lorin schultz

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.

Eric_in_CT said:

Luxury products over-deliver, which is part of the luxury.

Imagine a Porsche-911, a $90,000 car I think; with cloth seats and 150hp engine.  Both would suffice and it's still a well designed luxury car and a great experience, but it's just not right.  The buyer's don't NEEEEED 400hp, but it's part of the over-delivered luxury expectation.

Base Macbook Pro is $1299 U.S.  Processor is yesteryear (debit), Core i5 (debit), 8GB RAM (debit),  128GB (debit). 
Where's the luxury for the $?  Every aspect is a downgrade, and price is still ultra-premium.
Even if Apple's data shows most people only use Safari & Mail and don't use big-storage; it's just not "enough", luxury wise, for that price.

Through my spouse I've paid a smidge of attention to luxury handbags. 
I can appreciate them because, like Apple products, they're very $, but VERY well made. 
What if some of that double-stitching goodness went away?  Full-$, but only one row of stitch?
"Don't worry, our data shows it won't fall apart and is just as good for what YOU'RE going to do with it".  No thanks.

Luxury MEANs extra.  Over-made, over-done, Better than better.

I know Apple sells to the high ends, but it also seems like Apple could meet the public in the middle, and still be a luxury provider:
Perhaps base config should be $799 for 7th Gen i5, 8GB, 128GB. 
Membership is the luxury.  The O/S is the luxury.  Specs are JUST ENOUGH to get into the luxury Apple club.
i7, 16GB and 512GB:  $999?  That's a high price right there.
And GRADUALLY go up from there?  15", 32GB, 1TB SSD, etc etc.

Right now the buyer is getting it on both ends.  Very high $, and less "zing", less "pizazz".

Good weekend all.

You're right that cutting corners would be okay in a reasonably-priced product, but it leaves a bad taste when stuff costs as much as Apple's.

A couple years ago I caught myself being really cynical about Apple product announcements. I don't remember what the product was, but my wife told me she'd just seen a new whatever-it-was with Desirable Feature 1 and Desirable Feature 2 for a price that seemed reasonable. Instead of reacting with excitement, I asked "What's the 'gotcha?'"

The "gotcha" is the one characteristic of the product that ruins the buyer experience. The thing that makes you say "Those buggers" instead of "TAKE MY MONEY!" Things like including only one port on a MacBook. Announcing high-current fast charging then including only a low-current power supply. Removing and charging extra for accessories that used to be included. Announcing newer, better ports that you accept will mean replacing all your cables, but then charging 50% more for those cables than the old ones. Making a nice computer but including only enough storage for the OS and not much else, then charging egregious prices to bring it up to useful capacity.

There may be good reasons for all of that, and I don't profess to know better than Apple how to bring products to market. All I know is how it makes me feel. I now approach new products with fear of what the REAL cost is going to be instead of feeling excited about acquiring new features.

Yesterday I found myself in an area of Vancouver I don't know very well, so I asked Siri to give me directions to the Home Depot on Hennings Drive in Burnaby. I got directions to a Home Depot somewhere in California. It might be a better store, but it would have been thousands of miles out of my way and I don't have a passport.

I again specified the street name and city. This time I got a location in the correct country and province, but still not the one I asked for. I gave up after a third try yielded a third location that still wasn't the one I asked for.

Is this a problem with Maps, or is Siri to blame?

cgWerks said:

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

On what basis do you -- CAN you -- disagree? What qualifies you to make that assessment? What knowledge do you have of reporting practices and media conditions that informs your opinion? Unless you've actually sat in the room and done the job, what could you possibly know about how mainstream media does and doesn't work? You don't GET to disagree, the same way you don't get to dispute climate science, sans any credentials in the field, just because you don't "believe" it or it doesn't "feel" true.

cgWerks said:

I'd actually say it is opposite. Independent journalism, including podcasters and bloggers, gaining grass-roots audiences, might just be the last hope hold the powerful to account. The MSM is actually the problem, as too many blindly follow them and write off the podcasters as conspiracy theorists.

I could not disagree more. Independents have neither the pressure nor the regulation that compel fair and balanced reporting. We see it all the time in the tech media, including (maybe especially) from AI's own Dilger. Opinion and ego presented as fact. Niche outlets are almost invariably founded by individuals with an axe to grind. Even those whose motives are pure are forced by budget pressures to hire kids who can't even form a grammatically correct sentence, much less critically assess the validity of an interview subject's narrative. Worst of all, none of the small outlets have a big enough audience for their stories to create any kind of ripple in public awareness or sentiment.

You're letting frustration cloud your judgement of reality. Mainstream media is flawed, but not anywhere even NEAR to the degree we see from 21st Century Pop Nouveau News. I understand your frustration with the lack of nuance and detail in mainstream reporting, but lacking depth does not make a story "fake." Just because you don't like or agree with what you hear on the news doesn't mean it's not true.

cgWerks said:

[...] Just like the rest of the MSM, the vast majority of people are simply clueless about how fake most of the news is.

Like most good tales, that sentiment grew from a grain of truth but is 99% bullshit. Please don't help chip away one of the few remaining means of holding to account those with power.

I spent twenty of the last twenty-one years doing sound for the Vancouver affiliate of a national TV network. I was technical so i wasn't directly involved in the journalism side, but we were shoulder-to-shoulder in the same physical space so it was impossible not to see how they do their jobs. I can tell you first hand the idea that "most" or even a significant portion of the news is fake is utter nonsense.

On rare occasions something slips through. Usually it's something relatively minor, but once every few years it's something like Bloomberg's spy chip story. It's not because the local reporter is seizing an opportunity to boost ratings though. It's because newsrooms are under so much financial pressure they simply don't have the resources to recheck every source and re-interview every subject in the original story. Their defence of this practice is half crap, half valid. The crap part is that instead of conceding that their conditions leave them vulnerable to perpetuating misinformation, they claim "We didn't say it, we're just reporting what Bloomberg said." Weak. The valid part is that the biggest exposés usually begin with some seemingly questionable accusation that lacks details, but through continued reporting leads to others coming forward with more information. Since misinformation constitutes only a tiny fraction of any reputable newsroom's body of work, it's worth risking that (as long as it's later corrected) in order to make sure real issues are uncovered.

There are obviously exceptions -- in my opinion neither Fox News or CNN practice reputable journalism anymore -- but there are countless other sources doing good work every day. Their contribution should not be dismissed just because a couple biggies are more interested in partisan politics than responsible reporting.

Sometimes the reporting is factually correct but doesn't give enough attention to a significant detail. That doesn't make the story FAKE, though. It's still true, it just isn't completely thorough. On that basis I urge consumers to be critical listeners, and if a story is important to you, follow up with other sources as well. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater by dismissing news as "fake" just because not every story gets the full documentary treatment. By far, the vast majority of what you read and hear from mainstream media is accurate and balanced. Certainly much, much more so than what you'll get from so-called "alternative media."