It’s possible at least some of those people enquiring about the AI strategy are looking to find out if a company is about to ruin itself with bad decisions around AI. And some others are probably saying what they think people want to hear.
And yes, of course some are caught up in the hype; that’s the nature of these hype bubbles.
Sure, in theory Twitter’s website could be very simple and straightforward, built on tried and true web technologies. In practice, they wrote an entirely bespoke web app that is every bit as complex as a native app but shittily executed and with a terrible UX.
But the implication of this argument is that the benefit of PWAs is to the developer rather than the user, right? If PWAs actually benefited users, then creating one instead of an Android app wouldn’t be waste of time even if you had to create a separate iOS native app in either case.
Apples’s defense of its in-app payments rule is that having a single payment system owned by the platform used by every app on that platform provides the best experience for users. According to them, Apple isn't being greedy but rather they are ensuring their users have the best experience on their platform.
But if a single payment system for a platform is such a great user experience, why does Apple not offer that superior experience to their Apple Music customers on Android?
Of course, one could argue that Google's refusal to require apps on their platform to use their in-app purchase system means that superior user experience of a uniform payment system is out of reach regardless of what Apple does with their own apps on Android, so maybe it's not a contradiction after all.
I think they're mad about the "Apps" section on the Summary tab. But I don't really get the complaints or see it as an advertisement; it's at the very bottom and users may genuinely be wondering how they get more data into the Health app, and a curated list of apps that do that is useful.
The idea that minimum wages kills jobs is not as well supported as you might think. People commonly take overly-simplified econ 101 labor market theories as gospel when the empirical evidence about the effects of minimum wage increases is decidedly mixed: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/11/20/20952151/shoul...
I just find it crazy that in the scenario where Uber pays someone poor $8/h while I pay them 0$/h, Uber is the bad guy, while I am completely blameless.
The only actor actually paying the poor person is somehow the problem!
It's hard for me to come up with a logical framework that supports that conclusion. So I think it's not actually a matter of logic.
Yes, but FaceTime is not attempting to be a camera; it is attempting to simulate a face-to-face conversation. That it uses a camera is an implementation detail. The fact that the distance between the camera and the face on the screen makes it look as though the person you are conversing with isn't quite looking at you is an implementation detail leaking out of the intended abstraction.
FWIW, the Apple developers discussing SwiftUI on Twitter are careful to point out that SwiftUI is not designed to be a wrapper around UIKit. Much of the implementation currently uses UIKit under the hood, but that's an implementation detail that is subject to change and there are already significant parts of SwiftUI that don't use it.
It seems as though they are viewing SwiftUI as a successor to UIKit/AppKit on all their platforms, not just a higher level wrapper.
SwiftUI has state. The idea is that all layout code is defined as a pure function of the state. Basically you can annotate properties with `@State` and each time one of those properties is updated, your view `body` function is re-run to produce an updated view.
SwiftUI tries to do clever stuff under the hood to only update the portions of the view hierarchy affected by the state change for performance.
And yes, of course some are caught up in the hype; that’s the nature of these hype bubbles.