lorin schultz

macseeker said:

The rumored new iPod Touch with a form factor as the iPhone XR will be great.  Even the form factor of the iPhone XS will be okay.  It'll help standardize on parts.  However Apple needs to have the capacity of either 512 GB or 1 TB as the upper end.  Would be great if they include cellular data capability for it.

If they make that, they can ditch the iPod moniker altogether. What you'll have is an iPad Nano.

mac_128 said:

sflocal said:

An iPod touch still has relevance today.  There are plenty of reasons - and people - that want an iPhone sans the phone part.  For kids, homes, cars, etc... 

My nephews still use their iPod Touches constantly.  It's relevant.

While I like the durability of the Lightning connector, it was an interim technology and now that USBc is here, well... we either move on or stay still.

MplsP said:

rogifan_new said:

aross99 said:

iPod touch makes a great "gateway" into the Apple ecosystem for children who are too young to have an iPhone. A $200 apple device with monthly payment is the ideal Christmas/Birthday gift for kids.  It allows them get hooked on the app store, and start building their music library.  iTunes cards are a given at every gift opportunity.  When they are ready, they can transition into  a "hand me down" iPhone from Mom and Dad, and away they go...

Give someone a hand me down iPhone and don’t enable the cell service.

That's what we did with my daughter. An old iPhone with no SIM card was perfect for her.

In general I would welcome the switch to USB C. It would be nice to have a universal connector for all smart phones. When the lightning connector came out it was clearly superior to the mini/micro USB connector, USB C has erased most of the advantage. Apple is saying it's the future - they should put their money where their mouth is. Or at least their design. I find it more than a bit ironic that they eliminated the USB A port from their computers but stick with old connectors in their phones.

The main concerns I have with USB C are durability and the presence of a center tongue. The USB C ports in my MacBook Pro don't seem nearly as robust and solid as the lightning connector. Also, I periodically need to clean pocket lint out of the lightning port. I imagine the USB C port would suffer the same issue, but the presence of the tongue in the center would make cleaning it much more difficult. 

The future is wireless. USB-C was too late to the game, and now it’s the intermediary technology between lightning and wireless. Apple would be foolish to switch a mobile device to yet another port that isn’t necessary for the phone, requiring more water-proofing, along with a more delicate connector, and it’s customers to replace 100s of millions of cables and accessories. Those same cables can connect to Qi charging cases, pads, and stands, or customers can use the same cables they use with their MBs and iPads.

Try transferring 50-60GB of video to an iPhone or iPad over Lightning. PAINFULLY slow. Now try doing it wirelessly. Even SLOWER!

Now try the USB-C connection on an iPad Pro. Case closed.

netmage said:

applejeff said:

canukstorm said:

I'm not convinced that there's a place for an iPod Touch in today's world.

My iPod Classic 120 GB is now 10 years old and still used every day. Recently I had to put in a new battery (from eBay) but the iPod is getting old and won’t last forever. I have no need for a phone but an iPod touch, if it is available with 128 GB would be an excellent replacement.

It would be if Apple fixed the Music app to work properly over USB but my current attempts to do something similar (replace iPod Classic with used 128GB iPhone 6 and get WiFi sync to my PC’s iTunes) has resulted in the purchase of another iPod Classic upgraded to SSD. iOS still thinks it’s acceotable to play the tracks from an artist in alphabetical order instead of album date order over USB. 

The more I use the iOS Music app, the more I hate it.

In my particular case, I don't CARE what album a track came from, my focus is on singles. Since about 50% of my library came from compilation albums, I find it EXTREMELY frustrating that a search for everything by a particular artist fails to include those tracks!

Despite us coming at music management from opposite directions, Apple managed to annoy both of us. Quite an accomplishment! (I love the desktop version of iTunes, though. It's just that iOS abomination that bugs me.)

racerhomie3 said:

lorin schultz said:

I was really hoping we were close to seeing the end of Lightning, with the next generation of iPhones and iPads following the current iPad Pro to USB-C instead. This latest move to license a new breed of Lightning cables makes that seem unlikely. I don't think Apple would have bothered if the plan is to move away from Lightning anytime soon.

Lightning should be the end of all ports on consumer iOS devices. Then it’s wireless .

No thanks. Apple sold me a device with lots and lots of storage space that I use to store lots and lots of content. The pain point is transferring that content to and from the device. USB2-speed transfers via Lightning cable are slow enough. The LAST thing I want is to make it even slower by limiting transfers to wireless.

ericthehalfbee said:

zoetmb said:

krreagan2 said:

Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!

Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   

If the only thing that happens from the arrival of self-driving trucks is to piss off the Teamsters, then that's already a good enough reason.

There are numerous benefits to self-driving vehicles (trucks being one of them). Fewer accidents (bringing fewer injuries/deaths), reduced emissions/pollution, reduced shipping costs for all the companies that need to move goods and reduced highway congestion.

Put people out of work? I heard this doom & gloom story way back when personal computers just started coming out. Suddenly accountants and other office staff were going to be out of work and there would be massive unemployment when they were replaced by computers. How did that turn out? While there's no doubt some jobs were lost, how many millions of new jobs exist because of the PC industry? Before the personal computer there was always some other piece of technology or equipment that was going to cause massive unemployment by automating tasks that once required a human to do. I don't see this as any different. Some jobs will be lost and other new ones will be created. I can't stand when people use the threat of massive job loss to try and prevent new technology from being adopted.

I agree that it's counter-productive to resist technological change. I also think it's pointless. However, I don't share your dismissive view of its effects.

One example with which I'm personally familiar is live broadcasting. As recently as five years ago, the technical side of putting a local newscast on the air required six to ten people. Developments in broadcast automation have reduced that number to one, and that one now handles shows for multiple cities. Ignore for now how one person being responsible for the same number of tasks that used to have the attention of ten brains results in exponentially greater workplace stress, increased errors, and diminished quality. Consider only that the change results in a LOT of bodies flooding the market.

When an industry mass-dumps personnel, there's a glut of people vying for positions in related fields. Those related fields are also applying their own workforce reduction strategies, further compounding the problem. It's easy to say "Just retrain for a new career," but it ignores practical realities. Going back to school when you already have a family, mortgage, and car payments isn't a viable option. And retrain for what? Where are the growth industries for employment?

We're rapidly approaching, or may have already reached, a point at which society has more worker bees available than there are hives. What do we do with all the people we no longer need to keep the machinery running? We obviously aren't going to suppress technological advancement to protect the jobs it makes obsolete, but we better figure out how we're going to function as a society as we progress towards fewer and fewer people having a regular income.