dewme

This app sounds redundant and needlessly complex compared to just sending out invitations using Calendar. I’ve tried different apps and services, e.g., Slack, for coordinating and collaborating informal groups. The tools can be fabulous and seem ideal for the purpose, at least from my perspective, but a lot of non-tech-enthusiasts and regular users simply don’t want to or don’t see the need to learn yet another tool or way to do something they are already doing using tools they already know, even if they suck, e.g., Facebook. The devil you know …

Perhaps in a corporate environment this app would be more useful, but again, there are plenty of tools and processes already out there in use for event planning. Time will tell, and who knows what other users may see in this app that I don’t see … yet. The “yet” word seems to be applicable to a lot of what Apple is springing on us now that the basics are pretty much covered.

So much inane silliness, waste of time, waste of money, waste of focus, etc., from the top.

What problem does this solve?

I suppose the US could declare ownership of the Gulf of Mexico and sell the naming rights to the highest bidder, you know, just like sports stadiums. I can see it now ... the Gulf of Alphabet, the Gulf of BMW, X Biggy Pond, Saudi Aramco's Other Gulf, etc ...

We are so screwed if this is considered a priority.

I really hope Apple doesn't go with an "iPad on a Stump" design.

Whew. This is a rough topic to weigh in on. 

I personally believe that a lot of people, mostly those outside of this forum, don't fully understand the differences between Equity and Equality. When viewed in the context of the current situation, where disparities exist for historical reasons, a lot of people embrace equality as the gold standard with no concern about equity. Treating everyone the same and affording the same treatment and opportunity to everyone sounds fair. Equal opportunity sounds like a great thing. Only hire the best and brightest and most qualified without regard to any individual differences that do not directly apply to the position.

That's nirvana, a perfect solution, but only where inequities no longer exist. Equality is great, but it's only applicable where you have equity. Realistically, inequities have always existed around certain individual conditions like wealth, power, influence, lucky sperm club, etc. If your dad just bankrolled a new campus building at Harvard, there's probably a very good chance you're going to get into Harvard even if it's through a ping-pong scholarship if all the legacy admissions are already filled. Inherent traits that exist at a human level when they are born into the world should not be sources of inequity.

The intention of programs like DEI are to address inequities - even in the face of causing inequalities. For anyone on the losing end of the inequality calculus it will obviously view inequality as an injustice. But if you and society believe that true (or more inclusive) equality cannot be achieved until inequities are dealt with, it is a price to be paid today for the sins of our forebearers. No matter how you look at solving the problem, someone is going to feel like they're getting screwed. Those who want equality over all else and want to put away the past because they as individuals had no influence over it feel screwed. Those who are affected by existing inequities due to things they have no control over feel like they are never going to be on level ground with those who are unaffected.

Life is not fair, but the reasons behind the unfairness should be resolved if it is within our power to do so, in my opinion. At the very least we should be listening to both sides without trying to jam our opinions down other people's throats. As a country we have always made great human and financial sacrifices in an attempt to rectify situations that have surfaced far beyond our own shores. Why we don't have the same resolve to rectify things at home when the price to be paid is so much less is something I will never understand. 

charlesn said:

StrangeDays said:

charlesn said:

Shameless? Nah,, it's actually pretty smart. I mean, c'mon--it's not like Apple invented the "Pro" designation, hence the reason they can't trademark it. And if you're going to use model names that can't be trademarked, this is what can happen, a fact of which the famously litigious Apple was surely aware. Dell saw designations that are simple, available for use and work well, so it's using them. Pro and Pro Max are a helluva lot better than Dell's usual model designations.

No one is claiming they are violating trademark. 

It’s smart? Yeah no. Simply aping your competitor’s branding doesn’t make such a move “smart”. Hardly. It’s saying you’re a knockoff, a number-two, an also-ran, incapable of innovation even within the space of naming your products. 

It may say those things to you, an Apple buyer, but Dell buyers couldn't care less about Apple, in general, and probably won't even associate the names with having an Apple connection. And spare me the ludicrous assertion that Apple tagging its higher spec'd products with the generic "Pro" moniker is somehow an example of innovation in naming. If it were innovative, it could have been trademarked. And hey, I've been all-in on Apple for decades, but the reaction to Dell here is an example of fanboy bedwetting at its worst. 

Yup. I think this article is an attempt to provoke controversy and trigger a reaction for something that is way below trivial. Like I said, public figures have demonstrated clearly that shame is no longer a thing even in grievous cases where the general public may have expected it to apply in the past. Now it’s been normalized out of existence even for the general public. The acceptance bar for judging personal and corporate conduct has been buried deep underground. The implication that one company is “copying” another company’s product naming convention, should be by comparison, very far below just about anyone’s trigger point.