The version without those 5 lines will now be forever out there though. Malicious peers can download the apk and get the premium version for free. This feels like a poorly thought out design on Google's part.
>Two weeks ago TechCrunch called on Instagram to build an equivalent to Facebook’s “Download Your Information feature so if you wanted to leave for another photo sharing network, you could. The next day it announced this tool would be coming and now TechCrunch has spotted it rolling out to users.
So we've moved from companies trying to make compliance to GDPR look like they are doing us a favor out of the goodness of their hearts to now tech sites trying to take the credit for that too. Who will be the next I wonder.
A company using it's compliance to regulation as a PR exercise? Who'd have thought it!
Phone companies in the UK at least do this boasting EU free roaming as a "feature" they're so nice to provide, except that it's UK law. Three are the only network that did this voluntarily (and their Feel at home thing is also many places outside the EU which is nice)
There're safeguards put in to prevent price-flat market situation. And it's damn nice when a day's trip to neighbouring country doesn't mean switching SIM cards or outrageous fees.
Explain that too people where their SIM card switches to the neighbooring countries provider.
And more importantly, surfing while on vacation in the EU ( 100 mb) won't cost you 200 €'s anymore. Some people had a vacation bill of 9.000 € of their provider ( source: newspaper & victim was local politician)
It means more competition, because consumers can choose between effectively any provider in the EU. So if the providers in say Germany have awful deals, you could get a SIM from a company in the UK that has less shitty deals.
At the least, it implies that you ought to carefully consider whether you should. Optimized code often makes trade-offs in complexity, flexibility, etc, not to mention the extra cost in development time.
With those costs, there should be a compelling benefit that you get out of it. Otherwise, it's not worthwhile.
There was no real alternative for facebook. There is one for snapchat and it's called instagram stories. The way I see it, snapchat will lose even more users to instagram while at the same time increasing their per-user revenue. What's left to be seen is whether the increase in per-user revenue will make it up for the lost users.
Snap and Bitmoji are at the top of the charts in the app & play store (even above Instagram for the most part) since the update came out, so I wouldn't be so sure about that.
It took several minutes on a couple of Macs with fusion drives. It seemed stuck at "Calculating time remaining..." but eventually finished, rebooted, and continued installing, this time displaying a reasonable time remaining value.
Did we watch the same WWDC? macOS is in maintenance mode no mater how they try to mask it and still somehow I keep experiencing more bugs with every release. At least they are going to update their hardware this time around huh? Is that what passes for "being focused on macs" these days? Last year was like they completely forgot about us, this year they are throwing us breadcrumps.
EDIT: Since I keep getting the same replies, I'm gonna edit it here too:
1. When you are in maintenance mode and you still manage to introduce more bugs than you are fixing then your are doing something wrong (usually that's a result of limiting the budget of a department and as a consequence hiring less experienced developers)
2. Every new feature the last few years has been ported from iOS and without much care. I still can't believe they have yet to make Siri and Spotlight one unified product (at least make Spotlight more powerful, I can't even set a timer with it).
And to add to this, being in maintenance mode doesn't have immediate effects. If Apple continues like this somewhere down the line macOS is gonna end up quite behind (and a big mess due to points 1. and 2.)
I prefer macOS being in maintenance mode instead of becoming bloated with new but unimportant features especially given the 16 GB limit. The lack of hardware refreshes wouldn't have been horrible if Apple's hardware was easily upgradable like pre-retina models
"... given the 16 GB limit." Can you explain that? I mean, as a 64bit operation system, that doesn't jive. Are you talking about physical memory in machines that are being sold now? I've swapped out tons of memory and never heard about this. - this isn't a jab either. I seriously am not sure what you mean. (no insult intended)
Its limited because they are using low power LPDDR3 ram, which its limited to 16GB. LPDDR4 doesn't have this limit, but isn't supported by intel on Kabylake.
> "... given the 16 GB limit." Can you explain that?
They are referring to the fact that Apple portables ship with soldered memory and max out at 16GB while PC manufacturers are shipping systems which support 32 and even 64GB in laptop/mobile workstation form factor.
So they are referring to the physical memory (RAM) limit of Apple devices, not any logical limitations of the OS.
Couldn't disagree more. The macOS it its current iteration is a platform. With that platform you have a stack. Within that stack you support unward / downward functions depending on what you want. Just take a look at what Tridium does with their Niagara AX automation platform and the world of IoT and energy and you'll see what Apple most likely is iterating towards. https://www.tridium.com/en/products-services/building-automa...
1. When you are in maintenance mode and you still manage to introduce more bugs than you are fixing then your are doing something wrong (usually that's a result of limiting the budget of a department and as a consequence hiring less experienced developers)
2. Every new feature the last few years has been ported from iOS and without much care. I still can't believe they have yet to make Siri and Spotlight one unified product (at least make Spotlight more powerful, I can't even set a timer with it).
If there was a standardized protocol/system for "cloud syncing" of files it's entirely likely they would all support it. Kind of like how they all support SMB/CIFS now.
A universal protocol would only handle the "data in flight". The other issue is "data at rest" which is storage problem.
As analogy, SMTP is a universal protocol and yet email giants like GMail/Hotmail/Yahoo exist. They store emails. Average users don't want to point DNS MX records to their laptops running home mail servers 24/7.
- Dropbox-the-client-software simplifies "data in flight".
- Dropbox-the-cloud-storage simplifies "data at rest".
Since storage costs money (e.g. see Amazon Cloud Drive drops "unlimited" plan), it means there would be conflicting business interests from OS vendors at that infrastructure layer. This why a company that was _not_ Apple/Microsoft /Google/Redhat such as Dropbox was able to fill a gap.
There is nothing in the world wrong with me wanting to serve 4 terabytes of content off my own local machine, and know where it is going, and to whom, without the involvement of any third-party at the content layer. That is a feasible, realistic, and tangible goal in the current state of things. Dropbox has a lot of data. They're not a file-system vendor; they're a neo-google.
