Do they have a GDPR-like process where you can just export a .zip file of all your data?
There is an option to request a copy of your data at: https://privacy.apple.com/
Readit Newsmruszczyk commented on U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly nytimes.com/2024/03/21/te... · Posted by u/jcfrei
mruszczyk commented on U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly nytimes.com/2024/03/21/te... · Posted by u/jcfrei
I think the position oft the European Union is a good approach. It classifies companies like apple not as a "monopoly" but as a "gate keeper".
I don't have a very deep understanding of that topic, but it's possible to regulate those companies a bit. In the EU similar things were already done for the car industry. The manufacturers are required to allow third party repair shops the same access to documentation, diagnostics software and parts like their own shops (not for free, but for a reasonable price). And repairs at a third party shop doesn't void the warranty.
For computers, cloud providers and smartphones similar regulations could improve everybody's life by giving us more flexibility and cheaper products by creating more competition.
In the end apple is collecting a lot of money and seems to just put it on huge piles in their bank accounts. I don't see any reason to increase competition by introducing regulations. Give startups and smaller companies a chance!
I feel like there's a difference between the car regulation you state and the regulation approach being taken in the EU. Specifically the ability of third parties to limit end user choice.
With vehicle repair, I can still choose to use the manufacturer operated/approved repair shops. I truly am gaining additional choice and can continue to service my car as I always have.
The EU regulations allow third parties to remove my choice to live in the walled garden if they wish. So while it could enhance competition for developers I don't know if it greatly improves the users choice, or experience.
They're probably talking about the Linux VM that hosts the containers.
By default it's using Fedora CoreOS.
The author makes quite a few leaps in logic that I am unable to follow. Maybe they are right but their reading of the judgement is contrary to how most in and out of the media are reading it and I’d expect a clearer explanation than this.
The media is likely reporting incorrectly here. Apple has come out and stated that they view the judgement as a major win for their side and Epic has come out and said they intend to appeal. The cliff notes I've seen on why are that Apple is legally not a monopoly, does not have to provide an alternative payment processor 'in-app' and may still legally charge a commission fee on each purchase, even if completed through an external payment processor.
Once I gave up on Scroll Revserser, I found Mos[1] as another option for this need. It just got a new v3 release and allows for toggleable smooth scrolling, as well as very granular scrolling options on top of the scroll reversing. I'm a big fan.
I'm not on a Mac anymore, but this sounds very similar to something that I experienced when switching over to Linux and trying to use the Apple adapters that I had for my displays.
I can't remember the exact terminology, but there are basically two types of adapters: active and passive. Passive adapters defer some of the work to software on the computer while active have everything needed built in.
All Apple adapters are passive and because of that when you try to use them with non-Apple computers that don't have the expected software/driver...they don't work.
It's been a while but I experienced this with mini-display port to DVI adapters. I don't know if it carriers over to other types as well.
It's interesting, at least the lightning to HDMI adapter from apple dynamically loads a bundled copy of iOS from the device itself. I'm unsure if the USB-C multi port adapter is similar.
https://hackaday.com/2019/07/30/apple-lightning-video-adapto...
mruszczyk commented on Show HN: Bvckup 2 – Fast File Replicator for Windows bvckup2.com/... · Posted by u/apankrat
I'm trying to wrap my head around the use case here. I love to support well crafted native software so don't take this as a negative question. I often use a tool such as Arq or Veeam to create snapshots in time of a folder or set of folders that then get uploaded to a remote storage location or repository, to recover files or documents from that time. I also use cloud storage providers to keep a copy of data that I am working on in sync between devices.
I can't seem to tell but this product seems to be missing any additional features to really fill a role that I lack. It doesn't appear to make incremental copies of the data set to allow me to roll back in time, it does track deleted items but interim changes are not kept or tracked, so it's really just a capture of the state of the folder at last run time.
It's compared to robocopy but the tool assumes an empty initial destination directory, there's no facility for copying data into a directory with content in it already, so it's can't be used as a general file transfer tool.
It seems the best use case is for say transferring a directory of tarball dumps to a remote location over SMB?
mruszczyk commented on The Future of Docker Desktop for Windows engineering.docker.com/20... · Posted by u/pestkranker
The new Windows Terminal is looking very nice so far:
https://github.com/microsoft/terminal
You still have to build it from source in VS 2017 or 2019, and there are a few rough edges (currently only middle click for copy/paste), but it's a great start. They should have some official binaries up pretty soon.
You can grab build artifacts from builds of the master branch off their CI. You need to enable developer mode to allow the loading of an unsigned binary.
https://dev.azure.com/ms/Terminal/_build/results?buildId=203...
mruszczyk commented on Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances blog.mozilla.org/blog/201... · Posted by u/sahin
mruszczyk commented on The tragedy of FireWire: Collaborative tech torpedoed by Apple arstechnica.com/gadgets/2... · Posted by u/zeveb
This is just plain wrong. FireWire was part of what made the first iPods so great, but the runaway iPod success made Apple an iPod company and PC users who dominate tech markets wanted USB iPods because it is what they had and critically because USB was cheaper. If anyone is to blame then it is Microsoft and PC makers for not adopting FireWire, but their customers did not want a more expensive alternative.
The article covers this. Intel was going to build FireWire into their chipset which would make the technology ubiquitous but at the time Steve Jobs swapped the licensing model from a flat fee to pricing per port which pushed Intel away. If Intel had bought into FireWire PCs would have the port.