4 ms·
My guess would be that the three-day timer is the first version to test the waters. Put it out there to see if there are any unexpected problems. And if everyth
by Hamuko 2y ago
My guess would be that the three-day timer is the first version to test the waters. Put it out there to see if there are any unexpected problems. And if everything's peachy, lower it in some future release to make it more secure.
- eleveriven 2y agoIf they went with something more aggressive (like 24 hours) it might annoy more users, especially those who keep their phones locked for a while but don't use them constantly
- Washuu 2y agoI'm one of those people. I charge my phone once a week. Most of my interaction with it is notifications on the lock screen.
- eleveriven 2y agoYour usage style highlights why a one-size-fits-all approach to device behavior doesn’t always work
- Hamuko 2y agoI imagine the number of people who don't unlock their iPhones in ≥24 hours is a vanishingly small percentage of the userbase. Especially since with new iPhones, just looking at the lockscreen with your face unobscured is enough to unlock it.
- oarsinsync 2y agoI imagine a vanishingly small percentage of the user base is still a very large number of people, that as an absolute number, would make up a significant percentage of the users of any other product. Apple’s scale is so large, it’s easy to forget even tiny percentages are still actually really significant in absolute terms.
- tlb 2y agoYour phone knows how often you normally use it. It could do something intelligent based on a usage pattern to restart when there’s an unusually long gap. I can see this being too hard to explain compared to “reboots after 72 hours.”
- eleveriven 2y agoThat would be a good solution! A concept that merges predictive behavior with user convenience
- carstenhag 2y agoUsers that have an iPhone just for work would be affected with a 24h check. Even with 72h they might be affected, but it would be fewer (if you assume they work Fridays and Mondays)