georgie01

dysamoria said:

Not explaining to the user that you’re doing it, and why, and letting them have reduced functionality without explanation. But this doesn’t even answer why my phone’s typing lag has become almost intolerable, since I disabled that throttling function (they don’t give you an option to turn it back on BTW) and the OS hasn’t been changed since the last iOS 12.x release and its performance continues to get worse. Either the typing services on Apple’s servers is getting really bogged down, or the CPU throttling is still happening regardless of tapping on the hyperlink to disable it, or there’s something else going on.

It’s also bad because people buy new phones when their current one seems slow, and they don’t know why that would be the case. End users aren’t tech people and don’t know what questions to ask. They have one option: try a new phone. That benefits Apple.

But you should already know all of this.

What really happened is that a handful of people notice something and decided to test and discovered what Apple decided to do. And then people found out and 99% of the people who complained suddenly decided their phones were slowed down and Apple was trying to make them obsolete.

All the while these users could all have simply gotten replacement batteries at a mostly reasonable cost and their phones would be revived. In response to the amusing outrage Apple lowered the price to $20 which is ridiculously low, yet we still have people like you moaning and complaining.

If your phone isn’t working right then maybe it’s at end of life. Like it or not, devices don’t last forever, and even new ones fail. Apple has not slowed down your phone on purpose.

Just another action taken to appear ‘woke’. Supported by old people who want to feel relevant—instead of sharing their actual wisdom with the youth they exchange it to feel like they aren’t old. 

CloudTalkin said:

I think IAP is arguably the primary reason for the success of the App Store, especially from Apple's financial perspective.  Without it, I think it's fair to say the revenue that Apple enjoys from the App Store wouldn't be as robust as it is currently.  IAP is an outsized revenue contributor to most all app stores and is a foundational piece of app store environments.  I doubt it's going anywhere.  It's only going to be augmented by it's cousin subscription services. 

There are always those, like you, who proclaim a willingness to spend more for a one time fee for full access.  That group is a small, small minority with a comparatively small impact vs the IAP crowd.  Generally speaking, history has shown people don't mind being nickel-and-dimed ad infinitum.  Evidence of that can be seen in the highest revenue generators in app stores.

The App Store was a success long before IAP became commonplace. Apple promoted IAP as a way for developers to maintain revenue and unfortunately developers have exploited it. Sometimes IAP is justified, but a developer relying on it to make money without added value or through user manipulation is like living off welfare.

Apple should have developed an easy method for developers to update apps, notify the user, and allow charging for the update. 

Unsurprising, but also surprising. 5G isn’t even of particular significance right now. I keep 5G off on my iPhone 12 Pro to save battery because there is currently no gain from using 5G.

I know technologies are developed well before they become useful, but I feel like this charade is getting old. LTE never lived up to the potential in the US but they pushed into 5G. And 5G isn’t generally reaching LTE+ potential speeds (except for mmWave). Maybe 6G will live up to the promises of LTE+

seanj said:

sdw2001 said:

I can't put this any more diplomatically:  I call bullsh*t.  

There is no way to know that the app "prevented" infections.  What it did was notify people that they may have been "close" to someone who tested positive.  Was that helpful?  Possibly.  How many of the notified users subsequently tested positive?  How does the app define close contact? The other feature relates to checking-in to venues that are ID'd as "high risk."   There are so many factors and questions here.  What if people who install the app are more prone to embrace a false sense of security, thereby engaging in public more?  What if people who test positive are less likely to download the app? Not only can we not say the app "prevented" infections, we can't even prove it's been beneficial.  Common sense would dictate that it is.  But that's not evidence.   

Unbelievable.

Random bloke on internet thinks he knows more than the researchers at Oxford University and the Alan Turing Institute. I know who I’d place my money on being right 

While what you say seems correct in theory, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who is able to think for themselves that there has been very little public expression of science regarding the coronavirus. Debate is an essential part of science, but despite that there is much conflicting information surrounding the ‘accepted’ perspective (and no concrete information supporting it), nearly all public debate is silenced. Silencing debate is not science.

The reason most debate is silenced is because managing the population is considered more important than being truthful. So we receive a narrative, not science, which we’re told is science in order to make us obedient. But in reality it’s just the latest ‘thing’ to keep us as pacified as possible.

As a result there’s plenty of reason to question any study by any group that conveniently aligns with the narrative. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, just a realist who can think for myself.