You should use a separate WhatsApp account for bot purposes.
Recently, I used a separate WhatsApp account to interact with a group chat that I have with my friends. After about a week, they disabled the account, with no way to re-enable it.
Since WhatsApp accounts are bound to phone numbers, getting a new phone number is a significant hurdle in many legislations.
An easier solution is to just not use WhatsApp at all and look for the alternatives for bot purposes. Telegram explicitly encourages bot usage with no risk of bans.
In my case I did, but it's still wasted time and money. And when breaking TOS there's always a chance of getting related accounts also banned, though I don't know if that has already happened with WhatsApp or not.
iMessage doesn't require you to store history in icloud, it can just store everything locally if you want. But yes, I'd rather not have stored history, or the option to pay for storage than to have all media crushed beyond recognition.
A few times I've wanted to print something and found it was sent over an IM app and compressed to 100kb rendering it useless.
> Non-commercial use only. You agree that you will not use our Services for any commercial or business purposes and we and our Providers have no liability to you for any loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, or loss of business opportunity.
Also, let's not forget that the majority of devices still don't have AV1 hardware decoding support. For example, Apple only recently (2023) added support with iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs.
> For example, Apple only recently (2023) added support [for AV1].
Apple has been actively obstructing open video formats for a long long time—Apple is the reason there isn’t a baseline format for <video> in the HTML5 spec, for instance. (Or at least there wasn’t when the spec was still a well-defined document with a version number; I see no merit in keeping track of the “living” one.) Incidentally, Apple is a member of MPEG-LA and claims to hold numerous patents covering both AVC and HEVC.
At this point, whatever harms befall Apple’s users due to lack of Apple’s lack of format support are entirely Apple’s fault.
The claims made by Dolby that some H.265 patent claims that are formulated very vaguely also apply to AV1 are probably bogus.
Like many other such frivolous patent lawsuits, Dolby hopes to either scare the other company into making a deal in order to avoid bigger legal expenses, or to establish a legal precedent if their cunning lawyers can convince a technically incompetent jury that the H.265 patents are applicable to AV1.
This is the kind of trial that should have never been decided by a normal jury, but only by a panel of neutral experts in this field.
Is a panel of 'neutral' experts even possible to field in this area? I feel like anyone with sufficiently in depth knowledge of both the AV1 and HEVC specs has almost certainly derived a big paycheck for years from stakeholders on one side or the other of these lawsuits.
I'm no expert, but Google having designed AV1, I can certainly imagine a world where the codec infringes upon HEVC just enough that the lawsuit fees would come out in the wash.
You are right about the danger of non-neutral experts, but there still is an essential difference between a group of experts and a jury.
The experts may be biased, but when they open the mouth and try to argue their position their bias becomes obvious for the other experts and it can be contradicted with logical arguments.
Unless all the experts work for an interested party, it would be very difficult to impose an incorrect verdict, because it is impossible to argue in its favor without the mistakes in the argument being immediately exposed by an interlocutor.
On the other hand, with a standard jury most people will be unable to see what is wrong in the arguments presented to them and they will not be able to distinguish truth from lies in such technical subjects.
The US elections and the elections in many other countries are an eloquent proof of the capacity of average people for distinguishing truth from lies concerning much simpler facts than the details of video compression patents. Expecting a jury to choose the right verdict in such a trial seems too optimistic.
What I don't understand is why the AV1 pool isn't activating their MAD clause.
Part of the idea with AV1 was that with the constituents also holding such a massive warchest of patents (plus big tech being richer than god), they would countersue and demolish anyone that tries to bully AV1 users. Which would act like deterrence.
Where is all that might? Was it all just saber rattling, and are they basically going to let the AVC / HEVC patent holders make a fool out of them?
As a side note this isn't always superior - recently discovered my desktop uses way more power with hardware decode than software. Counterintuitive but issue isn't per pixel efficiency but that it keeps the GPU in a higher power state
Recently, I used a separate WhatsApp account to interact with a group chat that I have with my friends. After about a week, they disabled the account, with no way to re-enable it.
reply