osmartormenajr

Sounds like an appropriate response from the one-sided and very-heavy-handed approach from the ad industry... While I don't mind ads per se, I find no justificative for the tracking side... They say it is for better ads, but all information I volunteered from my Google searches, Facebook page, etc., didn't get me any remotely interesting or worthwhile ads. Ever! So how much a difference tracking could make.

eightzero said:

It's cool. I can't afford one. Will need to wait. 

I'm guessing the FaceID will be popular with law enforcement. Maybe that's a feature and not a bug.

I think that's an overblown problem. If it becomes legal to force any person to unlock his/her personal device, and any evidence that comes from that has a standing in court, than it doesn't make a difference if it is FaceID or TouchID. Any person can be made to comply, without undue use of force, to unlock a phone in this way.

The use of a PIN, or a full blown password, to unlock is another issue altogether. I just don't see any way a democratic country can justify the means necessary to make a person to comply in providing these.

Classic security vs. convenience compromise that happens everywhere

I was sure there was going to have some talk about "web developers that don't have the resources to move from Flash...". Please, you just can't be more lame. The death of Flash is like a relative you really don't like that's been terminally ill for ten years now.

If, by now, you weren't prepared for it, you would never be. I've been Flash free for about five years now. I invested in Apple devices (in part) so I could use Safari, not to bloat them with half a dozen of (inferior) browsers.

If I open a webpage and it requires Flash, I simply close it and go somewhere else. To refrain to jump the boat now (which is already late) is being penny wise-buck foolish. Dear God, not even Android supports this anymore, and about three of four web accesses is mobile nowadays.

gatorguy said:

Should we be surprised that there's no comment from the regulars that Google, Microsoft and Samsung are coming to Apple's defense? 

If you think it through, no, we shouldn't. Qualcomm (i)legitimate business practices affects every vendor! I find it particularly preposterous that they EVER could get away calculating their licenses over the price of the whole finished good, not just the chip that uses them. I mean, they are just orgasming with somebody else's dick... not fair !

XStylus said:

osmartormenajr said:
Good riddance to you and your toy phone. Come back when you grow up. Or are you just a troll that is being willfully obtuse?

Much (if not all) of the app functionality will be built-in to Safari now. Besides, most of the ad blockers are scams, receiving kickbacks from advertisers that wish to be white listed.

Setting your unwarranted insult aside, it's equally as much about privacy as it is about sanity and calm. The content blocking in Safari is just that -- it's for Safari only. It won't allow me to control what various apps on my phone are doing, such as a calculator app or alarm clock app sending/receiving data from the internet when it has no business to, or apps that have trackers or other means of trying to monetize my usage. So pardon me, I'd like to think my disgust is rather justified.

I feel sorry for the hell you live with your toy phone. If you had any understanding of how iOS works (hint: it's not Fandroid, it really works) you wouldn't come out with this poor excuse.

I won't repeat others, just read a comment posted two or three instances below your "reply".

I just saw that this was your first post, so the stink of troll is already reaching the high heavens...