peter pinto
About
- Username
- peter pinto
- Joined
- Visits
- 21
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 138
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 31
Reactions
-
A very false narrative: Microsoft Surface vs Apple iPad, Mac
Which functionality is the "killer feature" for you?jorgie said:I work for a fairly large university (5K staff, 30K students) and the Surface Pro 3/4 has been our default choice for mobile users for 3 years now. We have tried everything from Dell multiple other vendors, and nothing really competes yet.
-
A very false narrative: Microsoft Surface vs Apple iPad, Mac
I wonder if Microsoft makes more money off their iOS apps than from their hardware.
-
A very false narrative: Samsung Galaxy S8 vs Apple's iPhone
The real crap on this issue isn't even the competition between Apple and the various Android manufacturers. That's actually pretty good for us consumers.Instead, it's the mediocre tech reporting. When I read certain reviewers at fx The Verge (like Dan Seifert reviewing Samsung Note 7 and S8), I'm almost lost for words because he seems genuinely infatuated by Samsung phone screens. I mean, they make great phone screens - I get that. My iPhones have probably all had Samsung screens and they have all been great. But grading phones that high on screens? That seems heavily biased, especially when Samsung's phones are so heavily flawed in other areas.It's the same with all the hype concerning various PC models recently. The general consensus is that Apple failed with the Mac Pro (Apple execs recently said that the Mac Pro design went in the wrong direction) and the MacBook Pro (2016 model).So when reviewing other products, like the Microsoft Surface Studio, this new product - which is basically a laptop-specced machine with a big touchscreen - is hailed as the new Messiah on the market. Nilay Patel even exclaiming that "Apple should just make a Mac with a touchscreen already!" I mean, even Nilay admits that he (and a lot of other reporters) were missing the mark when yelling at Apple some years ago, demanding more innovation, when in truth they just wanted bigger screens on their iPhones.So are the tech reporters biased because they either love Apple products, hate Apple, want Apple to do better or just want some drama to spice up their pieces? I don't know, although I do believe that having a monetary interest in clicks is incentivising them towards being more dramatic.There are some great reporters out there - and some great pieces of reporting. But the ones who do better are the ones who keep level-headed and basically try to report - instead of the ones who cry for more innovation or other reporter-turned-consultant stuff. The best one is Walt Mossberg; he's become an institution by being level-headed and critical.Right now, Apple might disappoint a lot of tech savvy people, because "We want the next iPhone!" Is the rallying cry of these people. And since the iPhone is basically THE most tectonic shifting product in any market in the history of mankind, the possibility of failure is huge. I mean, if Apple measured every product idea up against the iPhone, they would probably not release a lot of new products.Fortunately, they don't. The iPad, Watch, Pencil and AirPods are new and fantastic products, with the Watch having a lot of potential as a health measuring tool.In the meantime, the rest of the tech world has basically been busy trying to produce and sell VR and AI assistants. Other improvements have been made, but AI and VR are the areas where other tech companies have released products to the market.The AI market is growing - but mostly in USA. Rest of the world? Not so much. Siri is still the AI assistant with most reach around the world. And even though Amazon and Google assistants are innovative and has a lot of promise, they are also a security risk and mostly made to make buying stuff easier. Not surprising that an advertising company (Google) and the world largest mall (Amazon) are the ones pushing these new products.And VR. Well that could easily go down as the tech flop of 2016 and 2017.So these days, the tech reporters write about things that excite them - or things they expect will excite their readers. But applying the filters of "Is this relevant?", "Is this a good product in day-to-day use?" etc. are questions asked far too rarely. Probably because if they were asked, a lot of tech pieces would never be written and the tech reporters would have to find other ways to earn their money.
-
What history teaches about Apple's windows of opportunity for 2017
Intel just lowered its updating frequency and improvements on chipsets for laptops, with a rather negative effect on how the new MacBook Pros were received.appex said:Best Apple opportunity for 2017: make a true Mac tablet with Intel x86 inside for full compatibility with the rest of the world (read, 95% Windows).
Are you now saying that Apple should leave the very successful in-house designed A-chips used in iPhiones/iPads/Apple TVs (and the watch, in a more simple version) and let the iPad business drift along at whatever pace Intel think is great?
That would be rather foolish.
-
What history teaches about Apple's windows of opportunity for 2017
What continues to amaze me are the small gears (or features) that make a huge difference.
DED mentioned Continuity. I don't use that myself very often, but it enables collaboration between units - and that's quite neat. The same with iCloud, which I use all the time. Touch ID is also a sorta-small-feature-when-you-see-it-at-first, but which then becomes HUGE when featured on all products and working with Apple's software. Some journalists have even mentioned that Touch ID on the new MacBook Pros is a better feature than the Touch Bar.
It seems to me that Apple has proven to have sound judgement when deciding which features to develop - not only for adding value to a new product, but also to add value to future products. And with complete control over the operating systems across all platforms, Apple is even able to add value to products which has already been bought and is used by customers. So when I buy an iPhone, I can actually expect the software to add value to my product in the future! That is a pretty remarkable "feature" which is not easily copied.
But when you look at tech journalists - and their business model - developing these user-focused incremental enhancing features isn't really something that drives clicks on their articles. They typically want more sensational material. Just look at 2016 and how smartphones have been reviewed lately. iPhone 7 was a huge disappointment, so boring! Samsung 7 series was SOOOO exciting - and continued to be so, as more and more units caught fire! The iPhone ended up with all the sales, but the Samsung Firephone ended up driving a LOT of traffic on the tech sites.
And while all that took place, Apple just continued adding value to a lot of their products: The iPhone 7 is a fantastic smartphone (the best ever made, in my humble opinion), the Apple Watch is the best smart watch, the iPad Pro 9.7 is the best tablet (True Tone, another under-valued feature - try to disable it and use the tablet for 30 minutes, then turn it on again to continue living in a modern world), the Apple TV is the best TV box and the MacBook Pro is the best laptop. And the AirPods is redefining wireless earphones.
"But the new MacBook Pros didn't deliver!" I actually believe that statement to be true - and Intel should take note of that, because Intel failed to deliver better silicone on time. I am willing to bet that this has been discussed at length among Apple executives, with one of the options being "Let's do it ourselves". I don't think they have chosen that option, but the disappointment with Intel is real.
Oh, and speaking of the little features: This has been written on an iPad Pro 9.7, with a Smart Connector and a keyboard (the Logitech Create, because it's the best). That connector saves battery and connects by simple touch between keyboard and iPad. So simple, so easy, so convenient - and very effective.
