spheric

About

Username
spheric
Joined
Visits
223
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,428
Badges
1
Posts
2,278
  • Johny Srouji says the Apple Silicon strategy challenged Apple

    tmay said:
    No mention in that article of anything Huawei...

    Really tired of your bias against all things Apple on this very Apple centric site, and your bias for all things Huawei, to the point that you have again today overtly demonstrated the very bias that I have called you out for over and over for all of the years you have been posting here.

    One would think that Huawei would have massive fan sites that you could camp out in, no? 
    Jeez man, LAY OFF ALREADY. 

    The basis of a discussion is not that one side has to be completely wrong and destroyed — that's war. 

    In a discussion, both sides may be right, one's argument may be less applicable or make more sense depending upon the viewpoint. 

    I do have to wonder why the hell you're so utterly terrified that someone other than Apple may have had an idea that everyone's been floating for a decade, and then unsuccessfully followed through on it? 

    Why can't you just write that others' attempts don't appear to have been successful, and that they couldn't compete with existing PC CPU platforms? Are you simply unable to formulate a position without pegging an "enemy" that you need to prove utterly wrong and destroy? 

    Did you know that others had previously unsuccessfully tried in-house CPU architectures for their PCs? 

    I didn't. 

    Do you not find it interesting? Move on, then. Write "that's not relevant" and a brief explanation of why you think so. 

    But your current approach makes it look like you just shat your pants and are holding hostages to distract from it. 
    crowleymuthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Johny Srouji says the Apple Silicon strategy challenged Apple

    What’s with the hate on Avon? 

    He’s absolutely right, Apple wasn’t the first company to take CPU production in-house (though arguably they’d been doing just that for years previously with their iphone/iPad/Watch SoC’s). 

    Apple are the first to do so for traditional PCs in a successful fashion (like, way successful), but they’re also one of the four or five biggest computer manufacturers — and the richest company in the industry. 

    Still, I wasn’t aware of those other efforts. Thanks, Avon, for pointing them out. 

    It seems strange that one of few people on these forums with enough insight into the industry beyond the Apple bubble be met with such antagonism merely for offering perspective to a discussion. 

    I’m surprised that some people apparently can’t accept even the suggestion that others may have had similar impulses to Apple’s, as though their personal identity hinged upon the Biggest Fukcing Company in the History of Everything also being the sole arbiter of everything worthy…? 

    I mean, I was a pretty rabid fanboy in the 90s, but Apple really, really no longer needs that bullshit. Their critical success speaks plenty to the quality of their products. 

    What gives?
    FileMakerFellerwilliamlondondewmemuthuk_vanalingam
  • Apple facing new $5.5 billion App Store antitrust lawsuit in the Netherlands

    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything.  They can choose to if they want.  The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
    You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores. 
    Why would apps not be available on the Apple App Store if they are currently available there? 
    Is the EU mandating that they keep them there? No. 
    How does that translate to they won't be available on the Apple App Store? 
    Is that a serious question? How much Mac software is NOT available through the Mac App Store? There is the stuff that requires more low-level access than is allowed for App Store Apps, but a TON of stuff is simply not there because developers have beef with Apple’s random approval process, unacceptable (to them) rules, changing rules (or enforcement thereof) suddenly killing an app that has been available for years at some minor point update, paid developer account requirement, or simply their 30% cut. 

    What makes you think iOS would be any different?
    watto_cobraDetnatorcgWerks
  • EU will force Apple & Google to allow third-party app stores, payment services

    My takeaway?

    Bunch of ducking idiots I blocked are really pissed and hope Apple somehow loses, while trying to justify the EU position with the flimsiest of arguments.

    Soap-on-a-rope is going be be massively disappointed when Apple prevails. Just like they did in the Irish tax case, and that had a better shot at succeeding than this obviously discriminatory bill.
    The Irish tax dodge is not finally ruled, as the decision will be appealed to the European Court of Justice. 
    FileMakerFeller
  • Apple's AirTag uncovers a secret German intelligence agency

    tundraboy said:
    Democracies should not have super secret intelligence agencies.  Democracies can have super secret intelligence ops but agencies should be publicly known so that they can be held accountable if and when they misbehave.

    So many people do not understand what liberal democracy (the type of government that western countries claim to practice) really means.
    Agreed. Except in this case, the named agencies don't actually exist. 
    ronn