"Simple" requests are sent without a OPTIONS preflight check. It's because old style forms could always do a cross-origin request, so you have to protect against it anyway.
Where exactly is the kerfuffle here? Is the crux of the issue that the community thought it owned the trademark when in fact it was owned by the initial creator?
Whether contributors fork or not, the code is MIT licensed, anyone can start a consulting organization around a piece of MIT code.
When I type a query and press search, would like it if the URL updated with the search in the query string. It would make it easier to share specific queries.
To this day none of the mail servers I’ve setup can send to verizon.net.
It’s not “hard”, but there are servers who will not accept a single message from you, rDNS, DKIM/SPF be damned. And there’s fuck-all you can do about it.
> The school could simply use RFiD cards for tracking attendance.
They actually studied this as well as the facial recognition system. Two different classrooms over an 8 week period.
The biggest problem they found with the RFID system;
> During the first week of testing (week 41) 38% of
pupils didn’t bring their tag at each lesson, while in
the second week of testing (week 42) 47% forgot it. [1]
Actually I think it's a perfectly appropriate use of facial recognition in this case.
Firstly, the school district already has a picture of every child at the school. Second, they already track the child (manually) at all times throughout the day.
So, they are not collecting any more information than they already had, nor are they collecting any more information than is legally required (attendance tracking is likely to be legally mandated)
The end result is the same exact data exposure / privacy risk that they started with, and more classroom hours to actually teach instead of taking attendance.
The classroom setting is a particularly good example of the narrow use case when facial recognition is acceptable. Unlike, for example, in a retail establishment, where a casual customer who browses the store but does not buy anything would otherwise remain anonymous.
Quite the contrary, you do not want anyone in the classroom who is anonymous.
> According to the DPA ruling, although the school secured parents' consent to monitor the students, the regulator did not feel that it was a legally adequate reason to collect such sensitive personal data.
It’s this kind of second-guessing which is extremely concerning about GDPR-type regulation.
Not that the information was not secure, or leaked, or mishandled, or consent wasn’t obtained, but even if all that is done, just, “We don’t think you had a good enough reason.”
That’s an interesting approach - not only do you not want to pay if you get the best possible result, you want to financially incentivize them to find something wrong!
I don’t know what the historical software sales revenues were for boxed software in the Windows desktop era.
But I am pretty sure the vast majority of applications on the App Store in the $1-$10 range would simply not have been possible to monetize in the Windows XP era.
Remember shareware? What percent of people actually paid for that? You think the market was even 1% the size it is now? CompUSA’s best annual revenue was $2 billion and only a fraction of that was software, and only a fraction of a faction of that was anything but enterprise software and big studio games.
And the market for apps on phones was a fraction of 1% of what we have now from the App Stores.
> I see it as regulations forcing Google and Apple, as platform owners, to not abuse their enormous power over developers on their platforms.
How do you think Apple is “abusing” their power, and what kind of regulation would curtail that? How would compliance with the regulation be monitored and enforced? Would only Apple and Google need follow these regulations, or any software distribution platform, or maybe platforms with a threshold of revenue?
I believe most of what we read about happening to devs on these App Stores relate to automated processes flagging accounts, because it’s not humanly possible to review the quantity of code being shipped through these stores. It’s not abuse to have a imperfect process - to me the term abuse implies the slight was done to some end - with some nefarious purpose.
So when we get into that domain, perhaps it comes down to policies like “App Store subscriptions must be paid for through App Store if they are made in-app and Apple will get its cut”. Some people very strongly think this is “abuse” of their market position. IMO that is their business model and the whole reason they built the entire App Store ecosystem - in order to provide services revenue in the face of dwindling device sales, because the devices are so fast and durable you don’t need a new one every 2 years anymore. IMO forcing Apple to turn off these revenue streams is akin to theft of their IP. As a developer I personally feel like I should be able to offer my own creations on my own terms, and as long as those terms are clearly stated and non-discriminatory the market can take it or leave it.
But if, for example, someone does believe this is a good example of a regulation to curtail an abuse of power by the App Stores — that is an example of a regulation which would cost Apple billions of dollars, and they will certainly attempt to make it up somewhere down the line.
It’s well established that regulations increase transaction costs and stifle innovation.
Take FDA regulations for example. The cost of developing a drug for sale in the USA in orders of magnitude higher due to these regulations. In safety critical systems, we pay this cost because the alternative is that people die. However, even still, the regulatory system itself may also be responsible for many deaths, due to viable treatments being either unavailable or unaffordable.
A regulatory framework on software distribution platforms frankly sounds horrific on many levels, but to avoid hyperbole, the most obvious effect would be increased compliance cost to the platform provider, which would be passed on to developers or end users.
Making apps unreviewable, or prohibitively costly to review, or imposing significant liability into the app review process is a recipe for increased cost and decreased growth, simply put.
So you fundamentally believe the government should force Apple to provide its software and services under very specific terms of use.
You understand that many of these APIs are actually cloud-backed services that cost Apple money to operate?
You understand that Apple funds the development and operation of these services through their share of App Store revenue?
But you fundamentally believe this business model should be banned / illegal, because the idea of a device existing like the modern day iPhone does — a device which no one on Earth requires, and which has many substitutes — the idea that this device exists in its current form as a cohesive set of APIs and services that every app employs in order to provide a consistent and “magical” end-user experience - this is somehow detestable and must be eliminated?
The Google and Apple App Stores generate ~$100 billion in annual revenue combined, and growing at about 25% per year. The App Stores are the greatest software distribution and monetization platforms ever created, second perhaps only to “The Internet” as a whole.
Regulating the App Stores as some sort of utility sounds like the perfect way to stifle growth and make it more difficult and expensive to publish on the App Store, which would hit small developers in particular.
Every percentage point reduction in the growth of these stores at this point is basically $1 billion taken out of developers’ pockets.
Apple has made over $40 billion from the App Store since it launched, and paid out over $100 billion to developers.
The $100/yr developer account fee is an anti-spam measure, not an actually significant revenue source.
Apple and Google App Stores combined currently generate almost $100 billion in revenue per year. This is the biggest and best revenue source available on the planet for smaller developers.
Easy end-user side loading, and third party app stores is a direct attack on this ecosystem and will damage the livelihoods of developers who will have no way to fight against massive increases in piracy that will result.
FOSS owes you literally nothing. Go build what you want for yourself, geez. Oh, and feel free to give it away to the world… OR NOT!