mistergsf

gatorguy said:

There must be the smell of blood in the water. 

Personally I think its a given that Apple will end up modifying the AppStore developer terms. Voluntarily would be the best way but I'm suspecting ti's too late for that with the sharks circling and antitrust investigations underway around the globe. As the App Store goes so will Google Play.

tundraboy said:

 '"Forcing users to use the App Store instead of Dapps (websites), or IAP instead of crypto payments, reminds me of what Microsoft did back in the day (forcing users to use IE if you were on Windows) which led to all their antitrust issues," Armstrongs says. '

No Mr. Armstrong.  Windows had a monopoly (okay an overwhelmingly dominant market position) in desk/laptop OSes.  iPhone doesn't even have a majority of the smartphone market.  Your analogy doesn't apply.  Complaining that Apple is a monopoly because it is the sole seller of Apple iPhones is like accusing Audi of monopolizing the market for Audi cars.  It's stupid talk.

Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters?  Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in?  Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?

Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society.  Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.

22july2013 said:

DAalseth said:

Xed said:

I love my BotVac but I may get a Roomba next since they have the dirt repository and now offer them with a D-shape design.

DAalseth said:

Low light operation? Why would it care how light it is in the room? Our Roomba doesn't.

As the article states, it increases effectiveness in low-light, not that it stops working.

But why? The Roomba we have has no eyes, it follows a pattern. Does the Neato literally look for dirt?

I value your opinions whenever I read them. 

However, all Neato's have worked with lasers from the very beginning and they always work in perfect darkness. In fact they should work better in perfect darkness than in light. Their website currently says Neato's work "even in the dark". Roomba's in the early days worked exclusively with random motion, which by definition contains no "pattern." All Roomba's for sale on their website today come with "optical vision." You said your Roomba has no eyes, but works on a pattern. I don't see how that's possible since the visionless Roomba's had to work randomly while the optical Roomba does work with a pattern. So which is it? Is your Roomba blind or not? If it's blind then by necessity it must work randomly with no patterns. However some models like the 980 had dirt sensors that allowed them to detect the sound of dirt and they did repeat over dirty areas using that information. Please free me of my confusion.

I think the article wasn't trying to say low light was a new Neato feature, but that it's a current and continuing feature. Something seems to have been worded poorly. All current models of Roomba use optical cameras and probably should be asking HomeKit to turn on all the lights while it does its cleaning. Neato's don't need any light.

My model is XV-21. Nothing I write here is as certain as General Relativity because I'm just an average consumer, not an expert.

razorpit said:

Biggest question I have, do these things work? As a pet owner I’d love to have one but can’t help but think what would happen if it were to run in to an unnoticed pile of cat or dog throw up.  

DAalseth said:

Low light operation? Why would it care how light it is in the room? Our Roomba doesn't.