Apple keeping iPhone 5 cards 'extra close to the vest' in supply chain

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 72
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PXT View Post


    Good Lord! After all these years are we having to explain the usefulness of multiple user accounts on computers?



    This discussion has nothing to do with multiple user accounts on PCs. Rather it has to do with the wisdom of providing such accounts on iOS devices such as Touch, iPhone and the iPad. My point is that it might make sense in some cases but that it is an excessive burden in others.



    Everything about iOS from the way apps store data to initial setup indicates that the intent is for the devices to be personal single user tablets. It won't be simple at all for Apple to add user accounts, right now each account would need it's own set of apps.

    Quote:

    Even Microsoft, eventually (!), got a grip on that one.



    Apple, via UNIX, has some of the best multiuser capability going. The basis of that tech is already in iOS. The problem as I see it is that the rest of iOS outside of the UNIX core was not designed to support multiple users.



    At best Apple might come up with a way for password protected mail accounts/apps. The problem is significant even with Mail. Just consider syncing and notifications for example. Im not saying multiple user is impossible, nor am I saying there are ways to justify the need, rather I'm saying Apple went down a path a long time ago that considered other use cases more important.
  • Reply 62 of 72
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I can certainly understand why families would like this feature. As far as the push notifications are concerned, you could forego that feature except for the user who was currently logged in. For kids it would be nice if they didn't have to remember a username and password, just a custom icon on the lock screen to launch their account. It would only be practical on iPad not iPhone. But I think apps would need to be aware of suspended states of shared users.



    You hit upon some of the issues with multiple users on iOS devices. I'm not knocking the idea but I just don't think people realize how much of a project this is right now. Just consider the sand boxed apps to start.



    In the end I suspect Apple is going in the opposite direction with iOS devices. I would expect them to become more personal and linked tighter to the owner. Future iOS devices might be built right into you eye glasses or an ear bud. In the end Apple is looking ahead while the multiuser crowd is looking to the past.
  • Reply 63 of 72
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I don't know why anyone would want or need to *share* an iPad either. They aren't that expensive.



    Even if you have kids, there's no reason they can't share one among themselves without separate user accounts and grown-ups should *not* be sharing their computers with youngsters anyway.



    Laptops are readily available for even cheaper, it's trivial and useful for them to have multiple accounts, With a laptop, I don't worry too much about people getting into sensitive information such as sales contacts and emails, be it accidental or intentional, I just log them into a guest account and not worry about it. Admittedly, it would be tougher to justify it with phones, the shared platform isn't really making the idea and implementation easy to justify.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joshdean View Post


    I'm born and raised in U.S. and never heard "close to the chest". It was always "vest".



    I probably shouldn't be extending the diversion, but I don't recall ever hearing it with vest. I haven't heard it very often though.
  • Reply 64 of 72
    gregoriusmgregoriusm Posts: 360member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grub View Post


    One wish:



    Multiple user accounts!





    We have 3 family members using our iPad and woudl like to have our stuff separate. Our daughter's silly games needn't be on my workspace. Email accounts, Facebook, etc. would all benefit.



    Yes! Please! Yes! Please!
  • Reply 65 of 72
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,235member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Well it was supposed to be a joke. But seriously every instance of "Close to the vest" is going to be the exact expression under discussion where "Close to the chest" could be in reference to any number of descriptions ranging from anatomical medical procedures, shipping containers to pornography.



    Spot on, Stone.



    There's a generational thing here too. For example, those of us over 60 grew up with the expression: "Buck naked." As in as naked as a deer in the woods. But someone between then and now heard it as, and repeated it as "Butt naked" as in what you see when someone is naked. It has a kind of logic on its own, but was spawned out of ignorance of the original. Nowadays, you hear the modern bastardization more often than the original. I suppose kids will swear that it's always been "butt naked" and those who think otherwise are misinformed. Ah, the organic nature of the English language. We can decry it, but that's what happens with a living and flexible language such as ours.



    Something similar is happening with "deja vu." The joke that Casey Stengel said "deja vu all over again" is now taking over from the original, despite the illogic of its redundancy. I've even heard T.V. news readers use it with a straight face, ignorant of their error. But I digress. My issues with the murder of English by supposed professionals on the little screen would take a book, not a blog post. Somewhere Edwin Newman is turning over in his grave.
  • Reply 66 of 72
    gregoriusmgregoriusm Posts: 360member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Was my post really that subtle?



    For starters, the original idiom is champing at the bit, not chomping, though it?s an acceptable dialectal variant. The rest are simply incorrect.
    It?s espressos, not expressos.

    It?s affidavit, not affidavid.

    It?s sole, not soul.

    It?s accepable, not exceptable.

    It?s regardless, not irregardless.

    It?s what, not wat.

    It?s probably, not proly.

    It?s et cetera, not excetera, and using it more than once is redundant.



    Yes!
  • Reply 67 of 72
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I might be chomping at the bit here from one too many expressos but for all intensive purposes a Google search is not an affidavid of the soul exceptable or original usage, irregardless of wat probly is most common today, excetera, excetera.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Was my post really that subtle?



    For starters, the original idiom is champing at the bit, not chomping, though it?s an acceptable dialectal variant. The rest are simply incorrect.
    It?s espressos, not expressos.

    It?s affidavit, not affidavid.

    It?s sole, not soul.

    It?s accepable, not exceptable.

    It?s regardless, not irregardless.

    It?s what, not wat.

    It?s probably, not proly.

    It?s et cetera, not excetera, and using it more than once is redundant.







    That was beautiful, man, just beautiful. Love the newbie going tow-too-tow with the Etymologist. Practically the whole post went right over his head.



    Love the humor, Solip....your funny as sh*t!
  • Reply 68 of 72
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grub View Post


    One wish:



    Multiple user accounts!





    We have 3 family members using our iPad and woudl like to have our stuff separate. Our daughter's silly games needn't be on my workspace. Email accounts, Facebook, etc. would all benefit.



    That would be really good.



    Personally I'm wishing for integration with my desktop - at least a sync of documents, but hopefully even something which lets me move from iPad to Desktop seamlessly - same emails in progress, same web pages being viewed, same documents...
  • Reply 69 of 72
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Please, no "first" posts.



    Roger. Just saw your warning so please forgive other "first" posts prior to the time of this post I am typing.
  • Reply 70 of 72
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joshdean View Post


    I'm born and raised in U.S. and never heard "close to the chest". It was always "vest". A quick perusal of Google seems to show that for Brits and Aussies the former usage is common and the latter rare. But maybe there are generational as well as geographical differences in usage? I'm 52, but younger American speakers could be shifting to "close to the chest". No evidence, just speculation.



    Yea, go Apple(feeble attempt to get back on topic)



    And forgive my bias towards British/Australian/colonial English. We use "holding their cards pretty close to the chest" as an expression. This is the first time I've heard "vest" despite having lived in the US for 3 years.



    Apparently in the colonies we didn't use to wear vests while gambling.
  • Reply 71 of 72
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by landoncube View Post


    Was this post about iPhone 5?



    Welcome. Please note AppleInsider is very much also about "Teh Grammerz".
  • Reply 72 of 72
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Was my post really that subtle?



    Sarcasm is truly becoming a lost art. Well done for trying anyways. I found it quite hilarious.
Sign In or Register to comment.