Doubtful they care anything about safety, look at all the alignment/safety folks jumping ship. More likely they're hitting the top of the S-curve and getting some seriously diminishing returns, even after throwing billions of dollars worth of hardware at training new models. Convenient excuse to slow down investment and reset expectations for the shareholders.
Windows 11 was initially released in 2021. It didn't allow installation on most 7th generation Intel CPUs that were released in 2016 and still manufactured until 2020. Plus the requirement for TPM that's not backed in any user-positive functionality, and the online account requirements later.
Lack of Win11 adoption is 100% on Microsoft.
Let's not even mention Linux which only dropped support for 486 CPUs a few months ago. That's 30-40 year old hardware.
Takes a bit more console/CLI work, but Proxmox can do PCIe passthrough: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/P...
Unity also owns a major mobile-ad and in-game-purchase monetization platform called LevelPlay. And they said those devs who switched to it would have their Unity runtime fees conveniently waived.
Forget installing TikTok specifically. Or which country we're talking about. Here are some better questions.
This is basic "mobile fleet management" stuff. You register all your devices to an MDM platform. Only allow certain apps to be installed, and enforce installation of endpoint protection and VPNs and other security settings. Otherwise all these devices are ripe to become a botnet.
The V2V and V2I concepts weren't originally subscription-required. These were supposed to be modules that would broadcast (using "open-ish" protocols and radio standards) vehicle telemetry locally so other nearby cars and whatever traffic lights you were passing by can read it. DSRC is the key word there. Now it's turned into C-V2X which still follows the same "local broadcast" concept but needs a bunch of Qualcomm-gated cell technology instead of open-standard IEEE 802.11p radios.
But that's a different story than these subscription services. Car manufacturers are separately installing "telematics modules", basically small cellular routers with manufacturer-managed SIM cards, GPS, and a CANbus interface, that give them a remote link into every other control module in the vehicle. This is how they can send remote-unlock signals and grab current mileage to remind you of an impending oil change, but it also gives them real time GPS location, all sorts of driver-behavior characteristics that I'm sure insurance companies would love to get their hands on, and so much more.
Fun fact example because I own one of these: if you have a Ford truck, the telematics module lives on the cab wall behind the back seat. At least up until 2022s, unplugging the module has no ill effects, other than not being able to unlock your doors or remote-start the engine from your phone anymore. I bet at some point in the future (newer model, or newer firmware update) this will start to trip the check-engine light so you can't turn off the telematics feed.
More specifically, captured.
Nope, sorry. If they're including a hardware device in the car I Just bought, I reserve the right to use it as I see fit. If they want to charge for it, that's fine, but they only get to do that at hardware-purchase time. This whole "oh well that's a SOFTWARE feature, that's different" mentality is toxic.
Subscriptions are fine for things that need ongoing effort. Onboard data connectivity, or map updates, controls that have to go through an outside server, or the like. Not "the privilege of sending power to a resistive heating loop that's already built into the seat cushion".
And no, I don't agree with Tesla selling partial software-locked battery capacity either. Install the full battery, I expect to be able to use the full battery (minus whatever part is known by all parties up front to be reserved for wear leveling). If they want to sell a partial sized battery, then install a smaller one - maybe I wanted the weight reduction of carrying around fewer cells for some reason.
OK, but let's get the analogy a bit closer to what Apple's doing. Let's say you bought your washer from Walmart (if they sold washers), and they somehow artificially enforce use of only soap obtainable from Walmart. And maybe that wasn't entirely clear at the time, until Walmart decided to stop selling Tide and suddenly you can't wash your clothes anymore until you go buy other soap. Having to buy another washing machine because your soap stopped working isn't a rational situation. Neither should buying a different phone be a rational outcome either.
Apple should be able to drop devs from the App Store and eat the loss of revenue if they so choose. But device owners should be able to install software some other way if they want. Being artificially locked out of capabilities of your own hardware is never OK.
Apple's rules aren't "illegal", they're just something you don't like. And, Apple isn't being anti-competitive, exactly the opposite - they're encouraging competition. The baseline is that they don't have to allow or support the development and distribution of third party apps on their platform. They'd be within their rights to lock it up tight and do everything themselves. Instead, they opened it to third party development with strict rules, which expands the market and encourages competition. That they don't allow competition with themselves on their platform doesn't make it anti-competitive, it _is_ their platform and the marketplace is _much_ larger than just their platform. If you don't like it, find a different platform to use.
The point is, maybe those rules should be illegal. Why would "allowing installing apps outside the App Store" be discouraging competition? If somebody can be competitive offering software outside the store, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If every platform turns into a walled garden then there's no alternatives. It's their store and they can make reasonable rules about what's offered for sale there. But it's MY device and I should be able to choose what runs on it. Just like I should be able to self-repair my John Deere tractor or use non-Keurig K-cups.
What would have happened if the PC architecture was a closed platform from the beginning? Linux and the greater Open Source movement probably never would have happened, because it would have been impossible. PCs took off as a platform exactly because of how open they were.
Here's the difference: for customers with an Android phone you don't actually have to go through Google. Sure, they'd prefer you did, and lately they've put up a bunch of scaremongering warnings before you install a non-Store-signed APK (not cool). But I can go install another store on my Android device (e.g. F-Droid), or individual APK packages. No such option for Apple.
Another commenter also mentioned the same problem with Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, etc. Personally I don't think those devices should be allowed to lock out third party software either. If I was leasing the device that'd be one thing, but if I bought it I get to choose what software it runs.
Couldn't agree more. They can't even keep the website going? Ugh.
Weather Underground has gotten much worse since being acquired by Weather Channel too.
Here's hoping Windy isn't next to fall... any other suggestions?
...it would be nice if Rpi or another SBC maker had some options for added stuff that would allow ease of use turning the SBC into a decent NAS.
I haven't used these personally, but been hearing good things about the ODroid line: https://www.hardkernel.com/sho...
A few of them (like the one I linked) are specifically built for NAS use, others are more traditional SBC form factor but still have SATA ports on some models.
FYI Samsung only makes SSDs at this point. They sold off their HDD business to Seagate at the end of 2011: https://www.seagate.com/about-...
Last CS test I took(~6-7 years ago) didn't allow pseudocode, We had to write it in syntactically correct Java. Points off for missing brackets/semicolons/etc that would make the code fail to compile as written.
Nothing succeeds like excess. -- Oscar Wilde
