imnes

It's not making headlines, but Google and Apple seem to be getting hammered by AI as well. Getting app updates approved to release on prod on Play Store / App store used to take days, now it's taking weeks.

If the problem really stems from capacity issues and the unexpected growth rate, maybe the way forward is further limiting / throttling capacity to free tier users, and increased costs for paid users to allow more expansion (in compute / personnel). Get rid of some of the baked in Co-Pilot integrations that might be compounding the extra workloads.

Is this the new "let me google that for you"?

The accusation that they pushed a new feature to Chrome users? They do that all the time? Why is this one alarming / needs special consent?

Serious question - why would Google need to ask user consent to push a new feature / update to Chrome?

There's been a lot of new tech introduced through Chrome and eventually widely adopted and available everywhere. Without requiring user consent.

QUIC + HTTP/3, WebP, Service Workers / PWAs, WASM, WebRTC, View Transitions API

This feels like just another step of "make this new capability widely available so developers can adopt it if they want."

This one seems to be all on-device local capabilities. Not calling additional APIs or sending data off-device.

Is the argument just around "Don't use 4gb of drive space without asking me first"? What other issues does this introduce?

I'm going through a similar exercise right now in an app I'm building. No server dependencies, for features that have traditionally used server side APIs, moving those capabilities onto the device. And also utilizing the on-board AI features provided by Android and iOS. So far it's been a very positive experience, and the capabilities provided on these devices have been more than capable for my needs. Working on providing apps that don't have ongoing operation costs of running server side infrastructure, so I can offer them as "pay once, run it forever" instead of ongoing subscription costs for the user.

Is there a nerdfont variant?

A large portion of websites I visit for the first time all show a cookie consent banner. I was curious what accepting or rejecting in that banner actually does. After all, as a web developer, I'm used to seeing most cookies sent with the initial page load.

So I've started using the browser dev tools to just look over the list of cookies that are sent and stored to my browser even after selecting "Reject All" or whatever the closest option is, in the cookie consent banner.

Turns out I usually still see a flood of marketing and ad related cookies. A few sites I've reported as a bug back to the site owner, with a reponse of "thanks for surfacing this, we'll work on it.."

Curious what other people are noticing. And in general, is cookie consent a real thing, or are these consent banners just part of normal UX now and people include them without really implementing the corresponding app behaviors?