Yes, sandboxing is a technological protection, but once you have important data flowing we often don't have technological protections to prevent exfiltration and abuse. The global nature of the internet means that someone who publishes an app which abuses user expectations (e.g. uses accessibility to provide command and control to attackers) is often out of legal reach.
You also have so much grey area where things aren't actual illegal, such as gathering a massive amount of information on adults in the US via third party cookies and ubiquitous third party javascript.
Thats why platforms created in the internet age are much more opinionated on what API they provide to apps, much more stringent on sandboxing, and try to push software installation onto app stores which can restrict apps based on business policy, to go beyond technological and legal limitations.
We already have that. The market for the "technophobe" (e.g. above average and below levels of security awareness) phone is 100x larger.
That means the people who say "I can evaluate the intricacies and impacts of software authorization" have significantly fewer speciality devices to pick from, and those devices may not be worth developers (or regulators) making carve-outs to support.
The coloring is a property of concurrency safety and whether the language enforces it.
For instance, if you resolve a future in the wrong context you'll still have problems - the coloring is just a compile time error that you are doing things wrong, rather than a runtime deadlock.
It's a bit of a silly point now since the Neo only supports one external display anyways* but if they do support 2 or more displays it will be a problem. Even if they add TB support when they do, unless the prices of TB docks drop dramatically they'll have the same problem.
* Earlier mobile phone SoC in a laptop devices from Qualcomm still supported two or more external displays!
While I agree the missing MST support complaint is valid it seems very far fetched to me it's a deal breaker preventing Mac adoption. Most people only use 1 screen, a fraction of people dual screen (especially laptop users) and only a tiny fraction have or really need more screens.
> Years ago, they changed the behavior of the green button to be "fullscreen into a separate space."
Not quite. It has the old behavior (grow to as large a window as supported) if the app does not support full-screen. For instance, the Settings app cannot grow wider, so it grows to full screen height.
The icon that appears when you hover over the green button reflects whether it is full screen or zoom behavior. If you hold option, you will always get zoom behavior IIRC. However, due to the green button being overridden to be a menu in Tahoe, the button icon may or may not reflect zoom/full screen behavior if you press/release option and may instead show the optional modifier on the options in the pop-up menu.
I do not believe there is a way to disable full screen behavior completely, nor spaces. However, I don't think I'd be able to survive working on a Mac without both so I haven't done a lot of investigation there.
It is legit - with some pretty severe caveats. I am pressed to come up with an example that has more formal specification, published source implementations, and public unit test coverage than a C compiler.
It is not feasible that someone will use AI to tackle genuinely new software and provide a tenth of the level of guide-rails Anthropic had for this project. They were able to keep the million monkeys on their million typewriters on an extremely short leash, and able to have it do the vast majority of iteration without human intervention.
If you can figure out a good way for Apple to eliminate the revenue model used for the most profitable games on the platform without getting slapped by regulators, I'm sure they would love to hear it.
They don't have to eliminate it, that wasn't my complaint. They need a competitive ecosystem with real-world stakeholders (a-la Epic) and third-party community support like emulators.
iOS is so far behind in this regard that even uttering it in the same sentence as "gaming" almost exclusively implicates gachapon titles or microtransaction slop. Other platforms don't suffer as much.
It's important to understand the timeline of the Steve Jobs open letter on Adobe Flash - at that point the iPhone had been out just shy of three years, and before the first public betas on Android. So for nearly three years, Apple had been investing in HTML5 technology because Flash wasn't in a form where it was deployable.
Additionally, Flash required android phones with 256MB ram as a minimum (which would have precluded two of the three shipped iPhone models at the time) and at least initially only supported software video decoding. Because of the difference in screen dimensions, resolutions and interaction models (plus the issues with embedding due to RAM limitations), the website was still basically broken whether your mobile phone had Flash or not.
My understanding (based on the timing) was always that when Adobe was finally ready to push its partners to bundle mobile Flash, Apple looked at it and decided against it. Adobe made public statements against their partner and so Jobs did so in kind.
reply