I hear this a lot and i guess there’s some truth to it, but (depending on workload) they can get plenty hot, plenty quickly. Spinning up the iGPU is usually a surefire way to get hot AND spin the fans up rapidly on my M1 MBP.

If you're putting that level of smarts into the sensor itself, then maybe consider following the human system again and perform a certain amount of image processing/recognition at that level before passing the data down to the controller? Would probably help with your compression problems while you're at it.

As others have pointed out, saying that "Apple has a monopoly on selling iOS software" is like saying that "Sony has a monopoly on selling PlayStation software". It's very unclear that there's anything monopolistic (in the legal sense) going on here. I personally don't love the direction that this kind of thing is moving, but that doesn't automatically make it illegal.

I don't really agree. Sure, 30% seems like a big number - but then you need to consider what you get for that 30%:

* QA resources. This isn't just a rubber-stamp; they really do pay attention to your software and how the software might affect users. No, it's not a complete replacement for in-house QA, but it does mean that a modicum of quality is required before an app can be sold on the app store. While you as a developer might say "we have our own QA resources, trust us!", many users on the other hand are saying "we don't trust a lot of the developers" and rightly so.

* A store-front. Larger companies can probably tackle this themselves without sweating, but for a smaller company or one-man operation, this can be a big deal.

* Card processing, transaction fees, etc. Yeah, this is only a few percent, plus a bunch of extra work that you don't need to worry about.

* Massive audience. Very few companies can achieve the kind of audience that the App Store can give. On the flip-side, a large audience doesn't guarantee that anybody will buy *your* software, so it's not a magic bullet.

* Discounts. I have often walked into my local supermarket and walked out with a "30% off" prepaid card for App Store purchases. For any apps I buy with that card, Apple is getting around 0%. Sure, not all users are taking advantage of this, and sure, it's perhaps benefiting Apple in a not-directly-financial manner, but 0% is still 0%. More common perhaps are the 20% discounts, so Apple is getting more like 10% there (and remember that all of the above costs and fees are still coming out of this 10%).

In short, if you're a big player, you may be able to slim your costs below 30%, build your own store, run your own sales, bring your own customers, build your own brand trust, and so on - but tbh not that many developers fall into that kind of category. In the meantime, there are many advantages to consumers to being able to trust Apple's known-quantity storefront.

Again, I'm not saying that I don't see the downsides of this model - there definitely are many - but claiming that apple is simply biting off a big chunk of the developer's revenues is a vast, vast oversimplification.

To be fair, if you're right, we should be fixing that rather than trying to make it worse.

You're both right, at least to some degree. Increasing the amount of hardware does increase the attack surface, undeniably, but it also moves critical functions from the main component (with the large attack surface) to the specialised sub-component (which may have a much reduced attack surface). The system as a whole may be technically less secure as a result, but the stuff you care most about is more secure.

From the perspective of a mac user: The Windows 3.X UI felt like an ugly hack compared to System 6, and was certainly way behind System 7. When I finally used X Windows a number of years later, I found it remarkably similar in feel to Windows 3.X.

Windows 95 was a different beast. I didn't like it personally, but it was a long way ahead of 3.X.

Yeah, I'm not saying that they literally stole the code, and I'm not sure what they had a legal right to copy, but it's clear that there is a lot in the Windows APIs that is strongly influenced by the design of the classic macOS.

I have to second this. It's not perfect. No phone is perfect. But it's very good.

Whether ANY phone is worth that kind of money is a personal decision. But the X is undeniably an improvement over the previous iPhones in many ways, and realistically doesn't step backwards anywhere except for price. Maybe a step sideways in some areas (trading off one weakness for a new, different, weakness) but not backwards.

Objective-C has one or two nice syntactic tricks, but it's a very weak language compared to C++. About the only thing that it had going for it was that Apple provides a decent set of libraries- not like that isn't also available for C++, but at least Objective C had "one true standard" for such things.

If the runtime performance is that important to you, you could consider invoking the preprocessor to select an 'int' in release builds and a custom strong type in debug mode (this is assuming your strong type is ONLY used for safety, and doesn't add special operators which understand multiple different strong types).

Actually, he's somewhat correct. There are definitely times where iOS refuses to allow word-level selection. This isn't the standard behavior for text selection but does seem pretty common when using Safari. The interaction might start off as word-level selection but then for some reason the phone will decide you actually wanted to select paragraphs and once it's "switched to that mode" it won't change back. I assume this has something to do with the way that the HTML is formatted but from a user perspective it's just stupid.

iOS also has issues with allowing you to select words or characters when a large block is already selected. It's technically possible, but can be frustratingly difficult to achieve in practice.

Status indications. Which were already at the top of the screen, so this is actually a great way to save space.

From what has been said, it seems that a typical-ratio movie will behave as GP describes. The user can opt to zoom in (in which case the cutaway does obscure the view, but the movie is also cropped at top and bottom. The user can probably also play a movie with an atypical ratio, which assumedly is always obscured although perhaps a default zoom-to-fit is used.

Valid point.

Less valid. That would be a false negative. Still a usability concern, but not a security concern.

I had the battery swell on my 5. It was just on two years old. Screen partially detached from the case, camera signal went funny if you applied pressure to the screen. I was travelling at the time. It lasted the week or so of my trip, and I took it straight in to an Apple store on my return home. It was close to closing time. They messed around with trying to repair it for an hour, by which point the store was supposed to have been closed for half an hour. Then they gave me a new 5, no cost.

Pity the phone died, but no serious harm done and the service was great.