anonconformist

GeorgeBMac said:

I'm glad to see the iPad go to Bluetooth connections for the external keyboard.   That smart connector was a throwback to the 90's -- I never understood why they didn't just make it a PS2 connection.

Go to it?

it’s not remotely new for the iPad to use Bluetooth keyboards. I didn’t try it with my first generation iPad, but my iPad Mini first gen and both my newer iPads have always worked fine with Bluetooth keyboards: at a minimum, the Bluetooth keyboard that came with my 2014 retina iMac (I had no need for a Bluetooth keyboard earlier, and frankly, it’s not worth the bother to have a wireless keyboard you need to worry about batteries in a desktop) works great and makes it easy to type as fast on even the first gen iPad Mini as the iMac.

steveau said:

Good analysis and the suggestions for improvements are all relevant, but you have missed the big improvement that is totally necessary if the iPad is to be truly post-PC: native handwriting recognition. If you have a touch sensitive screen and a stylus, why do you have to mimic a PC and have an on screen keyboard, or look even more like a laptop and have an attached keyboard? Clearly, people who want to use a keyboard or voice dictation should be able to have that flexibility, but that freedom should also be extended to people who would prefer to write (and I suspect that with good enough software that would be most of us). Apple holds all the best patents on HWR (a legacy of the Newton), so they should either (A) develop the functionality into a future iOS release, (B) spin off a separate company (like Filemaker) to develop it as an app, or (C) sell off the patents. Options B and C make no sense to me, so here's hoping that they will finally realise that while a finger is great as a mouse replacement, the stylus is great as a pen replacement, and both should be supported. Native HWR will truly be the killer app for the iPad - and if the patents are strong enough, uncopyable.

The only people that would use handwriting on their computing devices when a keyboard is available are:

1. Those that don't have a working keyboard
2. Those that are too lazy to learn how to type
3. Those that have a very special use-case

Very few people can write on anything by hand much faster than 20 words per minute, while a common typing speed is 40 WPM, and that's not remotely fast: I was able to do that while doing hunt-and-peck over 20 years ago: at this time, I'm capable of typing (no hunt-and-peck) at 90 WPM.  I'm not saying everyone can hope to get that fast (as a software engineer, and before, I've been typing for ~=35 years of my 45 year life, no typing class, just experience) but the point is, even the best handwriting recognition won't make handwriting nearly as efficient as typing is now, for those that know how to type.

Here's the thing: if you have the coordination (which I really don't) to handwrite decently fast, you can also do the typing faster as a result: thus, there's no valuable reason to depend on handwriting on a computer if you have a keyboard you can use, if you don't need to do other graphic input at the same time.

The only meaningfully valid use-case for handwriting recognition would be for something like taking notes in a math class where you are also drawing complex equations with symbols and want to see the graphical representation: in that context, typing with a regular keyboard would possibly be less efficient for regular typing, largely because higher math symbols are a nuisance to work with on any keyboard, and arranging typographical relationships via a keyboard is less than ideal.

bestkeptsecret said:

somethingsometh said:

bobroo said:

$7B in Robots.

Nothing to get excited over.

You must have missed the "30,000 - 50,000" jobs thing.

I'm not able to reconcile the 2 bits of information. Automated manufacturing means less human intervention. How exactly are the 30-50k jobs being created? You don't need that many people to manage the automation plant. Are these permanent jobs or temporary work contracts for installing and setting up the automation plant?

I can't imagine a scale of manufacturing that uses automation and needs 50k jobs. I'm definitely missing something here.

My formal education is focused on robotics/automation.  While it's possible that there could be that many jobs involved, the amount of production required would be huge.  If the robotics/automation used is rather reliable, a rather light number of technicians for fixing/training the robots is required (unless they're using custom machines for each manufacturing cell, if you train one, you've trained many) and there's not much regular recurring need for humans changing things.  It'd likely be a largely lights-out factory.  Where most of the humans would be required are for putting things into trucks, dealing with deliveries, dealing with things that don't recur in a manner that are cheap/easy to automate, but even that's not that many jobs.

Even if they keep updating the technology on a yearly basis, that still doesn't mean that many employed people to make it happen, with how things are assembled and tested: I've been there, done that, on a clean room automated environment (I worked 4 years in a CD production plant).  Because they'd be making displays, chances are this will be a clean room facility, though it may not need as stringent cleanliness as even a compact disc requires.

jdw said:

So basically what you are saying is that all MacBooks and AIRs and Pros made within the last 10 years to date have basically the same battery tech and charging techniques, such that WHEN PLUGGED INTO A WALL SOCKET, the Macs (for reasons unknown to us) discharge and charge the batteries in such a horrible way that it shortens the very life of the battery.  Is that right?

And of course, that is why you are suggesting that no one should perpetually plug into a wall socket but instead draw from battery power only and then use the socket only to change the Mac when NOT IN USE.  Is that correct?

I had already indicated that this is something with the battery technology in general: it's NOT specific to Apple or any maker of computer.

Once a battery is at 100%, it is deliberately NOT topped-off constantly, as that wears on them as well.  They're purposely allowed to be used to some extent (I've seen it go down to about 95% charge, and this doesn't seem to matter on the machine: my machine at work (PC) does the same sort of thing) so as to not force the battery to try to take on extra charge.  Batteries are generally quickly recharged to about 80% capacity, and the last 20% is trickle charged, which is a much slower rate, to extend the life of the battery.  Charging a battery shortens the life: a deep discharge shortens the life: not using it shortens the life.  There is a balance to be achieved.

I didn't state one way or the other that you should never use it while plugged into the wall, at least not as precisely as you've inferred: if that's how you read it, sorry about that.  Running it off main power is fine, as long as you keep the battery at some level of regular charge/discharge.  After all, would it make sense to say "Oh, my battery is discharged, I can't use it until I charge it back up, while it's charging!" so no, that's not the issue

I looked in the last few hours: Apple has changed what they say about batteries since the last time I checked, but I can also find posts by others that confirm what I stated Apple said previously.  Unfortunately, Apple isn't in the habit of putting time/date stamps on their site for materials and when it was last updated, and, once again, in this updated statement, they didn't refer to any particular models beyond generalities.

Here's where Spotify loses out in competition with Apple if Apple gets everyone (copyright holders, at least) to agree to higher royalty rates across the board:

Apple doesn't need to make any money on the music itself, as it makes money on the hardware used to play it, and the whole Halo Effect.

Apple's best business move would be paying a rate that keeps a neutral financial gain from the music royalties versus sales alone, assuming the government doesn't decide even that's too aggressive due to using their other strengths to leverage their rates.