> Furthermore, no company would be asinine enough to allow bots, AI, or ML make decisions without a way to undo those changes.
Sadly this is actually the norm across all these big tech platforms these days. Algorithm bans an account, humans might give it a look later if a big enough fuss is kicked up about it, else there is no appeals.
Of course there is a button a human can press to undo these things, but the trouble is getting a human to bother looking at it in the first place.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Discord all do the same thing.
Of course not. In app purchases might make sense for someone that has an app once they already have a pretty good audience, but the issue is how to build that audience in the first place.
I was wondering if the person I was replying to had any insights on that, given they were suggesting in app purchases as an alternative to Google/FB ads. Maybe they were suggesting in app purchases as an alternative to Google adsense? Which wouldn’t apply to my use case.
Very sloppy for it to not even do a 301 redirect though. Even if you use one of those basic website builder services they will do that as standard.
Decided to run SSL Labs on the site out of curiosity[1] and they still have TLS 1.0 activated as well. That's just poor SSL config. A software company supposedly made up of talented coders should know way better.
> No company information in the UK company database for either 6ace or sixace, despite a claimed address of "61,hallwicks road,Luton,Bedfordshire,London-LU2 9BG".
To be fair it is common for a UK company to have a generic name and for various activities run under it to trade under different names.
Usually however when the company is legitimate the footer of the website will say "Brand Name is a trading name for Actual Company Name Limited" where the company name will be registered at Companies House.
Not the case here, cannot see any info on the actual company, couldn't actually find a mention of that address anywhere on the site either where did you get it from?
That's a residential address for a random house in Luton. Not uncommon for a small company to be registered to a residential property, but the address doesn't seem to be in Companies House records.
Anyway I do agree this is sending off all sorts of red flags for me too, I think the post is telling a very one sided story and Google in this specific case has legitimate reason to ban that dodgy developer account.
Thanks. Since no company is registered under that address I'd bet there simply is no company and the guy is just a sole trader under the name Six Ace Games. No official registration needed for that, you just have to report the income to HMRC (taxman) and that's it.
A Linux phone could run WhatsApp if the Linux distro was implemented in such a way that it could run Android apps (remember Android is basically just a runtime on top of the Linux kernel) and since AOSP is FOSS this is very doable and legal.
How commercially successful it'd be is still a different story, but it could run WhatsApp.
WhatsApp has no motivation to use SafetyNet. For one thing plenty of their users use cheap Chinese phones that aren't actually Google certified (but come with the Play Store anyway) and they know this full well from their analytics.
For another, SafetyNet is used primarily for DRM on streaming services and for banking or other financial apps. Absolutely no messenger uses it that I am aware of (unless you count Snapchat as a "messenger" but that's literally it).
Every FB owned app runs fine on Android devices that fail SafetyNet. No reason to believe that'll change because where's the benefit for FB?
It is similar in the UK as well regarding WhatsApp. Not quite to the extreme you describe, but WhatsApp has 100% replaced SMS. No one uses SMS. It is all WhatsApp. People don't talk about texting they say "I'll WhatsApp you." If you join a new social circle, whether it's personal or professional, the first thing is to be added to the WhatsApp group.
The only thing I'll say about the security aspect though is the on-by-default cloud backups make the E2EE a red herring. Even if you turn it off on your own phone, it is almost certain the person you are talking to has it on. And if you turn it off it nags you to turn it back on after each update, most users will just do it to make the nagging go away, and FB know that.
My family lives mostly in the UK. None of them use Whatsapp. They still use SMS for random messaging, and they use Telegram for coordinated messaging. They range in age from 30 to 78. WhatsApp might be dominant, but "No one uses SMS" is almost certainly an overstatement.
Some people, especially those who have more international contacts, will prefer to use Telegram over WhatsApp sure. It is rare to find anyone under the age of 60 who uses SMS as their primary method of communication in 2021 though. The number of SMS messages sent in the UK has dropped by over 100 billion in the past slightly-under-a-decade.[1]
The page you linked says there were 48.68 billion SMS in 2020. Averaged across the population, that's on the order of 800-900 messages per person per year. Even if the actual SMS usage demographics skews older (quite likely), it's still likely that most people send at least one text per day, maybe more.
Given that the original claim was that "no-one uses SMS anymore", I think that's still demonstrably false. Your milder claim - "rare to find anyone under 60 who uses SMS as their primary messaging system" - seems likely to be true.
You missed out some vital context from the source of that statistic:
> The number of outgoing SMS and MMS messages sent in the United Kingdom (UK) fell to 48.68 billion in 2020, from a peak of 150.83 billion in 2012.
> The fall in the number of SMS and MMS messages sent over mobile networks in the UK, coincides with a surge in popularity of apps such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. Globally, WhatsApp added 1.3 billion monthly active users from April 2013 to December 2017, replacing the need for sending SMS messages for many users.
Trust me, yeah someone's grandparents who don't own smartphones might use SMS, but the vast majority of the population does not. The stats are right there.
Also note that number of SMS messages sent is not the same as number of people using SMS as a form of communication. Most texts are sent by bots either for legit things like 2FA codes or less legit things like phishing.
We’re talking 2 texts per person, someone is sending a lot and junk isn’t enough to hit those numbers. Also, 2 factor identification is still usage.
Now it might not on top by number of messages even if it’s close, but that’s a different question. If you’re going to pick one and only one service to use then texting makes you reachable by the widest possible audience demonstrating it’s still #1 by adoption.
Not rare at all if you sit on a train and glance around you. I see people watching movies/TV on phones and tablets constantly out in public. Very common.
It's partly the reason I got a Fold 3. Very good for on the move media consumption.
As for data use, aside from the points already brought up - ability to download for later from Netflix, certain services not counting towards data usage on some plans, etc - Netflix and other streaming services will also know you are on a mobile network and provide a more compressed stream at a lower resolution (720p with lower encoding settings being common) to reduce data usage and buffering.
People on a train aren’t a representative sample, nor is every video on a cellphone Netflix. Tablets are of course another story people regularly watch movies on those because the screen isn’t tiny.
Which gets back to the basic point people don’t watch a lot of video on cellphones and Netflix is usage is even lower.
Of course they do. Fingerprinting browsers is extremely easy.