myopiarocks

The end of this article makes too many logical leaps. If we're speculating then it's more likely that an A-series "T3" would run the MacOS and the Intel x86 would be the "unofficial" coprocessor.

Apple could tout the speed of optimizing mac apps for the A-series but for a year or two developers wouldn't be immediately forced to optimize their existing programs for the A-series. Just looking at roadmaps this would be 2021 at the earliest.

The primary message of this article is that Apple is heading in this direction, and it sure seems to be correct in that regard. Has anyone seen any indication of Apple actively entrenching or reinforcing its use of x86, anywhere?

There sure are a *lot* of stories proclaiming how great the 2020 iphones will be: 5g, better display, more-inconspicuous notch (love or hate it, if all the tech's in a smaller profile that's better), plus the typical processor & battery chatter. 

2019-2020's iphone product cycle is starting to seem similar to the 5s to 6 cycle; 5s appearing largely incremental (at the time, 64bit was seen as arguably unnecessary for smartphones) whereas 6 was clearly transformative and everyone bought one. 2019 is looking incremental (but may have a new under-the-hood improvement for us to debate), but everyone will buy the 2020.

With 5G, etc, the wait list for 2020 iphones will be loooooong. If this November Apple let us get on the waitlist for a 2020 iPhone for a $200 deposit (or full payment up front, even), I bet a million+ people would do it. I'm guessing Apple's guidance to suppliers is small YoY growth 2018-2019 with a surge in 2020.

WARNING: Lawyer-generated post ahead!

WARNING WARNING: This lawyer works extensively in IP licensing, so save yourself 30 seconds and just shut your eyes, now.

WARNING WARNING WARNING: Never ever ever take legal advice from someone on the interweb.

Yes, that's a very broad grant, in itself. But almost every line of that terrible document and connected Privacy Policy is full of things a lawyer would advise a client against agreeing to, and when attacking it a lawyer might skip the details and posit that it's against public policy (that might be the strongest argument, frankly). Especially regarding minors - the policy says that 13+ means that you are saying (by clicking) that you are 13+ and if under 18 a parent or legal guardian is approving when the minor clicks. I mean... that's just asinine to anyone who lives in an objective reality.

So the author isn't wrong that this awful doc says that the end user grants this license to faceapp and everyone faceapp has ever said "hello" to (check out the unholy definition of "affiliate" in the privacy doc!). But just because the end user says faceapp "can" doesn't mean there aren't other regulatory or policy reasons stopping faceapp, facebook, facesmash, or smashmouth.  Focusing on the grant of license isn't wrong, but really the entire doc needs a "plain english" laugh track (or drinking game: do a shot every time you feel violated).

Oh, and notice that the user doesn't own the user generated filters; faceapp owns those: You own your original content, but not your "older" self.

Wikipedia has an image of the original San Francisco font, and it was not the system default:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_(decorative_typeface)

I remember changing the MS Word 4 "normal" template to use San Francisco on school computers just to mess with the teachers. Those were the days....

Yes, I'm old.