You can create and install a profile to (re)-enable it.
Just by default unless a profile (or MDM) solution allows "User Linked" activation lock (via Find My), the default is only to allow "Org Linked" activation.
Please don’t make such personal attacks, it doesn’t add to the conversation.
If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a company with a banking license, then could you not side load it?
We have basic minimum standards in our food safety, why not have them in our financial services?
You, as an expert in the field still can download any application you wish, but others that may not be an expert, are given some protection from potentially AI Slop apps that they wouldn’t understand are dangerous.
>If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a company with a banking license, then could you not side load it?
If you haven't noticed, there's a concerted push to make side-loading harder and harder. Sure it's an option for now, but it's quite possible we're only a few years away from Google going the Apple route and the vast majority of mobile devices not supporting installing unapproved software.
Turn Power Nap on or off for a Mac desktop computer
On your Mac, choose Apple menu > System Settings, then click Energy in the sidebar. (You may need to scroll down.)
Turn on Enable Power Nap.
Note: This option is only available on Intel-based Mac computers.
You can see (and change) the settings via Terminal, 'pmset -g' will show the current options.
After you set up iCloud for Windows, you can use iCloud Passwords to access your passwords in Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge using a browser extension. You can also manage your passwords in the iCloud Passwords app.
The risk is that Apple code sign's all the executables they ship and that someone could try to use GPLv3 to force Apple to either give them their signing keys to run their own version (the anti-tivo clauses) or that it would restrict Apple from suing someone for patent infringement because they've shipped GPLv3 software.
Valid or not in anyone else's opinion, it doesn't really matter, the risk that someone will attempt to use a court to enforce one of these tends to mean companies don't want to even go near it.
Working in a Bank we won't touch anything GPL3, even to build our software/services or mobile app, because we don't want to even open that Pandora's box.
We don't have to find out if a court would try to force us to release our signing keys if we don't use or ship any code that contains language that could in some ways be phrased to do that.
For the same reason we spent £1.8m "licensing" iText PDF for Java..... And removing it with extreme prejudice immediately afterwards.
We had very keen developer upgrade all the libraries in our codebase as a "reducing technical debt" task that they decided to undertake themselves.
They couldn't get something working and posted a stack-trace to ask for help..... Some enterprising sales person in iText saw it and emailed them offering to help and asked a question about what they were running and the developer effectively told them they were running version 5 which they didn't even check (or possibly understand) is relicensed under AGPL or commercial license.
The legal threats from iText and the resulting fallout means we now do not allow developers access to the internet from their machines, even via a proxy, they have a separate RDP machine for that.
And they can only pull in libraries that are scanned via jFrog xRay and ensure the license of said library is "acceptable".
On the plus side, means we're doing something about supply-chain vulnerabilities.
There's a risk that someone uses such a library the wrong way. A big part of the goal of legal compliance and security at large enterprises is to protect staff from doing dumb things that could have bad consequences, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to ban things that are particularly prone to that. It's a blunt weapon, but a more targeted one requires much more work and care.
Also paying the extra premium (whether Deliveroo, Just Eat or Uber Eats) for first delivery is kinda pointless (at least here in the South West) as the drivers seem to be delivering for all the apps at the same time, so your delivery takes 35 mins for the 10 min premium delivery and sometimes they even turn off GPS after they've picked it up if they're delivering for another app first.
So expensive for a frustrating cold food delivery.
I think that's the real difference under all this - Dominos employs drivers (and they get paid by tips, sure there are issues) but it's all one thing. If they deliver a cold pizza it's on them.
All the delivery app companies are NOT making the food so the blame game starts AND they are not employees so a bunch of gaming is going on.
I know my one experience with Uber eats is such that I'll never use it again, and instead travel myself.
Also food delivery drivers employed directly by restaurants typically have an insulated carrier in their car or on their bike to keep your food warm. Uber Eats drivers don't so the food gets cold way faster.
Guess that depends on your location - in the 3 European countries I've lived in, Deliveroo and Uber drivers/riders almost universally had insulated cuboid bags (usually with one of the companies' branding on) in their car or on their bike in all three countries, while Dominos pizza was the same in one country, in another country Dominos used cars with no insulation except the cardboard pizza box, and I don't know about Dominos in the 3rd.
(And I'm not sure if my experiences were representative of each country, just that they were consistent in each city.)
Uber Eats drivers definitely don't have them where I live. Food almost always arrives cold, even when the delivery time is very short. When I lived in NYC most deliveries were done by bike and all of them had insulated bags so the food was typically warm unless it had been super delayed.
Only if they choose the “new” terms, they can stay on the existing terms if they want to distribute through the App Store, as it’s free so the commission change doesn’t matter.
Basically seems to kill off Facebook forcing people to a Meta App Store for the free FaceBook app (and thus not being subject to App Store review, which has stopped some of the more brutal privacy invasions they’ve tried)
It forces an hour delay for people using the device passcode to reset the Apple ID password EXCEPT if its in a known location like home (also blocks changing the device passcode and turning off FindMy), and forces FaceID for these, even if the phone has been forced to forget the FaceID keys and require the device passcode.
And it requires FaceID without a passcode ID fallback for certain categories of authentication.
TouchID is far from "long time ago" tech. It's standard on Macs, and still present on iPhone and iPad models currently sold as new. Not to mention the large portion of their userbase that doesn't upgrade every three to five years.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/depf4ab94ef...