Is there a successor to Jelly Bean? I'm not aware of one, but I don't follow it closely. A quick Google search didn't bring anything up.
Yes. Rumored to be named key lime pie, or something fattening (bloated) like that. Google is supposed to be releasing it in May, a month after this POS goes on sale.
Sadly (not that I care), this Samesung garbage isn't shipping with it. And, thanks to Android's "open & free" nature, it'll have to be filtered down the chain of bloatware before it ever reaches these phones (if ever for some/many).
You think it's bad here and you want a new MacRumors type site? Have you been to MacRumors lately? It's absolutely infested with Samsung fans, iHaters, and Android sycophants. The editor-in-chief of MacWorld, Chris Breen, has been touting Andy Ihnatko's screed about how superior the GS3 is to the iPhone and why he switched to Android. In the discussion forums Breen is belittling users who complain about the pro-Samsung crap contaminating MacWorld. Even here on AppleInsider, suddenly, strong Apple supporters are muzzled while haters like DaHarder are allowed to post their bile without being challenged.
The big question in my mind is why the management of these now so-called Apple centric sites have allowed the Apple haters to become the majority and take over the site? We can't read a single positive article about Apple or its products without drenched in the vomit of the haters.
I wonder what AI management will do when all the Apple users are gone?
You are so correct. These are supposed to be "all about Apple" sites but lately it seems like they're going with whatever seems to be popular. Which is fine I guess if that's what they want to do, they have the right, but if that's the route they're going to go then rename the site.
You think it's bad here and you want a new MacRumors type site? Have you been to MacRumors lately? It's absolutely infested with Samsung fans, iHaters, and Android sycophants. The editor-in-chief of MacWorld, Chris Breen, has been touting Andy Ihnatko's screed about how superior the GS3 is to the iPhone and why he switched to Android. In the discussion forums Breen is belittling users who complain about the pro-Samsung crap contaminating MacWorld. Even here on AppleInsider, suddenly, strong Apple supporters are muzzled while haters like DaHarder are allowed to post their bile without being challenged.
The big question in my mind is why the management of these now so-called Apple centric sites have allowed the Apple haters to become the majority and take over the site? We can't read a single positive article about Apple or its products without drenched in the vomit of the haters.
I wonder what AI management will do when all the Apple users are gone?
I completely agree. I'm over it, I think it's time to remove AppleInsider bookmarks again.
Extensive ergonomic R&D? You've never been involved in design or engineering, have you? As for function dictating form, you do realize that is one of those myths that is perpetuated and rarely true?
I prefer "form follows function"
Not always true, but less mythical, and a good start
You think it's bad here and you want a new MacRumors type site? Have you been to MacRumors lately? It's absolutely infested with Samsung fans, iHaters, and Android sycophants. The editor-in-chief of MacWorld, Chris Breen, has been touting Andy Ihnatko's screed about how superior the GS3 is to the iPhone and why he switched to Android. In the discussion forums Breen is belittling users who complain about the pro-Samsung crap contaminating MacWorld. Even here on AppleInsider, suddenly, strong Apple supporters are muzzled while haters like DaHarder are allowed to post their bile without being challenged.
The big question in my mind is why the management of these now so-called Apple centric sites have allowed the Apple haters to become the majority and take over the site? We can't read a single positive article about Apple or its products without drenched in the vomit of the haters.
I wonder what AI management will do when all the Apple users are gone?
I stopped hanging out on MacRumours for similar reasons about five years ago, but I would counter that in addition to the "anti-Apple" types you describe shitting all over the place, it was pretty much the same kind of content from the "pro-Apple" types as well. it's the type and quality of debate, not the presence of negative opinions that counts. You can be a pro-Apple troll just as easily as you can be a anti-Apple troll.
The point of a place of discussion or debate is not to only have one side arguing, for it to make any sense at all to even have a forum, you must have both pro and con contributing their points of view otherwise it's just a circle jerk.
The problem with MacRumours (and increasingly with this site) is the fact that they aren't effectively moderated because no one has actually sat down and tried to figure out how to fairly moderate a site full of aggressive teenage males, power trippers, and other hangers on.
If you ignore the "filler" comments that don't contribute much, I find the signal to noise ratio at Mac Rumours to be one intelligent adult (probably one of the few females), to roughly every 30 yahoos. I would put AppleInsider at more like a 1:5 ratio. My rule is that once this ratio goes past 1:10 or so I'm wasting my time and it's time to move on. Sadly there are few places to "move on" to nowadays.
Can someone explain to me how an inanimate object can have a soul?
Right after you explain how an inorganic object can have a soul.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The problem with MacRumours (and increasingly with this site) is the fact that they aren't effectively moderated because no one has actually sat down and tried to figure out how to fairly moderate a site full of aggressive teenage males, power trippers, and other hangers on.
They HAVE rules. They have one of the best rulesets for a forum of their type. Heck, I've often used their rules as a reference for here, where we basically have none.
The problem there is they don't EVER enforce their rules.
Only the first five words, of your first post in a long time and you are wrong. :)
Function and form go together, one does not "dictate" the other.
I think I can go for that definition. Take doors, for example. They've gotten taller as better nutrition has allowed to be taller. They are also upright because we walk upright instead of saying a lot of cost by making us crawl through head or feet first, or be laid sideways so we can "stop, drop and roll" through. I think that's a clear example ( albeit a very obvious example) of function dictating form.
Something called along the lines of green slime pie
Doesn't matter as this plastic fantastic won't see an update.
Key Lime Pie is expected by this summer, at which point we'll see that neither this brand new phone nor any of it's predecessors will have the option to upgrade.
Same question: "Why can't the iPhone 4 get Siri"? Or that nifty panorama feature?
Apple's no better than Samsung when it comes to artificially restricting hardware from running software features, because it would reduce their sales. You can't blame Apple, or Samsung. They're companies, not non-profits.
No, Apple is better than Samsung. Samsung Galaxy S3 owners all have their phones less than a year old. And Samsung claims their phones are obsolete. This is probably one of the reasons Samsung stock dropped 2% Friday during the introduction of S4.
I'm not really bothered by the Samsung coverage on AI. In the smartphone-verse, Apple and Samsung are the major rivals, so stories about Samsung's latest salvo in the smartphone wars are appropriate on this site.
That Samsung's "design chief" goes on the defensive right out of the gate does not make the GS4 any prettier. He says "The design process doesn't start with a material [...] The design process starts with a story." He should have switched those two statements around—would have made a much bolder statement: "Our design process starts with a story. Then we investigate what materials will work best..." or something like that.
As for the "...how do you create a soul for a device." question—Dude, that's an appropriate mission statement to bat around in your design department meetings, but don't bring it up in interviews. Sounds like tacky, new-age, mystical schmaltz. We get what you mean, but, just.. don't.
And he uses "may" an awful lot—and in scenarios that probably or definitely will happen (e.g. technology will evolve), which makes him sound unsure of himself and the future of the product/company:
"...advances in connectivity may see users interacting with their devices in different ways" —definitely
"...both materials and form factors may continue to evolve." —definitely, especially if the above comes true... materials and form factors will continue to evolve regardless.
"...we may find we're taking these devices out of our pockets less and less" —probably
"...you may see different form factors arising from that." —probably/definitely
Seriously, it would be like Sir Jony Ive saying, "Well, if all goes well, we're hoping that our new iPhone 6 will be thinner and lighter than the iPhone 5, but, who knows? Y'know? And gosh, I hope it sells!"
Can someone explain to me how an inanimate object can have a soul?
Exactly.
Considering all the flack Apple gets for "marketing speak," and trademarking things that are "not factual or logical" (Retina) and generally not being very scientific with their product descriptions it's absolutely insane that the Samsung designer gets to spout this absolute bullshit nonsense and get away with it.
If Apple came out with an ad that said iPhones are better because they have a "better personality" or a "deeper soul" or some such, they'd be ridiculed and everyone would accuse them of being facile and shallow. Here, the Samsung guy gets to say it and everyone nods their head sagely and rubs their chins as if he said something meaningful. The whole statement was a dodge to get away from having to comment on the less than stellar hardware, running old software.
If Apple came out with an ad that said iPhones are better because they have a "better personality" or a "deeper soul" or some such, they'd be ridiculed and everyone would accuse them of being facile and shallow. Here, the Samsung guy gets to say it and everyone nods their head sagely and rubs their chins as if he said something meaningful. The whole statement was a dodge to get away from having to comment on the less than stellar hardware, running old software.
"Why is that legal" becomes the question, I think.
… Apple's no better than Samsung when it comes to artificially restricting hardware from running software features, because it would reduce their sales. You can't blame Apple, or Samsung. They're companies, not non-profits.
For the record, while many have made the accusation, there remains to be a single iota of proof that Apple has ever "artificially restricted hardware" in the manner you describe. You are taking something that people say and accepting it as a fact, when there is no evidence that it's true at all.
This is called "being gullible," or "having a bias," depending on your intent.
In an ideal world yes the two should be considered together but this is not an ideal world and one side always seem to hold more weight than the other and I agree with DaHarder that that side should be function, not form.
No, any real designer will tell you that both are designed together. Form "dictates function" only in the sense of a finished product or unchangeable natural form (the finished form of a hammer dictates it's available functions for example).
When designing, the form is variable as long as the design process continues, as are the functions the device will eventually have. You are designing both at the same time. Form as well as function. The "perfect" design is one where the form and function are so inseparable that they exist as a perfect unity.
"The design process doesn't start with a material," he said. "It doesn't start with us saying, 'Okay, we're going to make a device that uses metal, that is exactly like the iPhone'
The only reason they are even having to speak up is because Apple has not released anything new in a while.
Right after you explain how an inorganic object can have a soul.
They HAVE rules. They have one of the best rulesets for a forum of their type. Heck, I've often used their rules as a reference for here, where we basically have none.
The problem there is they don't EVER enforce their rules.
As I said, I gave up on that site years ago, but I would argue that the rules of most forums are invalid and anachronistic. The proof is that they basically don't work anymore, here or there.
I'm not saying I have the answer, but there definitely needs to be a complete re-think on how moderation is accomplished before it will ever start working again (if that's even possible).
I would argue that the emphasis on "swear words" for instance is ridiculous, and that the secondary emphasis on "personal attacks" as "a line that must not be crossed" is also. This is legislation against human nature and pretends we are all robots. The idea that the whole system works off of "user complaints" seems equally flawed to me as well. That just means the whiners get their way.
Also, nothing personal, but the sheer arbitrariness of moderation is always a problem regardless of who's doing it. I've been a moderator myself on boards and forums going back to before the web even existed and it's really impossible to be 100% fair and even handed no matter how much you try.
It's definitely either an impossible task or a task that requires some very new and different approach. I tend to think that it's not impossible but that's just me.
Does make you wonder where Samsung's 'marketing' millions actually goes.
I don't have any doubt that the case you cited is just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that there are a lot of Samsung and Google shills among the more vocal Apple haters.
And, then, of course, there's the more subtle effect. Samsung outspends Apple on advertising by a large factor. Few magazines are going to see that multibillion dollar advertising budget and not let it have an impact on their reporting. Sure, they all talk about journalistic integrity, but it's the same as it was in the 90s. Windows 95 was a steaming pile of dung compared to Mac OS of the time, yet you would be hard pressed to find any main stream reports that said that.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Is there a successor to Jelly Bean? I'm not aware of one, but I don't follow it closely. A quick Google search didn't bring anything up.
Yes. Rumored to be named key lime pie, or something fattening (bloated) like that. Google is supposed to be releasing it in May, a month after this POS goes on sale.
Sadly (not that I care), this Samesung garbage isn't shipping with it. And, thanks to Android's "open & free" nature, it'll have to be filtered down the chain of bloatware before it ever reaches these phones (if ever for some/many).
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57574461-94/the-galaxy-s4s-key-lime-pie-problem/
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
You think it's bad here and you want a new MacRumors type site? Have you been to MacRumors lately? It's absolutely infested with Samsung fans, iHaters, and Android sycophants. The editor-in-chief of MacWorld, Chris Breen, has been touting Andy Ihnatko's screed about how superior the GS3 is to the iPhone and why he switched to Android. In the discussion forums Breen is belittling users who complain about the pro-Samsung crap contaminating MacWorld. Even here on AppleInsider, suddenly, strong Apple supporters are muzzled while haters like DaHarder are allowed to post their bile without being challenged.
The big question in my mind is why the management of these now so-called Apple centric sites have allowed the Apple haters to become the majority and take over the site? We can't read a single positive article about Apple or its products without drenched in the vomit of the haters.
I wonder what AI management will do when all the Apple users are gone?
I completely agree. I'm over it, I think it's time to remove AppleInsider bookmarks again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Extensive ergonomic R&D? You've never been involved in design or engineering, have you? As for function dictating form, you do realize that is one of those myths that is perpetuated and rarely true?
I prefer "form follows function"
Not always true, but less mythical, and a good start
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
You think it's bad here and you want a new MacRumors type site? Have you been to MacRumors lately? It's absolutely infested with Samsung fans, iHaters, and Android sycophants. The editor-in-chief of MacWorld, Chris Breen, has been touting Andy Ihnatko's screed about how superior the GS3 is to the iPhone and why he switched to Android. In the discussion forums Breen is belittling users who complain about the pro-Samsung crap contaminating MacWorld. Even here on AppleInsider, suddenly, strong Apple supporters are muzzled while haters like DaHarder are allowed to post their bile without being challenged.
The big question in my mind is why the management of these now so-called Apple centric sites have allowed the Apple haters to become the majority and take over the site? We can't read a single positive article about Apple or its products without drenched in the vomit of the haters.
I wonder what AI management will do when all the Apple users are gone?
I stopped hanging out on MacRumours for similar reasons about five years ago, but I would counter that in addition to the "anti-Apple" types you describe shitting all over the place, it was pretty much the same kind of content from the "pro-Apple" types as well. it's the type and quality of debate, not the presence of negative opinions that counts. You can be a pro-Apple troll just as easily as you can be a anti-Apple troll.
The point of a place of discussion or debate is not to only have one side arguing, for it to make any sense at all to even have a forum, you must have both pro and con contributing their points of view otherwise it's just a circle jerk.
The problem with MacRumours (and increasingly with this site) is the fact that they aren't effectively moderated because no one has actually sat down and tried to figure out how to fairly moderate a site full of aggressive teenage males, power trippers, and other hangers on.
If you ignore the "filler" comments that don't contribute much, I find the signal to noise ratio at Mac Rumours to be one intelligent adult (probably one of the few females), to roughly every 30 yahoos. I would put AppleInsider at more like a 1:5 ratio. My rule is that once this ratio goes past 1:10 or so I'm wasting my time and it's time to move on. Sadly there are few places to "move on" to nowadays.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Can someone explain to me how an inanimate object can have a soul?
Right after you explain how an inorganic object can have a soul.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The problem with MacRumours (and increasingly with this site) is the fact that they aren't effectively moderated because no one has actually sat down and tried to figure out how to fairly moderate a site full of aggressive teenage males, power trippers, and other hangers on.
They HAVE rules. They have one of the best rulesets for a forum of their type. Heck, I've often used their rules as a reference for here, where we basically have none.
The problem there is they don't EVER enforce their rules.
I think I can go for that definition. Take doors, for example. They've gotten taller as better nutrition has allowed to be taller. They are also upright because we walk upright instead of saying a lot of cost by making us crawl through head or feet first, or be laid sideways so we can "stop, drop and roll" through. I think that's a clear example ( albeit a very obvious example) of function dictating form.
Key Lime Pie is expected by this summer, at which point we'll see that neither this brand new phone nor any of it's predecessors will have the option to upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Same question: "Why can't the iPhone 4 get Siri"? Or that nifty panorama feature?
Apple's no better than Samsung when it comes to artificially restricting hardware from running software features, because it would reduce their sales. You can't blame Apple, or Samsung. They're companies, not non-profits.
No, Apple is better than Samsung. Samsung Galaxy S3 owners all have their phones less than a year old. And Samsung claims their phones are obsolete. This is probably one of the reasons Samsung stock dropped 2% Friday during the introduction of S4.
I'm not really bothered by the Samsung coverage on AI. In the smartphone-verse, Apple and Samsung are the major rivals, so stories about Samsung's latest salvo in the smartphone wars are appropriate on this site.
That Samsung's "design chief" goes on the defensive right out of the gate does not make the GS4 any prettier. He says "The design process doesn't start with a material [...] The design process starts with a story." He should have switched those two statements around—would have made a much bolder statement: "Our design process starts with a story. Then we investigate what materials will work best..." or something like that.
As for the "...how do you create a soul for a device." question—Dude, that's an appropriate mission statement to bat around in your design department meetings, but don't bring it up in interviews. Sounds like tacky, new-age, mystical schmaltz. We get what you mean, but, just.. don't.
And he uses "may" an awful lot—and in scenarios that probably or definitely will happen (e.g. technology will evolve), which makes him sound unsure of himself and the future of the product/company:
"...advances in connectivity may see users interacting with their devices in different ways" —definitely
"...both materials and form factors may continue to evolve." —definitely, especially if the above comes true... materials and form factors will continue to evolve regardless.
"...we may find we're taking these devices out of our pockets less and less" —probably
"...you may see different form factors arising from that." —probably/definitely
Seriously, it would be like Sir Jony Ive saying, "Well, if all goes well, we're hoping that our new iPhone 6 will be thinner and lighter than the iPhone 5, but, who knows? Y'know? And gosh, I hope it sells!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Can someone explain to me how an inanimate object can have a soul?
Exactly.
Considering all the flack Apple gets for "marketing speak," and trademarking things that are "not factual or logical" (Retina) and generally not being very scientific with their product descriptions it's absolutely insane that the Samsung designer gets to spout this absolute bullshit nonsense and get away with it.
If Apple came out with an ad that said iPhones are better because they have a "better personality" or a "deeper soul" or some such, they'd be ridiculed and everyone would accuse them of being facile and shallow. Here, the Samsung guy gets to say it and everyone nods their head sagely and rubs their chins as if he said something meaningful. The whole statement was a dodge to get away from having to comment on the less than stellar hardware, running old software.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
If Apple came out with an ad that said iPhones are better because they have a "better personality" or a "deeper soul" or some such, they'd be ridiculed and everyone would accuse them of being facile and shallow. Here, the Samsung guy gets to say it and everyone nods their head sagely and rubs their chins as if he said something meaningful. The whole statement was a dodge to get away from having to comment on the less than stellar hardware, running old software.
"Why is that legal" becomes the question, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
… Apple's no better than Samsung when it comes to artificially restricting hardware from running software features, because it would reduce their sales. You can't blame Apple, or Samsung. They're companies, not non-profits.
For the record, while many have made the accusation, there remains to be a single iota of proof that Apple has ever "artificially restricted hardware" in the manner you describe. You are taking something that people say and accepting it as a fact, when there is no evidence that it's true at all.
This is called "being gullible," or "having a bias," depending on your intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
In an ideal world yes the two should be considered together but this is not an ideal world and one side always seem to hold more weight than the other and I agree with DaHarder that that side should be function, not form.
No, any real designer will tell you that both are designed together. Form "dictates function" only in the sense of a finished product or unchangeable natural form (the finished form of a hammer dictates it's available functions for example).
When designing, the form is variable as long as the design process continues, as are the functions the device will eventually have. You are designing both at the same time. Form as well as function. The "perfect" design is one where the form and function are so inseparable that they exist as a perfect unity.
"The design process doesn't start with a material," he said. "It doesn't start with us saying, 'Okay, we're going to make a device that uses metal, that is exactly like the iPhone'
The only reason they are even having to speak up is because Apple has not released anything new in a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Right after you explain how an inorganic object can have a soul.
They HAVE rules. They have one of the best rulesets for a forum of their type. Heck, I've often used their rules as a reference for here, where we basically have none.
The problem there is they don't EVER enforce their rules.
As I said, I gave up on that site years ago, but I would argue that the rules of most forums are invalid and anachronistic. The proof is that they basically don't work anymore, here or there.
I'm not saying I have the answer, but there definitely needs to be a complete re-think on how moderation is accomplished before it will ever start working again (if that's even possible).
I would argue that the emphasis on "swear words" for instance is ridiculous, and that the secondary emphasis on "personal attacks" as "a line that must not be crossed" is also. This is legislation against human nature and pretends we are all robots. The idea that the whole system works off of "user complaints" seems equally flawed to me as well. That just means the whiners get their way.
Also, nothing personal, but the sheer arbitrariness of moderation is always a problem regardless of who's doing it. I've been a moderator myself on boards and forums going back to before the web even existed and it's really impossible to be 100% fair and even handed no matter how much you try.
It's definitely either an impossible task or a task that requires some very new and different approach. I tend to think that it's not impossible but that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Why is that legal" becomes the question, I think.
Why is that legal?
Why is THIS legal.
http://www.tealeafnation.com/2013/03/prominent-weibo-users-paid-to-bash-apple-introducing-chinas-820-party/
Does make you wonder where Samsung's 'marketing' millions actually goes.
I don't have any doubt that the case you cited is just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that there are a lot of Samsung and Google shills among the more vocal Apple haters.
And, then, of course, there's the more subtle effect. Samsung outspends Apple on advertising by a large factor. Few magazines are going to see that multibillion dollar advertising budget and not let it have an impact on their reporting. Sure, they all talk about journalistic integrity, but it's the same as it was in the 90s. Windows 95 was a steaming pile of dung compared to Mac OS of the time, yet you would be hard pressed to find any main stream reports that said that.