Comment Re:48GB?! (Score 1) 107
It's not and they didn't say it was. Chris Roberts worked at Origin. That was the joke.
It's not and they didn't say it was. Chris Roberts worked at Origin. That was the joke.
It's sad that people are more concerned with what companies are doing with their information than the government.
Because people aren't allowed to be concerned about both things? Why this false dichotomy?
and they still do not allow the default email or browser app to be changed.
No, but companies can do like what Google does and just tightly integrate all your apps together where clicking something in one launches another one of your apps to handle it.
Are "alternate webkit-based browsers" capable of adding support for HTML5 elements and attributes that Apple chose to leave out of WebKit for iOS? Are they allowed to associate themselves with the http: and https: schemes?
No. Hence why I said that they can't have a third-party web engine. They have to use the system-provided WebKit.
I didn't think so.
And I never said they could so I don't see the relevance.
Apple do indeed (still) have an infrequently enforced policy about competing apps
Such as?
That there are lots of alternative web browsers based on their webkit does not suggest 'competing' browsers, because those browsers are unable to meaningfully compete.
They can't compete on the rendering engine, sure, but users don't actually give two shits about that. The browsers compete on the other features they can provide.
Apple doesn't allow any application competing with their own as far as I know
And what you know amounts to very little apparently. When was the last time you heard anything about iOS? 2009? What Apple doesn't allow is third-party web engines, but they allow alternate webkit-based browsers. There are probably hundreds of such applications in the App Store.
The problem is that they are essentially rudderless without Google's yearly handouts. If Mozilla had diversified their revenue long ago they wouldn't be in this situation of throwing tons of shit at the wall to see what sticks.
If they had compelling content people would pay for it directly. Sites like ehow and Buzzfeed create crap but can stay around due to clickbait spam.
No what will happen is shitty sites full of fluff and click bait will go out of business. Nothing of value will be lost.
Why is this modded up? Stingrays are mostly for metadata capture. End-to-end encryption is completely orthogonal to that.
But you thought it was credible to give Kissinger one?
Are you accusing Fuckerberg of lying to people? Blasphemy!
Being rhetorical, right?
Of which I never said otherwise. Of course it uses the active digitizer to get the pressure sensitivity, etc. But the screen is ultimately still capacitive.
All of that is easy to accomplish when you can simply exclude huge swaths of kids.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
