this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
187 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59346 readers
7497 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Apple is facing a near-£3bn lawsuit over claims it breached competition law by effectively locking millions of UK consumers into its cloud storage service at “rip-off” prices.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (6 children)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago (5 children)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It’s strange that there would be so much documentation for an API that reportedly doesn’t work. Including a 2019 WWDC session explaining how to run in the background for more processor intensive tasks.

https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2019/707

There’s even a recent step by step post on Medium explaining how to implement short or long background tasks. Doesn’t say anything about it not working.

https://medium.com/@dbabic_38867/background-tasks-on-ios-c27366723b6d

If it really doesn’t work then I’d imagine the lawsuit will be won handily. It’ll be interesting to see what becomes of this.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

I had an older phone and only a couple apps that would need it. I think it intentionally didn't schedule anything to save power because the phone "can't handle it" anymore.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)