Well i see DED is back to wasting bandwidth with a ton of crap that doesnt even touch upon Apples real problems in efucation. The number one issue with iPads is the lack of a keyboard which makes anything other than tribial text entry a psin.
The article was not an examination of Apple in education, but rather taking apart a false media narrative that US K-12 is super important that Apple desperately needs to drop prices to get in on this market. That's what it has the headline it does.
Even so, the article specifically mentioned "features desired by educators, including the Smart Connector for attaching a non-wireless keyboard (that doesn't need to be charged separately) and Apple Pencil, offering a strong differentiation from other tablets."
I stopped reading right around "Google began dumping Chromebooks on U.S. K-12 schools over the last few years because nobody else wanted to buy them."
I could stomach the slant presented through the rest of the article up to that point, but seriously? This is straight up ignorant. First of all, I would like to know how Google was dumping anything on anyone, unless it was dumping Pixel Chromebooks on somebody (which they never have), since Google doesn't manufacture any of the Chromebooks in question. Secondly, if nobody wants Chromebooks, why has their marketshare been basically doubling year-over-year for the last several years? And why has Google been spending so much time and effort polishing and improving Chrome OS if it's such a losing venture?
This is Apple Insider, I get it, but please... at least don't say things so completely biased that anyone with eyeballs can refute them without even trying. Unless this is the only blog your readers subscribe to, you just come off sounding like a jackass.
"don't say things so completely biased that anyone with eyeballs can refute them"
- this pro-Google edu statistics group reports that 90% of chromebooks are sold to US/ k-12.
- Google doesn't manufacture hardware, but it does directly sell chromebooks, and to edu. That's why it has websites with buy now all over them. - "Doubling" in education is not that big, and Google hasn't been doubling. It's unit sales of all ChromeOS devices went from 5 M to 7M and then stopped growing. That's only big next to Pixel sales. It's not a significant market, especially for loss leader cheap hardware.
Apple says they don't share personal information either. Except when they do.
So those specific circumstances where Google will share personal information is perfectly OK with you since it's identical to the circumstances Apple will share personal information and you're comfortable with their TOS right? You went to a lot of effort to arrive at the same set of exceptions you were already aware was Apple claiming for themselves. I mean you were aware Apple also shares personal information weren't you?
You have established a reputation for contempt for factually-backed, evident reality and a penchant for making huge unfounded claims.
Carrying water for Google has made you very boring. You literally never say anything interesting or accurate because you're working so hard to back up a series of false ideas to flatter a marketing company.
Don't let them get you down, keep up the good fight, and let the truth speak for itself!
I agree. The truth should be more evident and easier to discern and like you wish it could speak for itself.
We should all be intelligent enough too that when we can't dispute the facts or truthfulness of a post simply keep our mouths shut rather than trying to compensate (for what?) by attacking the person.
"I guess I showed him, I called him a name" is hardly a thoughtful response.
The truth has been presented, and has exposed you, for what you are, and your flair to twist reality to serve your narrative, which has been proven to staunchly defend Google at all costs.
This site is littered with posts of people calling you out and proving you wrong, you launching straw man and ad-hominem attacks under the guise of a "rebuttal" to refute their evidence proving you wrong, and thankfully, even DED has taken you to task to showcase your falsehoods.
After all these years of reading your pedantic, long-winded contrivances of FUD, you won't get any more from me, and I'm sure, many others here, going forward.
Where did DED prove I was wrong? All that he had in his most recent response to me was character accusations, no evidence that anything I said was not true. But you claim I'M the one launching ad-homs left and right? I would challenge you to ever find a single instance of me calling anyone names, accusing another member of outright lying, or otherwise attacking their personal character rather than the content.
...And If all you intend to do is the same as you've done here in the past couple of posts attacking mine I won't miss hearing more from you. I think your intent to stop responding to to what I post is a wonderful idea. Kudos to you for that decision and please do hold true to it.
Playing the victim are we? ...your statement "I would challenge you to ever find a single instance of me calling anyone names, accusing another member of outright lying, or otherwise attacking their personal character rather than the content" is a prime example of a straw man response; you are setting up this straw man to claim victory that you have never called anyone else names or attacked their character, to make it seem like you are absolved of any wrong doing and can claim that my statement is baseless. When in fact, this is not the accusation I levelled against you.
It's exactly the accusation you leveled against me. Quote: "...you launching straw man and ad-hominem attacks". You're having some trouble apparently remembering what you wrote, or bothering to look after the fact before making yet another claim against me that turned out to be wrong.
....and I was SO hoping you meant what you said: " you won't get any more from me going forward." Yet here you are.
Another ad-hominem attack... Attacking the credibility of someone who has been proven spreading misinformation and clandestinely twisting other's facts to draw his own conclusions is not an attack on, or questioning ones character; it is exposing it! I applaud Daniel for doing so, after long last.
And you have just discounted Daniel's position because of this, classic ad-hominem attack. His response to Gatorguy in no way, shape, or form, diminishes the value of this article, his position, or experience in the matters he writes about. If you feel this discredits him and his editorials, you're more than welcome not to read them.
Er... I think you have misunderstood my comment. FYI, I was on your side regarding this matter.
Another ad-hominem attack... Attacking the credibility of someone who has been proven spreading misinformation and clandestinely twisting other's facts to draw his own conclusions is not an attack on, or questioning ones character; it is exposing it! I applaud Daniel for doing so, after long last.
And you have just discounted Daniel's position because of this, classic ad-hominem attack. His response to Gatorguy in no way, shape, or form, diminishes the value of this article, his position, or experience in the matters he writes about. If you feel this discredits him and his editorials, you're more than welcome not to read them.
Er... I think you have misunderstood my comment. FYI, I was on your side regarding this matter.
My sincerest apologies Kevin, I understood it as you standing by GG, my bad! I have redacted the comment...
When one's character was questioned by an editor of the original article, one lost all of his credibilities. How can we take his/her words seriously going forward?
I don't understand your logic. Since when did questioning of character by an editor of ANY original article make the recipient of the attack lose credibility? Seriously????
A prime example, most recently just from this article discussion, the staunch claim that Apple trusts its customer's data with Google, when this is factually WRONG. Apple does not "trust" their data with Google, as it merely uses Google, like it does Amazon and Microsoft, as a silo to house customer data in a fully encrypted, inaccessible manner. Using a third-party company to host completely scrambled, non-monetizable data does not explicitly imply trust in any way, shape or form.
On the very same topic, GatorGuy posted the below information as well. Did you get a chance to read that? If no, no problem. Why don't you talk about the below points NOW?
-What about Spotlight Search... Apple endorses them to their customers by making them the default (in return for some money) -Safari default search provider... Apple endorses them to their customers by making them the default (in return for some money) -Google Ads in Apple News... Apple endorses them to their customers (in this case the advertisers from the news organizations) but not clear in return for what.
That should give us a basic understanding of what gets encrypted and how for much of our data.
Also, we don't know exactly what, or on what conditions, Apple uses Google services for data management.
However, we can conclude that standard industry practices are applied. I think that's logical.
When Gatorguy says Apple trusts Google with its data, to me it means what he says: "data" - encryptedornot (see above).
Logically you expect data to be protected.
Why, therefore, should people be thinking or implying that he is saying 'unprotected' data is being stored on Google servers. I can't see how anyone could reach that conclusion
When Apple trusts its data to Google, it does just that. It allows the data to leave a realm where it controls everything right down to the physical protection of the data storage units (fire, flooding, energy supply and physical access to the units) through to the network access.
To even suggest he was painting a picture universally unprotected data on external servers is stretching it a bit.
Of course, people should also pay attention to email procedures and things like two factor authentication mentioned in Apple's overview to make sure they are better protected anyway.
Muthak_Vanalingam has expanded on other areas.
I haven't read through the entirety of these posts but no doubt someone will quickly tell me if I'm off track :-)
Well i see DED is back to wasting bandwidth with a ton of crap that doesnt even touch upon Apples real problems in efucation. The number one issue with iPads is the lack of a keyboard which makes anything other than tribial text entry a psin.
The article was not an examination of Apple in education, but rather taking apart a false media narrative that US K-12 is super important that Apple desperately needs to drop prices to get in on this market. That's what it has the headline it does.
Even so, the article specifically mentioned "features desired by educators, including the Smart Connector for attaching a non-wireless keyboard (that doesn't need to be charged separately) and Apple Pencil, offering a strong differentiation from other tablets."
I stopped reading right around "Google began dumping Chromebooks on U.S. K-12 schools over the last few years because nobody else wanted to buy them."
I could stomach the slant presented through the rest of the article up to that point, but seriously? This is straight up ignorant. First of all, I would like to know how Google was dumping anything on anyone, unless it was dumping Pixel Chromebooks on somebody (which they never have), since Google doesn't manufacture any of the Chromebooks in question. Secondly, if nobody wants Chromebooks, why has their marketshare been basically doubling year-over-year for the last several years? And why has Google been spending so much time and effort polishing and improving Chrome OS if it's such a losing venture?
This is Apple Insider, I get it, but please... at least don't say things so completely biased that anyone with eyeballs can refute them without even trying. Unless this is the only blog your readers subscribe to, you just come off sounding like a jackass.
"don't say things so completely biased that anyone with eyeballs can refute them"
- this pro-Google edu statistics group reports that 90% of chromebooks are sold to US/ k-12.
- Google doesn't manufacture hardware, but it does directly sell chromebooks, and to edu. That's why it has websites with buy now all over them. - "Doubling" in education is not that big, and Google hasn't been doubling. It's unit sales of all ChromeOS devices went from 5 M to 7M and then stopped growing. That's only big next to Pixel sales. It's not a significant market, especially for loss leader cheap hardware.
Apple says they don't share personal information either. Except when they do.
So those specific circumstances where Google will share personal information is perfectly OK with you since it's
I will not stop responding to you, and will in fact vehemently expose any inaccuracies you post to this board, so long as you are allowed to post here, and ensure every one of your fact-twisting, ad-hominem and straw man arguments is exposed. If you are uncomfortable having your falsehoods being exposed, you're welcome to go set up residence on an Android site, where I'm sure this material would be welcomed with open arms.
If I post a falsehood I would be disappointed if ANYONE overlooked it. Why wouldn't I be? None of us should encourage misinformation by letting it go unchallenged.
So in truth I look forward to those times you find information that proves something I've posted is false. There's nothing embarrassing about not being "all-knowing". None of us are. Politely, or at least respectfully, correcting each other when we're off-base is good for all of us and particularly the casual readers. I hope you read every post I make with a critical eye because I've no objection at all to learning something I wasn't aware of. Bring it on!
As long as that's the reason you feel the need to reply to me instead of tossing vague and unsupported claims of "LIAR!" and similar my way, all the while saying "but I don't have the time to prove it", I'm good with it since I'll rarely if ever be hearing from you.
If I post a falsehood I would be disappointed if ANYONE overlooked it. Why wouldn't I? None of us should encourage misinformation by letting it go unchallenged.
So in truth I look forward to those times you find information that proves something I've posted is false. There's nothing embarrassing about not being "all-knowing". None of us are. Politely, or at least respectfully, correcting each other when we're off-base is good for all of us and particularly the casual readers. I hope you read every post I make with a critical eye. I've no objection at all to learning something I wasn't aware of.
As long as that's the reason you feel the need to reply to me instead of tossing vague and unsupported claims of lies and deception my way, all the while saying "but I don't have the time to prove it", I'm good with it since I'll rarely if ever be hearing from you.
In other words - focus on the message, not the messenger. Former is healthy, latter is waste of time of everyone.
Just came on to say that... now that the event is over, looks like ol’ DED was RIGHT, again. No price drop on iPads, just more differentiation in the market.
Daniels case that tech pundits don’t understand Apple is a little stronger today.
Comments
Quote: "...you launching straw man and ad-hominem attacks". You're having some trouble apparently remembering what you wrote, or bothering to look after the fact before making yet another claim against me that turned out to be wrong.
....and I was SO hoping you meant what you said: " you won't get any more from me going forward." Yet here you are.
I hate allergy season
On the very same topic, GatorGuy posted the below information as well. Did you get a chance to read that? If no, no problem. Why don't you talk about the below points NOW?
-What about Spotlight Search... Apple endorses them to their customers by making them the default (in return for some money)
-Safari default search provider... Apple endorses them to their customers by making them the default (in return for some money)
-Google Ads in Apple News... Apple endorses them to their customers (in this case the advertisers from the news organizations) but not clear in return for what.
In the in the case of iCloud data, this overview should be taken into account:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
That should give us a basic understanding of what gets encrypted and how for much of our data.
Also, we don't know exactly what, or on what conditions, Apple uses Google services for data management.
However, we can conclude that standard industry practices are applied. I think that's logical.
When Gatorguy says Apple trusts Google with its data, to me it means what he says: "data" - encrypted or not (see above).
Logically you expect data to be protected.
Why, therefore, should people be thinking or implying that he is saying 'unprotected' data is being stored on Google servers. I can't see how anyone could reach that conclusion
When Apple trusts its data to Google, it does just that. It allows the data to leave a realm where it controls everything right down to the physical protection of the data storage units (fire, flooding, energy supply and physical access to the units) through to the network access.
To even suggest he was painting a picture universally unprotected data on external servers is stretching it a bit.
Of course, people should also pay attention to email procedures and things like two factor authentication mentioned in Apple's overview to make sure they are better protected anyway.
Muthak_Vanalingam has expanded on other areas.
I haven't read through the entirety of these posts but no doubt someone will quickly tell me if I'm off track :-)
So in truth I look forward to those times you find information that proves something I've posted is false. There's nothing embarrassing about not being "all-knowing". None of us are. Politely, or at least respectfully, correcting each other when we're off-base is good for all of us and particularly the casual readers. I hope you read every post I make with a critical eye because I've no objection at all to learning something I wasn't aware of. Bring it on!
As long as that's the reason you feel the need to reply to me instead of tossing vague and unsupported claims of "LIAR!" and similar my way, all the while saying "but I don't have the time to prove it", I'm good with it since I'll rarely if ever be hearing from you.
Daniels case that tech pundits don’t understand Apple is a little stronger today.