bigbillygoatgruff

airnerd said:

How about if I just delete all Google apps from my iPhone.  Does THAT stop them tracking me?  I honestly can't tell anymore because of the underhanded tactics they apparently pull.   Then when caught red handed with indisputable proof, they change their fine print.  

Such a shady, underhanded, piece of trash company Alphabet is.  I don't do anything that anyone tracking me would care about, but to make it so convoluted just to be left alone is reprehensible.  

Q - Should we respect our users' stated wishes to not be tracked?

A - Don't.  Be Evil.  That is our motto, after all.

kevin kee said:

lkrupp said:

So Google actually admits it and now is updating the fine print to inform you of it. Nice.

Makes you wonder what else they didn't acknowledge or tell us in their fine print, well until someone discovered them.

Rayz2016 said:

maestro64 said:

Do not worry gatorguy will be here soon to say this was mistake, Google never really did this since there EULA says they do not do these things.

Anyone surprised this was going on.

Actually, yes. 

In light of the mess Facebook got itself into, and the fact that Google was already found guilty of breaching trust when they took advantage of a Safari bug to track users when they’d specifically requested not to Be tracked:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented

then I’m surprised they would think that something like this would not be discovered eventually. The only conclusion I can draw is that the company genuinely believed that it is okay to deceive people, and that everyone else would think so too. 

entropys said:

SpamSandwich said:

timmillea said:

Apple could not make a bigger mistake. It is because Apple is a U.S. company and the U.S. is car crazy that they have such a blind spot. Apple should be focussing on ways to reduce the need to travel and on the efficiency of the residual need. Car travel is not it. Within 20 years private vehicles will be all-electric but only as a stepping stone to no private vehicles. Apple should be exploiting VR and AR to make travelling redundant and on AI to optimise public transport. 

Nah. I can’t imagine shared public vehicles ever become a thing for people who can afford to buy or lease, but I believe eventually self-driving cars will be so good it will become unthinkable to drive your own car, unless you’re a criminal or terrorist.

Or want freedom. These autonomous cars will be centrally controlled. If Big Brother wants you to pull over, you will pull over. With the doors locked. By then I will feel like Sylvester Stallon in Demolition Man.

muthuk_vanalingam said:

ericthehalfbee said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

rogifan_new said:

1TB on a mobile phone? What’s the point other than spec whoring?

I think you got this wrong. If the same logic was applied by ALL the companies for the past 20+ years, we would have been stuck with 128KB of storage now.

No, he's right. It's just for bragging rights. It's like processors advertising their clock rates and seeing who has the higher numbers.

Complaining about running out of storage on a 16GB phone is a legitimate complaint since a lot of people on these devices do use up their storage. Saying we need 1TB as a solution is asinine. Especially when half of that 1TB is slow-ass SD card storage with restricted functionality.

It is not complaining about inadequate storage, more like moving technology forward. And if I remember correctly, Samsung has developed a faster UFS card storage solution last year and S8 and S9 phones support faster removable storage. So it is NOT useless as you think it is. It is very useful in certain scenarios.

rogifan_new said:

bigbillygoatgruff said:

Soli said:

anome said:

slurpy said:

I was going to to post a sarcastic "so a trillion dollar company won't include.." meme post, but I see some idiot beat me to it, in a serious fashion. Any rational person knows this has little to do with cost, and everything to do with Apple's minimalism, both in terms of packaging and product use, and drive to push forward bluetooth adoption.

Who is cheaper, the company that doesn't include a $6 adapter in the box with their $800 phone that the majority of people will never need, or the user that won't spring for the $6 adapter if they need it?

It's kind of obvious this was going to happen at some point. This year is 2 years since they got rid of the headphone jack, I suspect most people who need an adapter already have one.

Based on anecdotal evidence AirPods are a fucking major hit, BT headphones in general are popular, and anyone that doesn't have those seems to be using Apple's EarPods which will still likely come with the iPhone for those that are fine with the included wired headphones.

I'd rather the cost of the increasingly useless adapter be put toward better components in the iPhone itself.

Is it possible for Apple to collect data and know how often people actually use the adapter?  Those data would almost certainly match the anecdotal evidence about the popularity of BT options.  It would be interesting to know how many of the people who don't already have an adapter (new to the iPhone or upgrading from an older iPhone) would be affected in a tangible way.

I would like to see them offer an option to buy the phone only--no headphones, no adapter, no charging cable, and no power brick.  It's wasteful.  A whole lot of us have multiples of those things laying around already.  Lower the price by $50 or give an Apple or iTunes gift card in lieu of that stuff.

I’m sure Apple has data on this. I hope if they’re removing it from the box it’s because their data shows people weren’t using it and it’s not just to save a few bucks. When people say it’s $9 big deal I find that offensive. Apple’s charging me $1000 for a phone. They can afford to throw in an $9 adapter.