dws-2

Here's the trouble I see. Snapchat made its mark being the service for teens and those in their twenties to share temporary private stuff (and parts). Its popularity depended in large part on being opaque and confusing to their parents.

Snapchat now wants to grow into something like Facebook, but there's already a facebook. Right now, they are trying to make it more user-friendly so everyone can use it. Snapchat will either eventually destroy the service or they will become huge like Facebook. My money's on the former.

arthurba said:

jkichline said:

You bought a machine rated at 3.2 GHz and you’re consistently getting more than that under full load. Boost is just that. Momentary. I’m not seeing why you would expect it to function differently.

Rubbish.  The turbo boost speed is for when you are running single threaded tasks and should be able to do so sustainably for long periods.  If you are running heavy multi-threaded tasks the turbo boost does not kick in.

Here's some information: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html

It basically says that sometimes you won't get the turbo speed, depending on 

• Type of workload
• Number of active cores
• Estimated current consumption
• Estimated power consumption
• Processor temperature

It seems that temperature is the limiting factor here, indicating that the processors could go faster if the cooling was better.

The real question is whether it's Apple's cooling system that isn't keeping up, or whether the internal core temperature just gets too hot after a while, and no reasonable cooling system would help.

I have to admit that I doubted that Apple could sell such an expensive phone, but clearly the price is right enough. I do wonder, though, how expensive an iPhone would have to be before it would stop selling in large numbers. 

I'm unclear on what was allowed. If this was used to render maps while Uber was in the background, then the frame buffer of the current screen would not show maps. It seems more likely, based on the purpose and on Apple's security focus, that Uber was allowed access to create a frame buffer of a view within the app while it was in the background, then send that view to the watch. That's pretty different from allowing access to a live video of whatever else the user was doing.

I think the difference here is that the government wants more power over the phone than Apple wants to allow. For example, I have used nomorobo to block calls, but Apple doesn't allow it to actually block the calls, it just sends them to voicemail. This makes some sense, because Apple doesn't want some third party app that decides to just block all calls from given numbers. What if the call were actually legitimate and the user never got the call? This is a lot of power to put into the hands of third party developers, some of whom try to break various rules.

Also, nomorobo can't block all calls. Specifically, I get a LOT of junk calls from number that have my same prefix (not area code). So if my number is (XXX) 333-4567, any call from 333 cannot be blocked (sent to voicemail). I'm not sure why this is, but I would really like to be able to stop those calls.

As a side note, I also use Google Voice, and I never get annoying calls from the Google Voice number, so it is possible to successfully filter calls. I would love to see Apple do something more about this.