Mac mini???? Bahahahahahaha! Who gives a shit about the Mac mini? Any new Mac mini is going to be the same as what's available today, only with faster processors and the latest Intel graphics. I wouldn't get your hopes up on anything more.
First, LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini. "Lots' obviously being a relative term in comparison to the iPhone, but enough that it keeps coming up. I can't imagine what you find funny about that, nor why you would feel inclined to insult what others wish for.
Second, a wish list for the mini could include Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C connectors to provide consistency with the new notebooks, a return to quad-core processors, and native hardware acceleration for h.265.
Third, what would be wrong with just a CPU and GPU upgrade? I might pull the trigger based on that alone.
LOTS is a very relative term....Lots could be 1000, or it could be 50. The bottomline is that the Mac mini is just about the worst selling Mac they have in the lineup. Just because you have a use for it, doesn't mean LOTS of people give a shit about the Mac mini.
Maybe you aren't thinking this, but there are those out there (including here in AI forums) that seem to think Apple is going to make this modular Mac mini with swappable RAM, and storage as well as discrete graphics, and all for $799!!! This simply isn't gonna happen.
I've said it here many times and I'll say it again...the Mac mini exists for one reason and one reason only, so nobody can say Macs are expensive. They used to be for switchers, but in today's world I'd like to know how many "switchers" buy a Mac mini over an iMac. The same can be said for the MacBook Air...it only exists so people can't say Apple's notebooks are too expensive.
Quite right. There's no reason at all for the Mac Mini anymore; Apple has no need to push x86 switchers to MacOS.
Still, I can see a market for a "Pro" AppleTV which would include AirPort, and media storage internally, and/or via USB Type C.
Given a second HDMI port for a BD Player connection, such a device could manage BD, CD, and DVD media seamlessly with iTunes; Home Theater suitable for a great number of people.
I think that Apple is missing the boat by not making a cheap, basic Tv device as Amazon and Google are doing. We know that Apple has slipped to four or five in tv hardware sales, and a new, expensive, 4K model isn’t going to change that much. Because of a lack of a popular, cheap, way of getting movies and Tv shows, their renting and sales of Tv shows and movies has also slipped. They used to be number one there, but they’re closer to number three now.
i get that Apple wants to change the way we watch Tv, but those efforts are failing there. I’m willing to bet that what they’re doing now is a result of failing to secure agreements at the pricing they want for what they wanted to do. Meanwhile, even small players are gaining access to the content Apple is having problems with, because they are willing to play ball more. We see Sonos doing very well with that, and others too. Maybe if Apple came out with a $60-$75 Tv device, that might change. If Apple were back on top in rentals and purchase, they would have more leverage, but as they slip, whatever leverage they may have had, slips too.
amazon gives a certain number of movies. Tv shows and music away for free each month with Prime. I think they lose money with Prime for most of those users. I just use Prime for shipping. But others take advantage of everything else. Amazon is willing to lose money on these services, but Apple isn’t, maybe they should.
This completely ignores that most people also use their iDevices to access content. I don't know how many times I've personally asked my kids why they are watching Netflix on the iPad instead of the TV. It's a combination of it's easier and we can't agree on what to watch.
Despite having a home theater and several TVs I probably watch more content on the go than at home.
I definitely won’t argue with that. We have 26GB on our data plan, with an additional 2Gb for each device. My 26 year old daughter uses a good 15Gb of that by herself, not including her own 2GB.
but there are still hundreds of millions of people buying larger screen TVs, and watching movies and Tv shows on them, and a lot of the industry fight revolves around cable and its competitors. Still, at this time, that’s where the big money is.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
Yes, very good, that’s almost exactly what I’m saying.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
...a most common denominator user. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but it disqualifies you to preach among those here who have the technical chops to grok the difference.
I just want to personally make note of my approval of this attitude and the pleasure I find in seeing a mod subscribe to it.
Soli said: This will be landmark event for many reasons, one of which I hope will make this the most remembered event since the original 2007 introduction of the iPhone*.
Won't be with out Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is no where close to what Steve could do with an audience...
He’s enthusiastic to be sure, but he says that he’s uncomfortable in front of large audiences. Apple has a management school, and one thing it teaches is presentation. He’s much better than in the beginning, but his quiet demeanor comes across on the stage, and his slight southern drawl doesn’t give him the sharpness needed. Steve, of course, was unmatched. Just watching some old presentations shows that.
I think the major difference -- what made Steve so great -- was that he understood the underlying technology and how it was being utilized to make people's live better -- as well as the infinite care from late and sleepless nights that went into making it a great product. Tim is doing well -- but he just doesn't have Steve's underlying emotional investment or understanding of the product.
Steve was like any entrepreneur, but he was just better at this whole marketing thing, because he really BELIEVED. Cook is really much better than he’s given credit for. Just watch presentations from other large companies, and you'll see what I mean. I think he also really believes, as do the others below him. But Steve had a talent for this, without having to learn it. Natural charismatics, are rare.
edit; the usual typos, errors in auto correction that I always seem to miss until much later.
You seem to have a far more in depth and inside knowledge of Apple than I do -- so I respect your opinion. But on this I would, knowing that my opinion may be based more on bias than fact, would differ with you.
To me it seems that Steve's "charisma" stemmed from a deep conviction (that underlies mere 'faith' or 'belief' because it is founded on knowledge rather than faith) as well as a passion to present something that will make a difference in the world and make people's lives better.
While I very much respect Tim Cook and believe that he was an outstanding choice for CEO, I don't think he can every have that same magic as Steve -- not for lack of charisma (which I don't think that either has) but because he lacks the conviction and passion that show when presenting a product that you have personally spent long nights down in the nuts and bolts, bits and bytes while perfecting that product.
I think Markkula, during the first Jobs movie said it best: "I see that look in your eye -- because I've had myself".
We all know people who have charisma. We all know people who don’t. While believing in something helps, you either have it, or you don’t.
Believing and knowing are two different things. -- Steve knew -- Tim believes
We’ll, you know, Steve didn’t have a great depth of knowledge about Apple’s products. He did know how things felt. He did have a great sense of detail, and he did know how things should function at the user level. But his technical knowledge was superficial.
Huh? ... I guess it depends on how you grade 'depth of knowledge'. Compared to a hardcore technician, that is probably true. Compared to any CEO (except possibly Gates -- as Gates pointed out repeatidly) and especially compared to Tim Cook, that is patently false. Steve straddled both the tech and the user side and understood both.
There's been a lot of talk about the under screen fingerprint sensor but I don't consider that to be all that special. It's just another way of doing something we already do, just in a different place.
Ridiculous. A reader under the screen allows you to have slim bezels AND keep the fingerprint sensor on the front, instead of the useless hack that everyone else is doing placing it on the back (because they had no alternative). That is, if Apple even goes this route (they likely have a superior solution in FaceID).
The same goes for speed. Mid tier phones have been fast enough for quite a while. The same applies to graphics. RAM and storage? Apple will finally leaving this problem behind.
Rubbish. For example, ARCore from Google requires the latest and fastest phones to work (because AR done in software requires power). This is why Apple also requires a minimum A9 equipped device to use ARKit. Mid-tier phones WILL NOT be able to do AR because they will lack the processor power to achieve it. The funny thing about this is that a 2 year old A9 equipped iPhone (even the least expensive SE) still outperforms 95% of Android devices on the market. Which is why Apple will dominate AR because of the sheer number of devices that will be able to use ARKit.
If all you do is run basic Apps, then mid-tier phones are fast. It's when you want to do something more that iOS shines (not only because of the superior processing power but because of Apps that can actually take advantage of it).
RAM is a problem? iOS isn't the clusterfuck known as Android where you need more RAM than a desktop PC running Windows before it will perform well.
Some kind of new optical biometric option? It's still just a biometric option, just a different one. Nice to have but little more.
More rubbish. Perhaps you forgot how useless Face Unlock was when Android introduced it? Easily fooled by a picture of you, forcing Google to add their Liveness Check feature which required you to blink to verify you weren't a picture. And having to hold your phone up to your face (even for a short time) to unlock? Nobody wants to do that, which is why nobody uses Face Unlock. Then Samsung decided to add this useless feature to the S8, and apparently forgot about the issues Google had and their system was also fooled with a picture. So was their iris scanner. Two-time losers for that screw up.
If Apple implements FaceID according to the features/capabilities shown by the companies they acquired, then it will be a complete game changer. Can't be fooled by a picture, can't be fooled by a 3D sculpture with your face applied to it, can tell identical twins apart, works in the dark, works from a partial view of your face, works at odd angles, and can't be fooled by sunglasses, beards or shaving. It's practically the perfect biometric unlocking feature. If you can see the screen of your phone then it can see you and unlock. It has all the features that make Touch ID so great (fast and accurate) without any drawbacks (like wearing gloves or having dirty/wet fingers).
Better battery is nothing new, nor is OLED, nor is wireless charging.
OLED is not new, but an OLED phone that supports color management is. Since Android doesn't have color management then having a great OLED screen with a wide color gamut is pointless since you can't render content correctly. The iPhone will be the first device in the world to have an OLED screen AND support color management. Couple that with individually calibrated screens and you get the most accurate color reproduction possible. It won't have the "pop" that the cartoonish OLED screens of other devices do, but I'll take accuracy over flash any day.
millions upon millions of phones have the sensor on the back and people have zero issues with them. For those people (myself included) moving the sensor from the front chin to under the screen is just that, a move. It is absolutely nothing special. There is zero change in function. Some phones already have full screen fronts and there is nothing to comment on except how it looks because the sensor is on the back well out of the way and users are comfortable with it. It's been that way for years. If it were different, rear sensors wouldn't have got past one generation. Do you doubt that Apple also has prototypes with rear sensors? If it were such a bad placement, those prototypes wouldn't exist.
Speed
ARCore and ARKit are not shipping products. Both require developers to develop the possibilities and we have NO IDEA how consumers will react. Right now there is nothing to do but wait. In the meantime, people with mid range phones will continue to use them happily, impervious to what is available through AR.
You think the new iPhones won't ship with more RAM? You don't think that older, supported phones won't feel the pinch of their RAM allotments? I would wait before before answering those questions. The fact that you don't take issue with my point on storage, I take as tacit admission that it was a problem.
Face Unlock? It is not meant to be a secure feature. On Samsung phones You cannot even activate it without a warning on security. The system will not even allow you to use it for payments. It is a convenience feature. Nothing more.
On the other hand iPhones allow you to not set any unlock code or use 0000, 1234, etc. In that situation, which option is more secure! The user has to decide, depending on how he/she takes security. Options are good and some Samsung users can try Iris scanning if they wish. iPhone users cannot.
FaceID will not be the gamechanger you think it will. It will simply be another biometric option and very little more. Am I for it? Yes, because options are good. For unlocking, any secure option is good, great even, but gamechanging, NO.
Colour management. Have you ever seen a regular user question colour on their screens? No, I didn't think you had. You might find a subset of pro users who appreciate it but the vast majority of users don't even know they have a 'problem'.
Any comments on battery design and charging? because I will take my fast charging over colour management any day.
Your comments regarding what represents true innovation versus "just another way of doing the same thing" mark you as a most common denominator user. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but it disqualifies you to preach among those here who have the technical chops to grok the difference.
This is actually incorrect and has nothing to do with 'chops'.
The OP jumped in feet first with the 'stupid' comment. Never a good way to start a post. He then followed up with his 'two second' comment which was completely ironic because he hadn't thought through my possible counter, and as I said in my response, the decision to put the sensor on the rear on many phones had and has nothing to do with lacking room on the front. They were deliberate design decisions that went through the full range of usability studies and had the relevant user studies to determine if users would like them on the rear. To even think no such studies are carried out is absurd in the extreme and makes the 'two second' comment look exactly what it is.
The fingerprint sensor is that: A fingerprint sensor. It doesn't matter where it is (on the front, on the side, on the back or under the screen) it does the job of scanning fingerprints. The placement or preference of placement has nothing to do with being a 'most common denominator user' nor innovation and it is exactly what I said. The same way of doing the same thing. It's function hasn't changed at all. Put my reply into the context of the post I was replying to. It has nothing to do with innovation, which in this case, wouldn't be what the sensor does but how it is done.
I took his comments point by point and even asked questions to see how he was thinking, to better understand his claims. He was unwilling or unable to respond in a normal fashion and just threw in the 'troll' grenade and withdrew.
If he hadn't started with 'stupid' and followed through with the 'two second' comment he wouldn't have received a pointed counter.
So, to sum up. The OP and my reply are on placement and function. Not technology or innovation.
The reason why some manufacturers have put the touch button on the rear has far more to do with the fact that the ”chin” of the phone is too short to fit the sensor and the charge/sync socket. That’s why Samsung was trying to put it behind the screen, and why Apple was also attempting it. The front is always the preferred place.
so, ok, some people MAY prefer it on the rear, or, more likely, just get used to it, and then figure that it’s not so bad.
Soli said: This will be landmark event for many reasons, one of which I hope will make this the most remembered event since the original 2007 introduction of the iPhone*.
Won't be with out Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is no where close to what Steve could do with an audience...
He’s enthusiastic to be sure, but he says that he’s uncomfortable in front of large audiences. Apple has a management school, and one thing it teaches is presentation. He’s much better than in the beginning, but his quiet demeanor comes across on the stage, and his slight southern drawl doesn’t give him the sharpness needed. Steve, of course, was unmatched. Just watching some old presentations shows that.
I think the major difference -- what made Steve so great -- was that he understood the underlying technology and how it was being utilized to make people's live better -- as well as the infinite care from late and sleepless nights that went into making it a great product. Tim is doing well -- but he just doesn't have Steve's underlying emotional investment or understanding of the product.
Steve was like any entrepreneur, but he was just better at this whole marketing thing, because he really BELIEVED. Cook is really much better than he’s given credit for. Just watch presentations from other large companies, and you'll see what I mean. I think he also really believes, as do the others below him. But Steve had a talent for this, without having to learn it. Natural charismatics, are rare.
edit; the usual typos, errors in auto correction that I always seem to miss until much later.
You seem to have a far more in depth and inside knowledge of Apple than I do -- so I respect your opinion. But on this I would, knowing that my opinion may be based more on bias than fact, would differ with you.
To me it seems that Steve's "charisma" stemmed from a deep conviction (that underlies mere 'faith' or 'belief' because it is founded on knowledge rather than faith) as well as a passion to present something that will make a difference in the world and make people's lives better.
While I very much respect Tim Cook and believe that he was an outstanding choice for CEO, I don't think he can every have that same magic as Steve -- not for lack of charisma (which I don't think that either has) but because he lacks the conviction and passion that show when presenting a product that you have personally spent long nights down in the nuts and bolts, bits and bytes while perfecting that product.
I think Markkula, during the first Jobs movie said it best: "I see that look in your eye -- because I've had myself".
We all know people who have charisma. We all know people who don’t. While believing in something helps, you either have it, or you don’t.
Believing and knowing are two different things. -- Steve knew -- Tim believes
We’ll, you know, Steve didn’t have a great depth of knowledge about Apple’s products. He did know how things felt. He did have a great sense of detail, and he did know how things should function at the user level. But his technical knowledge was superficial.
Huh? ... I guess it depends on how you grade 'depth of knowledge'. Compared to a hardcore technician, that is probably true. Compared to any CEO (except possibly Gates -- as Gates pointed out repeatidly) and especially compared to Tim Cook, that is patently false. Steve straddled both the tech and the user side and understood both.
That’s not really true though. That’s an ideal picture of him. But read what Steve Wozniak has had to say about that, and others as well.
what Steve could do, was to say that something was too slow, and to go back until they got it fast enough. He could say that something didn’t feel right, and detail all the reasons why, and all the ways it should - and then tell them to go back and fix it. He could obsess about every pixel in an icon, or say the color wasn’t right. But as for technical knowledge, he didn’t know much more than some of the more technical members here.
i’m not making this up. You can read it in his biography that he approved. He never argued that point.
He lies, deform and biases the hell out of everything.
In your attempt to ridicule another user, you've done a great job in describing yourself. If you're looking for a troll, you need look no further than a mirror. Congratulations on helping to create a toxic environment where a void of reason is the new norm and a difference of opinion is dealt with using grade school tactics.
So, as you would say, "frack" off.
Right... considering your own posts not surprised you think that. Point the lies bud and maybe I'll believe you. Otherwise you just piled a "both sides" straw man on top of other fallacies you sometimes use.
Good to know I popularized a new swear word, maybe îm the reason they use it in galactica in the future. I very rarely use it on people directly so basically you're just pushing your little story here. Most Times used on people related to politically charged subjects that deal with the current admin. Good thing those are gone now from this site.
I often use it as a qualifier on a word though "fracking story"; though less often these days.
Whats toxic is letting an apple group become a hotbed of people who mainly use android and crap on apple in 99 percent of their posts just for kicks. This has happened in almost all online apple forums over time.
These are the same people that have made YouTube and most other comment sections an horror show.
There's been a lot of talk about the under screen fingerprint sensor but I don't consider that to be all that special. It's just another way of doing something we already do, just in a different place.
Ridiculous. A reader under the screen allows you to have slim bezels AND keep the fingerprint sensor on the front, instead of the useless hack that everyone else is doing placing it on the back (because they had no alternative). That is, if Apple even goes this route (they likely have a superior solution in FaceID).
The same goes for speed. Mid tier phones have been fast enough for quite a while. The same applies to graphics. RAM and storage? Apple will finally leaving this problem behind.
Rubbish. For example, ARCore from Google requires the latest and fastest phones to work (because AR done in software requires power). This is why Apple also requires a minimum A9 equipped device to use ARKit. Mid-tier phones WILL NOT be able to do AR because they will lack the processor power to achieve it. The funny thing about this is that a 2 year old A9 equipped iPhone (even the least expensive SE) still outperforms 95% of Android devices on the market. Which is why Apple will dominate AR because of the sheer number of devices that will be able to use ARKit.
If all you do is run basic Apps, then mid-tier phones are fast. It's when you want to do something more that iOS shines (not only because of the superior processing power but because of Apps that can actually take advantage of it).
RAM is a problem? iOS isn't the clusterfuck known as Android where you need more RAM than a desktop PC running Windows before it will perform well.
Some kind of new optical biometric option? It's still just a biometric option, just a different one. Nice to have but little more.
More rubbish. Perhaps you forgot how useless Face Unlock was when Android introduced it? Easily fooled by a picture of you, forcing Google to add their Liveness Check feature which required you to blink to verify you weren't a picture. And having to hold your phone up to your face (even for a short time) to unlock? Nobody wants to do that, which is why nobody uses Face Unlock. Then Samsung decided to add this useless feature to the S8, and apparently forgot about the issues Google had and their system was also fooled with a picture. So was their iris scanner. Two-time losers for that screw up.
If Apple implements FaceID according to the features/capabilities shown by the companies they acquired, then it will be a complete game changer. Can't be fooled by a picture, can't be fooled by a 3D sculpture with your face applied to it, can tell identical twins apart, works in the dark, works from a partial view of your face, works at odd angles, and can't be fooled by sunglasses, beards or shaving. It's practically the perfect biometric unlocking feature. If you can see the screen of your phone then it can see you and unlock. It has all the features that make Touch ID so great (fast and accurate) without any drawbacks (like wearing gloves or having dirty/wet fingers).
Better battery is nothing new, nor is OLED, nor is wireless charging.
OLED is not new, but an OLED phone that supports color management is. Since Android doesn't have color management then having a great OLED screen with a wide color gamut is pointless since you can't render content correctly. The iPhone will be the first device in the world to have an OLED screen AND support color management. Couple that with individually calibrated screens and you get the most accurate color reproduction possible. It won't have the "pop" that the cartoonish OLED screens of other devices do, but I'll take accuracy over flash any day.
millions upon millions of phones have the sensor on the back and people have zero issues with them. For those people (myself included) moving the sensor from the front chin to under the screen is just that, a move. It is absolutely nothing special. There is zero change in function. Some phones already have full screen fronts and there is nothing to comment on except how it looks because the sensor is on the back well out of the way and users are comfortable with it. It's been that way for years. If it were different, rear sensors wouldn't have got past one generation. Do you doubt that Apple also has prototypes with rear sensors? If it were such a bad placement, those prototypes wouldn't exist.
Speed
ARCore and ARKit are not shipping products. Both require developers to develop the possibilities and we have NO IDEA how consumers will react. Right now there is nothing to do but wait. In the meantime, people with mid range phones will continue to use them happily, impervious to what is available through AR.
You think the new iPhones won't ship with more RAM? You don't think that older, supported phones won't feel the pinch of their RAM allotments? I would wait before before answering those questions. The fact that you don't take issue with my point on storage, I take as tacit admission that it was a problem.
Face Unlock? It is not meant to be a secure feature. On Samsung phones You cannot even activate it without a warning on security. The system will not even allow you to use it for payments. It is a convenience feature. Nothing more.
On the other hand iPhones allow you to not set any unlock code or use 0000, 1234, etc. In that situation, which option is more secure! The user has to decide, depending on how he/she takes security. Options are good and some Samsung users can try Iris scanning if they wish. iPhone users cannot.
FaceID will not be the gamechanger you think it will. It will simply be another biometric option and very little more. Am I for it? Yes, because options are good. For unlocking, any secure option is good, great even, but gamechanging, NO.
Colour management. Have you ever seen a regular user question colour on their screens? No, I didn't think you had. You might find a subset of pro users who appreciate it but the vast majority of users don't even know they have a 'problem'.
Any comments on battery design and charging? because I will take my fast charging over colour management any day.
Feh. You’re just making excuses. I’ve not seen one review that didn’t mention the inconvience of a rear mounted ID button. You can’t use it when the phone is on a table without picking it up. Sure, forget things that do matter. Samsung’s is particularly hated.
just because Samsung always has issues with their features, doesn’t mean that Apple will. That’s just a very bad argument from you. Apple came out with Touch ID and it worked great from the very beginning, but Samsung just felt that it HAD to have that bullet point, so they added one that didn’t work, very typical of them.
samsung has options, because its facial and iris unlock options don’t work well. Again, that doesn’t mean that Apple’s won’t work well.
color management is important. I understand that you don’t want to say that, because Android doesn’t have it, and it’s not likely it will.
fast charging sucks, because you’re guaranteed of having your battery fail before its normal lifetime is up. So, be happy with that.
Lots of people use the 'can't use it on a table without picking it up' to argue against rear mounted sensors but what use do you make of the phone in those situations?
If you're in a bar a want to look at your screen on the table, for example? That's what double tap to wake is for (and is coming to iPhone soon). If you actually want to do something a bit more involved in a mobile situation then I suppose the phone is in your hand already and the placement is a non-issue in that situation. You'll have to give me a different use situation for the table top scenario for me to evaluate. As things are, even picking the phone up to unlock is far less effort than turning the page of a newspaper, adjusting my glasses or raising a coffee cup to my mouth. That's to say even lifting to unlock is a non-issue. But with tap to wake, that isn't an issue.
Very simply, if you want to turn the phone on without having to pick it up. Double tapping isn’t the solution. There are a lot of reasons for that. Maybe you’re cooking, and just need to see the recipe you have on the screen one more time. You just need to touch with one fingertip, rather than to have to clean your entire hand off. Yes, it makes a difference.
comparing two entirely different things doesn’t make your case. If I wanted to read a paper newspaper, which I don’t anymore, then I wouldn’t be talking about a phone in comparison.
thanks for addressing the other issues I brought up in the post. ;-(
Sorry. I couldn't address everything. I'm very pushed for time. The best I have is when I'm on train for two hours every day. Then bits in between.
One of your points I had addressed a while back when you brought it up then and I answered with some links. That was that the reviews you'd seen preferred the sensor on the front. I posted a review from the first Google page results I found that specifically said something like ' the rear sensor just where we prefer it'. At the time you admitted you hadn't seen it. I just imagined you'd forgotten about and didn't have time to dig it out again. Or maybe it wasn't you? Like I saidI didn't have time to check but from memory I think it was you.
Thanks for the cooking use case. I never turn my phone off. And if I were checking a recipe it would be on and in the kitchen with the recipe loaded. A double tap to wake would bring the screen back up with one clean finger tip. No need to pick up the phone. My screen will switch off after 15min. There is no way it will turn off during the steps of a recipe. Perhaps I'm not understanding something with the cooking example?
I will get back to you on the other points but sometimes things fall off my radar. Strange Days asked me to cite some Gruber claim recently I just didn't get around to it after a cursory search. It just came back to me now thinking about your comment. Perhaps it wasn't Gruber after all. I just run out of time sometimes and try to spread out whatever I have.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
fast charging sucks, because you’re guaranteed of having your battery fail before its normal lifetime is up. So, be happy with that.
I'm not sure that's a real factor if you're on a two-year upgrade cycle and when you can have the battery replaced so easily.
My understanding is that the two biggest factors in having a shortened lifespan on a battery are voltage fluctuations and temperature. I live in a particularly hot environment and have had a series of battery issues with Apple batteries. The latest was two weeks ago when I had to change an iPhone 6 battery. Apple said it should be good for 500 to 800 cycles. The diagnostics showed a little over 500. I wonder if heat played a role there. Impossible to know. I have been using the supplied Huawei fast charger, nightly for the last two years with no perceivable downgrade in battery life for my use. It's only two phones but I haven't hit that guarantee of having it fail yet and even if it does fail in the coming months I can have it replaced easily.
I will use the phone all day, sometimes heavily. Occasionally I will use a RAVPower backup to get me home. Often, when I get home I will shower and get ready to go out. That's when the phone goes back onto fast charge and by the time I'm ready to leave, I have enough juice to get me through the night. That's when fast charging comes into its own in spite of any shortening of lifespan.
I've come to depend on it now. Maybe I've just been lucky but I would appreciate your opinion on how Huawei designs its Supercharge battery tech as they do it all themselves and are very confident in their entire battery production process from chargers through to chemistry through to safety. This independently of any guaranteed shortened lifespan as I'm not a battery expert.
EDIT: I couldn't find much on Supercharge but this article has a video in it which goes over the basics of the Supercharge approach.
I saw an interview in Spanish with a Spanish Huawei engineer. I will try to locate it and extract the information. Then there was a supposed battery breakthrough by Watt Lab two years ago (Huawei's battery research unit) that claimed quick charging without impacting battery life. No idea if that breakthrough has made it into a shipping product yet.
Here's the snippet:
"Watt Lab, which belongs to the Central Research Institute at Huawei Technology Corporation Limited, unveiled their new quick charging lithium-ion batteries at the 56th Battery Symposium in Japan. Using next generation technology, these new batteries have achieved a charging speed 10 times faster than that of normal batteries, reaching about 50% capacity in mere minutes.
Huawei presented videos of the two types of quick charging lithium-ion batteries: one battery with a 600 mAh capacity that can be charged to 68% capacity in two minutes; and another with a 3000 mAh capacity and an energy density above 620 Wh/L, which can be charged to 48% capacity in five minutes to allow ten hours of phone call on Huawei mobile phones. These quick charging batteries underwent many rounds of testing, and have been certified by Huawei's terminal test department.
According to Huawei, the company bonded heteroatoms to the molecule of graphite in anode, which could be a catalyst for the capture and transmission of lithium through carbon bonds. Huawei stated that the heteroatoms increase the charging speed of batteries without decreasing energy density or battery life."
Fast charging results in higher average temperatures in the battery, and the device overall. Quick charging is much worse, and has resulted in premature battery failures. You need a particularly robust battery for that, and you’re just not going to get that on phones that are already sold on tiny margins. I’ve seen a lot of claims for battery designs. Only when they have extensive use in consumer devices are they really validated.
In that case, perhaps in phone temps are the key here but compounded by ambiental heat?
The iPhone 6 did sometimes get hot on normal charging with the supplied charger. My phone, again with the supplied charger rarely get noticeably hot during fast charging.
Add to that that Supercharge (as per video I linked to) reduces in-phone heat build up by up to 50% and even controls heat in the supplied connected cable on top of eliminating any transforming in the the phone before entering the battery itself.
The way I read it is that the Supercharge charger is readying everything to be channelled directly into the battery and the different chips simply control the process, checking for, heat, voltage, etc during the process.
I saw a info graphic a while ago that had three stages
1>2>3
1 was the charger, 3 was the battery and 2 was something else inside the phone but before reaching the battery. I cannot remember the name but it was power related and generated heat.
The same graphic for the Supercharge was:
1>3
The second stage had been eliminated along with the heat it generated.
All in all, if heat is the root of your concern it seems that Huawei have dealt with it very well.
Yes, I always say that the proof is in the pudding but this claim by Huawei seems very clear:
Huawei stated that the heteroatoms increase the charging speed of batteries without decreasing energy density or battery life."
So some case of premature ejaculation of a wanna-be-Apple, or some real innovation? anyway, they beat Apple to the "first post" race.
1) Who wouldn't want to have Apple's mindshare, valuation, or position in multiple markets? I'd like to see more companies strive for better products, over the "innovation" that occurred with the WinPC market where they found more clever ways to cut down on prices.
2) This is a known future in computing and this seems like a great achievement for Huawei. The benchmark seems a bit odd but maybe I don't understand the relevance of "images recognized per minute."
3) We got ML on the A10 a year ago and the Kirin 970 doesn't start shipping until mid October. I wouldn't be surprised if we see an A11 next month shipping to millions of customers by the end of September that blows the 970 out of the water. Designing their own chips has allowed Apple to do amazing things already. I hope we get to see what their in-house GPU designs can do this year.
When you build logic into hardware the ecceleration potential is typically orders of magnitude. The surprises regarding Kirin are (1) that Huawei has jumped into the SoC game with a viable offering (that's great for them) and (2) that they get only 5x performance over a phone that's doing the task in software. Lol
I was surprised to see the slide with the iPhone 7 Plus since it shows just how great last year's A10 chip is compared to the Samsung S8 and makes Apple besting Huawei very obtainable this year. I think it would've been better for Huawei to use a second, popular Android-based device running a different SoC for comparison, not the gold standard in mobile SoCs that really isn't in direct commotion with Huawei since no Android-based device can use Apple's A-series chips. Not only does it reduce their stated accomplishment, but also gives Apple even more attention.
The graphic was only really to show how things scaled with the different elements.
Samsung: CPU Apple: CPU + GPU Huawei: CPU + GPU + NPU
Huawei doesn't shy away from using Apple SoC benchmarks even when the Apple numbers are better. For the 960 it did something similar.
It would be logical for the A11 to do well against the 970.
They chose to design the 970 on the back of the previous design because it was stable and the latest ARM variants won't be available until next year. The 970 is mainly about the NPU, the new modem and dual enhanced ISPs for the camera. A security unit was also mentioned but I don't think it was given much time.
There's been a lot of talk about the under screen fingerprint sensor but I don't consider that to be all that special. It's just another way of doing something we already do, just in a different place.
Ridiculous. A reader under the screen allows you to have slim bezels AND keep the fingerprint sensor on the front, instead of the useless hack that everyone else is doing placing it on the back (because they had no alternative). That is, if Apple even goes this route (they likely have a superior solution in FaceID).
The same goes for speed. Mid tier phones have been fast enough for quite a while. The same applies to graphics. RAM and storage? Apple will finally leaving this problem behind.
Rubbish. For example, ARCore from Google requires the latest and fastest phones to work (because AR done in software requires power). This is why Apple also requires a minimum A9 equipped device to use ARKit. Mid-tier phones WILL NOT be able to do AR because they will lack the processor power to achieve it. The funny thing about this is that a 2 year old A9 equipped iPhone (even the least expensive SE) still outperforms 95% of Android devices on the market. Which is why Apple will dominate AR because of the sheer number of devices that will be able to use ARKit.
If all you do is run basic Apps, then mid-tier phones are fast. It's when you want to do something more that iOS shines (not only because of the superior processing power but because of Apps that can actually take advantage of it).
RAM is a problem? iOS isn't the clusterfuck known as Android where you need more RAM than a desktop PC running Windows before it will perform well.
Some kind of new optical biometric option? It's still just a biometric option, just a different one. Nice to have but little more.
More rubbish. Perhaps you forgot how useless Face Unlock was when Android introduced it? Easily fooled by a picture of you, forcing Google to add their Liveness Check feature which required you to blink to verify you weren't a picture. And having to hold your phone up to your face (even for a short time) to unlock? Nobody wants to do that, which is why nobody uses Face Unlock. Then Samsung decided to add this useless feature to the S8, and apparently forgot about the issues Google had and their system was also fooled with a picture. So was their iris scanner. Two-time losers for that screw up.
If Apple implements FaceID according to the features/capabilities shown by the companies they acquired, then it will be a complete game changer. Can't be fooled by a picture, can't be fooled by a 3D sculpture with your face applied to it, can tell identical twins apart, works in the dark, works from a partial view of your face, works at odd angles, and can't be fooled by sunglasses, beards or shaving. It's practically the perfect biometric unlocking feature. If you can see the screen of your phone then it can see you and unlock. It has all the features that make Touch ID so great (fast and accurate) without any drawbacks (like wearing gloves or having dirty/wet fingers).
Better battery is nothing new, nor is OLED, nor is wireless charging.
OLED is not new, but an OLED phone that supports color management is. Since Android doesn't have color management then having a great OLED screen with a wide color gamut is pointless since you can't render content correctly. The iPhone will be the first device in the world to have an OLED screen AND support color management. Couple that with individually calibrated screens and you get the most accurate color reproduction possible. It won't have the "pop" that the cartoonish OLED screens of other devices do, but I'll take accuracy over flash any day.
millions upon millions of phones have the sensor on the back and people have zero issues with them. For those people (myself included) moving the sensor from the front chin to under the screen is just that, a move. It is absolutely nothing special. There is zero change in function. Some phones already have full screen fronts and there is nothing to comment on except how it looks because the sensor is on the back well out of the way and users are comfortable with it. It's been that way for years. If it were different, rear sensors wouldn't have got past one generation. Do you doubt that Apple also has prototypes with rear sensors? If it were such a bad placement, those prototypes wouldn't exist.
Speed
ARCore and ARKit are not shipping products. Both require developers to develop the possibilities and we have NO IDEA how consumers will react. Right now there is nothing to do but wait. In the meantime, people with mid range phones will continue to use them happily, impervious to what is available through AR.
You think the new iPhones won't ship with more RAM? You don't think that older, supported phones won't feel the pinch of their RAM allotments? I would wait before before answering those questions. The fact that you don't take issue with my point on storage, I take as tacit admission that it was a problem.
Face Unlock? It is not meant to be a secure feature. On Samsung phones You cannot even activate it without a warning on security. The system will not even allow you to use it for payments. It is a convenience feature. Nothing more.
On the other hand iPhones allow you to not set any unlock code or use 0000, 1234, etc. In that situation, which option is more secure! The user has to decide, depending on how he/she takes security. Options are good and some Samsung users can try Iris scanning if they wish. iPhone users cannot.
FaceID will not be the gamechanger you think it will. It will simply be another biometric option and very little more. Am I for it? Yes, because options are good. For unlocking, any secure option is good, great even, but gamechanging, NO.
Colour management. Have you ever seen a regular user question colour on their screens? No, I didn't think you had. You might find a subset of pro users who appreciate it but the vast majority of users don't even know they have a 'problem'.
Any comments on battery design and charging? because I will take my fast charging over colour management any day.
Your comments regarding what represents true innovation versus "just another way of doing the same thing" mark you as a most common denominator user. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but it disqualifies you to preach among those here who have the technical chops to grok the difference.
This is actually incorrect and has nothing to do with 'chops'.
The OP jumped in feet first with the 'stupid' comment. Never a good way to start a post. He then followed up with his 'two second' comment which was completely ironic because he hadn't thought through my possible counter, and as I said in my response, the decision to put the sensor on the rear on many phones had and has nothing to do with lacking room on the front. They were deliberate design decisions that went through the full range of usability studies and had the relevant user studies to determine if users would like them on the rear. To even think no such studies are carried out is absurd in the extreme and makes the 'two second' comment look exactly what it is.
The fingerprint sensor is that: A fingerprint sensor. It doesn't matter where it is (on the front, on the side, on the back or under the screen) it does the job of scanning fingerprints. The placement or preference of placement has nothing to do with being a 'most common denominator user' nor innovation and it is exactly what I said. The same way of doing the same thing. It's function hasn't changed at all. Put my reply into the context of the post I was replying to. It has nothing to do with innovation, which in this case, wouldn't be what the sensor does but how it is done.
I took his comments point by point and even asked questions to see how he was thinking, to better understand his claims. He was unwilling or unable to respond in a normal fashion and just threw in the 'troll' grenade and withdrew.
If he hadn't started with 'stupid' and followed through with the 'two second' comment he wouldn't have received a pointed counter.
So, to sum up. The OP and my reply are on placement and function. Not technology or innovation.
The reason why some manufacturers have put the touch button on the rear has far more to do with the fact that the ”chin” of the phone is too short to fit the sensor and the charge/sync socket. That’s why Samsung was trying to put it behind the screen, and why Apple was also attempting it. The front is always the preferred place.
so, ok, some people MAY prefer it on the rear, or, more likely, just get used to it, and then figure that it’s not so bad.
My current phone has plenty of space for a front scanner but it is on the back as a deliberate placing from phone concept through to implementation. That is true for many phones with rear scanners.
Just as there are poorer placements for front scanners, try to imagine one off centre, there are poor placements for rear scanners. I really can't fathom how Samsung managed to get the theirs through with no eyebrows being raised.
If your design goal is to have the sensor on the front and eliminate the chin, trying to get it under the screen is worth trying. That has now been achieved and we are just waiting for phones to appear. Next year for Qualcomm sensors it seems.
If your design goal was never the front in the first place, it obviously isn't an issue that needs tackling.
I think Huawei already has underscreen finger tracking implemented and its current on board AI (nothing to do with the new NPU) uses it to try and guess where the user is going to tap. IIRC, that's why their phones do not have a special coating to reduce finger oils as it interferes with the tracking. They come with screen protectors installed in the factory.
Boy, this forum software has made threads unreadable. Perpetually nesting quotes is insane. We could get the background to go solid black if we wanted.
First, he's obviously not a troll, unless the definition has been expanded to mean "anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple altar." It's lazy to just slap the "troll" label on everyone with whom you disagree or just don't like.
No, he's a troll. This is not based on just the comments in this thread, but in numerous others as well. He's just a very subtle troll who thinks he's fooling people. Subtle (or concern trolls) don't constantly insult others or type useless comments that get them banned immediately (AI also gets these types occasionally, but they are usually quickly removed). They type out long detailed comments that seem reasonable because of their detail and the fact they lack the vitriol of an outright troll. But their end game is exactly the same.
There are a lot of posters here who I disagree with but I don't label them trolls. The idea that we're calling someone a troll because they don't "worship Apple" or we "disagree" with them is asinine. They are called trolls for a good reason. If one person spots it, you can question them. If multiple people pick up on it, then maybe it's time for you to consider why those people feel the same way (and why they include certain others in their descriptions, like GoogleGuy).
First, he's obviously not a troll, unless the definition has been expanded to mean "anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple altar." It's lazy to just slap the "troll" label on everyone with whom you disagree or just don't like.
No, he's a troll. They are called trolls for a good reason. If one person spots it, you can question them. If multiple people pick up on it, then maybe it's time for you to consider why those people feel the same way (and why they include certain others in their descriptions, like GoogleGuy).
You have egregious trolling down to an art sir, tossing ad-hom insults at members who aren't even part of the discussion thread. Carry on as you tend to do tho while others among us consider the source.
First, he's obviously not a troll, unless the definition has been expanded to mean "anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple altar." It's lazy to just slap the "troll" label on everyone with whom you disagree or just don't like.
No, he's a troll. They are called trolls for a good reason. If one person spots it, you can question them. If multiple people pick up on it, then maybe it's time for you to consider why those people feel the same way (and why they include certain others in their descriptions, like GoogleGuy).
You have egregious trolling down to an art sir, tossing ad-hom insults at members who aren't even part of the discussion thread. Carry on as you tend to do tho while others among us consider the source.
Avon B7 has so many easily discoverable troll traits in his posts, from his earliest posts, that it would be fair to state that he is likely a troll. I would state that Avon B7 is in fact a troll, but I haven't been able to figure out if his intent is simply disruption, or if it is just his personality. I'm certainly guilty of throwing some ad homs his way; bad behavior on my part, but certainly earned on his, IMHO.
Either way I blocked him, as have others, but he's certainly free to continue to interact here.
I blocked lorin an Soli because i got tired of dealing with "personal anecdotes and observations" as data sets in arguments.
I don't consider those two trolls, but it's a waste of my effort to have discussions with them, so I'm taking the convenience of avoidance.
Comments
I definitely won’t argue with that. We have 26GB on our data plan, with an additional 2Gb for each device. My 26 year old daughter uses a good 15Gb of that by herself, not including her own 2GB.
but there are still hundreds of millions of people buying larger screen TVs, and watching movies and Tv shows on them, and a lot of the industry fight revolves around cable and its competitors. Still, at this time, that’s where the big money is.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
... I guess it depends on how you grade 'depth of knowledge'.
Compared to a hardcore technician, that is probably true.
Compared to any CEO (except possibly Gates -- as Gates pointed out repeatidly) and especially compared to Tim Cook, that is patently false. Steve straddled both the tech and the user side and understood both.
so, ok, some people MAY prefer it on the rear, or, more likely, just get used to it, and then figure that it’s not so bad.
what Steve could do, was to say that something was too slow, and to go back until they got it fast enough. He could say that something didn’t feel right, and detail all the reasons why, and all the ways it should - and then tell them to go back and fix it. He could obsess about every pixel in an icon, or say the color wasn’t right. But as for technical knowledge, he didn’t know much more than some of the more technical members here.
i’m not making this up. You can read it in his biography that he approved. He never argued that point.
Good to know I popularized a new swear word, maybe îm the reason they use it in galactica in the future. I very rarely use it on people directly so basically you're just pushing your little story here. Most Times used on people related to politically charged subjects that deal with the current admin. Good thing those are gone now from this site.
I often use it as a qualifier on a word though "fracking story"; though less often these days.
Whats toxic is letting an apple group become a hotbed of people who mainly use android and crap on apple in 99 percent of their posts just for kicks. This has happened in almost all online apple forums over time.
These are the same people that have made YouTube and most other comment sections an horror show.
once this happens this forum might as well close
One of your points I had addressed a while back when you brought it up then and I answered with some links. That was that the reviews you'd seen preferred the sensor on the front. I posted a review from the first Google page results I found that specifically said something like ' the rear sensor just where we prefer it'. At the time you admitted you hadn't seen it. I just imagined you'd forgotten about and didn't have time to dig it out again. Or maybe it wasn't you? Like I saidI didn't have time to check but from memory I think it was you.
Thanks for the cooking use case. I never turn my phone off. And if I were checking a recipe it would be on and in the kitchen with the recipe loaded. A double tap to wake would bring the screen back up with one clean finger tip. No need to pick up the phone. My screen will switch off after 15min. There is no way it will turn off during the steps of a recipe. Perhaps I'm not understanding something with the cooking example?
I will get back to you on the other points but sometimes things fall off my radar. Strange Days asked me to cite some Gruber claim recently I just didn't get around to it after a cursory search. It just came back to me now thinking about your comment. Perhaps it wasn't Gruber after all. I just run out of time sometimes and try to spread out whatever I have.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
The iPhone 6 did sometimes get hot on normal charging with the supplied charger. My phone, again with the supplied charger rarely get noticeably hot during fast charging.
Add to that that Supercharge (as per video I linked to) reduces in-phone heat build up by up to 50% and even controls heat in the supplied connected cable on top of eliminating any transforming in the the phone before entering the battery itself.
The way I read it is that the Supercharge charger is readying everything to be channelled directly into the battery and the different chips simply control the process, checking for, heat, voltage, etc during the process.
I saw a info graphic a while ago that had three stages
1>2>3
1 was the charger, 3 was the battery and 2 was something else inside the phone but before reaching the battery. I cannot remember the name but it was power related and generated heat.
The same graphic for the Supercharge was:
1>3
The second stage had been eliminated along with the heat it generated.
All in all, if heat is the root of your concern it seems that Huawei have dealt with it very well.
Yes, I always say that the proof is in the pudding but this claim by Huawei seems very clear:
Huawei stated that the heteroatoms increase the charging speed of batteries without decreasing energy density or battery life."
Samsung: CPU
Apple: CPU + GPU
Huawei: CPU + GPU + NPU
Huawei doesn't shy away from using Apple SoC benchmarks even when the Apple numbers are better. For the 960 it did something similar.
It would be logical for the A11 to do well against the 970.
They chose to design the 970 on the back of the previous design because it was stable and the latest ARM variants won't be available until next year. The 970 is mainly about the NPU, the new modem and dual enhanced ISPs for the camera. A security unit was also mentioned but I don't think it was given much time.
Just as there are poorer placements for front scanners, try to imagine one off centre, there are poor placements for rear scanners. I really can't fathom how Samsung managed to get the theirs through with no eyebrows being raised.
If your design goal is to have the sensor on the front and eliminate the chin, trying to get it under the screen is worth trying. That has now been achieved and we are just waiting for phones to appear. Next year for Qualcomm sensors it seems.
If your design goal was never the front in the first place, it obviously isn't an issue that needs tackling.
I think Huawei already has underscreen finger tracking implemented and its current on board AI (nothing to do with the new NPU) uses it to try and guess where the user is going to tap. IIRC, that's why their phones do not have a special coating to reduce finger oils as it interferes with the tracking. They come with screen protectors installed in the factory.
No, he's a troll. This is not based on just the comments in this thread, but in numerous others as well. He's just a very subtle troll who thinks he's fooling people. Subtle (or concern trolls) don't constantly insult others or type useless comments that get them banned immediately (AI also gets these types occasionally, but they are usually quickly removed). They type out long detailed comments that seem reasonable because of their detail and the fact they lack the vitriol of an outright troll. But their end game is exactly the same.
There are a lot of posters here who I disagree with but I don't label them trolls. The idea that we're calling someone a troll because they don't "worship Apple" or we "disagree" with them is asinine. They are called trolls for a good reason. If one person spots it, you can question them. If multiple people pick up on it, then maybe it's time for you to consider why those people feel the same way (and why they include certain others in their descriptions, like GoogleGuy).
Either way I blocked him, as have others, but he's certainly free to continue to interact here.
I blocked lorin an Soli because i got tired of dealing with "personal anecdotes and observations" as data sets in arguments.
I don't consider those two trolls, but it's a waste of my effort to have discussions with them, so I'm taking the convenience of avoidance.
For that kind of dough, and I'm not even looking to buy this year, the X would have to melt my socks when I try it at the local Apple Store.
I really want pencil support, assuming some sort of 3D capture capability, for creating usable models for my Form 2.
Maybe next year.