Depends on the objective of Apple. It’s hard to imagine they’re after a quick payout. They may wish to keep this in the news cycle as long as possible. I could see them both harming open ai and sending a message to employees thinking of leaving that if they even consider breaking their confidentiality agreements, it will absolutely ruin their careers.
You get about 80-90% of the results for daily tasks like: getting summaries or explanations of complex material. Writing software tools for data analysis. Getting recipes for a given set of ingredients in the fridge.
The cloud services wrote the contract and the UI for their console. They then encourage young developers to try out their tools and encourage a market environment where those skills are needed to secure employment. Some kid goes and tries to build their first web app, they follow instructions and tutorials but miss that a single default selection on a menu three nested layers down is going to cost $2,000 per month. This isn’t disclosed on the page. Sure, it can be determined by reading several different documents, but the provider chose to not show estimates for costs in the setup.
Nuke the data. It’s gone forever if you didn’t back it up elsewhere. This should be a meaningful risk mitigation that I can employ to avoid having a catastrophic financial disaster.
This isn’t a limit I’m setting at some percentage above expected costs, it’s: “I don’t want to take out a HELOC if something goes wrong”
I would love to have a “if the bill for this hobby project becomes a threat to my ability to pay my mortgage, nuke it.” If I cared about the data enough. I’d have backed it up.
This is an issue that regulators need to address. Asking small businesses to forego the significant impact on their business of not implementing common features that users demand is not a good solution to public policy failures.
I don’t know what the exact revenue/growth difference is, but if my paycheque depended upon getting more users to sign up, I don’t think I could justify making it into a political stance when Google isn’t going to notice my tiny boycott.
As a parent, none of these are useful to me. Age is not a useful indicator of what’s appropriate for my kid. At best, this can avoid a small portion of some stuff they probably wouldn’t see anyway. The bad actors who I’m worried about actively try to circumvent any automated systems that block them. These age verification systems don’t help even if they worked as intended… or at least as advertised.
This gets complicated when you need to start giving your kids some degree of independence. I would also argue this could be implemented in a more accessibility-oriented approach.
Also, not all 13-year-olds are of equal level of maturity/content appropriate material. I find it very annoying that I can’t just set limits like: no drug-referencing but idgaf about my kid hearing swear words.
On other machines:
I do not want certain content to ever be displayed on my work machine. I’d like to have the ability to set that.
Someone who has specific background may not want to see things like: children in danger. This could even be applied to their Netflix algorithm. The website: does the dog die, does a good job of categorizing these kinds of content.