charlesn

sflagel said:

The iPad should not be “as powerful as the Mac”; it should have been a different computing experience.  Now we even have menu items, towel thrown. 

Instead of a natural human experience using fingers, eyes, voice, and a pen, we have a substandard Mac with a detachable screen that you can scribble on. 

The “iPad experience” needed a lot more work annd imagination, and it would have turned into a useful magical third device. 

The world would beg to disagree with your assertion that the iPad has failed to turn into a useful third device. The iPad has been such a runaway success that it actually has no real competition in the tablet space. There's only iPad and everything else, most of which is unprofitable, forgettable or both. While I've never been a fan of iPadOS, I also don't confuse my personal opinion with how the product is performing in the marketplace. 

To a degree, Apple is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. While I have sympathy for developers whose businesses get upended when Apple Sherlocks their app's functionality into the OS, surely no developer could be unaware--24 years after Sherlock--that this is always a risk. But the apps keep coming, so I assume that developers have made their peace with this possibility. 

Apple, unfortunately, will get criticized either way. When it Sherlocks apps into the OS, it's accused of being the 800 pound gorilla stomping on small businesses. And if Apple leaves it to consumers to either purchase or pay ongoing subscription fees (mostly the latter these days) for third party apps to provide these functionalities, then Apple's various OSes get criticized for being "behind" in features.   

tiredskills said:

F1 looks terrible.  Expensively terrible, but terrible nonetheless.  The idea that it is art in any meaningful sense strikes me as fanciful, it's Bruckheimer trash.

It doesn't open til June 27th, but awesome that Tim invited you to the Monaco advanced screening for F1 drivers! 

Speaking as someone who has spent a career either giving notes as a network executive or getting notes as the owner of a production company, I will tell you that "F1 looks terrible" is the kind of lazy, meaningless, gibberish note given by someone who has no idea what they're talking about but feels they need to say something critical to justify their job. It's a comment that's not actionable because it could mean a million different things. So... care to step up here and tell us what "looks terrible" specifically means to you? Is the color correction off? Is the picture out of focus? Do you not like the cinematography and, if you don't, how would change it? Etc, etc... let's hear it. 

"The idea that it is art in any meaningful sense strikes me as fanciful." Funny thing, critics felt exactly the same way about Blade Runner, Fight Club, Big Lebowski and others, which were all initially panned and are now considered classics. Oh, and Citizen Kane lost money at the box office, didn't even make back its investment. 

imwishing said:

MassiveAttack said:

Rogue01 said:

Siri and improved Apple AI reminds me of AirPower.  Schiller - we can do this.  Schiller a year later - no we can't.  I am not holding my breath for Siri.  I rarely use it because it isn't very reliable, and the response is usually the same thing, let me see what I can find on the internet.  I can do that myself and get a better response.  Apple has had 14 years to fix Siri, and hasn't done it yet.

Apple needs to ditch the Siri brand. Apple should get another one. 

Checks notes, yes, rebranding worked so well for New Coke, Apple should try that strategy with Siri <sarcasm>

You sure you don't wanna just put sarcasm in all caps to be sure we understand?  /s  New Coke is a really poor comparison. "Old" Coca-Cola wasn't a damaged brand that had become the butt of jokes about how bad it was. "Old" Coke was beloved, but the idiots at Coca-Cola decided to reformulate it anyway, then replaced "Old" Coke with "New" Coke on store shelves--there wasn't even a choice for a while--with utterly predictable disastrous results. "New" Coke was the Coca-Cola nobody asked for and it got shoved down their throats, until Coke came to its senses. 

Ditching the Siri brand whenever Apple finishes work on its next-gen voice assistant is actually a pretty decent idea. Siri is a valueless brand name now, other then being a "known" name, but what it's known for is not anything you'd want to be associated with a product. 

blastdoor said:

But the elephant in the room is that Apple is noticeably behind in the most important and exciting new technology since the web. They can catch up and I think they will catch up. But they are clearly behind right now and there’s no fresh coat of paint that can cover that up.

But who's doing the noticing and to whom is it clear that Apple is "behind?" The technosphere press? Sure. Commenters on their boards? Sure. The mass market that forms the vast majority of Apple's customer base? Not a chance. This is just another flavor of the endless knock that Apple is behind on xyz features, blah, blah, blah. True! Apple is rarely first to market with new features, but more often than not it's best in market when it later debuts them. I believe this will be the case with AI, not because Apple will have the flashiest features out there, but because of its approach to putting consumer privacy first, which is a message that's only going to resonate even more strongly with consumers as time passes.