pantyfire wrote:I finally went back to iPhone when the new SE came out. I love it.
I’m with g I actually prefer the smaller form factor.
Its less intrusive in your pocket and you don’t have to take it out or shift it to another pocket every time you sit down.
It’s so nice to be 100% apple again.
Everything just works nicely across all devices.
On my iPad and want to shift to my phone, copy and paste the URL. Love it.
One thing that I found quite odd with my old android phone was the noise level max.
It stopped at a level that I could never override (and I tried enabling developer access and downloading apps to boost the volume). And it was baked into the OS. It was nice to be able to listen to my music at dangerous levels again when i got the iPhone.
And AirPods are lush. Best little expensive purchase in a long time.
RamSteelwood wrote:I too have just got a new iPhone SE, to replace my old 6S.
pantyfire wrote:I finally went back to iPhone when the new SE came out. I love it.
Funkstain wrote:If that means you have to actually, you know, pay for the services you value, or you have to come to the table with a product that people want to pay for, then so be it. It doesn't have to be everyone who pays, it doesn't have to be an unaffordable payment per person (imagine if your 1 million monthly site visitors all paid 25p per month), it can be packaged into groups of sites (pay once get access to lots), by services, and so on.
Funkstain wrote:Specifically on the Apple tracking opt-in options, rather than general Apple commentary: 1. What Apple are doing (after a delay) is implementing an opt-in whenever it detects that a website or app is using advertising platform trackers. 2. What these trackers do is follow you / identify you as you browse from site to site, build up a profile of you, and then sell that profile to advertising platforms (in many cases, like Facebook and Google, they own the whole setup: tracker tech, profile builder, advertising platforms) which in turn, can sell more specifically targeted advertising real estate to companies which want to advertise. 3. Apple are not "blocking" the trackers by default. They are saying that they believe it is a consumer's right to know that they are being tracked across websites and apps, and they are offering the customer the choice to block the trackers. 4. This in turn clearly impacts the bottom line of large advertising tech companies (er, Facebook). But it does also impact the value of online advertising, in terms of a given company's return on their advertisement spend. Where as before, a small local company could benefit from this profiles to ensure that their advert's value to them was highest, by ensuring it only appeared to profiles which are, for eg, local, the right demographic, the right profile, the most likely to actually respond to the ad. 5. The second impact is the corollary beneficiaries to this model. If I'm a website publisher, often I only generate revenue from ads on my site. The ones which generate the most value are those which encourage click-through and potential eventual purchase, aka engagement. If the ads published on your website are targeted specifically at the various people who browse your website, then engagement is more likely, and your revenue benefits. 6. So Facebook's position is - this is not about "defeating evil advertising companies", it's about "salvaging the value that small local businesses can gain from profile-based advertising" and "keeping the internet free". If you cripple ad profiles on apple devices (in the US this is a large swathe of the consumer population), you a) lower the return on investment in advertising by smaller businesses, they suffer and b) you lower the revenue of websites which use advertising, due to lower engagement with the ads Facebook's "nightmarish" vision isn't just that they lose a lot of money (higher engagement potential = much higher advertising price, which = $$ for Facebook as a platform), but that suddenly we'll have to PAY for things like news, fan sites, community sites and so on, which are currently supported by advertising. This is plausible - hence the multi-million dollar spend on full page ads and lobbying and online videos and so on. My view is that Apple are monopolists, despite baby steps towards progress in this respect, and profiteers, but in this case are the lesser of two evils. The internet, as great as it is, as great as it can be, should absolutely not be built on advertising, which is the root of much evil (this may seem hyperbolic to some - we can get into that too if you'd like it's fascinating stuff). If that means you have to actually, you know, pay for the services you value, or you have to come to the table with a product that people want to pay for, then so be it. It doesn't have to be everyone who pays, it doesn't have to be an unaffordable payment per person (imagine if your 1 million monthly site visitors all paid 25p per month), it can be packaged into groups of sites (pay once get access to lots), by services, and so on. Without advertising the internet goes on.
Funkstain wrote:The issue with Apple doing it is that they would ask for too much because they are profiteers, but in principle yes - they would certainly have the clout to at least try it...
Heh. 26years I've been handcuffed to Apple mate. *winkysmiley*b0r1s wrote:Nice one. Forgot to mention transparency mode. It’s such a great feature. I use it when going for walks to be more aware of my surroundings. Now if you want to add to your experience a bit more get a cheap Apple Watch You can do all the volume and controls on that very well. Slowly G becomes an Apple fanboi
yourfavouriteuncle wrote:Siri controls all my lights at home and for that I’m forever grateful to her.
Yes and you can set Siri up as a double tap in one earphone.JMW wrote:Can you ask Siri to turn the volume down? Never tried myself.
I have the watch.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!