My latest pet peeve is when Siri violates basic privacy standards by compelling data collection that isn't necessary.

A couple of days ago, I asked it for a list of restaurants near a particular town where I would be in a couple of hours. Siri immediately told me I had to enable location services for that query. What? Why? My query didn't ask for a list of restaurants near me. I asked for a list of restaurants near a different town, and more to the point, I gave both the name of the town and the state.

I attempted probably half a dozen different variations of that query, including things like avoiding the word "near", and Siri failed in the same way every single time, so this isn't just a one-off glitch specific to how I worded the query. It's a general problem with the way Siri handles queries that involve location.

This violates the first rule of location services, which is do not ask for the user's location unless you actually need the user's location. If the user is asking for restaurants in Panama City, Florida, Siri does NOT need to know that the user is currently in Charleston, South Carolina. It's none of Siri's d**n business. And more to the point, if Siri actually tried to do literally anything with that location data, it would be pretty much guaranteed to reduce the quality of the results rather than increase it, so having the data is just an invitation for any AI that might be involved to do something utterly stupid.

And you've done nothing to explain what the use case is. As far as I can tell, the use case is "Someone who wants to use their phone to control the TV instead of the TV remote," which is a tremendous amount of technological overhead for such a negligible benefit.

It's way easier to point your camera at the screen and do an instant sign-in on the TV than it is to get your phone connected to the right Wi-Fi network and cast to the right TV, so the use case would have to be pretty compelling to make up for what a pain in the a** it is when it works, much less when it doesn't.

Major correction here: about something that I have tried to use on many, many occasions, but never used successfully. There's a difference.

You won't read or engage further because you don't actually know any compelling reason to use it. If you did, you would have said what that reason was by now.

Not really, no. If I wanted to use the TV to do all of the networking and playback, I would have just used the TV's app to do it. The number of hotels I've seen where the TV supported Chromecast or AirPlay streaming but did not have a built-in Netflix app are literally zero.

From my perspective, casting is a complete disaster by its very nature. It relies on the display device having full Internet access, which isn't a given. Literally every time I've wanted to do casting, it has been because the TV set's Netflix app wasn't working because of a network problem, and it couldn't get access to the Internet, so I was trying to use the phone's network connection. By shifting the network connectivity back to the TV set, it makes the entire system completely worthless, because the exact situations where it could be useful are the exact situations where it isn't.

The figures can be entirely correct and still the answer can be "no". Why? Because Android might use the Linux kernel, but it isn't really a Linux distro in any meaningful sense of the word. And Steam Deck and Chromebooks *can* have some reasonable facsimile of a Linux development environment, but I'd expect maybe 0.1% of users to actually turn it on.

So most of those folks are Linux "users" in much the same way that TiVo owners were linux "users", i.e. they are using a device that deep down, at a level that the user is unaware of, runs some small subset of what a Linux distro typically contains, with a bunch of stuff on top that they mostly aren't in control over.

It's like calling Mac users UNIX users. It's technically correct — the best kind of correct — but grossly misleading.

You do realize that what you're describing is all of about ten lines of Javascript with the right libraries (audioTrackList property, subtitle library, currentTime property), right?

Great opportunity for open source web services. :-)

There's no good reason to use it. Just encode your video for random-access streaming, set up Apache or nginx with a URL that you make sure isn't indexed, require a client cert on the directory if you really want to be careful, port forward to it from a port on your router, set up dynamic DNS, and use a web browser. No arbitrary restrictions, just your content on your terms.

None of it is unique to the device — I have backups of everything — but I still want the photos and videos on the new phone. :-)

Transferring a terabyte of data from one phone to another takes the better part of an hour even at real-world USB 3 speeds.

Counterpoint: My phone history includes:

• iPhone (original), 5 years
• iPhone 5, 3 years
• iPhone 6s, 8 years
• iPhone 15 Pro, 2 years so far

Assuming I keep the 15 Pro for 3 years (the prior minimum), that's 4.75 years average. I also buy the device with the largest capacity, and always wish it were bigger. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't increase capacity quickly enough for upgrading to help with that.

Upgrading is expensive and it is a pain in the a**. So there are multiple reasons to keep a device until it dies. Some people who buy flagship phones have the same concerns.

The main difference is that flagship phones typically get security updates for five to seven years. Low-end phones are often previous generation hardware that is still for sale, and may get security updates for as little as one year from the date of purchase. So unless you're willing to put your entire life at risk by using a phone that has gaping security holes, low-end phones are often false economy, purchased by people who see the price tag and are too broke to afford a better one, who then end up paying for replacement after replacement at a higher rate because they can't afford a phone that will actually last five or six years.

So I would expect low-end phones to get junked every couple of years, and for high-end phones to get junked when support is dropped, assuming that the owners know that the phone is no longer supported, and the rest of them just end up in a giant botnet, and they replace their phones because they're bogged down with malware a few months to a year after they go out of support.

iPhone users keep their phones longer than Android users, on average. 61% of iPhone users have owned their phone for more than 2 years, versus just 43% of Android users.

So patch availability does appear to have a significant impact on how long people keep their devices.

You're right about YouTube. I was thinking HEVC was one of their delivery formats, but apparently not.

Netflix definitely did use HEVC for delivery of some of its high-end content at one time. Whether they still do or not, I have no idea.

Either way, the fact that people are running into error messages suggests that there is some actual customer impact.

Except that nobody who buys one of their machines is going to think, "I could pay an extra $100 and my machine would work better." They're going to think, "This piece of s**t can't even do things that my cell phone from eight years ago can do. Why did I buy this, and why should I ever buy anything from this manufacturer in the future?"

This level of penny-wise, pound-foolish behavior is a sure way to permanently lose customers.

...or decoding...

You mean like... anyone who wants to watch Netflix or YouTube or any other streaming service's high-res content?

When I see things like "facial age verification", I have major concerns, whether we're talking about a site like Roblox (whatever that is — I don't know, and don't really care), social media, porn, or any other site. How are you going to do it without violating the privacy of every person who creates an account? And how are you going to verify that the person using the account is the person who created it without causing an even bigger privacy violation?

We do need some sort of age verification system, but we need it to be designed in a way that protects privacy. I have less than zero faith in any individual website to come up with such a system, and approximately zero faith in any individual government to do so. There really needs to be an international age verification working group that spends the next five years coming up with a system, then pressures everyone to implement it.

Doing it the other way around, with companies or governments shoveling bad, partial, or even dangerous solutions to the problem down everyone's throats, can only result in greater levels of push-back by the general public towards a proper scheme if someone ever creates it.