chasm

To Fastasleep: I suggest you study the history of Apple's updates to really old equipment (2008 was, of course, 10 years ago) for a clue on how likely your hope is. I hate to rain on anyone's parade but ... don't hold your breath.

Naturally I would love it if my last revision AX became AirPlay 2 compatible, but even that one I'm not really holding out much hope. Apple seems to be out of the AirPort business and it makes me sad.

Fmalloy and others miss the point. The idea behind “Everyone Can Code” is the same as the new “Everyone Can Create:”  The goal is not to turn everyone into a programmer, but to expose everyone to the areas of critical thinking that programming introduces.  Perhaps if we called other programs “Everyone Can Do Math“ and “Everyone Can Make Music,“ he would understand that it’s about exposure to creative thinking methods,  not a single-minded recruitment drive for future Apple programmers. 

 In the same way that not everyone who is in drama in their school becomes a professional actor, the object of “Everyone Can Code“ is not turn everyone into a programmer.  In the case of “Everyone Can Code,” it’s about understanding logic, critical thinking, analysis, and problem-solving.  Even if you never write a line of code after leaving those classes, you and your ability to reason will have gained something from having had the experience,  just like you benefit from studying religion, literature, science, music, and cooking, to name but a few areas.

Some, of course, will find their passion in programming: but the idea is to expose kids to a wide variety of, for lack of a better term, “how stuff works” to make them better, smarter, and more aware as citizens and human beings. 

I of course haven’t seen this upcoming interview with Cook, but he likely makes the point I made above as explicitly as he did in the Apple education event, which of course I have seen. If you had seen it, you might understand how badly you’ve misunderstood him

I think the real-world takeaways on this are these:

1. Nearly all non-game apps use single-core most of the time, because the apps themselves aren't really that demanding. The iPhone X is the clear winner in that category.

2. Websurfing is again a clear win for the iPhone X. Since this is the vast majority of what I do on my iPhone, this is (for me, at least) one of the most important takeaways.

3. Graphics -- Samsung seems to have caught up (on par) in non-game use, probably has an edge on gaming on the phone (and of course this is where the larger size of the 9+ comes into play). I do very little gaming on a smartphone, but hey credit where its due, if you're into (high-level) gaming on your phone the S9+ edges it out.

4. The reason Samsung can't make any money on this phone is because a) this model doesn't sell but a tiny fraction of the number the iPhone X sells, and b) their costs on this particular unit is much higher (i.e., profit lower) thanks to them essentially having to double up everything (processor, graphics, ram) just to keep up.

5. Not tested here, but apparently the camera in the S9 and + is improved over the previous S8 to within (essentially) a wash with Apple's camera.

Overall this is a first-class effort from Samsung and a serious contender, and they should be proud of that (and only ripped off Apple in a few areas this time, to boot!). I'm not sure typical users care much if an app opens half-a-second faster on one than the other; you have to get into noticeable differences (see points 1 to 3 above) to have the differences be a factor over and above the primary factors (preferred platform, security/privacy threshold, expected support lifespan, that sort of stuff), so basically this is (and will continue to be going forward) more or less a wash driven by platform preference or how influential the salesperson at the store is in governing your decision.

dysamoria said:

Apple still doesn't let us rename our Apple ID, right?

That is actually incorrect. See here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202667

To Forgoneconclusion: you remember vaguely but correctly — there was a ruling last year regarding royalties for streaming on songs prior to 1974. IIRC, Apple was already paying this, while Spotify wasn’t — one of the reasons for their recent larger losses.

Speaking of Spotify, they are in court again on a different matter — charges that they simply haven’t paid many of the artists, full stop. The suit seeks just over $1 billion in unpaid royalties. I do not know if the case will be successful, but if it is that will be another blow to a company that, for all it’s well-deserved popularity, can’t seem to find a business model that results in profits.

Assuming Rose was attempting to express dissatisfaction with his royalty cheque for streaming music more generally, I fully agree with him that streaming rates suck compared to either radio airplay royalties or (best) CD buying. But someone should take him aside and inform him that a) Apple didn’t invent streaming — Spotify is seven years older than Apple Music; b) Apple Music pays more than any other streaming service; and c) Spotify and AM are both popular because that’s how consumers appear to want to purchase music, not because Apple (or anyone) imposed this on them. I understand both the allure of streaming and its disadvantages, but the big feature (for record companies) of streaming is that it eliminates piracy. If streaming hadn’t grown popular, music piracy would be the huge industry it was just a couple of years ago — only bigger.

Mr. Rose may want to ponder that point, or at least more accurately identify his target and clarify his actual complaint.