Apple's biggest asset has always been design. On a tehnical basis Apple products sometimes beat the competition and sometimes are outdone by the likes of Samsung, Thinkpad, etc. They have dominated the American consumer market because of fit and finish, attention to detail, and overall functional beauty in design. The flaws you're speaking of are a different sort from the, frankly weird looking, notch. While executed as well as possible, its a design compromise.
The notch is a literal non-issue that only people who don’t actually use this damn device seem to complain about or even notice. I for one am happy that an entire strip of nearly-useless status icons has been shifted upward into the extra area afforded by the notch. The number of times I notice it in a given month easily rounds to zero.
It’s the same story every time Apple releases a new product. People who overwhelmingly don’t buy Apple products in the first place lose their minds over some nit, while the overwhelming majority of their actual customers never seem to understand what the big deal is.
I’m not surprised at all: these people knee-jerk so hard and often, they probably can’t afford Apple products after the paying for orthopedic surgeons.
And the “ignorant Apple fanboy” narrative that seems to be the counterargument to this falls laughably short when you realize that the number of Apple’s customers has been increasing exponentially for the last fifteen years, all while they continue to enjoy the top spot in consumer satisfaction surveys across virtually their entire product line.
It's "weird looking" at the moment because Apple was the first[1] with the <cough> "courage" to do this in order to integrate what's basically a Kinect into the front of a phone. But phones are already showing up that copy this solution.
[1] Well, Essential did it, but didn't commit to the degree that Apple did.
ALL design is compromise. The options available for this design are a) stop the entire screen below the sensors b) extend the screen around the sensors or c) remove the sensors.
A gives you less overall screen space, and leads to other problems like an imbalance between the ‘chin’ and ‘forehead’ areas. Of course you could remove even more screen sapce to balance that out, but...
C means you have no Face ID, which is closer to giving up than compromising.
B is obviously the option they went with, and having used the phone for several months, I’d have to say I agree with this compromise. I get some extra screen space by moving the status stuff up in to the ‘ears’ and I still get faceID.
Pretty much everything digital has metadata tagged on it including the time at which the event occurred. Its very easy to prove the timing of the photo in this hypothetical case.
Insurance is a good that adds to the overall wellbeing of society IF it can be properly priced - meaning both fraud as well as incorrect denials of claims damage the insurance companies to properly price coverage and provide protection for everyone.
Why would we dislike more complete information? Economic systems always work better with fully informed players.
> Economic systems always work better with fully informed players.
Except in the current commercial environment, most information is shrouded by the industry and the regulatory processes systematically corrupted. Allstate in particular weaponizes [1] its claims process to low-ball claims, slow legal proceedings and starve-out claimants until they settle. We should be dubious social media information will be used fairly.
The flip side of that is that many services mangle or strip meta-data. Exif data is also easily editable and not all cameras, phones, or software properly populate it. I can see a situation where someone edits a photo before uploading which causes the creation date to default to the date it was edited and not the date the photo was taken.
I also doubt Facebook throws away photo metadata when an image is uploaded.
The image that gets returned in your browser may have none but the original, with all its camera-identifying, time-stamped GPS located gold mine will be intact.
Yeah, I imagine the putatively photographer sites like Flickr preserve it. My assumption is that Facebook saves it, removes it, then allows the image to display. ISTR years ago some controversy about EXIF stalking on FB, but it may have been another service.
Allstate is the only player better informed. The % of Allstate customers that know their social media is being scraped to detect fraud has got to be incredibly small.
If anything, this is asymmetric, which rarely turns out well for the player with less information.
Ideally, it is true that COMPLETE information makes an economic system work better..... but the improvement isn't some sort of linear progression, where every bit of more information adds a bit more economic efficiency. Sometimes, getting more information without getting ALL the information actually hurts economic efficiency.
A very easy example of this is wikileaks and the elections in 2016. It appears that wikileaks received information about both the democrat and republican parties; however, they chose to only share the information they recieved about the democrats.
By your assertion, we should not be concerned about this; after all, the information that was leaked was true, and therefore added to our overall body of known information, we should have been in a better place to make an informed decision, right? More information is better!
However, this isn't the case; because the information was selectively released, we only got the information that benefited one side, meaning that our overall understanding of the state of things actually DECREASED as more information was released.
This is the same thing happening here; you know Allstate isn't going to be looking for social media information that HELPS your claim. They aren't going to say, "Well, we were going to deny your claim, but we found from your social media feed that you were clearly really hurt. We have decided to pay out instead!"
Basically, if the extra information you receive is being selectively given by someone who has an agenda, you can be mislead even if all the information is true.
you know Allstate isn't going to be looking for social media information that HELPS your claim.
But from the article:
As for use cases for social media during the insurance claims process, Carpe Data cited two examples. The first one was where a customer was paralyzed. A social media search helped confirm the information more quickly through pictures of the customer in a wheelchair, which ultimately led to the claim being settled and paid out faster.
It's presumably in Allstate's interest to identify fraud, but also to process claims as efficiently as possible, no?
> The first one was where a customer was paralyzed. A social media search helped confirm the information more quickly through pictures of the customer in a wheelchair
This seems highly dubious. Are they really using information like this to decide to pay a claim? It's pretty easy to put someone into a wheelchair and take a video of it.
The flip side of that is that it's pretty challenging to take video of a paralyzed person playing basketball. It seems clear that the use of this is going to be biased in one direction.
Perfect information is impossible. The problem people have with this is that social media information may not enough have enough context to provide anything more than noise or a misleading picture.
