The notification itself is super helpful if you care about battery health. There are apps that try to do it if your phone doesn’t have one, but they aren’t nearly as well integrated into the system and are therefore more clunky.
The insane/annoying part is just that the setting is not opt-in. Or whether there’s a setting to turn it off.
That’s why Pixels and some others have a “smart charge” feature that will wait to charge your phone until just before your alarm time so that it will finish right before you take it off the charger.
why am I going backwards to needing to babysit my phone when it’s charging, and why would anyone want to charge their phone when they want to be using it vs when they’re asleep?
I honestly don’t understand why people have such trouble with this. I can throw my phone on a charger when I go to shower and it’s at 80 percent when I get out, and that’s enough for my day. I could leave it while I get dressed and eat or something and it’d be at 100 if I needed. I don’t need my phone 24 hours a day. And there are many points in my day where I’m not using my phone for an hour that I could spare to charge it. I don’t need to leave it burning away permanent battery capacity for hours and hours every night.
Yes, the battery doesn’t charge to “dangerous - could explode” levels. But they very much do still charge to levels that are damaging to long term health/capacity of the battery.
Yes, they tune the batteries so that 100% isn’t the absolute cap. But even with that accounted for, many batteries will be above values that would be considered good for the long term health of a lithium cell. 80 percent on most phones is still very much at levels that are considered damaging to lithium batteries.
To put it another way, the higher you charge a lithium battery, the more stress you put on it. The more stress you put on it, the fewer charge cycles those components will hold. It’s not like there’s a “magic number” at 80 percent, it’s just that the higher you go the worse it is. Yes, some manufacturers have tweaked charge curves to be more reasonable. But they’ve also increased limits. Many batteries now charge substantially higher than most people would consider sustainable.
And after such changes, 80% lands pretty close to the general recommendations for improved battery longevity. Every percent will help, but it’s not a hard and fast rule.
Calibrations have gotten a little better in some ways, but all you have to do is look at basic recommendations from battery experts and look at your phones battery voltage to see that almost every manufacturer is pushing well past the typical recommendations at 90 or even 85 percent.
It hasn’t been in a long time. Charge controllers still charge to damaging voltages anyway. 100% isn’t 100% but you can very easily check the voltage on phones and many still are into damaging territory beyond 80%.
Can’t answer the rest of your question because I don’t use a one plus but:
aren’t you supposed to charge the phone overnight?
No, you aren’t “supposed” to charge your phone overnight. Leaving your phone on the charger at 100% is actually pretty bad for long term battery health. Hence why the notification exists in the first place. Modern phones also full charge in like an hour, so this leaves your phone in that state for many hours.
The longer story is it’s actually best to stop charging your phone at 80 percent unless you really need the extra juice, because any time your phone spends above that is potentially damaging, but that tends to be hard to deal with for most people.
Most of the phones I’ve seen with this feature have a “battery warning” or “charge notification” or “protect battery” type setting somewhere you can turn off. But again, I’ve never used a one plus so Idk if they do or where it is.
Problem 2 also shows they have no double checks on access to private video feeds. Mixing up what’s being requested at any step and not reverifying anywhere after that point just reveals fucking terrible security practices.
No, this does actually sound like a solution. But it’s a solution that should be scattered all throughout the process, and checked at multiple steps along the way. The fact that this wasn’t here to begin with is a bigger problem than the “client library failure” as it shows Wyze’s security practices are fucking garbage. And adding “one layer” is not enough. There should be several.
To give a bit better context, which I can only be guessing at by reading between the lines of their vague descriptions and my first hand experience with these types of systems…
Essentially your devices all have unique ids. And your account has an account/user ID. They’re essentially “random numbers” that are unique within each set, but there appear to be devices that have the same ID as a some user’s user ID.
When the app wants to query for video feeds it’s going to ask the server “hey, get me the feed for devices A, B, and C. And my user ID is X”. The server should receive this, check if that user has access to those devices. But that server is just the first external facing step. It then likely delegates the request through multiple internal services which go look up the feed for those device IDs and return them.
The problem that happened is somewhere in there, they had an “oopsie” and they passed along “get me device X, X, X for user ID X”. And for whatever reason, all the remaining steps were like “yup, device X for user X, here you go”. At MULTIPLE points along that chain, they should be rechecking this and saying “woah, user X only has access to devices A, B, and C, not X. Access denied.”
The fact that they checked this ZERO times, and now adding “a layer” of verification is a huge issue imo. This should never have been running in production without multiple steps in the chain validating this. Otherwise, they’re prone to both bugs and hacks.
But no, they clearly weren’t verified to view the events. Their description implies that somewhere in the chain they scrambled what was being requested and there were no further verifications after that point. Which is a massive issue.
It doesn’t even need to go that far. If some cache mixes up user ids and device ids, those user ids should go to request a video feed and the serving authority should be like “woah, YOU don’t have access to that device/user”. Even when you fucking mix these things up, there should be multiple places in the chain where this gets checked and denied. This is a systemic/architectural issue and not “one little oopsie in a library”. That oopsie simply exposed the problem.
I don’t care if I was affected or how widespread this is. This just shows Wyze can’t be trusted with anything remotely “private”. This is a massive security failing.
Most of the success of a social network has nothing to do with “X software is better than Y software.”
Literally this. Most social networks are just less-featured versions of Facebook.
Twitter was originally Facebook with no media posts and character limits. And kind of cool that you could SMS it, but hands down just worse software that ended up taking off.
Instagram was originally Facebook but images only. Then they added video. It’s just less software, but also took off.
Snapchat was Facebook but you could only send pics/video and only directly to friends. And they just removed persistence so all your shit gets deleted. Literally just missing timelines and comments. Blatantly worse software. Popular as fuck, especially with zoomers.
Social media has never been about better software. Arguably Google+ had the best software in many ways (probably the most feature rich, but UI was objectively a problem), it’s fucking dead. Social media seems to do better when it has worse software.
It seemed to me like Reddit basically drove off half their content creators AND Lemmy didnt really steal too much of Reddit’s userbase (around 1%)
Yeah, this has been my experience as well. Reddit likes to say “all the shitty people left and went to Lemmy”, and they seem half right - a bunch of people did leave. But most of the content of reddit is extremely stale now. And most of the shitty people that left reddit didn’t go to Lemmy, they just fucking left.
Sure, some Lemmy instances have attracted garbage, but most of the threads here are like 1% of the amount of posts but 80% of the content I care about so it just feels more efficient. Less garbage to trudge through, especially in the comments.
Can’t find the other comment you made about this anymore, but this is an advertising company that’s helping devs advertise their games, so yeah, it’s not going to talk about advertising non existent apps for market analysis. Instead it talks about twisting games to advertise them with exaggeration and weird hooks to try to convince people to download them… Which is another shitty advertising practice in mobile gaming (yeah, there are a lot of them, shocker) and not really pertinent to the topic/OP.
I also find it funny you left the highlight showing you probably searched exactly for something that proved your point, but it’s listed “exaggeration” in the heading which is entirely different.
These are all examples of exaggerated and misleading ads. Hell, the heading you linked to is literally called “exaggerated ads”. That’s not “this game does not exist at all” ads, it’s “this isn’t how the game actually plays” ads. The examples this article gives are the like weird “Omg he got me pregnant” ads that then link to a match 3 game and the like. These are a different thing than things like the OP linked which are entirely irrelevant and link to random unrelated games.
The article is from and advertising company that is selling customers who have an existing game who want to improve ad conversions and then lists techniques for doing so. They do not explain the outcome the OP is asking about. Not would they outline the strategy I’m talking about since what in referring to is a process by which you would test new game ideas. That’s not something the company you linked to would be involved in.
There are many many many types of advertising campaigns in mobile gaming. And they serve different purposes. The stuff your outlining is different than the OPs question and my response. They exist in the same market and one existing doesn’t mean the other doesn’t.
The same half dozen vertical slices or renders have existed for years so why have exactly 0 been realised as games?
Already covered above. They likely prototyped it and it didn’t monetize well or something so they axed it.
Because they aren’t games they are bait and switch adverts.
Or they’re neither, and they’re just trying to gauge the market. But sure, you can believe whatever you want.
There’s no market research campaigns and you’ve provided no fucking evidence for your claims at all.
You haven’t either. You’re just assuming a) the worst and b) something that makes objectively less sense - if your whole premise is they’re advertising something fake, how would this even work as bait and switch if people see that’s not what the ad links to?
Your thesis is bunk and I think so are your claims to be a dev too.
And your thesis is “I feel like it’s bait and switch, so it is” and you have no claims of credibility. Nothing I say will prove to you that I’ve worked for some of the largest corporations in the US, so I can’t change your mind.
Why does any dev in the mobile need to deal with companies like this??
I didn’t say I “needed” to. And my job did require it at the time. The circumstances of my employment are kind of out of the scope of this discussion and it’s pretty much entirely irrelevant. I was just stating where I got my information from.
you can just self publish and that’s what people do daily.
Sure. You can. People do. Mobile it’s way less successful though. And I didn’t say anything about what an indie devs options are. You’re reading something very different out of what I’m saying and I don’t know what it is or where you’re getting it from.
Lots of self published games and apps exist and more are available every day.
Exactly. That’s part of what’s going on here.
I am concerned with the larping you’re doing here.
Larping? What am I role playing? And we’re on the internet, so this definitely isn’t “live action” by any means. I don’t understand what you think is going on here.
Why are you trying to scare people ?
Me stating what goes on inside the industry is not “trying” to do anything. I’m just explaining what I’ve seen in it. Whether they choose to be “scared” or not is their own perogative. Would you say I’m trying to scare people if I said many people have died in Gaza in the past few months? It’s just stating what’s happening.
Yeah, I don’t feel foolish at all. I’ve explained this in other comments.
In summary:
I’m not claiming literally every instance is exactly what I’m describing, but it is a very common pattern.
Many of these ads are slight variations to test which performs better.
Many of the “which performs better” are run against long standing ads they’ve had to learn about how to advertise. They may never intend to release the games being advertised. They may know the ad does well, but they built a prototype game and it didn’t monetize, so they’ll never finish it or already killed it. But that doesn’t stop them from running the same ad but with a different visual theme to see which visual theme is more popular right now.
Some of these ads are not run by dev studios but by advertisers or publishers.
Markets are not static - interest in themes, visual styles, and game genres are all extremely “seasonal” and keep changing. They do not “know their market extremely well” because interest keeps shifting. Companies will constantly run ads just to gauge what genres they should be thinking about and to track trends over time. IE, they may run the same exact strategy game ad for many years straight to determine the long term stability of strategy games. Without caring about the specific game idea in the ad itself.
I don’t feel foolish, nor do I think it’s “clever”. I just know from first hand experience that this is how the market works.
There’s a psychological phenomenon around this but I forget the name for it. But yes, there’s evidence that seeing someone play poorly, and thinking “oh that’s easy I could do that” actually does motivate you to want to do it. Like a weird “prove I’m better” self ego stroke sort of thing. And these ads very much are intentionally playing into that.
What’s even funnier: there are many of these now that are fake. IE, a bunch of you tubers / tiktokers have done videos where they play games to see if they’re real. Then some company goes to make a fake ad, so they take the you tubers video and just put their ad video there instead. So then there are ads with them saying “woah this game is real!” but it’s a fake video of a fake ad. It’s turtles all the way down.
Yeah, I think you’re totally right. I didn’t mean that it started in 2010s, more that it was basically the norm by then and it’s a giant cesspool now. But looking back, my wording wasn’t super clear on that distinction. I do think it was around in the 2000s, but its gotten much worse with time.
I’m also super frustrated as a gamer, but to your point, thank god the indie scene is running strong.
Sounds like you’ve got the right mindset and sounds like you have your head on your shoulders. Best of luck!
Pixels have this too. I believe one plus does too but I don’t remember. Idk about anyone else.