jbombadil

I feel nowadays it’s the opposite. I’m willing to pay a premium for a house that is not within an HOA. A house being part of an HOA decreases its value to me.

Not OP, but I get where they're coming from. I see how for some people, having a phone where the only (reasonable) path to getting an app is to have it vetted is a feature, not a bug. It's not "restricting my choices", it's "restricting what developers can do to me".

I don't have a super strong opinion here. I lean a bit more towards thinking that the current status is better than the alternative: Based on what I see in news / tech news / in general it sounds like "the price of apps"* is less of a problem in today's day and age than "app _X_ tracks every thing you do and your location, sells that data and now [elections are skewed | supermarkets implement dynamic pricing | ICE can track you], etc".

* I am aware that is more than "price of apps", I'm simplifying a bit here. I'm not a fan of Apple imposing restrictions on how you can purchase stuff.

I take issue with this type of argument, because it ignores that scale is the _core_ part of the problem.

Equating "an individual selling on craigslist prices based on area code" with "Albertsons buys petabytes of individual private data and prices groceries based on income" is IMO not valid. Yes the very very core -borderline philosophical- question is the same. But the _scale_ is what makes it the problem.

It's the same argument I heard a few times "Why is flock a problem? My home driveway camera points at the street and sometimes I can read a license plate!"

So much like other laws / ordinances / provisions / etc. if regulation against this type of behaviors get enshrined, they should include thresholds for scale (which I believe the Seattle one does)

Would be nice to be able to enable these features as an adult (stop autoplay videos and no algorithmic feed).

Also, I’m surprised by the lack of enforcement to remove infinite scrolling.

This is very exciting. I have been an iPhone user for the last 8 years. I am entirely in Apple's ecosystem.

I would legitimately change my phone (+watch +headphones) for a vertical foldable (like razr) phone running graphene OS. I don't think Apple is releasing a vertical foldable or even a modern smaller phone. One can only hope.

Another noteworthy annoyance is the increasing number of services that try to aggressively push you towards passkeys, without you ever asking.

Every other time I open the Costco app (needed to walk in to the store, since I don't carry my card and they refuse to provide Apple Wallet integration) I get asked to switch to passkey, without a way of saying "don't ask me again".

If you're in any position to determine this in your company/software, please stop this pattern. Give users the option to say "stop asking me about passkeys".

I am generally not in favor of adding regulation, but this is a place where I would support it.

Anything that you BUY needs to be your property. This means you must have the ability to:

1. Transfer ownership of it (either temporarily as a loan or permanently as a sale). Digital-only doesn't preclude this: the store can have a "transfer" functionality.

2. (Within reason) use it at your discretion at any point after the sale. This means that a company cannot "revoke" your access at a later time. Specifically for content that is DRM locked, if they decide to sunset that service (store, DRM server, whatever), no problem! just offer DRM free (or generally lock-free copies). I have no problem with Sony not offering DRM free versions of games that I can still download and play with the store. But if that goes away -> you must give me a path to local ownership.

(Multiplayer games that require server infrastructure are a bit more complex, and I'd leave aside for now).

This should apply equally to video games, movies, books, music. Any digital content.

I think there's a case for a corporate class action lawsuit against Neal for employee productivity loss every time every time a new game is published.

I'm curious about the environmental argument here. At face value it makes sense, but is there some hard data that shows that there is a meaningful number of consumers that buy new phones only (or "mostly") because of battery degradation?

The article (granted, probably not the best source of information) has some numbers like "number of phones sold", but doesn't actually tackle the crux of the issue: how many of those phone sales would be prevented by having user swappable batteries?

> [...]And because federal agencies were allowed to deploy the product during the review, GCC High spread across the government as well as the defense industry. By late 2024, FedRAMP reviewers concluded that they had little choice but to authorize the technology — not because their questions had been answered or their review was complete, but largely on the grounds that Microsoft’s product was already being used across Washington.

This sounds like the crux of the issue. The combination of: "tool can be used during analysis" and "analysis takes long" shifts the barrier of rejection from "is this tool safe?" to "is this tool so unsafe that we're willing to start a fight with a lot of other government agencies to remove it, find an alternative, etc?".

Not criticizing FedRAMP. Proper security review takes time. And probably more when dealing with vendors.

I hope so too, but don't believe that's the ultimate intent here.

The problem is that the tech independence is being pushed by government who want more control - not less. (Not speaking specifically of France and this instance, but looking at the anti-encryption rules that the UK and Ireland are pushing)

From that standpoint, I imagine the "solution" here won't be to push an open source alternative, but a closed one that they to control.

100% agree. The level of tracking has gotten to absurd levels.

I needed a couple of grocery items and happened to be next to an Amazon Fresh. Cool, let’s try it! Went in, found everything I needed and went to self checkout. When it was time to pay, the machine wouldn’t accept Apple Pay. I ask an employee who helpfully informs me that I can pay with physical cards or my Amazon account.

I didn’t have my physical cards, nor wanted to do my Amazon account so I had to leave empty handed. Why don’t they accept Apple Pay? Because they can’t track you. If you use a physical card, they can likely link that card number to an Amazon account and thus attribute the purchase to a person. If you pay with contactless payment they get a one time token that they can’t tie to anyone.