or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by stuffe

 For sure it's going that way, as I said.  But it's nowhere near close to actually being there yet was my point, let's not be getting ahead of ourselves, taking it from the accessory side first then other than standard heart rate straps etc there are precious few non ANT+ devices for things like power meters and so fort, and those that are around are 1st gen products.  It's tipping, but its not tipped.  Either way NFC is toast.  Apple (and we) dodged a bullet with that...
 No, but there are people who simply won't buy a watch if it doesn't fit.    The strap is a really important part of the sell for any watch.  I have a lot of watches (well, say 10-15) and I would like to own more, the limiting factor is finding ones that fit, rather than finding ones you like the look and/or features of.  When your choice of smartwatch for an iPhone is going to be restricted to a couple of devices max, you had better make sure that there are a lot of strap...
 Hmm, whilst I agree with your line of questioning, I would disagree with your counterpoint that BT4.0 is already a de facto standard in such things.  I agree that it may well go that way, and soon, but right now ANT+ is the only interoperable standard in town for such sensors, and that's using ancient 2.4Ghz RF tech.
Great idea, my Windows Phone has a choice of a couple of apps that sort of do this in a similar way.  We know the paper pamphlet gives you the bare minimum info on essentially turning it on and logging into iCloud, but then the rest is up to the user to already know or discover, any many iPhone users I know don't know about loads of what should be obvious and essential actions, like a double space to insert a full stop and space etc.  The user guides on iBooks are usually...
Well, at least he's helped us rule out one reason why they bought Beats, because if he's says so, it's gotta be flat out wrong. Cheers Kanye!
 Not that simple.  Faster also begets more efficient, more efficient means getting the same performance at a lower energy cost, ergo Metal could pump up the pixels, or it could give you more battery life with no loss of existing performance.  
 That's exactly what I went on to say "Great as Metal is, if OpenGL had done something similar for everyone, we'd be in a better place for *games players*, at the expense of any 1 individual company gaining an advantage for a subset of gamers.".  You need to reply to what I say, not what you assume I say from the first sentence... ;)
 I don't think you know what OpenCL is, if you are comparing it to Metal as an either/or thing.
 I've long expected the use of ARM chips as co-processors to the main Intel chip, being used with custom capabilities to essentially hardware accelerate APIs and frameworks such as Core Data, etc etc.  Imagine if this pre-execution compilation could be done *on chip* and we saw the same sorts of gains as we have seen for video encryption and decryption?  There's no reason why not, and the fact that you would be mixing and matching CPU architecture platforms would be...
I guess we know why Apple never made it to OpenGL 4.x, they've been working on bypassing it instead in an attempt to leapfrog it, rather than just play catchup to the latest minor and infrequent updates.  Good for Apple, bad for anyone else who uses OpenGL if other start to do the same thing (i.e. DX on Winphone).  Mobile gave OpenGL a lifeline, they appear to have squandered it by being incredibly slow to react and take advantage.  Great as Metal is, if OpenGL had done...
New Posts  All Forums: