macplusplus

GeorgeBMac said:

macplusplus said:

BizTraveler said:

Well-written article - until the last line. Apple has indeed marketed iPads as a computer. Their website page for the iPad Pro even leads with "Super. Computer." - not as some other, special "post-PC device" as the author suggests. 

With that said - a basic file system and a mouse would go a long ways towards dramatically increasing the capabilities of the iPad in terms of production and ease of use. 

The ONLY reason that hasn't happened is because Apple doesn't want its iPads directly competing against its laptops. 

Anyone else think differently about why they don't implement these two ideas?

Here it is:

Apple doesn't implement a file system at the user level because of your body's inherent inabilities and primitiveness. The finger I mean...

Files come in thousands and you just cannot manage them with your cumbersome finger. You need a tool that allows you to do precise data selections. The mouse interface is the best for that. The touch interface cannot carry a pointer on the screen.

Another reason, file management requires preemptive multitasking: you don't want your system come to a halt when you copy 19,327 files from your external device to your iPad. The current A series processors are not optimized for preemptive multitasking, they are optimized for thermal management and battery.

That said, maybe the most profound reason, a file system is a relic of the past. At least at the user level. Gone these days where a file is a basic unit of task. In today's computing tasks are complicated and a single task cannot be tied to a single file. So on what should the user focus? On the task at hand or on the management of several itty-bitty files that make up a mere single task?

This is Apple that resolved the problem with iOS. They've managed to completely hide the file system from the user, allowing the first time the user focus on the task at hand. iOS still maintains the robust file system of UNIX and is built on top of it but that file system is completely hidden from the user and there is no way to access it without jailbreaking.

Anyway you said a basic file system: that basic file system interaction already exists in iOS thanks to iCloud Drive and third party add-ons such as Dropbox or Microsoft OneDrive. macOS further supports iOS file interaction model thanks to iCloud Desktop and iCloud Documents folders that are accessible from within iCloud Drive app of iOS. Within these, you will never miss any file as long as your task requires access to certain files.

"a file system is a relic of the past"
Well, no.
... That was actually the main problem Microsoft ran into with Windows 8.   They tried to drive their users into simply using icons (aka programs) to do what they needed to do and made the file system based desktop hard to get to...   They ended up firing the guy who led that effort and backtracking with 8.1 and further with Windows 10.

On an IPhone the work flow is such that you typically don't have a strong need for a file system.   Not so for the typical users of PCs.

That was Microsoft's main problem not just in Windows 8 but since the very beginning of Windows. The whole Windows environment is based on the task concept: a window represents a task. Unlike Apple's Finder which initially exposes the whole file system to the user, the Windows desktop initially hides the file system from the user. In order to get full Finder functionality in Windows you have to launch Windows Explorer. 

Finder exposed the full file system to the user but that was because the file system was considerably simplified in the MacOS Classic thanks to the resource mechanism. Unlike UNIX and Windows files, the files in MacOS Classic were composite: a data fork and a resource fork. All of those itty-bitty "utility files" that make up today's applications and documents were encapsulated into data structures called resources and were cleverly hidden from the user and from the Finder. Since Windows didn't have a "resource fork" mechanism, they opted to initially hide the file system from view and that was the right choice. To comply with UNIX standards OS X shouldn't adopt a composite file structure as "data fork" and "resource fork" and we have what we have now. In OS X the file system is still partially hidden from the user by means of "bundle" objects which are in fact directories, such as applications, plug-ins, installation packages and many other types of composite content.

To cut it short, even in OS X, you don't have/need access to the full file system under regular use. You don't launch an application by opening the UNIX Shell (Terminal) and by typing the full path of the application's binary file followed by Return, you just click the application's icon. You think you are doing "file management",  you have access to the "file system", no you don't. In order to access the full file system and perform a full file management you have to enter into the UNIX realm. What you are doing is just "document management" and a "document" is an abstraction, it can be a flat file or a directory structure such as some Pages documents. The misunderstanding arises from mixing-up "document" and "file" concepts, those are not the same thing.

To cut it even shorter, iOS forbids you from accessing the file system but it puts no barrier in managing your documents. You can transfer your documents between iOS applications easily. You can upload and download them, move or copy them to wherever you want. Allowing such a powerful, flexible document management without a single access to the underlying file system, iOS deserves to be qualified as the most advanced of today's modern operating systems. It is the future...

gatorguy said:

Soli said:

gatorguy said:

Soli said:

gatorguy said:

jkichline said:

The issue is VP9 is googles attempt to workaround patents because they don't believe they should pay to use them. It's already been discussed that that VP9 may just be a ripoff of H.264 and can have intellectual property issues. Apple, for effciency of mobile devices, desires a standard that can be decoded in hardware for performance and battery life. It pays into the consortium to be a legitimate partner in the development of open source technology where companies work together for the common good.

Apple doesn't support H.265 support either. Why? Like Google they refuse to pay for it. The royalties and open patent questions surrounding it are a problem. There's also no evidence whatsoever that VP9 is treading on IP controlled by the H.264 consortium AFAIK.  Did you read something different? 

1) The technically support H.265 in iOS when both devices are an iPhone 6(?) series or better -and- when both are using cellular for FaceTime video calls. I'd like to think they did that to work out any issues before launching it for high-bitrate files, but the truth probably falls closer to not applying to high-bitrate video because of royalty licensing, whereas FaceTime calls are license and cost-free between users.

2) Whether there is evidence or not, the threat of VP8+ infringing on MPEG and other patent holder's algorithms and codes are still very real. As we've seen with patent trolls, you can sit on even an unused patent for many years and then sue them in the Eastern District of Texas for royalties on every device ever sold. That said, every major company that designs processor architecture supports HW-based VP9 decoding, with some chips supporting HW-based VP9-encoding. Then you have AV1 coming as an extension of VP9 later this year with major backers like Amazon, Netflix, and Alphabet (YouTube) you probably have most of the video traffic being served, so that looks promising.

MPEG already settled with Google over VP8+ in 2015. That made all licensees of VP8 and /or WebM completely safe from any claim of patent infringement by the MPEG-LA H.264 consortium. That's why Microsoft finally had no excuse for not using VP8+ and took a license from Google for their Edge browser. Safari is the last hold-out among major browsers isn't it? 

There's absolutely no way that MPEG settling with Google in 2015 means that there can be no other issues from MPEG or from any other potential patent holder. It's illogically to make any such claim.

Well you are correct that anything is possible, even if unlikely. Apple doesn't seem to typically avoid including features over the possibility that there might be someone someday that sues them for infringing some patent potentially connected to it. So I don't personally think Apple's decision (so far) not to support Google's royalty-free VP9 is due to that either. 

I think technicalities may be more effective on Apple's decision than patent risks. Intel Quick Sync Video has only a partial VP9 support in Skylake, and 10 bit decode vs. 8-bit encode for VP9 vs. 10 bit decode/encode for H.265 in Kaby Lake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video

Apple has also other realms to consider, such as iTunes and AppleTV content.

9secondkox2 said:

hledgard said:

The ARS Technica article is great.  Very Professional.

They are people so bias shows up sometimes. 

However they hey are some of the most professional and objective folks out there. 

Ou wont find much in the way of clickbait, bashing, sensationalism, etc. 

They belong on any tech pro or fans frequent reference list. 

One thing they omitted in that article is that Apple's battery estimates are based on 8 GB RAM. 16 GB RAM would consume more battery, obviously, because the RAM continuously draws power, there is no way to turn it on and off and it has no idle time.

jumpcutter said:

I am glad this has happened. Apple can not ignore these test results from Consumer Reports. Whenever I have made a claim about an Apple product to AppleCare, they seem to express the claim as a surprise. "We never heard this before" is always their initial response. I am concerned because Apple will try to discredit CR then try and solve the problem. I do not trust Schiller... he is in charge of marketing hence "the cover up."  Sorry, Tim Cook should be addressing this issue.

... If there is an issue at all. Apple can clearly describe the tests the battery estimations are based on. CR cannot clearly explain their tests. And this is all this article is about.

Here are Apple's explanations. Footnote #2 quoted below :
http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

1. ...
2. Testing conducted by Apple in October 2016 using preproduction 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with a 256GB SSD and 8GB of RAM (wireless web test, iTunes movie playback test, and standby test). Testing conducted by Apple in October 2016 using preproduction 2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with a 512GB SSD and 8GB of RAM (wireless web test and iTunes movie playback test) and preproduction 2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with a 256GB SSD and 8GB of RAM (standby test). The wireless web test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing 25 popular websites with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%. The iTunes movie playback test measures battery life by playing back HD 1080p content with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%. The standby test measures battery life by allowing a system, connected to a wireless network and signed in to an iCloud account, to enter standby mode with Safari and Mail applications launched and all system settings left at default. Battery life varies by use and configuration. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information.

bocaboy2591 said:

I have this problem with my new 15" 2016 MacBook Pro. I'm lucky if I get 4-4:30 while running on battery. I use Chrome, not Safari, so "switching" isn't going to solve my problem. I love my new computer, but I expected to get close to or better than the 10 hours that was claimed by Apple. Battery life is a big part of owning a portable computer. If the claim in 10 hours, then that's what it should be able to deliver. Lastly, check out the Discussions forums over this issue. There are hundreds of posts with users having this problem. Consumer Reports was right to withhold their approval until this issue is resolved.

Chrome is known as a memory hog. Check at least its extensions, they may inject extra Javascript code. Also find an ad blocker like Ghostery to disable some ads and trackers. Trackers inject a lot of Javascript code. There is a utility called gfxCardStatus, it monitors which GPU is in use. Install it to check if there is a background process that continuously uses the AMD Radeon GPU. Also enable Automatic Graphics Switching in Energy Saver Preference pane. Open Activity Monitor, click on Energy tab, click the column heading Energy Impact to sort by that and check the processes that use the most energy. Keep the Brightness around 75% as specified in Apple battery tests. Use the Touch Bar to dim keyboard lights. If you cannot fine tune your battery usage using these techniques then the nuclear option is a clean installation of macOS Sierra.