicated that before he accepted their request for him to give a speech.
Apple never asked him to give a speech. This is an acceptance speech for an obscure, untelevised awards show. The winners are invited to speak when accepting it. De Niro worked with the producers/Apple on his acceptance speech. For some reason, the draft loaded on the teleprompter wasn’t the version he planned on. There are many different reasons this could be.
If you’re going to attribute an action to a company as a whole, then it at least needs to be a decision made by a high-level employee and not some peon. The idea that Apple decided to just unilaterally delete portions of his speech at the last minute, without his consent, is among the least plausible scenarios. Anybody with any actual authority at the company is smart enough to know how stupid that would be. The most likely scenario is pure mistake with multiple drafts in play; the next most likely is a nobody who grossly overstepped their bounds, made their bosses look bad, and has probably already been fired.
Apple did not produce or distribute the event. I think they’d be perfectly content with zero viewers. CODA won two Gotham Awards, including Troy Kotsur for best supporting actor. Did Apple talk about it then? No. What about when CODA won big at the Oscars? Apple dedicated two long paragraphs of the press release to talking about the other awards CODA won but the Gotham Awards are so irrelevant that they didn’t even get a single throwaway mention.
Android as a company was created in 2003 with no product at all. They started working on a phone operating system in 2005, were acquired by Google, and then had an early prototype Blackberry knockoff in 2006. The iPhone was announced in 2007 so they abandoned the original plans and started making an iPhone knockoff. The first Android phone was released in 2008.