Gilliam_Bates

blastdoor said:

They should sell a Cochlear implant called AirPods nano

lkrupp said:

WTF is a ‘digital epidemiologist’? Sounds like a bureaucracy on steroids. First we had the French ‘digital technology minister’. Now we have a Swedish ‘digital epidemiologist’. here in the U.S. we call them ‘czars’ I guess. Any differences other than expanding the bureaucracy exponentially?

KidAKidB said:

What a joke. This is fine for children, but which professional setting would ever accept such a thing? This is not what anyone is asking for, but I guess Apple is showing once again that they have no idea what a professional would want.

Rayz2016 said:

DAalseth said:

Xed said:

DAalseth said:

lkrupp said:

Wait, didn’t the experts and self-appointed engineers tell us a couple of years ago that project Titan was dead and buried? 

I have no problem saying that I will be astonished if Apple ever actually releases a car. As a development project for systems to go into other people’s cars, fine. But I don’t see Apple having the expertise in making things like trunk latches, or seat mechanisms, etc.

Why not? What expertise did any automaker have before they were automakers? What about Apple do you find so incompetent as a company that they can't figure out how to design, who to hire, or what vendor to buy from for something as mundane as a trunk latch?

Not incompetent, inexperienced. Damler, Ford, and the rest have decades of experience designing these things. They know what works. An engineer with one of the established companies can suggest an idea that’s new to them, and one of the old hands can say, “we tried that in ‘93 and the customers didn’t like it for X, Y, and Z reasons.” Apple won’t have that. And I know the standard response is “but they didn’t know anything about phones. But the iPhone was the descendant of the iPod, which was the descendant of the Newton. Apple had been making devices like that before, even if they weren’t that exact one. Apple has no experience with drivetrains, and suspensions, and wipers, and door hinges. Neither did Dihatsu or Kia, or Honda, and each made a decade of crap before they figured out how to do it. And they each hired some of the best engineers in the business too. It isn’t just about engineering. It’s institutional knowledge. Apple has no institutional knowledge about making vehicles. That’s why I don’t think they will ever produce a car. The backlash of an Apple car tarnishing the brand for a decade isn’t something I think they would be willing to endure. 

An interesting viewpoint that ignores the Apple Watch, and makes no mention of Apple’s interest in preventative medicine and Apple Energy which sells power to the national grid. It also ignores the fact that Apple had no experience of music players before launching the iPod, and no experience of selling music online before iTunes. 

You also tried to claim that the iPhone was the descendant of the iPod. That is also incorrect. When the iPhone was launched, the iPod still used the click-wheel interface, didn’t run apps and couldn’t make phone calls. Apple had no experience of dealing with networks, which is what prompted similar comments to yours from industry leaders. The modern iPod is basically an iPhone that can’t make phone calls: the iPod is now a descendant of the iPhone. 

Time and time again, Apple has proved “institutional knowledge” doesn’t actually matter. 

gentooguy said:

Kind of a silly "comparison." If you like Android and need a secondary or cheaper device, get a Motorola or Nokia (not a Samsung which will only get one update). If you like iOS and need a secondary or cheaper device this is as good an option as there is if you are fine with less than a 5' screen. Also, unlike the Android sites - which regularly recommend iPads over Android tablets and even recently admitted that the iPhone is better for productivity if you have a MacBook (but that Android is better for entertainment?!?) or the Windows sites that reluctantly admit the merits of Android and macOS and iOS - you are never going to find any Apple site that will acknowledge that any Android device is better - or even a good option - for any user in any context. So why even bother with articles like these? Go back to articles maybe 4 years ago prior to the iPhone 6. If you said you needed a larger screen and a stylus and a bunch of other features that weren't present in iOS at the time but were major differentiators for Android this site claimed: no one needs a stylus, screens bigger than 4' inches are tacky and trash, all the extra Android features are gimmicks etc. so no one "needs" a stylus or a bigger screen so no one should get a Galaxy Note or any other Android device. Immediately after Apple comes out with those features? Oh my goodness these are the greatest things imaginable that REALLY open up mobile computing! So, yeah right. Again. First off, there is no reason to make the comparison in the first place. Second, even if there were, there isn't a single Apple site on the planet that would actually acknowledge that an Android device is actually worthy of comparison. I don't know maybe it is the inferiority complex that Apple fans have that comes from Apple being dominated by Wintel for 30 years in the PC market that prevents Apple fans from being able to acknowledge the merits of the competition. Which again strangely Windows, Android and even Linux fans have no problem doing. Example: lots of Linux diehards will freely acknowledge the benefits of either getting the best Windows device you can find and dual booting - and will even recommend such that are ideal for it like the Dell XPS line - or state that Macs are "the next best thing" for those who can afford at least $2500 for one worth having. It is only Apple sites that pretend to "compare" their products with products from only platforms, shockingly "decide" that the areas where the Apple products are superior are the ones that truly matter to the comparison areas and the other areas are "gimmicks", "poorly implemented" or "no one uses them anyway" and then cites Apple marketing slogans as objective facts in "reviews."