DanielEran

raulcristian said:

Great article as usual.

I think this is a typo, though: "by being boring and moving to slow" (discussing Microsoft). I think it should read moving TOO slow.

Thanks and sorry if I am wrong.

Thanks for the correction

Dracarys said:

andrewj5790 said:

sfolax said:

"April Fools" then continues to post links to his own previous articles. DED, you need to relax a little and stop being so defensive on everything.

How many times does this have to be said? No. One. Else. Is. Calling. Out. The. Media. The whole point of DED articles is to defend against what no one else (except the Macalope) will call out as the preposterousness that it is. The whole point of the article is to be defensive, because most normal tech media attacks Apple all the time and builds up these false narratives. 

Except that DED isn't using facts. He's building his own false narratives to fit his own needs. 

The regular media is NOT attacking Apple, they just aren't always shining Apple as being flawless and that rubs DED the wrong way. It's a FACT that Siri is falling behind, it's a FACT that Chromebooks never went after the enterprise market (why would they? What enterprise is going to go for a web browser based OS? It makes no sense at all). 

This article is so self serving that it's not even funny.

1) What "false narrative" did you notice? 

2) The article doesn't say Siri is "flawless," it says "In many cases, Siri simply does not perform well. Many its competitors can do things Siri fails at. Both of those things are true. However, the truth doesn't make everything else it touches also true."

The point you missed what that if consumers actually cared much about voice services, and the difference between Siri and Alexa/Google/Cortana was an important factor, then Fire Phone, Pixel, Windows Mobile wouldn't have been massive flops.

The fact that the two companies that make the worlds best-selling/most expensive premium phones have only "sort of adequate" voice services: Siri and Bixby. If voice services were commercially important to end users, that wouldn't be the case, would it? 

Alternatively, the mobile device platforms that sell the most have a full catalog of apps: iPhone, Android phones and iPad. Windows Mobile, Tizen, ChromeOS & Android tablets all lack broad support for decent apps and so aren't selling at a premium (as you noted).

3) "Chromebooks never went after the enterprise market" is a really foolish thing to say when Google is desperately trying to sell to the enterprise and has been since it came up with the concept of a web-based netbook alternative to Windows back in 2009. The fact that it failed for a decade isn't proof that it didn't happen. 

Also, I think you are using a lot of words that don't mean what you think they mean.

sfolax said:

andrewj5790 said:

sfolax said:

"April Fools" then continues to post links to his own previous articles. DED, you need to relax a little and stop being so defensive on everything.

How many times does this have to be said? No. One. Else. Is. Calling. Out. The. Media. The whole point of DED articles is to defend against what no one else (except the Macalope) will call out as the preposterousness that it is. The whole point of the article is to be defensive, because most normal tech media attacks Apple all the time and builds up these false narratives. 

Give me one example where he was right? 

Look at his first "Truth" 
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/03/24/editorial-bloomberg-spins-apples-event-as-a-desperate-blind-stab-for-cheap-ipads-in-education
Second to last paragraph:

"But of all the things Apple can outline in its education event, "new low-cost iPads" are the least likely to appear. Apple's historical move against cheap commodity has been to release a new leap in functional technology that makes its products more valuable at the same price point. The most obvious step is suggested by the calligraphy of the event's invite, which looks as if drawn by an Apple Pencil."

So what did Apple do? Release a new low cost iPad.
In fact even AI did an article about the lower price for students - https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/03/27/apple-offers-new-ipad-to-schools-and-education-customers-at-discounted-299

I can pull out many other examples where his arguments fell flat. Unfortunately No. One. Else. Is. Calling. Out. The. Hypocrisy.

First off, "defensive" is the wrong word. The article is an offensive attack on lies or just cliche narratives that aren't really accurate and create a false impression. Defensive would be making an excuse. You used the word defensive as part of your own cliche narrative that I write out of "fear" for a multibillion-dollar global company as if AppleInsider shifts international discourse. I write to be right. I've been pretty accurately covering the real trajectory of tech for almost 20 years. 

The previous article you cited actually took Mark Gurman to task for his Bloomberg article "Apple Tries to Win Back Students and Teachers With Low-Cost iPad," carrying water for Google's Chromebook dumping. Three years in, Chromebooks haven't budged an inch in the enterprise. They're still a K-12 phenomenon and growth has stopped. Are you defending that as accurate, because that's a stupid position to try to support. It is, however, the same delusional thing that tech media wonks were saying about Android tablets as I pointed out for years that iPads were gaining in enterprise use and getting real app support while Google just pushed for cheaper and cheaper commodity tablets that were really just big phones. When it tried to raise the price of its Nexus/Pixel tablet and copy iPad, it fell on its face and crawled out of tablets entirely. 

gatorguy said:

Of course you wouldn't want to code around the agreement. You'd code around the patented part of the technology to try and avoid infringing if you don't want to pay the inventor, and I'm sure that's what you've done before if you've been at it very long. No matter how you get there you're building on someone else's hard work while refusing the originator profit for it.

How many times have you seen some good, inventive and hopefully profitable 3rd party feature "copied" in essence by Apple or whoever and integrated into their own software while the person/company with the original idea withers away on the vine? All quite legal as long as the surgery is good.

Your whataboutism and both-sidesing are phony distractions from the fact that:

Google stole significant Java code available under the GPL, then distributed it in violation of that license to make money without paying a licensing fee for Java, without following Suns' licensing rules for Java (stealing control of Sun's platform), and also without respect for the GPL. 

Apple didn't steal code, it didn't steal somebody else's platform, and it didn't violate the GPL just because it might have been convenient for a large company wanting to run things without doing the work to earn or acquire ownership. 

Google also stole content from Yelp, stole content from authors, stole content from news sites, etc and then repressed lawsuits until it achieved monopolistic control over advertising on the web, and everyone just had to agree that it was okay Google scraped their work because they were being given traffic by Google. 

Google also helped its licensees steal clearly patented ideas from iOS, and only escaped there because it was giving away the support of its theft. 

When Apple acquired former Palm talent to build its notification system (which Google had simply ripped off for Android), Android fans accused Apple of taking Google's (unprotected) ideas. But that wasn't true, Google had no ownership, and Apple had been working on it for just as long.

Apple didn't steal code from Android. It didn't steal Unix code, and it worked to make sure its implementation of BSD was legitimate. Apple has had IP disagreements with Nokia, Qualcomm and many others, but those didn't result from Apple deciding to steal their work and just not pay for it because it was a larger company. Further, Apple has shown a willingness to pay the licensing costs of agreements, even when they are not exactly fair. 

Google's culture is all about stealing. It stole its first business model, stole its primary platform, attempted to steal iPhone and iPad, and it steals content with abandon. That's because it's made up largely of Microsoft people, which shared the same steal first, pay later ethos. 

Your consistent, slavish support for Google reflects the same sort of amorality that often takes the shape of hypocrisy as you try to paint Google as perfectly righteous and (at the same time) the rest of the world as "just as criminal." 

GeorgeBMac said:

I thought I heard during the presentation something about multiple students being able to sign onto a single iPad.   Was that for school only (where they're accessing a school app) -- or does it mean a multi-user iPad where each member of the family could use it?

The education Shared iPad feature introduced in iOS 9.3 doesn't work like multiple users on a Mac. It loads server side profiles from a school's local network infrastructure. If you're wondering why an iPad doesn't support swapping between various family members' accounts on the device itself, look how much content each user would have (GB of email, photos, apps, games) and divide the internal storage by the number of users you think it should support.