It's worse than that actually. The newer Tesla's actually include a "beta feature" to guess which way you want to go. The idea is you should never have to use the touchscreen: When you put your foot on the brake the car automatically selects F or R based on what the sensors see. Like in a parking lot if you parked nose in, it would see another car or wall in front of you, so it would assume you want to go in reverse.
It's labeled beta and disabled by default, but lots of Tesla features are labeled beta and still get used a ton.
I think there's also now less of a gap in features between the two. My Galaxy S7, when new, had tons of features I could flex on iPhone users with (water resistance, always-on display, 1440p OLED screen, wireless charging, etc.) but now iPhone Pro models have basically caught up, with iPhone "Normal" models only losing out on things that the average consumer doesn't care about. With this happening at the same time as the "feature drain" that you've described, it means there's fewer and fewer reasons to buy an Android.
Purism is insinuating that the primary reason why Apple throttled phones was to force you onto a new one, which is false. I think most people would rather have a phone that runs slow than a phone that randomly shuts off (increasing the lifespan compared to doing nothing and making people think their phone was broken.) Where Apple went wrong was not telling anyone they were throttling their devices, and not letting you force them to run at full power (which they changed later after the media backlash.)
> primary reason why Apple throttled phones was to force you onto a new one, which is false
If you believe Apple's marketing, it's false. If you look at customers' reaction, it's likely true. There were a lot of complains after every update, and the only known solution was to buy a new phone.
Or replace the battery. I had one of the affected phones and it performed exactly the same with a new battery as it had with the original one during the first couple of years.
That’s not the claim which Purism made or which is being repeated in this thread – because there’s obviously limited marketing value in saying “battery health used to be hard to tell on our competitor’s device but it’s been easy for over 6 years”.
Yes, that’s the claim Purism is using in their marketing but it’s predicated on the reader not checking the details and realizing that to the extent it was ever true, it was limited to a short period of time in 2017 between when the battery management behavior changed and when the UI warnings were added.
It’s also worth noting that multiple government investigations and lawsuits have failed to turn up any evidence supporting the conspiratorial claims about forced updates.
I know that Purism’s marketing strategy has to be convincing you to buy a product which is inferior on many counts but I think it’s a mistake to do things like this attacking their competitors because the “free is better” framing is fundamentally about trust. If they’re dishonest about something we can easily assess, how much can we trust the claims they’re making about things which are much harder to prove?
> You are technically right, but important part you are missing is that the Apple's behavior has only ended after they were sued.
You have the order backwards: most of the lawsuits were filed after they’d shipped two rounds of UI indicating when battery health was degrading performance – the lawyers recruiting clients knew that would make it easier to argue that the company was effectively admitting fault.
Ever wonder why they advertise “less binary blobs”? Any complex device has a long trust chain - you have the OS, of course, which we already know has an older security architecture than iOS or Android, but you also have the firmware for every component, implementation choices for how those components connect, and things like the CPU and it’s microcode. I guarantee you haven’t examined all of those so you’re trusting them to do so, which is what everyone does, and that’s why I mentioned the transitive nature of dishonest marketing. If they’re playing fast and loose in one area that makes it harder to say that they wouldn’t try to cover up something else, overstate the degree of diligence that they’ve applied, etc. If one of their developers is compromised, how do I know the same marketing weasel won’t decide that it’d be bad for their reputation to acknowledge it in the absence of proof that a signing key was leaked? I’d like to say that they wouldn’t but clearly their senior management aren’t placing enough emphasis on honesty.
People who use third-party apps are the most likely to be invested in the platform but they don't matter at all to reddit, the company. I would assume that they are also the most likely to use old.reddit, the most likely to use adblockers on desktop, etc. Reddit would rather replace them with people that will just use the default mobile/desktop experiences because they're the easiest to set up. That is the gain. NPCs are easier to develop apps for because they don't care if the apps are actually good.
Very similar experience here. I had a psychotic episode last summer on shrooms, and have since struggled with anxiety. I definitely agree that if you have any pre-existing mental health issues at all, using psychedelics is playing with fire.
I knew their stalks had fewer buttons, but everything? Eww. Very glad I grabbed an Elantra before it gets the axe next year, it's essentially a model 3 minus 90-degree autopilot.
The ReMarkable is so tempting but so expensive. It's just hard to stomach spending $500 at a minumum for the tablet + folio + stylus when I could have an iPad (a gimped base model one, but still) for the same price
I find it very tempting but last time I looked into it the sync is to their proprietary service (unless you mess with it). That is going to be a hard no from me.
