So, instead of providing all our comments for free to LLMs, how about adding a copyright notice to everything we write?
Legally everything you write is already copyrighted, and no notice is required. Creative Commons licenses are a way to reduce the restrictions on what people can do with your content. They don’t impose any extra obligations beyond what would exist without any copyright notice at all.
The first Android was made about 1999/2000, I’d read about it in a trade mag just before I was laid off from one company (they provided that trade mag, which is why I know the date). The idea of running Linux for a phone OS was intriguiging at the tomr, as we were doing some Linux testing ourselves.
Android as a company was created in 2003 with no product at all. They started working on a phone operating system in 2005, were acquired by Google, and then had an early prototype Blackberry knockoff in 2006. The iPhone was announced in 2007 so they abandoned the original plans and started making an iPhone knockoff. The first Android phone was released in 2008.
giant touchscreen
In the 2007 tech press lull between announcement and launch, there was briefly a made up scandal of accusing Apple of using models with really large hands in promotional photos/videos to make the iPhone look smaller than it was. It’s wild to think about now.
Have you heard of game consoles?
Such an app would violate the App Store rules:
4.2 Minimum Functionality: Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website. If your app is not particularly useful, unique, or “app-like,” it doesn’t belong on the App Store.
Why not chuck the data when it’s no longer being used, though?
They do. Apple is sending literally trillions of push notifications per year and certainly doesn’t want to save them longer than necessary (a useless expense), but the government can also ask that information for a targeted user be retained, going forward from the request, even though it would normally be purged.
The developer of the app sends the push notification through Apple’s service. Developers have always been able to encrypt it, at which point it can be decrypted only by their app, but not all developers do this. There’s also still limited metadata about the fact that a notification was sent, even if the contents are encrypted.
Apple Pay doesn’t increase the business’s cost.
The key thing though is that Apple Pay is still just a credit or debit card. There’s no extra fee for the merchant or customer. It costs the same to process as using the physical card.
In case you’re not just trolling
At this point I vote we just consider it trolling. The best case alternative is that it’s merely aggressively-protected ignorance, and that’s not worth engaging with either.
That graphic is really good. I’ve seen a lot of graphics that try to explain it but most of them make mistakes; that one is surprisingly perfect.
I’ve clearly done far more research than you have
I feel like I’ve entered some Twilight Zone. You just keep repeating the same absurd claims about something but if you had ever researched it in any capacity you’d know how false those claims are.
No they don’t. The vast majority don’t even accept Apple, Google, or Samsung Pay, credit cards only.
“Apple Pay is accepted at over 85 percent of retailers in the U.S.”
Look, it’s really simple: If a store accepts contactless cards, it by definition accepts Apple Pay. They are the same thing to the merchant. There are zero merchants that take contactless cards but can’t take Apple Pay.
As for costs, a random sampling:
One great benefit of using Apple Pay is that it doesn’t cost business owners anything extra. Payment processors consider it a normal credit card transaction, so you’ll only pay regular card processing fees. The only upfront cost involved might be upgrading your POS terminal.
Once you have the right contactless payment-capable POS, there are no additional fees you, the merchant, will have to pay for using Apple Pay. As a business owner, you will pay the same credit card rates and fees as you would for a card-present transaction.
Have you literally done zero research into this? The vast majority of merchants in the US, and nearly 100% in many other countries, accept Apple Pay. Doesn’t that strike you as awfully high if they actually had to sign up for it with Apple? And add an entirely new payment processor to their operations?
Apple is not involved in any capacity with processing Apple Pay transactions when you tap your device in a business. A Visa card loaded on an iPhone is literally just a contactless Visa. Apple Pay = Google Pay = physical contactless card. One single industry-standard protocol.
For web/app transactions, a merchant has to set up Apple Pay explicitly (though it’s still actually processed by the same parties as entering the card number) but for in person, they just need contactless payments enabled on their card terminal. No extra steps, parties, or fees.
LOL what? That’s literally the only thing it is…
Merchants do not have any relationship with Apple for Apple Pay transactions. You tap your phone and it’s treated the exact same way as when you tap your card. The merchant sends it to whoever they use for card processing, who eventually sends it to the card network (Visa, etc.) and to the bank for approval. That’s what payment processing is. Apple isn’t involved at any step. They are involved in the provisioning process where cards are added to your device.
Not correct. Apple doesn’t provide this service out of the kindness of their hearts. They charge 0.15% transaction fee.
Apple charges a fee to the issuing bank, which comes out of their share of the card processing fee paid by merchants. The original (2014) reported fee for US credit card transactions was 0.15%. Card processing fees are, in general, significantly cheaper in Europe (and indeed most other countries). We don’t even know if the US fee is still 0.15% but it definitely isn’t in the EU.
Apple Pay charges much higher rates than competing payment processors.
Apple Pay isn’t a payment processor. It’s a system for banks to provisional additional cards on their customer’s devices, which are then processed the same way and for the same fees as tapping the physical card.
Banks want direct access to the NFC because they want to bully people into making their app the default handler for payment cards. One of the great things about Apple Pay is that all banks must compete as equals for every transaction. It’s trivially easy to switch which card you use when you pay and every card gets the same best user experience.
Forcing NFC open is, paradoxically, anti-competitive, because it makes it easier for the biggest banks to stop competing and instead lock their customers in.
I’m not clean bubble anymore.
I’m assuming you meant green. Are you aware that received messages on iPhone all look the same regardless of whether they’re iMessages or SMS? You were gray before and you’re gray now.
This headline is ridiculous; I expect better from Ars Technica. You “admit” to things you shouldn’t have done. In this case the government compelled Apple to disclose certain data and simultaneously prohibited Apple from disclosing the disclosure. Thanks to a senator’s letter, Apple is now free to disclose something that they previously wanted to disclose, about something they were forced to do in the first place.
Compare to the Reuters headline: “Governments spying on Apple, Google users through push notifications - US senator.” The emphasis and agency are correctly placed on the bad actors.
And that their two-letter country code, commonly seen in Swiss domain names, is CH for Confoederatio Helvetica.
This person is an actress and comedian. This is not an iPhone error; it’s just a manually-edited photo from three separate takes that she pretended came out of the phone as-is. It’s a hoax for laughs/attention.
My point is that adding the CC notice doesn’t make any violations traceable or even less likely. Your comments are just as likely to be scraped with it versus without it. You’re not adding any restrictions on the use of the comments; you’re just selectively removing some restrictions.