holyone

avon b7 said:

At first, and depending on the render, I wasn't sure if I liked the camera placement setup.

Over time I've reached the conclusion that something seems wrong. It seems lopsided.

There was talk of making them less visible in the final product. I hope that's the case.

My question is why doesn't Jony just elongate the current set up to fit three cameras and then turn the round flash into a long strip, place it outside the bump elegantly parallel ? I just can't see this square thing looking good even if it was completely flush, I think there's a HUAWEI with 3 cam square setup that's quite objectionable.

AppleZulu said:

holyone said:

AppleZulu said:

holyone said:

AppleZulu said:

holyone said:

franklinjackcon said:

ihatescreennames said:

franklinjackcon said:

DanielEran said:

franklinjackcon said:

I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.

The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)

d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it

Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4.  Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected.  Nobody cared.  But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.

That’s just one example.

Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.

Agreed, it's Apple loons who think that there actually are people who seriously dedicte their time and energy to hating and conspiring against a near trillion $ company. It seems DED can no longer write an Apple article without bringing up the same companies that aren't really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple. Google is a search engine ad company, Amazon is an everything online store, Samsung is the everything electronics and appliances store, Apple is the iPhone/computer company, in what universe can you reasonably equate any of these business models ? constantly implying that since Apple is the only one succeeding at the computer business (which is their model) means the rest are implicitly evil and out to exploit and harm people is ridiculous. Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones, if it didn't it be out the window i.e China.

I think the companies you claim here “aren’t really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple” would all be surprised to learn that they aren’t. Today, particularly the folks at Samsung, who just were told by a jury to fork over half a billion dollars to Apple for reasons that really do seem to relate to direct competition. Doesn’t Google produce Android OS? I could swear Samsung, Google and Amazon have all manufactured phones, speakers and other devices that compete directly with Apple. 

Yeah, I am almost certain these companies (and others) are all direct competitors with Apple. I also think, when millions and billions of dollars are at stake, it’s quite likely that all kinds of businesses commonly hire all kinds of consultants, industrial spies, PR firms and troll farms to try to gather and manipulate information about their competitors. 

You missed "in any significant way", yes Sammy makes Phones but that is not their primary business and yes Goog make phones and owns the most used mobile OS in the world but again that is not their primary money maker and Amazon makes a hole lotta things and any that are coincidentally also made by Apple are a rounding error in the books, but Zulu ( I can speak Zulu btw) you can't seriously claim Samsung, Google and Amazon are all phone/computer companies in the same way and to the same degree that Apple is, no one can, Apple killed off all the phone companies, Nokia, Moto, BB were all directly comparable to what Apple is today and all are dead. Samsung make washing machines for haven's sake, glad the case is over though God that dragged on for ever, I had even forgotten, Sammy is in no way shape or form Apple's peer.

Didn’t miss anything, actually. You’re trying to claim that “in any significant way” is a qualifier that allows you to make a ridiculous assertion, then backpedal that you didn’t really mean it, except that you did. A jury just awarded Apple a half a billion dollars from Samsung for patent violations for a product Samsung introduced in direct competition with Apple. Now, let’s see if Samsung tries to appeal that. I’m guessing that they’ll think a half a billion dollars qualifies as significant. 

You’re trying to argue that because Samsung also makes washing machines, and Google makes a search engine, the places where they overlap with Apple are essentially insignificant corporate dalliances and hobby projects. You know that argument is nonsensical, but you want to have things both ways. That’s like a guy trying to convince his wife that his habit of regularly doinking a coworker is ‘nothing significant’ because the coworker totally has a husband and family outside their doinking sessions at the office and is in no way shape or form his wife’s peer.

@applezulu ;

Firstly: "That’s like a guy trying to convince his wife that his habit of regularly doinking a coworker is ‘nothing significant’ because the coworker totally has a husband and family outside their doinking sessions at the office and is in no way shape or form his wife’s peer." supper hilarious  

Secondly I'm not sure what the argument you're making has to do with what I'm saying, so I'll try to put it in another way, Apple Music is a streaming service like Spotify is a streaming service, but in no way is Spotify Inc the same as Apple Inc, in no way is Spotify as a company a "significant" rival or competitor to Apple as a company they aren't even in the same league even though Apple music is the same as Spotify (I hope that that isn't what you are saying) if this is true for Apple + Spotify then it should also be true for Apple + Samsung, Google, Amazon etc.  

PS you're comment feels spiteful and defensive, please remember we are having a friendly discussion no need to feel attacked, theres nothing to be worn or lost, if I've come to an incorrect conclusion about something I'm more than willing to be corrected but you also must be or we'll be going around in circles

Firstly, no spitefulness here, and no ad hominem, either. Just challenging an argument you presented.

Secondly, if you’re arguing that no other company is exactly like Apple, I suppose that’s true, but it’s also irrelevant. Big companies like Apple or Google or Samsung compete with each other in some categories and not in others. That is true. Saying that because a company is only competing in a given category, it’s therefore not competing “in any significant way” is just a silly, diversionary point. No, Spotify is not the same as Apple in every way, but they are absolutely a big competeitor in the music streaming market, which is something that Apple has heavily invested in. The fact that Spotify currently has more paid subscribers than Apple Music is not some insignificant concern for Apple. Music is an incredibly important piece of Apple’s business model. That content is a critical component of the Apple ecosystem that keeps customers coming back for updated hardware, which is Apple’s core business. Streaming services pulled the rug out from under iTunes, which had been a critical means to keep customers buying iPods and iPhones. So streaming services created a vector for separating consumers from that ecosystem. Now we have Apple Music, which is rapidly building a subscriber base to compete with and overtake Spotify. All of these companies that you’ve dismissed are in fact absolutely significant competitors for Apple. Claiming otherwise is just silly.

@AppleZulu true competition is when adversaries of equal strengths are competing for the same thing i.e Mercedes Benz / BMW, not only do they operate in the same exact way they also compete for the same customer, the Spotify example was an attempt to demonstrate that even though Sportify is similar to Apple in some ways the ways in which it is dissimilar is of greater significance and impact to how well Sportify can compete with Apple. I m not claiming zero competition only that the competition is not optimal enough to be effective. If competition is ineffective it does not exist. Xiomi is Apple's counterpart far more that Google or Amazon but Xiomi is no Apple challenger. 

Most of Google's attention and focus goes to its search divisions because that's the business that's how they make money, most of Amazon's focus and efforts go to its prime and cloud arms coz that's the hole ball game, there is thus less resources left to the areas in which both these companies compete with Apple directly, areas that are primary to Apple's business and get nearly all of Apple's attention and focus, this isn't true completion, these companies mealy compete in being big tech companies. Because they do different things they are driven by different priorities thus they possess incomparable proficiencies and competence tuned for what they do best. This lack of focus is the primary reason no one make devices of Apple's quality at scale like them which is what a competitor would have to do to effectively and significantly challenge Apple

There is no company that does what google does better than Google, Apple couldn't beat Google at their game in a hundred year and visa versa, what is silly is the assertion that just because Google Amazon Samsung and Apple are often talked about together in Tech commentaries that they are thefor the same and compete, if you drive a Benz you can't also use BMW's idrive at the same time, but you can pull out you're iPhone right now launch Chrome "google" amazon and buy a book about BMW.

You're position is acceptable only on a general level, which is that, all these are big tech compaties and compete for impact and size but because each is so big in its respective area that they compete on a wide industry level and effectively mascle any small competitor out as evidenced by how easilly Apple music challenged Spotify, it wasn't because AM is that much better, it was because Spoty has no phone of its own, even if it did it wouldn't be iPhone size because its only a music streaming service, music is primary to its business, but to Apple music is complementary and supplementary not primary by any stretch of the imagination. Looking around the closest competitor to Apple is Sammy but only if you squint, and you're position that an accountant who's a gifted player but only plays tennis in his pare time counts as competition to Roger F. who does nothing but play tennis is extremely baffling to me.  

StrangeDays said:

holyone said:

franklinjackcon said:

ihatescreennames said:

franklinjackcon said:

DanielEran said:

franklinjackcon said:

I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.

The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)

d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it

Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4.  Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected.  Nobody cared.  But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.

That’s just one example.

Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.

Agreed, it's Apple loons who think that there actually are people who seriously dedicte their time and energy to hating and conspiring against a near trillion $ company. It seems DED can no longer write an Apple article without bringing up the same companies that aren't really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple. Google is a search engine ad company, Amazon is an everything online store, Samsung is the everything electronics and appliances store, Apple is the iPhone/computer company, in what universe can you reasonably equate any of these business models ? constantly implying that since Apple is the only one succeeding at the computer business (which is their model) means the rest are implicitly evil and out to exploit and harm people is ridiculous. Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones, if it didn't it be out the window i.e China.

Says what authority? If you think the level of effort apple has put into environment or privacy values is equal to other corps you’re delusional. 

I didn't say it was equal, just that it's not pure nobility it's marketing intended to generate sales like all marketing. Apple isn't good or evil, there are no good or evil companies, they are all out to make money, Apple like all other brand companies is selling a brand, like Chanel or BMW, the brand transmits a massage about the company that the company hopes will resonate with their targeted customers to the point of generating a sale, the company associates the brand with social causes and ideas that will best achieve this, Biz school 101 really. Strange can you honestly say that Apple's environmental and privacy efforts aren't one of the reasons we are so loyal and infatuated with Apple and why its brand holds such esteem and people are proud to own Apple products to the irrational point that we absolutely loathe Google or Samsung ? does Apple not do these things in part to paint it self in a light that it knows will romance the pants/cash off it's customers ? BTW I don't see this as bad, evil or deceitful, its great, after all it's just business

franklinjackcon said:

ihatescreennames said:

franklinjackcon said:

DanielEran said:

franklinjackcon said:

I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.

The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)

d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it

Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4.  Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected.  Nobody cared.  But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.

That’s just one example.

Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.

Agreed, it's Apple loons who think that there actually are people who seriously dedicte their time and energy to hating and conspiring against a near trillion $ company. It seems DED can no longer write an Apple article without bringing up the same companies that aren't really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple. Google is a search engine ad company, Amazon is an everything online store, Samsung is the everything electronics and appliances store, Apple is the iPhone/computer company, in what universe can you reasonably equate any of these business models ? constantly implying that since Apple is the only one succeeding at the computer business (which is their model) means the rest are implicitly evil and out to exploit and harm people is ridiculous. Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones, if it didn't it be out the window i.e China.

DavidAlGregory said:

Nobody with the money to afford an iPhone wants a Fandroid anything except the crowd still holding out for LINUX to be the next big thing in Desktop/Laptop computing.

Exactly.

Most people who can afford Apple have Apple, this is the dumbest thing android world does. What competent company pays people to use its devices, it be so sad if it wasn't so sad.