Incorrect memory management leads to memory safety issues. That's what those words mean. You manage the memory, you get it wrong, you have a potentially exploitable memory safety issue. It sounds like you're just playing with words.
Fixing memory management errors fixes some memory safety issues, I agree with that, I only disagreed with your quantitative claim that you can fix all memory safety issues this way.
They’re also not engineered to the standards of an iPhone either. The cost comes from somewhere… everyone has been fine paying for usb 2.0 speeds over lightning on even the pro max versions as recently as today because they’re still selling iphones.
I get it, android phones have a better cost/benefit for you. Some people prefer the tradeoffs that Apple makes, like privacy, quality materials, a different OS, battery life, etc.
> everyone has been fine paying for usb 2.0 speeds over lightning on even the pro max versions as recently as today because they’re still selling iphones
Yes because they had no choice! Apple literally gave them no choice to select to use a 10 year old technology. Something that has been standard in Samsung Galaxy phones since 2017.
Unless they were willing to give up an entire ecosystem they had invested thousands of dollars in have purchased apps, have their data stored everything.
It's Stockholm syndrome.
It's almost as bad as the comment above saying "yah it's reasonable to need to pay for the Pro version for USB 3.0"!
And we all know if Apple had launched with USB 3.0 6 years before the competition and called it lightning 2.0, users old never stop talking about how necessary it is, and how Apple so incredibly caters to the needs of their users and how big a difference is it.
I don't know how they do it, but that company gets people to blindly believe whatever they're told. And rationalize away any terrible decision.
There is only one other consumer company that I've seen get away with that.
I agree with what you're saying, yes Apple is a terrible value; but Apple customer's don't seem to care about that and I'm not sure if it's really cause for outrage. I also doubt that most customers will even notice the difference. It is quite rare that I connect a cable to a phone for data transfer, and when I do, if I have a 2.0 cable nearby I wouldn't bother reaching any further for a 3.0 cable, even if the phone supports the faster speeds. Even if I'm loading up some movies for a flight or something, practically speaking it's such a rare event that I would just initiate the transfer and grab a snack or something. It's pretty obvious why they did this, I'm not sure it's such a bad engineering decision really, to make the best of the silicon they already have. And for users who actually do care, the ones who are lurking on HN, they are compelled to spend more for the speed.
You managed to entirely miss their point in response to complaining about iPhone pricing.
Namely that there are other factors that justify the cost of iPhones v. the cost of low to midrange Androids.
The proper counter to that would be for you to give examples of a low to midrange Android, at that low to midrange Android price, that is able to match the specs and build quality of an iPhone, besides USB speeds.
Alternatively you could also concede that they have a point of course.
They don't care about USB 2.0 because they're so brainwashed with crippled devices that they think that iCloud is necessary to get data from their phone to their PC.
Yeah it must be the kool aid and not the fact that the average iPhone user barely ever transfers anything from their iPhone to a PC much less ever uses their cable for data transfer.
I know more seniors that know their way around AirDrop (or things “magically” appearing on their desktop device via iCloud, unbeknownst to them) than people that even realize that the cable they use to charge their iPhone could also transfer data.
Next you’re gonna tell me that they don’t care about Cat5 because they’re brainwashed to think WiFi is necessary to get internet.
> And you're also brainwashed to think that the only way to get stuff from your phone to your PC wirelessly is via iCloud.
Keep your strawmen to yourself, I never stated iCloud is the only way to transfer data.
> I use SyncThing and it works fantastically, with no fees and no spying.
Good for you. I don’t recall asking.
Grow up and accept that other people have preferences that differ from yours and maybe in the process you’ll also learn that using FOSS doesn’t make you as edgy and cool as you think.
As an aside, I can only surmise you don’t even know what iCloud entails because not only does SyncThing not officially support iOS (you know, the topic at hand), but even using the only available *paid* option, Möbius, doesn’t even come close to the iCloud experience.
>not only does SyncThing not officially support iOS (you know, the topic at hand), but even using the only available paid option, Möbius, doesn’t even come close to the iCloud experience.
You do realize that this comment only further shows how brainwashed Apple victims are, which was precisely what my initial comment was about?
That they have internalized and accept that their artificially crippled devices won't allow you to transfer data privately to your own PC without using their cloud, which comes with the associated costs and privacy implications? They are artificially crippling devices to monetize your data.
Apple is ruining computing, and Apple victims are too shortsighted to be concerned about it.
I was talking about getting data from your phone to your PC without sending it to Apple.
I don't understand why people accept that it's necessary to send that data to Apple and back in order to perform such a basic function.
It doesn't matter if it's encrypted or not, that's still an artificial limitation that Apple has put on the devices you supposedly "own", all so they can monetize your data.
But Apple will tell you these limitations are for your own good, or security or something.
And people seem to love the taste of that refreshing kool-aid.
it's crazy to me just how much fanboy wars have fallen into "products that I don't want to buy should be outlawed". especially in this android-vs-iphone arena.
> If this was any other company they would be lambasted.
I’m sorry, are we still talking about Apple here?
The very same Apple that gets lambasted no matter what they do because it makes for great clickbait and fuel for fandroids?
They very same Apple that got lambasted for being the first to fully embrace USB-C on their 12” MacBook back in 2015 and now is being lambasted for being the last to adopt USB-C on their phone lineup.
I shudder to think what other companies go through if your definition’s threshold for being “lambasted” is so high.
> Presumably the same product team that decided we didn't need a headphone jack, as we could just buy more overpriced and profitable dongles and cables.
They were right. I haven't missed the headphone jack once. Bluetooth earphones are cheap and easy to come by, if you want premium sound you can buy an expensive set. The headphone jack was outdated and not needed. If you REALLY want a wired set, a dongle is <£10 from apple or <£5 from amazon. This is a stupid complaint.
People with crazy ass multi-hundred (or thousand) dollar headphones complaining about a fucking $8 dongle will never cease to amuse me.
I actually wonder if they wanted to get rid of the headphone jack not because of the space it took up (which is significant for the number of connections) but for help with 'water-proofing'.
I also feel like one of the main reasons for at least the design of the lightning connector was multi-faceted. At the time their obvious other choice would have been micro usb B, which is a terrible connector that fails often, especially in cases where it is heavily used. It would have been a support nightmare for them. The design of lightning being a thicker 'core' type connector rather than the flimsy core of a micro usb B or even usb C probably made it easier to make water resistant and cut down on hardware support concerning the connector. I know that on the few occasions when I was having problems with cable connections to an ipad or iphone i'd grab a pair of tweezers and find some lint in the female side of the connetor.
A dongle that I have to carry everywhere, that is trivial to lose, and that blocks charging my device unless I buy an even more expensive and awkwardly shaped/sized dongle - a real winner.
I like Samsung hardware but I can't go without the headphone jack.
I like large phones, so I'll probably end up with an Asus ROG phone, but they're slightly chunkier than I'd like, and I'm not really a fan of the "gaming" aesthetic.
By you. People with existing setups and sometimes expensive headphones would disagree. And the whole donglemania is ridiculous - especially models with only Thunderbolt ports are practically unusable without a hub.
It's difficult to detect sarcasm these day so please excuse me if I misunderstood your comment. But Apple is notorious for extorting disproportionate money for features that cost much less in competing products, such as memory and disk storage, and also for straight anti-customer behavior such as making most key parts irreplaceable by users so they have to stick with whatever specs they got. The only thing "I trust Apple with" is that they do their best to maximize profits.
Suppose I've already sunk my money into a "special" thing and find out it lacks some bog standard goodness. Perhaps it was even designed to lack this goodness. I might reflexively ask, "Does anyone actually need that goodness?" in a desperate attempt to save face and prevent myself from feeling like a goober.
Above, my face-saving sentence was written to seem so reflexive and thoughtless that the query ends up sounding absurd. I mean, technically, it is at least coherent to ask whether the time saved by not having to deal with a particular class of problems is ever necessary, in any sense from remaining employed to the survival of the human species. In any case, it's also a red herring.
Above, someone called this face-saving tactic a "cope" which I've never heard but now love. :)
Bad news, barely anyone is even thinking about it. There are one or two players that are trying to build a new browser from scratch, but they are far from mainstream and nobody knows how long these efforts will exist.
Yes but you have to pay a LOT in bandwidth for a <10% savings to be worth the cost of supporting an entire extra toolchain and dealing with the support issues (better now but it took a decade not to have “I right-clicked and now I can’t open it” reports from users). Google and Facebook serve that much but most people do not.
For some datacenters, that 10% saving would be worth the effort and could push back costly maintenance to increase egress bandwidth.
And I would argue that beside Facebook, the end user right clicking and saving the image for them to use in an inappropriate manner ( downloading the image is not the issue, using it without permission would cause copyright infringement ) would be an issue for some of the website that are hosting the image.
We use webp internally for storing very small images that are cropped out of larger images (think individual bugs on a big strip). Webp lets us get them small enough we can store the binary image data directly in postgres which was a lovely simplification.
(We evaluated it for storing a bunch of other stuff but didn't find it worth the compatibility and need to transcode problems)
From experience, in many cases it's 50% savings when done correctly and considerably makes the app\website faster on large images when you have 20-50 images to load on one page.
Which is still a decent chunk, but if it didn't have the same preinstalled advantage or OS/hardware optimizations it enjoys on MacOS it's hard to imagine that number would change much.
> if it didn't have the same preinstalled advantage
One could say the same about edge. And google’s practice of shoving “install chrome” notifications and pop ups down your throat at every opportunity when on a google website or app
Everyone in my company uses emacs, except the few who use vi. There is one guy who uses VSCode. I have no idea what he uses to type text documents for human consumption. So, sure. Use whatever tool works for you. Kind of bizarre you're wanting everyone to use Word and Edge (and Win 11). I mean... you should use what works for you. But you shouldn't freak out when people use different things. I hear some people use Macs, for instance.
I mean... most of my daily effort goes into supporting a bank. There's A LOT of mainframe stuff. Some COBOL. Some guys using AIX (actually, a surprising number of guys using AIX) and (as mentioned previously, xterms and emacs or vi.) On the dev side there's more focus on file format standards than tools. So use whatever tool that generates files in the appropriate format. We probably could use Win11, but they started using AIX in the 90s and just never got around to moving to Windows.
And how is this useful and why should another company care about how things work at your company? Shouldn't those companies focus on more on the productivity tools their employees use?
People have already questioned the validity of this number. Do a search and you'll find people looking into this and conclude that the number is very unreliable. Whether you agree or not is up to you.
Also I want to point out that almost any time people quote number about PHP's popularity, this is the only number, which is strange -- for metrics like iOS market share you can always find multiple numbers from multiple sources which don't fully agree with each other but are within a certain range. Not for this PHP number. In other words, w3tech's number is not cross validated by any other source. I wouldn't use it to "prove" anything.
"People" questioning the numbers published by multiple outlets over at least a decade? Who? What data do they have to "conclude that the number is very unreliable?"
Whether PHP runs 77% or 69% of public web sites, how does that offend anyone or make them feel insecure? No one is trying to "prove" anything, there's no race to the one ultimate tech stack that requires winners and losers. You can accept the fact that PHP objectively runs a large majority of public web sites without interpreting that as a threat to your choices, your job, your image of yourself as a professional.
Having so much PHP out there may look like a problem, but programmers attaching their ego and identity to languages and tools and frameworks accounts for a lot more wasted time and crappy code than a popular language that has some obvious and well-known flaws.
If you are looking for someone to blame for you not getting your dream job, blame it on employers instead of the government. Companies like Verizon and Wells Fargo almost never hire anyone on a visa. Go work for those companies. Oh wait, they do hire foreigners with a green card. Are you going to find a company that only hires US-born citizens like the requirement for the US President?
Many countries offer work visas (for many good reasons), although they are often used in unintended ways. It is very much a stretch to say these programs shouldn't exist at all because they "take away" jobs.
Also, if half of the people you work with are on H1B, very likely you are not in a midwest "town" with 3,000 population, but rather a decent metropolitan area with a large immigration population, and the company you work is of decent size. I wouldn't be surprised if even half of the Americans in your company relocated from a different "town".
Finally, I like working with people that are productive and easy to communicate, instead of looking at which country they come from or their visa status. If anything that's my boss's concern.
Therefore, if you want to actually see any change, maybe (1) become the CEO of your company, fire all H1B and only hire US citizens (2) join a different company (3) start your own company, or at least (4) call your senator and advocate for anti-immigration bills, or sue USCIS, instead of posting these useless and borderline racist comments on HN.
Releasing something top-notch and then letting it whither away is a sad Apple tradition indeed. They've done this with the Mac pro multiple times. First the trash can, then the cheese grater.
At least Google kills something when they lose interest.
I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure a website protected with a password and/or firewall means something different from a robots.txt that is nothing more than a convention.
