Last Active
  • Belkin intros Lightning to headphone jack cable for iPhone 7 and newer

    If we could get even remotely acceptable audio quality from bluetooth, then this wouldn't have been such a big deal.  But no one has yet supplied a high quality wireless audio solution, despite the fact that I can get 250 megabits/second WiFi across my house...  Who will stand up and make a real wireless audio standard?  One with lossless audio, effortless sharing of channels across multiple headphones, and none of this "pairing" stuff?

    In any case, thank you Belkin.  It's appreciated.  But for me, I need the adapter that includes charging, 'cause I don't have a wireless charging pad in my car yet.  Nonetheless, for short uses, it's a life saver.  You can finally change a pair of quality headphones into lightning headphones.   

  • Apple's Mac mini now inexcusably getting trounced by cheap Intel hardware

    You have to remember the original reason Apple made the Mac Mini - it was to lure Windows developers to also cross develop/port title to the Mac.  The idea was to give a person with no Mac the cheapest possible development platform they could get away with - and I personally knew developers who did just that.  The Mac Mini existed for only one reason - for them to port their software to Mac.

    Apple's decision to not support the Mac Mini could be viewed in two ways:  Either they feel enough developers have full fledged Macs now that they don't need to be coerced with an affordable model, or else, after years of trying, Apple has given up trying to make the MacOS platform an App heaven, and is instead looking to the future where people run mainly iOS apps on their Macs.

    I've found that a lot of reasons that Mac HW features "wither on the Vine" is because if Apple has decided that 5 years down the road they won't be supporting a feature, then they don't invest in it in the present.  A classic example is the MacOS HDMI out driver bug, now 10 years and running, that makes it so Mac owners can only use their HDMI ports with televisions, not monitors.  It's such a simple fix for able - maybe 15 minutes - yet they still haven't done it.  Instead HDMI out still outputs in CMYK mode, resulting in awful, uncorrectable blooming effects when trying to use any monitor over HDMI.  The reason?  Apple knew long ago they were going to ditch HDMI ports, and internally, they apparently never used or tried external monitors that way.

    I do wish Apple tried a little harder to focus on the present.  They have to realize that if every generation withers because there's a new one on the horizon, then the platform will always remain subpar.
  • What a difference a week makes: Apple's $88.3 billion quarter is even more impressive brok...

    Thanks for hitting home just how nonsensical investors' reactions have been to this amazing news!  Their only complaint is that Apple didn't hit their own expectations, but seeing how dramatically their view on Apple swings, they clearly know little about the business and should be ignored.

  • Apple tops worldwide smartphone vendor list in Q4 amid industry contraction, report says

    > Beyond that, how would Apple achieve growth? While true, you are again missing the point. Apple is a *COMPANY*, which is about generating profits, not about their change in rate of generating profits. They currently make the most profit ($20 billion in the last quarter) of any company in the world. Any year they do not actually lose money, they are successful. This "growth" you speak of is a personal choice, fraught with risks. "Growth" has killed many companies. Apple could just go on eeking out a meager existence at $200 billion in sales per year with their small following of 1.3 billion users and just enjoy their boutique business. The only people focused on this question would be stock investors wondering if Apple stock will quadruple in the next 4 years, or if they just have to settle for dividends. At which point, Apple could simply take the company private, if such complaints started to cause bad PR for them. I can just see 5 years from now: "All people on Earth have an iPhone, Apple has no room for growth, must start selling cereal."
  • Breastfeeding, T-Rex highlight proposed shortlist of 51 emoji set to debut in 2017

    I wish the committee gave any forum at all for public comment, but it seems that they don't. I just wanted to tell them they need to alter the art for the breastfeeding emoticon. Once you know what it is, you get it, but when I first saw it, I was staring at it, and staring at it, and I just couldn't tell what I was looking at. First I thought "is that the giraffe?" (with its head down.) Then I thought, "Is that the Zombie"? (Because its head was chopped off). The Vampire? It took me a LONG, long time to finally figure out what it was - I literally had to rule out every other emoticon by hand. Clearly, they need to alter the art - either make the mother's skin a different color than the baby's head, or (far simpler and much more important), just show the mother's head as well. But what I learned from this experience is this truly seems like a closed, private system: Anyone can suggest an emoticon, but then a special group of people decides whether to accept it and what it looks like: then that's it - no one else can say anything about it. And this is completely supported by the Unicode standardization organization.