181–190 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not completely sure I understand what you want to accomplish, but I think you might find Moves ( https://moves-app.com/ ) useful.
Or Life Cycle by Northcube. Kinda amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Killing 32-bit-only-applications sucks for those apps that haven't been updated in years, but it speeds up the OS and should give you a bit of disk space back as well.
The difference in disk space is basically nonexistent (I could gain significantly more by removing the 32b apps applications, especially since most are games), and the OS speedup/memory gain should be limited and mostly applicable to when you're actually launching 32b applications.
As for speedup/memory gain, merely launching a 32-bit app will cause the OS to get a bit slower / use more memory until such time as the app is actually killed by the system. Merely going back to the home screen isn't good enough, since apps stay suspended in the background until the OS decides it needs that memory back. And if you have any 32-bit apps that actually do background processing, you'll end up with 32-bit apps in the background frequently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple doesn't force updates. You can simply ignore the OTA update. I believe you'll get prompted again every time a new update is released, but hitting "Ignore" occasionally is a small price to pay.
>Apple doesn't force updates. Constant popups _are_ the means to force updates. In addition they also throw up a nagware screen where they trick you to enter your pin to schedule updates. Apple employs several dark patterns, on iOS, and also on MacOS to trick the user and its rather sad to see them follow MS/FB/Google. >I believe you'll get prompted again every time a new update is released, That is not true. They do…
Bullshit.
They show an alert saying something like "A new version of the OS is available." [Update] [Ignore].
That's not a dark pattern. It's easy to just Ignore. I have a number of development devices using older versions of the OS and I've never had any problem avoiding updates.
> On top of that, what makes it even more egregious is that they make it impossible for me to downgrade
That's mostly the fault of the baseband.
> Apple constantly nags you to the point where, unless you're constantly looking out for it, its easy to accidentally hit the wrong button.
This is just flat-out wrong.
> Its sad that they have had to resort to tricking the user to drive their update stats.
And this is actually fairly offensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Apple doesn't force updates. Constant popups _are_ the means to force updates. In addition they also throw up a nagware screen where they trick you to enter your pin to schedule updates. Apple employs several dark patterns, on iOS, and also on MacOS to trick the user and its rather sad to see them follow MS/FB/Google. >I believe you'll get prompted again every time a new update is released, That is not true. They do…
> Apple employs several dark patterns Bullshit. They show an alert saying something like "A new version of the OS is available." [Update] [Ignore]. That's not a dark pattern. It's easy to just Ignore. I have a number of development devices using older versions of the OS and I've never had any problem avoiding updates. > On top of that, what makes it even more egregious is that they make it impossible for me to downgr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference in disk space is basically nonexistent (I could gain significantly more by removing the 32b apps applications, especially since most are games), and the OS speedup/memory gain should be limited and mostly applicable to when you're actually launching 32b applications.
In order to support 32-bit apps the OS needs to include 32-bit versions of all the system frameworks. So dropping support for 32-bit apps means cutting the size of all the system frameworks in half. As for speedup/memory gain, merely launching a 32-bit app will cause the OS to get a bit slower / use more memory until such time as the app is actually killed by the system. Merely going back to the home screen isn't goo…
Less than half as 32b code objects will be smaller than 64b ones, but even if it's half how much storage is that exactly? I mean I probably have games bigger than the frameworks on my device.
> As for speedup/memory gain, merely launching a 32-bit app will cause the OS to get a bit slower / use more memory until such time as the app is actually killed by the system.
Well yeah so it's just pay for what you use aka who gives a shit.
> And if you have any 32-bit apps that actually do background processing
Which is unlikely given the vast majority of applications being killed by this move are games.
I mean let's be honest for once, the gain from removing 32b frameworks is pretty much entirely on Apple's side, there's little gain to be found for end users when they're not just plain losing value in this move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In order to support 32-bit apps the OS needs to include 32-bit versions of all the system frameworks. So dropping support for 32-bit apps means cutting the size of all the system frameworks in half. As for speedup/memory gain, merely launching a 32-bit app will cause the OS to get a bit slower / use more memory until such time as the app is actually killed by the system. Merely going back to the home screen isn't goo…
> In order to support 32-bit apps the OS needs to include 32-bit versions of all the system frameworks. So dropping support for 32-bit apps means cutting the size of all the system frameworks in half. Less than half as 32b code objects will be smaller than 64b ones, but even if it's half how much storage is that exactly? I mean I probably have games bigger than the frameworks on my device. > As for speedup/memory gai…
I've given you multiple concrete benefits to end users. You may not personally care about the code size difference, and you seem to be completely discounting the speed / memory usage issues, but just because you personally don't think those are a big deal doesn't mean they don't actually exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why IOS needs profiles. It's that or you just uninstall the app after each use, which is a pain.
We could try to build a network to deliver applications, which would stop when you close them. We only need a system to map names to ips and some standards for protocols. We could even run them in a sandbox for security. Would be awesome.
Maps and Pandora, no, browser and email, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In order to support 32-bit apps the OS needs to include 32-bit versions of all the system frameworks. So dropping support for 32-bit apps means cutting the size of all the system frameworks in half. Less than half as 32b code objects will be smaller than 64b ones, but even if it's half how much storage is that exactly? I mean I probably have games bigger than the frameworks on my device. > As for speedup/memory gai…
> I mean let's be honest for once, the gain from removing 32b frameworks is pretty much entirely on Apple's side I've given you multiple concrete benefits to end users. You may not personally care about the code size difference, and you seem to be completely discounting the speed / memory usage issues, but just because you personally don't think those are a big deal doesn't mean they don't actually exist.
There are not benefits since they break software. You can get pretty much all of these by just removing remaining 32b software from your system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm as willing as the next guy to dump on Uber, but in this case Apple didn't leave them many options. If they chose "while in use" then a ton of functionality would never be possible for any user whatsoever... because the only options they had were, to coin some temporary terms: Option A: "All or nothing with behavior 1 (while app is in use only)" or Option B: "All or nothing with behavior 2 (always use location whe…
Sorry, what functionality do I need from a ride sharing app while I'm not using it to hail a ride, wait for a ride, or while on a ride? Given Uber's infamous "hustle" and some of their other software hijinks, I very much doubt that their intentions in this decision were for the benefit of their users. I'd further wager that they use this info to e.g. Track when an Uber user takes a Lyft or competing ride service ride…
Fantastic. Screw Uber for only having the option to always use or never use.
I'm as willing as the next guy to dump on Uber, but in this case Apple didn't leave them many options. If they chose "while in use" then a ton of functionality would never be possible for any user whatsoever... because the only options they had were, to coin some temporary terms: Option A: "All or nothing with behavior 1 (while app is in use only)" or Option B: "All or nothing with behavior 2 (always use location whe…