Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here?
I remember when I was part of procuring an analytics tool for a previous employer and they had a similar clause that would essentially have banned us from building any in-house analytics while we were bound by that contract.
> Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here?
Compilers don't come with terms that prevent you from building competing compilers. IDEs don't prevent you from writing competing IDEs. If coding agents are supposed to be how we do software engineering from now on, yeah, it's pretty bad.
Because they approach creating such terms in a different way? e.g. some competitors may consider the chances of it to be enforceable to be 0 and not bother with it at all, while others just didn't bother tweaking the standard boilerplate they got from their lawyers unless needed.
Literally the first 4 SaaS companies that came to my mind to check (Atlassian/Jira, Linear, Pipedrive, Stackblitz/Bolt.new) have a similar clause in their TOS.
If the implementation gets it wrong that can also be a sign of ambiguity in the protocol / standard and as such result in clarifications and an overall more well specified protocol
sudo-rs itself is not a bad idea, Canonical’s premature shipping of it in Ubuntu was the bad idea. sudo-rs was transparent with how far it had gotten in compatibility and feature parity
"the trade-offs in battery life and camera quality are too significant" - a small but thicker phone would have no trouble with battery life and could for sure have the same good cameras as larger phones – and could possibly even ditch the camera bump if it just made the entire phone as thick as the camera bump to fit a larger battery.
(After all, easiest way to increase battery size is to increase the smallest dimension. Add 1mm to a 4-4.5mm thick battery and you'll increase the battery size by 22-25%. Make the iPhone 13 Mini as thick as its camera bump and you would probably add ≈2.4mm, which would make the battery 60% larger)
If one were to make a iPhone 17 Pro Mini as thick as the iPhone 4 then it would:
- Likely still weigh less than a Pro Max
- Have a battery with a capacity larger than the Pro Max
- Have the pro cameras stick out about as much as they did on the iPhone 6
And it would feel as robust and solid as an iPhone 4 – my favorite iPhone so far
My only gripe with the Mudita Kompakt is that one of the reasons I need a smartphone is to run those little apps without which you cannot navigate the modern world - 2FA, corporate proprietary 2FA, parking, bank (my bank lets you deposit checks through the app, but not through the website, else I would only use the website). And a lot of those require the Play Integrity API at some level, unfortunately.
Completely agree! Felt like such a refresh right up until the suggestions to follow on the Musk platform – it’s basically the same as suggesting to follow on Truth Social nowadays, only that Musk has more money than Trump could ever dream off
I remember when I was part of procuring an analytics tool for a previous employer and they had a similar clause that would essentially have banned us from building any in-house analytics while we were bound by that contract.
We didn't sign.
reply