I’m actually laughing over here, that was pretty good.

Dude the last thing I needed for my “talking to an idiot online” bingo card was “(ignores point) aPpLe fAnBoY”

Two professional 27" 4k dell monitors cost ~$800 combined. You overpaid like a mf if you spend $2000 on a monitor.

Sorry, but you don’t understand the needs of the market that we’re talking about if you think that a pair of ~$400 dell monitors is equivalent to a high-end display. The difference between $800 and $2500 amounts to a few days’ worth of production for my workstation, which is very easily worth the huge difference in color accuracy, screen real estate, and not having a bezel run down the middle of your workspace over the 3-5 years that it’s used.

blah blah blah

I already said that I’m talking about the Vision Pro as a first step in the direction of a fully-realized AR workstation. As it currently stands, it’s got some really cool tech that’s going to be a lot of fun for the guinea pig early adopters that fund the development of the tech I’m personally interested in.

What purpose does a MacBook serve that an office from the 1980’s wasn’t equipped to handle?

AR devices in an office serve the same purpose as existing tools, but there are ways that they can improve efficiency, which is all the justification office tech needs. Shit, my monitor costs 2/3 the price of the Vision Pro, and an ideal piece of AR hardware would be immeasurably better. Meetings in virtual space would negate how much meetings suck remotely. Having unlimited screen real estate would make a huge difference in my line of work. Also, being able to use any area in my home or out of it with as much screen real estate as I want would be huge.

I’m not saying that the Vision Pro does all of those things, but it does some of them, and I’m 100% okay with it being the thing that introduces the benefit of AR to those without imagination.

lol my guy it’s the most intuitive, straightforward, natural way to go back that I can imagine. You just swipe the window back.

You’re absolutely right, but the knuckle-draggers are too busy with their FOMO to hear it.

iMessage supports a dense layer of features in excess of what’s possible with the RCS standard. RCS is a decent fallback, and maybe progress could be made towards supporting it as a fallback. But the issue is that not even all Android phones enable RCS by default, meaning iMessage would have to have a fallback and a second fallback.

And honestly, the bottom line is that Apple is unlikely to prioritize implementing RCS until their customer base is asking them to do so, which they largely aren’t. The vast majority of the anger towards Apple regarding RCS is from people who don’t buy Apple phones, or from Apple’s direct competitors seeking to improve their products. Apple users (myself included) don’t really care because a marginally better SMS experience is still going to be worse than iMessage, and if I’m really looking for rich cross-platform messaging, I can use any of the dozen widely-used apps that do exactly that.

*outside of the US

It’s been super clearly demonstrated that you have to have thumbnails like that for your videos to be successful on YouTube.

You can be annoyed by it, and in fact, a ton of creators hate it. But it’s really not the creators’ fault that they have to do this.

Unfortunately I found that AM did a very poor job of generating an enjoyable personal radio from my “liked” (added to library) songs.

Really wanted to use it, and I tried for about 6 months, but I ended up going back to Spotify. First day going back to Spotify made me even more disappointed in AM because of how spot-on the music discovery is there.

I’m just like this too, but you have to remember that for every person like us, there’s a person like my wife, who’s buying garbage that she sees on instagram ads nearly every week.

I beg her to at least search for the item and buy it directly so that the website she’s on isn’t getting revenue for ads. It’s petty but makes me feel better.

Yeah and if you really want it to be accessible from WAN, just forward port 80 on your router to the phone.

If you’re sticking an old device into a closet stuck to a charger, a phone is like the worst thing for that. Heck, even an old laptop running Linux would probably allow you to charge it, have an external HDD, and Ethernet at the same time, which already puts it miles ahead of a phone.

Android is open source, so if you really want to do this with an old device, you can build yourself a custom rom and do so. But there is no way that it’s a good play for Google to spend engineering time and resources to build something that is at best a poor replacement for countless existing solutions.

What are you talking about? GitHub pages is just one example of a web page host that’s free for everyone, super fast and reliable.

Even if you need to host something that has a backend, there are free options with significantly fewer downsides than hosting on your phone.

Cloud servers may be a bad solution for things like pinhole, but your phone would be dead in four hours if you were forcing it to stay awake to respond to every DNS request on your network.

If you’re talking about using your phone as a stationary server that you leave plugged in, isn’t that just an extremely overpriced raspberry pi with no free IO ports?

It’s an interesting idea, but it’s just so much worse than any other option that I can’t imagine anyone seriously wanting to do it.

Android app sideloading utilized something called a “privacy budget,” where the system does give sandboxed apps access to “limited” device data. The idea is that Google “doesn’t want to break the app functionality,” so Android provides details about the device as long as the app isn’t requesting “too much.”

Of course it’s possible to to completely sandbox an app without breaking it, but, again, Google is an adtech company and providing their customers with users that they can target with ads is literally their only goal.

I stopped reading your reply after your first paragraph because you’ve established a very predictable pattern of having no idea what you’re talking about.

No. Sandboxed apps only prevent some fingerprinting, but notably provides a ‘reasonable budget’ for data that can be gathered.

What you said about the advertising ID is true and is basically what I said, but disabling the advertising ID does not stop profiling or fingerprinting, just limits the most obvious applications of it.

Using a VPN is a start, but we’re comparing the privacy of Android and iOS. You can use a VPN on both. iOS includes an opt-in pseudo-vpn baked into the OS with private relay, for $0.99 per month. And besides, using a VPN does nothing to block the the fingerprinting done by native apps.

Are you sure you work in security? Like, mall security?

I’m talking about blocking cross app tracking, not “restricting” it. Still, Google does not even restrict cross app tracking. They’ve announced a planned muli-year (their words) initiative to restrict cross app tracking- but, importantly, they’ve very clearly expressed that they’re going to work with advertisers to make sure that what they plan isn’t too disruptive. Which should be obvious anyway, because advertisers are literally their only real paying customers.

All that Google is interested in doing is finding the absolute minimum that they can do to give the illusion that they care about privacy, all without having to do anything that meaningfully protects user data. And only after Apple makes a huge change that devours even more of Google’s market share.

If you’re thinking about the current feature in android that allows users to “disable” cross app tracking, it actually doesn’t. It just disable Google’s advertising ID, but still let’s any app who wants to fingerprint your device using IP address and device serial.

Google’s entire profit model is offering software for free so that they can gather data and sell ads.

Granular app permissions are a start, but barely. Cross-app tracking is a bigger deal, and Apple is miles ahead of Google there; and Google is never going to catch up, because it would destroy their revenue search.

I’ve used both platforms extensively, I actually love Android. Google assistant is so much better than Siri that it’s obnoxious, custom roms are a ton of fun, having a way to get root access on a device is so important it should be legally required.

But, if you think that a company that exists to build an advertising profile and sell ads will ever produce a device that meaningfully blocks the ability to build an advertising profile, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Great story man, we are browsing the apple_enthusiasts subreddit because we want to know what your Motorola phone can do.

Dude it’s sad how obviously desperate you are to be personally offended by apple. Nobody here is claiming that they’re a company with morals, or that they do anything out of the goodness of their heart.

Apple targets a market segment that prioritizes data privacy. They’re under a ton of scrutiny from their users, and stand to lose considerable business if they start compromising on privacy.

Likewise, they’ve been gaining more and more market share in the US, largely from people who are switching because of Apple’s stance on privacy.

The best way for them to maximize profits is for them to continue to prioritize user privacy, which is why it’s easy to believe that they’ll do so.

You’re acting like you don’t realize that there is a difference between end user privacy, and security from targeted attacks.

I don’t really care how hard it would be for a motivated attacker to target me and breach the security of my device.

I do really care about how hard it is for every website on earth to know intimate, personal details about my life.

iOS is the only sane choice.