CloudTalkin

InspiredCode said:

So Maxell survived the demise of the floppy disk by becoming a patent troll I see

Your assessment of patent troll is based on what?  Can't be facts. https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.maxell_holdings_ltd.492ad209137f79dfb54c47f63334ce05.html 
So I'm guessing you were just attempting a bit of humor.  If that's the case, carry on.  Whether their lawsuits have merit is a question for the courts.  Regardless, no definition of patent troll fits Maxell.

elijahg said:

dysamoria said:

Which current display technologies still suffer this problem?

OLED can. The blue pixel especially, which is why the blue pixel is twice the size of the green the older AW at least. Might be the same size on the newer ones due to improved tech.

But for modern OLED devices to suffer burn-in these days, the act would almost have to be intentional.  Pixel-shifting (which is what this patent seems to be describing) has been a mitigating technique against image retention for some time now.  I can't think of an OLED panel user that doesn't use the technique.  Apple has been using pixel shifting on iPhones starting with the X. 

The difference here, regarding the patent and the AW, seems to be localized pixel shifting instead of the entire screen shifting in a standard pixel shift scenario.  I think the net result of what Apple is doing increases the efficiency of pixel shifting (only shifting the necessary pixels and not the entire screen) while being less taxing on the battery.  Mind you, this is just my opinion.  

chasm said:

Agreed with Cpsro, Mike P missed the BIGGEST assault on Google -- the tracker and analytics blocking! Otherwise a good roundup of the other ways Apple is reducing its dependence on Google (let's not call it a war -- Google will be fine so there won't be any "winner"). This will continue to attract privacy-conscious people to the Apple platform jus as it already attracts value-conscious people, and finally there will be some full-throated alternatives to some Google services for those who want that.

Unfortunately, that analytics blocking turned out to be not so true.  Updated from AI's original article:
Update: As more information has surfaced, it appears that Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) in Safari 14 is not completely blocking Google Analytics. Instead, it's blocking third-party tracking cookies and cross-site scripting requests on Google Analytics from loading. The Privacy Report feature just reflects that. It looks like first-party Google Analytics cookies aren't blocked, so it'll still function as an analytics platform.

It's less of an assault on Google and more of an assault on 3rd party Remora companies feeding on the scraps of Google's GA shark.

StrangeDays said:

CloudTalkin said:

I wonder what sites like AI, Cultofmac, 9to5, etc. feel about it.  AI, like many many many sites, depend on trackers like Google Analytics and AdSense.  Many sites don't even function properly without allowing tracking.  I avoid them, but I'd be willing to bet most don't.  As was said by someone upthread, Safari blocking GA is but a blip on the radar.  

Pretty sure iOS Safari is the most used mobile browser to make purchases during the holidays. Doesn’t sound like a blip to me. 

I'm not sure the argument your making, and it certainly doesn't counter anything I've stated. Regardless, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  The most trafficked sites on the web all use trackers and it's a safe bet that the majority use Google trackers... of FB's.  The loss of Safari for analytics will be a blip on their radar.  Their data collection is still so extensive that those users are still being tracked by data aggregators like Axciom, Factual, Infogroup, Localeze, etc.  Then you get retailers, banks, credit agencies... all either sharing your data with their partners or, in the case of credit agencies, outright selling the data on the open market.  Google has access to all of that.  They aren't missing out on anything major because Safari blocks GA.  

Your narrowly defined example amounts to a rounding error of internet traffic.  And if all of that holiday traffic results in a transaction, then that data is going to be collected by the companies I mentioned above (and more) and disseminated as well.   

williamlondon said:

CloudTalkin said:

As was said by someone upthread, Safari blocking GA is but a blip on the radar.  

Simply not true as someone above said. For example, many sites have as their main visitors Apple products with Safari as the leading browser - for those companies and industries, this isn't a blip, this is much larger than that. Certainly, it'll spawn new or at least shine the light on alternates which aren't quite as privacy violating as GA. Can't wait to see.

Not saying you made up your stats, but they definitely don't sound true.  Even if the stats were true, the number of companies you're talking about is the textbook definition of "blip".  I'm really not sure you understand the undue influence Google holds over search.  Apple's actions with Safari are admirable, but they don't rise beyond "blip" in significance.   

edit: Looks as if the blocking may not even be true.  Someone may have misinterpreted something.  Either way, it would still be a blip.

I wonder what sites like AI, Cultofmac, 9to5, etc. feel about it.  AI, like many many many sites, depend on trackers like Google Analytics and AdSense.  Many sites don't even function properly without allowing tracking.  I avoid them, but I'd be willing to bet most don't.  As was said by someone upthread, Safari blocking GA is but a blip on the radar.