CloudTalkin
About
- Username
- CloudTalkin
- Joined
- Visits
- 103
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,435
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 919
Reactions
-
Google Photos to end free unlimited storage on June 1, 2021
Okay, here's Apple: https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.htmlcpsro said:
You are so wrong. Clearly you’ve not read the license and understood it. No surprise. Google has carefully crafted a custom license that is difficult to interpret, but what I describe succinctly is correct... and the perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free right to use is granted to Google alone. Google attempts to assuage users by stating users retain ownership of their pics, which is correct, but they are glossing over the sweeping rights granted to Google merely by using their ‘free’ service.CloudTalkin said:
Inevitably whenever the subject of Photos comes up, someone posts this misinterpreted view of a bog standard Creative Commons software license. Not really sure how this is still misunderstood by so many (yes, I'm generalizing, but you're not the first to post this. sadly you won't be the last either). This license is common boilerplate for any company that interacts with customer data. Yes, Apple has the same license in their ToS... as does FB, MS, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. I could go on for a long time, but you get the point. Any number of combinations of the search terms "royalty free" + "worldwide" + "license" + "terms of service" + Company X, will net you a Creative Commons license notification from that company.cpsro said:Google Photos isn’t free. The company retains a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free right-to-use your pics for any money-making purpose the company chooses, even after you delete your photos and account.
tl;dr That license doesn't mean what you think it means.
Relevant excerpt: Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork)... You hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing, and Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material.
edit: And no, Apple does not state if a user deletes their data, it is in fact deleted as you claim in your edit.
Here's FB: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms/previous
Relevant excerpt: For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).
Here's MS: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/copyright/default#o10
Relevant excerpt: However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting ("Posting") your Submission you are granting Microsoft, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses (including, without limitation, all Microsoft Services), including, without limitation, the license rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; to publish your name in connection with your Submission; and the right to sublicense such rights to any supplier of the Services.
Here's Google: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/res/webmmf/en/eula.html
Relevant excerpt: You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
Here's the much longer more detailed version of Google's ToS detailing this topic. https://policies.google.com/terms
Like I said, they all use a boilerplate Creative Commons license. I've sourced my claims. I doubt you can source yours.
-
Google Photos to end free unlimited storage on June 1, 2021
Inevitably whenever the subject of Photos comes up, someone posts this misinterpreted view of a bog standard Creative Commons software license. Not really sure how this is still misunderstood by so many (yes, I'm generalizing, but you're not the first to post this. sadly you won't be the last either). This license is common boilerplate for any company that interacts with customer data. Yes, Apple has the same license in their ToS... as does FB, MS, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. I could go on for a long time, but you get the point. Any number of combinations of the search terms "royalty free" + "worldwide" + "license" + "terms of service" + Company X, will net you a Creative Commons license notification from that company.cpsro said:Google Photos isn’t free. The company retains a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free right-to-use your pics for any money-making purpose the company chooses, even after you delete your photos and account.
tl;dr That license doesn't mean what you think it means.
-
Researchers hack Safari, iOS 14 to win $420,000 in China contest
What do you think is a greater likelihood? 1. Windows and Android weren't hacking targets in the contest. 2. Appleinsider made an editorial decision to only focus on reporting info about the hacking attempts of Apple related subjects.SpamSandwich said:They didn’t bother hacking Windows or Android? Too easy?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-ios-chrome-and-many-others-fall-at-chinas-top-hacking-contest/sflocal said:
Exactly... While I think it's great that iOS (and MacOS) is always the target of security researchers, I did find it odd that Windows and Android weren't mentioned. By not mentioning it, it says a lot.SpamSandwich said:They didn’t bother hacking Windows or Android? Too easy?The public knows that "security" and "windows/Android" don't go well together in the same sentence. It's embarrassing actually.
Not mentioning Windows or Android does indeed say a lot. It says that Appleinsider editorializes to focus on Apple. What it does not say is anything about security researchers and their targets. Contest like these always focus on a wide range of targets, including Windows and Android. For better perspective, you may need to widen the scope of your information sources beyond Appleinsider.
-
5G is a promise for the future, but isn't quite here today
You may not actually be using 5G. Apple made the decision to show the 5G symbol if the signal is available where you are, regardless of whether or not you're using 5G.MustSeeUHDTV said:I'm in a Washington DC suburb (very close the board of it). I'm getting the same amount of bars with my iPhone 12 Pro as my iPhone X with T-Mobile. It was showing about 125Mbps in Download but like 4Mbps (1st try)/ 25Mbps (2nd try) upload. Just ran speed test now and it is 32.3Mbps and 4.76 Upload....not so good....
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/20/iphone-12-5g-indicator-denotes-best-available-connection#:~:text="What's weird is that when,in use," Bohn writes.
-
LG Display tapped to produce mini LED displays for early 2021 iPad Pro refresh
From the story above:tmay said:
From the story above;gilly33 said:Ahh no OLED iPad Pro? Sigh.
"The display industry says that mini LED backlights LCDs are able to provide a screen that comes the closest to reality thus far."
Maybe you won't actually want an OLED after MiniLED screens are released.
"Compared to current display technology, mini LEDs offer better color reproduction, contrast ratios, and local dimming than conventionally backlit displays. The display industry says that mini LED backlights LCDs are able to provide a screen that comes the closest to reality thus far."
Although nebulously written, I think the context of the sentences implies miniLED's strengths against other LCD backlighting only, like edge lighting for instance. The statement can't be true vs OLED tech. MiniLED could possibly offer better color reproduction than OLED. Depends on the OEM's color science. But it can't offer greater contrast ratios or local dimming than OLED. MiniLED offers local dimming zones vs OLED dimming (actually turning off) down to the indivdual pixel.
MiniLED also still has that minor FALD blooming issue with which to contend.
tl;dr I don't think that quote references anything other than backlighting tech.
