This is a result of trying to retrofit a series of tighter security measures on top of a system that was not originally designed for them, in a way that is both understandable to users but also doesn't break back-compat with APIs (and therefore a lot of existing third-party apps that are seldom updated) too badly. I'm not saying Apple did a perfect job here, but it's a hard problem.
Yes, the problem could probably be "solved" by adding more UI, but "more UI" is not always a good solution. The more UI that exists, the less likely the user is to successfully navigate it. On the other hand, adding additional complexity to an existing UI is also fraught with potential for new bugs and edge cases. Again, not defending the status quo, but I can see how it might have ended up like this.
This is worth spending more time on trying to improve, and perhaps it is reasonable to expect better from an almost-$4tn company. But at the same time, a potential solution is far from easy or obvious, and there is a risk of making things worse if not done with an extreme level of thought and consideration.
(Alternate pessimistic take: A large number of users don't care or read anything, they just click "allow" on anything that gets in their way. A smaller set of users are terrified and disgusted by repeated invasions of the privacy and click "deny" on everything. None of these implementations are doing any good for either group. The allow/deny design pattern is badly broken and in need of rethinking.)
It doesn't matter what people thought. The complaints were coming from people at big companies with legal departments. The lawyers' job is to make sure there are no legal vulnerabilities, the same way it's your job to make sure your code doesn't contain any vulnerabilities. Intent is irrelevant.
Exactly. Looks like Google was among the companies with legal complaints: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271331. I wonder if the new version of the grant was enough to get them to reconsider? It'd be really interesting to see more of Google in the React community.
I was also quoted the $1000/month price, and followed up with this same question. I was told it was separate from (in addition to) all other service pricing.
Prepaid plans across all US carriers generally have all taxes and fees included in the advertised price, except for standard sales tax (if your state/locality normally charges it).
I have a separate local user account on my computer for work. When I start work in the morning, I switch to the work user and all of my personal stuff goes away. When I'm done with work at night, I switch back, all my personal stuff comes back and work goes away. It's almost like having a separate computer.
People often look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them this. I haven't quite figured out why.
If I need to look up some personal thing in the middle of the day, I reach for my phone. If I find I've been reaching for my phone too much that day, I get up and put it on the other side of the room. Now every would-be distraction requires me to physically move my entire body.
The story continues: after that court case, Apple added a special, obfuscated 'stolen from Apple' icon to the firmware, in case they ever had to go to court over something like this again. http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Stolen_From_Apple...
This is a result of trying to retrofit a series of tighter security measures on top of a system that was not originally designed for them, in a way that is both understandable to users but also doesn't break back-compat with APIs (and therefore a lot of existing third-party apps that are seldom updated) too badly. I'm not saying Apple did a perfect job here, but it's a hard problem.
Yes, the problem could probably be "solved" by adding more UI, but "more UI" is not always a good solution. The more UI that exists, the less likely the user is to successfully navigate it. On the other hand, adding additional complexity to an existing UI is also fraught with potential for new bugs and edge cases. Again, not defending the status quo, but I can see how it might have ended up like this.
This is worth spending more time on trying to improve, and perhaps it is reasonable to expect better from an almost-$4tn company. But at the same time, a potential solution is far from easy or obvious, and there is a risk of making things worse if not done with an extreme level of thought and consideration.
(Alternate pessimistic take: A large number of users don't care or read anything, they just click "allow" on anything that gets in their way. A smaller set of users are terrified and disgusted by repeated invasions of the privacy and click "deny" on everything. None of these implementations are doing any good for either group. The allow/deny design pattern is badly broken and in need of rethinking.)
reply