melgross

nubus said:

40domi said:

Are these the same poor developers that have been anty App Store policies?
...
Those that make good useful apps, have nothing to fear!

The entire concept of Sherlocking is that those creating great productivity apps will see Apple mimic their work without getting paid.
It wasn't always like that. The Mac didn't have a clock in the menu and so most of us installed SuperClock! Apple then bought the rights to it. Same with other tools.

Those days are gone. Not compensating small developers is a bit too brutal for my taste. It wouldn't hurt Apple to play nice. Not sure if the problem is penny-pinching or not-invented-here.

maltz said:

I'm sticking with 1Password, but for reasons that the average user won't take into consideration.  First, I've dealt with iCloud sync enough over the years, there's NO WAY I'd trust it to safely handle passwords.  I know it's better now than it used to be, but even within the last year or so, I've still seen rare issues with contacts, which is about the only thing I use it for.

I also like 1Password's security model with a password AND a strong private key required to decrypt the data.  I have a strong master password, but for most, keeping password data in the cloud is inherently risky, and a Lastpass-style breach can cause a lot of havoc without that additional layer.  Hopefully, the Password app at least requires MFA.  1Password is also VERY up front about the inner workings of their security, what data lives solely on your device and what is synced, and where decryption occurs, even when using the web client.  Such transparency is not Apple's strong suit.

And lastly, Linux support.  It was smart for Apple to include Windows support, since a LOT of their iPhone users don't have any other Apple devices.  But I need Linux, too.

AniMill said:

Well this is intriguing. I’m curious if there is only one lens focal length permitted - perhaps like how Cinerama only used a tiny 28mm lens to mimic the human eye perception. I would hope that eventually there would be a way to get telephoto lenses. Regardless, this could be a compelling end-to-end process. I usually detest VR and stereoscopic films/video, but I’ve actually made a few in C4D with live action shoots and they were really fun. As long it doesn’t demand the viewer to don the glasses/headset for over 30 min.

Stabitha_Christie said:

melgross said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

AppleInsider said:

The RF-S is designed to be used by the APS-C RF-S camera range, such as EOS R7. It's also intended to be a cheaper and overall easier lens for content creators to get and use, so they can quickly get started making content for headsets.

Per the Canon website the lens is only compatible with the EOS R7.

"Exclusively compatible with EOS R7 APS-C 32.5MP camera with the firmware 1.5.0+"

Kinda weird that they don't work with the more expensive full frame cameras like the R6, R5 and R3. 

It’s not surprising at all. It’s an APS-C lens. That makes sense. This is meant, mostly, for people who want to create content but without spending big bucks doing so, or having more weight. Bloggers are already working on content and I see unhappiness at the expense and weight.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Canon and others will have a camera dedicated to this in the future if they think they can sell enough of them. Something small and relatively inexpensive, under $1,000 for a fixed lens model.

Cost isn’t relevant. This is a software limitation on the part of Canon,  it a hardware one. I can use other non-full frame lenses on my R6. Like I can use EF mount lenses made for film camera in the 1980s. They just don’t take full advantage of the full frame
sensor. 

avon b7 said:

melgross said:

I hope not. That’s a stupid idea. Huawei tried that for their first model and it was mocked and a failure. There’s no easy way to protect a folding screen.

It's not a stupid idea, nor was it mocked (at least by most reviewers - though some will mock anything for a click). 

Mate X:

"The Huawei Mate X might be the first foldable phone you seriously consider paying gobs of money for in 2019. Its solid-feeling hinge allows this handset to fold up, transforming from full 8-inch tablet into a more-traditional-looking 6.6-inch and 6.38-inch smartphone with a screen on either side. It feels like you're holding the future in your hand, just know that your transformative euphoria over this phone comes at a very high price."

Mate Xs:

"A foldable phone that expands into a tablet has been thought of as the next form factor for mobile devices. Huawei has thrown conventional design out of the window with Mate Xs by placing the foldable screen on the outside and we think this design makes great sense as you're not stuck with a secondary smaller display"

Mate Xs2:

"This unique, wraparound foldable design opens up a wealth of advantages, showcased by the Mate Xs 2's predecessor. These include a thinner body, a larger tablet screen, and a comfortable front display when in smartphone mode. That's versus the hyper-tall 25:9 cover screen on the Galaxy Z Fold 2 and Z Fold 3 that's super-narrow."

(All comments from Tech Radar). 

It is an idea that, like most folding options, has pros and cons. 

You protect a folding screen by looking after it. You protect an outer folding screen by taking extra care. Especially given the asking price. 

Even slab phones are used in pouches and users slip them in and out. They are perfect for 'outside screen' folders.

The main advantages are, ehem, twofold. 

Less screens on device and and a thinner overall design. 

In the case of the above mentioned Huawei variants, most of the hardware is placed in a balanced 'grip'. A single strip that allows the rest of the phone to be extra thin. 

And don't forget the model mentioned here is the XS2. The third model  of the design.

It's all a question of options. How many types of folding options are there? Or you fold 'in' or you fold 'out' (although tri-folding phones are coming, it seems). That is it. 

Huawei has brought both types to market. 

If you fold 'in' you need an extra screen. If you don't fold in, you don't, but the tradeoff is the screen is less protected. Let's forget for a moment that phones that fold 'in' also have that extra screen facing down on a surface when it gets fully opened. 

I will mention though that the frames are designed so as to keep the screens off of flat surfaces. 

That does not eliminate the tradeoff completely. 

You choose what you prefer based on your needs/preferences/budget...