or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Cook says Apple to enter 'new categories' with upcoming devices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cook says Apple to enter 'new categories' with upcoming devices - Page 5

post #161 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beluga View Post
 

I am a fan of apple.. I got a macbook and iphones since the original one. I love to see them succeed but when people defy logic it annoys and irritates me.

 

to your points. Yes cars, seriously. Almost everyone agrees that regulatory hurdles will drag implementation of the technology (that already exists) further down the road. Almost everyone agrees that we will see a 90%-100% driverless car within 10 years from now. Your example with the F1 car is irrelevant. These cars will drive on the road infrastructure that already exist. Its the technology that google (and others) is building that will allow this. And I bet they would love to lease it to all car manufacturers when the time comes.

 

and robotics. from what I read Google plans to revolutionalize factories. So instead of thousand chinese workers assembling phones at Foxtron, there will be robot factories - possibly in the US- assembling them 24/7. And I get those robots wont be jumping from any buildings either.

 

I totally agree with you on your 2nd to last paragraph about apples success.

 

On your last paragraph you say "Why the hell would anyone want them to start doing stuff with cars or something?  That's not their business.".. well it wasnt their business making phones prior to 2007 and now look what happened. I think you must wrote this without thinking. I dont think you believe that Apple should not venture into other markets. I think they are obliged to. Hell yes I would love to see them make tesla like cars. If not Apple with their powerful resources and the zillions in the bank then who?

 

1. Do you actually drive?  Driverless cars will (do) exist.  That has NOTHING to do with whether or not (in this case, not) they will be allowed on public roads.  My point about F1 was that just because something can be created, and just because something can be bought, has nothing to do with whether or not you can drive it on a public road.

 

2. Factories have been mechanized for decades.  Some things, however, robots are not well-suited to.  And you do realize that your "maybe in America" statement makes absolutely no sense, right?  If they are all robots doing the work, who gives a damn?  That doesn't create jobs.

 

3. The iPhone is technological hardware.  You know, with a screen, a processor, memory, storage, etc.  The only difference between an iPhone and, say, a MacBook Pro is the iPhone is smaller and it makes phone calls by connecting to cellular network.  The iPhone was totally in Apple's wheelhouse, because it is tech hardware -- you know, the business that Apple's involved in?

 

Cars, otoh, are not in any way part of their business.  Ford was incorporated in 1903.  Why not leave automobiles to the people who have been making them for over a century?

 

I mean, should Apple start making refrigerators too?  What about golf clubs?  Maybe they should design lingerie and compete with VS?

post #162 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

No. It is even unlikely that even the military, which really needs driverless cars will have them in 10 years.
 

Military UGVs have been around for decades.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht View Post

It's nice that Google is funding the DARPA grand challenge winner but the innovation award belongs elsewhere. Like DARPA.
 

 

More than one entity deserves recognition. You really are clueless, aren't you?

post #163 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

3. The iPhone is technological hardware.  You know, with a screen, a processor, memory, storage, etc.  The only difference between an iPhone and, say, a MacBook Pro is the iPhone is smaller and it makes phone calls by connecting to cellular network.  The iPhone was totally in Apple's wheelhouse, because it is tech hardware -- you know, the business that Apple's involved in?

 

IPhone is much more than hardware. The reason why the iPhone makes sense for Apple is because it is a portable computer, not because it is "technology hardware", which is an empty phrase. But even so, Apple started off partnering with Motorola.

 

Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

 

Cars, otoh, are not in any way part of their business.  Ford was incorporated in 1903.  Why not leave automobiles to the people who have been making them for over a century?

 

 

Cars are in many ways connected with Apple's business because computers are part of cars now. The idea of leaving automobiles only to companies who make automobiles is just ... silly and ignorant. I am not saying Apple will or should make cars. It's just that your arguments are poor.

post #164 of 220
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
He has posted many other times without the "I'm a fan, but". Clearly he can make his point without it, but in that one instance chose to include it. It doesn't invalidate anything.

 

And yet he used it. 

 

Enjoy being okay with absolutely any behavior under the sun, I guess.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #165 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Gotcha is the name of the game here. Accept it or be gotten.
But that's the typical MO of a concern troll. First let everyone know you've been an Apple fan since forever, list out all the Apple products you've owned over the years, and then go into all the the things you think are wrong with Apple right now.
post #166 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
 

 

IPhone is much more than hardware. The reason why the iPhone makes sense for Apple is because it is a portable computer, not because it is "technology hardware", which is an empty phrase. But even so, Apple started off partnering with Motorola.

 

 

Cars are in many ways connected with Apple's business because computers are part of cars now. The idea of leaving automobiles only to companies who make automobiles is just ... silly and ignorant. I am not saying Apple will or should make cars. It's just that your arguments are poor.

 

1. OF COURSE the iPhone is more than simply hardware.  I never said it wasn't.

 

2. Cars are connected to Apple's business because computers are part of cars now.  OK,  so what?  Computers are part of practically anything you use on a daily basis that is more complicated than a fork or a glass.  Airplanes.  Ships.  Those devices that tell you exact yardage on a golf course (illegal btw, but that doesn't seem to stop people).  Refrigerators.  Etc.

 

Should Apple now get into the shipbuilding business, or make golf clubs?

post #167 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


But that's the typical MO of a concern troll. First let everyone know you've been an Apple fan since forever, list out all the Apple products you've owned over the years, and then go into all the the things you think are wrong with Apple right now.

 

That's true of anything, really.

 

"Look, I really like rap, but ..."

 

Pretty much anything that starts with "I really like [x], but ..." is just going to be followed with total BS.  It's one of the most annoying things I encounter regularly.

post #168 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

 

What the hell has google revolutionized??? I guess on your desert island, not much.

post #169 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 

 

What the hell has google revolutionized??? I guess on your desert island, not much.

 

That's not really an answer.

post #170 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

That's not really an answer.

 

Answer to what? For those of us who were alive before the advent of Google (maybe you were not), your statement that Google had revolutionized anything cannot be described as anything but insane, and if there is something one learns is not to argue with crazy people.

post #171 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 

 

Answer to what? For those of us who were alive before the advent of Google (maybe you were not), your statement that Google had revolutionized anything cannot be described as anything but insane, and if there is something one learns is not to argue with crazy people.

 

The first computer I used was at a uni, I played a Star Trek game with my dad.  It had no monitor.  The results of your moves and actions were printed out.

 

The first computer class I took was in 8th grade, and we programmed using punch cards.

 

The first time I heard about the Web was on a Usenet group, when someone was talking about this really cool new project being worked on.  I remember using the web before Mosaic.

 

So, yeah, I was alive before Google.

 

Google changed how search on the web worked, yes (though they obviously didn't invent it).  That was, when?  About the late 90s?  I was sort of referring to things they had revolutionized sometime in this century.  One COULD argue Android, though that was IMO not revolutionary, it was evolutionary.

 

Google now is what Google has been almost from the beginning: An advertising company.  I'm not sure that that's revolutionary.

post #172 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

Pretty much anything that starts with "I really like [x], but ..." is just going to be followed with total BS.  It's one of the most annoying things I encounter regularly.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

"I love my wife but I wish she wouldn't press her cold feet against me in bed."

 

"My car is great in most respects, and I like this make enough that I've bought several over the years, but even after all this time they can't seem to put together a decent sound system."

 

"I usually like Bruno Mars but I just can't stand this song."

 

The whole notion of the Concern Troll is something insecure people made up to discredit anyone whose complaints would otherwise have validity as a result of coming from someone who paid money for the product and invested time and energy in using it.

post #173 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

That's ridiculous.

 

"I love my wife but I wish she wouldn't press her cold feet against me in bed."

 

"My car is great in most respects, and I like this make enough that I've bought several over the years, but even after all this time they can't seem to put together a decent sound system."

 

"I usually like Bruno Mars but I just can't stand this song."

 

The whole notion of the Concern Troll is something insecure people made up to discredit anyone whose complaints would otherwise have validity as a result of coming from someone who paid money for the product and invested time and energy in using it.

 

No, because the examples you gave are of a completely different nature.

 

Better examples, that would fit with what we're talking about, are things like:

 

"Look, I love my wife.  I do.  But she's getting really fat and I don't see this marriage lasting much longer."

 

"Look, I've listened to rap for years, but I think it's a dying art form due there being nothing but crap being produced anymore."

 

And the like.

post #174 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 

For those of us who were alive before the advent of Google (maybe you were not), your statement that Google had revolutionized anything cannot be described as anything but insane

 

WHAT?!!! SERIOUSLY?!!! You don't think Google has revolutionized anything?

 

Google so utterly DEFINED the concept of the web search that they wiped out every alternative on the planet and became a VERB! But for the creation of the web itself, Google's is arguably the most significant revolution in the online world to date.

post #175 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

WHAT?!!! SERIOUSLY?!!! You don't think Google has revolutionized anything?

 

Google so utterly DEFINED the concept of the web search that they wiped out every alternative on the planet and became a VERB! But for the creation of the web itself, Google's is arguably the most significant revolution in the online world to date.

 

Is this sarcasm?

 

Because I think it is more than safe to say that the web is the BY FAR the most significant on-line development since the creation of the internet itself.

post #176 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

No, because the examples you gave are of a completely different nature.

 

I don't think they are, but I'm prepared to be persuaded.

 

The only difference I can see is that the examples I used didn't end in a fatalistic outcome whereas the ones you gave did. That would mean saying "I've owned a million Apple products and will probably keep buying them even though they piss me off to no end and make some of the stupidest crap ever and charge WAAAAY too much" would NOT be a concern troll, but it WOULD be if I said "I've owned a million Apple products over the years but the design direction they're taking now makes me think the market segment I'm in might now be better served by alternatives."

 

I don't buy it. I stand by my position that people cry "Concern Troll!" to silence dissenters. It absolutely *IS* possible to be a dissatisfied repeat user. Like me. Apple makes me CRAZY but I hate Apple less than the alternatives so I keep buying Apple products. Saying "I own and use [fill in the blank] and have this ongoing complaint" isn't intended to deflect criticism from my opinion, it's to demonstrate that I'm not a misinformed outsider, I actually deal with [bitch du-jour] personally.

post #177 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

Is this sarcasm?

 

Because I think it is more than safe to say that the web is the BY FAR the most significant on-line development since the creation of the internet itself.

 

That's what v5v said.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #178 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

Because I think it is more than safe to say that the web is the BY FAR the most significant on-line development since the creation of the internet itself.

 

 

Yeah, that's what I said. Google search is the second biggest development, which makes it a really, really, really big deal.

 

One doesn't have to like Google to recognize that they completely revolutionized web searching.

post #179 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

 

Yeah, that's what I said. Google search is the second biggest development, which makes it a really, really, really big deal.

 

One doesn't have to like Google to recognize that they completely revolutionized web searching.

 

Oh, oops.  Sorry about that.  (getting tired; the Olympics have thrown my schedule completely into chaos)

 

I still don't agree with you, but at least now I know what you actually said. :)

post #180 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

I don't think they are, but I'm prepared to be persuaded.

 

The only difference I can see is that the examples I used didn't end in a fatalistic outcome whereas the ones you gave did. That would mean saying "I've owned a million Apple products and will probably keep buying them even though they piss me off to no end and make some of the stupidest crap ever and charge WAAAAY too much" would NOT be a concern troll, but it WOULD be if I said "I've owned a million Apple products over the years but the design direction they're taking now makes me think the market segment I'm in might now be better served by alternatives."

 

I don't buy it. I stand by my position that people cry "Concern Troll!" to silence dissenters. It absolutely *IS* possible to be a dissatisfied repeat user. Like me. Apple makes me CRAZY but I hate Apple less than the alternatives so I keep buying Apple products. Saying "I own and use [fill in the blank] and have this ongoing complaint" isn't intended to deflect criticism from my opinion, it's to demonstrate that I'm not a misinformed outsider, I actually deal with [bitch du-jour] personally.

 

But this whole discussion started by responding to someone who doing exactly that: I like Apple, but I think they are dying, essentially.

post #181 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Not sure if you've heard, but cars with drivers kill a lot of people too.

There are solutions to the problems you've stated, and no doubt Google is looking to make the system as robust as possible, with a manual drive contingency when there are enough flags of doubt raised by the system.

Brakes fail, we don't ban brakes. Drivers fail, we don't ban drivers. When driverless reaches a point where advantages outweigh disadvantages and enough doubts have been satisfied, it'll be allowed.

When brakes fail we fine the company or initiate criminal proceedings against them, when drivers fail we jail them if they are culpable of vehicular manslaughter or bad driving.


But like all fantasists about driverless cars you didn't even begin to understand the problem. I listed two of ten billion issues where a human driver would react better than a machine - which is after all programmed by a human. In London when I stopped because the guy flagging me down was a cop I had to know he was a cop ( you don't want to stop for any hand waving idiot) and unless programmed to recognise a bobby the driverless car would have continued on. And crashed.

There is no way the human programmers could program the driverless car to work all unhappy paths. Result. Death. Result. Class action suits or culpable homicide cases against google.


And handing back control to the driver is a non solution. Firstly it may not happen in a timely fashion, secondly the driver has to be alert all the time anyway in case the driving gets difficult ( so why not drive the easy bits?). Driverless cars are basically computer taxis. Unlike human driven taxis, however, we will be given a steering wheel, told to keep our eyes on the road,and advised that we will take over control when the shit hits the fan.

No thanks.
Edited by asdasd - 2/8/14 at 4:45pm
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #182 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

WHAT?!!! SERIOUSLY?!!! You don't think Google has revolutionized anything?

 

Google so utterly DEFINED the concept of the web search that they wiped out every alternative on the planet and became a VERB! But for the creation of the web itself, Google's is arguably the most significant revolution in the online world to date.

 

There was a typo, so you are really responding to AaronJ (I don't at all disagree with you).

post #183 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

1. OF COURSE the iPhone is more than simply hardware.  I never said it wasn't.

 

2. Cars are connected to Apple's business because computers are part of cars now.  OK,  so what?  Computers are part of practically anything you use on a daily basis that is more complicated than a fork or a glass.  Airplanes.  Ships.  Those devices that tell you exact yardage on a golf course (illegal btw, but that doesn't seem to stop people).  Refrigerators.  Etc.

 

Should Apple now get into the shipbuilding business, or make golf clubs?

You sound like someone with nothing to say but who insists on shouting anyway.

post #184 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

Because I think it is more than safe to say that the web is the BY FAR the most significant on-line development since the creation of the internet itself.

This actually makes little sense.

post #185 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

When brakes fail we fine the company or initiate criminal proceedings against them, when drivers fail we jail them if they are culpable of vehicular manslaughter or bad driving.


But like all fantasists about driverless cars you didn't even begin to understand the problem. I listed two of ten billion issues where a human driver would react better than a machine - which is after all programmed by a human. In London when I stopped because the guy flagging me down was a cop I had to know he was a cop ( you don't want to stop for any hand waving idiot) and unless programmed to recognise a bobby the driverless car would have continued on. And crashed.

There is no way the human programmers could program the driverless car to work all unhappy paths. Result. Death. Result. Class action suits or culpable homicide cases against google.


And handing back control to the driver is a non solution. Firstly it may not happen in a timely fashion, secondly the driver has to be alert all the time anyway in case the driving gets difficult ( so why not drive the easy bits?). Driverless cars are basically computer taxis. Unlike human driven taxis, however, we will be given a steering wheel, told to keep our eyes on the road,and advised that we will take over control when the shit hits the fan.

No thanks.
I'm the fantasist yet you're the one conceiving of a full blown driverless car implementation with no extra conditions or changes to our road systems.

Obviously that won't happen. But more machine-assisted driving or a partial driverless implementation in certain zoned "safe" areas could be on the cards (cruise control is already deployed as someone else mentioned).

Handing control back to a driver in specific conditions, such as rural roads is a solution until the technology is tried, tested, and much improved with inch-perfect maps and super brakes.

And your policeman? Standard issue in all police cars: an emergency services wireless broadcast device that alerts all nearby cars. Done.

It doesn't take fantasy, just a little bit of imagination. And a lot of road testing, of course.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #186 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

(getting tired; the Olympics have thrown my schedule completely into chaos)

 

Working them or watching them?

post #187 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

But this whole discussion started by responding to someone who doing exactly that: I like Apple, but I think they are dying, essentially.

 

I wasn't clear in my last post, sorry.

 

I said the only difference between my examples and yours was the stated fear of a "fatalistic" outcome. I'm saying I DON'T think that's grounds to call someone a troll.

 

Let's say you and I are both worried about the future of the Mac.

 

I say "Apple sucks because all they care about is the billions they make on iPhones."

 

You say "Apple sucks because they're dooming the Mac to failure."

 

What's the difference? We both expressed an opinion that Apple's success with iPhones may ultimately kill off the Mac. Why is one of our comments a troll and not the other? I admit I'm stoopider than yer average tent peg so I'm prepared to be schooled, but at this point I respectfully disagree with your position regarding so-called "concern trolls."

post #188 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
 

Military UGVs have been around for decades.

 

Not fully autonomous ones or the DARPA Grand Challenge would have been unnecessary.  And we still aren't there yet.  The ones that come closest are the ones fielded since 2004.  Not "decades".  Currently fielded UGVs are either controlled by an operator or very limited in operational capability (IE fully mapped terrain, electronics embedded in roads, tunnels, etc).  In other words, not driverless cars where running over civs and friendly troops is looked down upon.

 

If we had driverless humvees it would have a made tremendous difference.  If we could field driverless lead vehicles in convoys we would have whatever the cost.  Even just reliably tele operated ones.  It's not like MRAPs were cheap either.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It's nice that Google is funding the DARPA grand challenge winner but the innovation award belongs elsewhere. Like DARPA.

 

More than one entity deserves recognition. You really are clueless, aren't you?

 

DARPA has been a major driver (heh) of US research since the late 50s as a lot of funding has been funneled through DARPA (around half depending on which year you might look at).  Everything from SATNAV (TRANSIT) to the Internet (ARPANET) to time sharing operating systems (MULTICS) to computer mice (Englebart) were all DARPA funded firsts.  While individual service research offices (like ONR) funds a lot of research they tend to be more focused on a particular domain (which makes sense).

 

Google is like Xerox PARC in this regard.  They grabbed technology first funded by DARPA (mice, GUI, etc) and continued the work.  And it's not like DARPA randomly writes checks.  The DARPA project managers/PIs I've met have been very sharp even in comparison to their equivalents in other organizations (NASA, ONR, NSF).

 

With respect to autonomous vehicles the Grand Challenge isn't DARPA's first forays into that domain.  They have funded research in that domain in the 80s if not earlier.  That's even ignoring autonomous weapons like missiles and such.

post #189 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

Working them or watching them?

 

Oh, I WISH I were working them!  Of course, that would mean being Sochi.  Hmm.  But I do absolutely love the Olympics, especially the Winter Games.

 

No, the thing is that I HATE HATE HATE that NBC delays everything.  I practically have to avoid all media if I don't want to see results hours and hours before I see the event.

 

So, I watch on CBC (I live right across the lake from Canada).  They show stuff live.  The problem is that their coverage starts at 12AM ET and ends somewhere around 12PM.  And my sleep schedule has been completely screwed up, therefore.  If I can just get it straightened out for one day, then everything will be.  It's a lot like the when the Australian Open is on; similar schedule.  It takes me a few days to adjust, but before I do adjust I'm constantly tired.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

I wasn't clear in my last post, sorry.

 

I said the only difference between my examples and yours was the stated fear of a "fatalistic" outcome. I'm saying I DON'T think that's grounds to call someone a troll.

 

Let's say you and I are both worried about the future of the Mac.

 

I say "Apple sucks because all they care about is the billions they make on iPhones."

 

You say "Apple sucks because they're dooming the Mac to failure."

 

What's the difference? We both expressed an opinion that Apple's success with iPhones may ultimately kill off the Mac. Why is one of our comments a troll and not the other? I admit I'm stoopider than yer average tent peg so I'm prepared to be schooled, but at this point I respectfully disagree with your position regarding so-called "concern trolls."

 

Actually, I think at this point we basically agree.

post #190 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I wasn't clear in my last post, sorry.

I said the only difference between my examples and yours was the stated fear of a "fatalistic" outcome. I'm saying I DON'T think that's grounds to call someone a troll.

Let's say you and I are both worried about the future of the Mac.

I say "Apple sucks because all they care about is the billions they make on iPhones."

You say "Apple sucks because they're dooming the Mac to failure."

What's the difference? We both expressed an opinion that Apple's success with iPhones may ultimately kill off the Mac. Why is one of our comments a troll and not the other? I admit I'm stoopider than yer average tent peg so I'm prepared to be schooled, but at this point I respectfully disagree with your position regarding so-called "concern trolls."

You're getting bogged down in details. Trolls are identified by the intent, tone and agenda of their postings.

One-hit wonder trolls tend to have numbers in their name and use the classic "I love Apple but..."

Regular trolls tend to take a weasely or negative stance on the most optimistic news about Apple.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #191 of 220
At this point, concern over concern trolling is itself becoming pretty troll-like in its disruptiveness. Maybe even moreso than genuine concern trolling.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #192 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Just curious are other companies asked about whether the stuff they're working on is improvements to existing products or new categories? It seems like Apple is the only company where this question is constantly asked. I can't remember the last time Google or Microsoft was asked this question.

 

(Before people jump on me: I've been using Apple products since the 1970s and I am articulate. Ha.)

 

Tim,

 

Please wake up and shut up and put pressure on software group.

 

Hardware is top notch.

 

But why do I have issues with calendar app? Access not permitted? I can't even use it at all. FIX.

 

 

FIX Mavericks and stop stalking about how great everything is.

 

Tim reads hundreds of emails everyday?

 

He needs to get on people's asses and get shi1t fixed.

post #193 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

At this point, concern over concern trolling is itself becoming pretty troll-like in its disruptiveness. Maybe even moreso than genuine concern trolling.

 

Look, I love Apple Insider and have been reading and posting here since Version 1.0 in 1997, but if it keeps this up it's doomed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: 

post #194 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

One-hit wonder trolls tend to have numbers in their name and use the classic "I love Apple but..."

 

Got it. That's the difference between me and the typical troll then. My posts start with "I freakin' HATE Apple but…" :)

post #195 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

No, because the examples you gave are of a completely different nature.

 

Better examples, that would fit with what we're talking about, are things like:

 

"Look, I love my wife.  I do.  But she's getting really fat and I don't see this marriage lasting much longer."

 

"Look, I've listened to rap for years, but I think it's a dying art form due there being nothing but crap being produced anymore."

 

And the like.

 

Well... that difference should be explained to a few people on here.

 

For them, all you have to do is mention, "I've  been an Apple user for a few years..."  "CONCERN TROLL CONCERN TROLL!!! ALERT ALERT!!"

 

:no:
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #196 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Look, I love Apple Insider and have been reading and posting here since Version 1.0 in 1997, but if it keeps this up it's doomed.















lol.gif  
lol.gif

I may steal that.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #197 of 220

Just FYI... Spewgle didn't innovate ANYTHING.

These techs were licensed or acquired.

Goople is an ADVERTISING company.  Nothing else.

It's all an illusion....

 

...and investors will soon catch on.

post #198 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post
 

Categories - plural... mmm... this should give us plenty of opportunity for speculation, which regardless we're always capable of engaging in. :)

Sure does, but I'm just wondering if what he's really saying is "New Product" categories for Apple. Otherwise there isn't anything that isn't being done now by their competition in anything. Wearables? ....they've all been covered from smartwatches, NFC badges, communications wearables in the form of Glass both Samsung and Google are working on, Google in car products, Samsung in Home, Google in with Chromecast now as it's own platform and with developers raving about the possibilities there.  Samsung basically now owns the future of Screens (YOUM) and SmartTV's. Tablets are becoming more like Phablets you can make calls with and carry everywhere, like a phone. Everybody and his brother are now making a smartwatches. On top of that no telling what Google is going to come up with after buying NEST and ripping off Apple's own brain trust employees in the deal!

 

But.... there is one area I can see Apple going into or announcing that's completely off the charts..... different than what we'd expect That's in the server market.... not just any old servers either. I'm talking about ARM servers running on chip designs they got with PA Semi purchase. I'm talking about not just the PWRficient 64bit SoC (A7 is based on) designs either. I'm talking about PWRficient 64bit RISC Processors with up to 16 cores PA Semi already had in development. I was wondering last year if Apple was going to seal a deal in buying IBM's Fishkill Fabrication Plant last year to replace Samsung and start work on producing chips for these new future Servers and iDevices.  I think with IBM hiring out a study on just who will end up with their chip fabrication Plants, just might be Apple afterall! 

 

They can then legitimately challenge both Intel and Samsung in their own element...... their own field of expertise. That being producing their own chips and having them assembled somewhere stateside too! 

 

Granted..... this isn't wearables, but that's expected and wouldn't be a completely new enterprise or market with iPod nano already being able to be used as smartwatch of sorts. But chip making and server production and sales....... certainly would be a shocking new development that could send share prices above $1000!

 

btw.... (only joking) only thing new in smart wearables may be if Apple comes out with a Maxwell Smart Agent iPhone in a shoe?!?! lol.... which probably wouldn't be too Smart even for Apple! *_^

post #199 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


Here is what happened to me in the last year.

1) driving in London. Policeman waves cars over, I am in front and stop, they put down a barrier and errect temporary lights to make the two lane street a one lane street. Explain how the google car would handle this.
2) driving country roads in Ireland, travelling at 50mph I see a sign which has been pretty much turned to face the ditch, in a fraction of a second though I recognise enough colour and shape to assume Men At Work, slow down around the next corner and see a local worker holding a sign ( not lights) for stop and no other barriers. I stop. Cars go by, he gets a message on his phone, turns the sign green, I move onto the right ( i.e. The wrong) side of the road until another guy waves me back a few miles on.

There is no way google will get this right in all cases and since getting it wrong kills people it won't happen.

I beg to differ. Somebody is gonna get it right, and it dosent look to be apple at this point (they're too busy trying to iOS for the car right)

post #200 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

1. Do you actually drive?  Driverless cars will (do) exist.  That has NOTHING to do with whether or not (in this case, not) they will be allowed on public roads.  My point about F1 was that just because something can be created, and just because something can be bought, has nothing to do with whether or not you can drive it on a public road.

 

2. Factories have been mechanized for decades.  Some things, however, robots are not well-suited to.  And you do realize that your "maybe in America" statement makes absolutely no sense, right?  If they are all robots doing the work, who gives a damn?  That doesn't create jobs.

 

3. The iPhone is technological hardware.  You know, with a screen, a processor, memory, storage, etc.  The only difference between an iPhone and, say, a MacBook Pro is the iPhone is smaller and it makes phone calls by connecting to cellular network.  The iPhone was totally in Apple's wheelhouse, because it is tech hardware -- you know, the business that Apple's involved in?

 

Cars, otoh, are not in any way part of their business.  Ford was incorporated in 1903.  Why not leave automobiles to the people who have been making them for over a century?

 

I mean, should Apple start making refrigerators too?  What about golf clubs?  Maybe they should design lingerie and compete with VS?

 

1. yes buddy I drive, you seem to be have very strong views of some things and I have learned in my life to be very weary of people who use the words Never and Always too often. I say we will (certainly the 90% autonomous car) in our life time, you say we will not, ever. OK lets see what happens..

 

2. Factories have been mechanized for decades. I can agree with that statement yes. Google has been on a robot company buying spree and I am fairly confident this aint for seach related activities. They have stated its for revolutionalizing factories and I have no reason not to believe them. Logic states that they put all the resources to make the process faster, cheaper, better and replace the existing mechanization of factories

 

3. IMHO Apple has to venture into new arenas and markets, more importantly internet services and the cloud. A phone 30 years ago used to be a dumb big black box and now its a sophisticated computer. The car is bigger bumb box, tesla and google driverless shows us it should be a sophisticated computer thus its totally in Apples wheelhouse. It should be. I refuse to accept that the biggest company in the world with the best recourses in the world wont think this big or even bigger.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Cook says Apple to enter 'new categories' with upcoming devices