auxio

stuke said:

What a shame.  When Filmic Pro went to Bending Spoons, the legacy community of Pro users revolted...see the app ratings...as their bought once app went to subscriptions (weekly, really?).  A year later, we read/hear this.  Here's hoping Barham gathers the original, brilliant Filmic crew, starts a new company, and rebuilds the loyalty with a new set of IP behind a new videography tool, reminiscent of the original Filmic.  I'm sure there are NDA and IP implications to making Filmic Pro, Filmic Pro again; however, I'm praying the originals can come back as a phoenix and go back to the non-lease-ware/non-rent-ware/non-subscription way of business!  I'm waiting.

Unfortunately that's the reality most software companies have come to: you have continual costs of development & support, and it's impossible to continually pay those costs when you only charge once. They used to try charging for major upgrades, but many customers would simply stay on the same version they originally purchased forever and never pay again. Hence why the subscription model started.

That said, if they're not adding any new features/refinements to the software and still collecting those subscription fees, customers definitely have a right to be angry. Not sure who is to blame for that (a disgruntled team and/or management reallocating them to other projects), but it's not surprising that a subscription product which has languished for 2 years isn't doing well.

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

Anilu_777 said:

I still wonder why Google even cares about this and then why it’s pushing so hard. I don’t trust Google. 

Oh, let me clarify that for you. Google wants to a) collect data from messages, and b) push rich advertising into messages, which of course they would benefit from.

I didn’t make this up — it’s been referred to in previous articles talking about Google’s version of RCS. Apple would never allow crap like that, so Google was never going to get Apple to adopt their version of RCS.

I am actually starting to feel bad for Android users, because if Google gets its way their experience in messaging is about to get a lot crappier.

Google cannot collect user data from Google Messages RCS. End of story. So yeah, you made that part up.

They know who is messaging who, which is still worth something since it builds knowledge of connections between people.

Tried it out. Since I don't have any cloud PCs set up on Azure, it's basically just Microsoft Remote Desktop. I could see this being useful for organizations who want to provide cloud access to internally configured PCs, and it looks like there are ways to create virtual PCs on Azure servers, but otherwise it's the same ole remote desktop technology that's been around for ages.

dutchlord said:

As if there was a performance problem. I never had performance issues with any Intel/M powered mac. Even my 8 year old Macbook Pro still handles any workflow. It reminds me of another Apple obsession making devices thinner. Apple should focus on more usefull features like extended battery life, satellite internet, cloud backup, touch screen MacBooks etc

The ole, "everyone is the same as me" argument.

Are you building machine learning models? Making movies in 8K? Building high resolution 3D models? Then did you consider that perhaps you don't actually need to buy a MacBook Pro? The word "Pro" is unfortunately just a status symbol for a lot of people who don't truly understand what it means.

avon b7 said:

auxio said:

sirdir said:

If apple had done what they originally promised and opened iMessage and Facetime, there wouldn’t be a problem. 
I’m not a big fan of EU sticking their noses into businesses either, but if they need to be forced to do the right thing… That’s what’s going to happen. It’s the same as with USB-C. If they’d done the obviously right thing years ago, there wouldn’t be a law now. 

Where was USB-C again in 2012 when Apple introduced Lightning?

This was the convoluted state of USB at that time:



It took Apple to show the USB group how to design a connector "right". But pride and/or poor long term memory would never allow people to admit that.

To be fair, everyone already knew how to design a reversible connector. The designers of the original USB variants deliberately ruled out a reversible connector because it would have increased manufacturing costs and it was important to get industry onboard. 

Once it had established itself as 'universal' the reversible connector could be planned. 

It wasn't the costs, it was mainly that there were so many competing interests and they were trying to make everyone happy. Different power requirements for different devices, form factors, etc.

I worked on both the Firewire and USB drivers for Linux and the USB communication/bus control protocols were far far more complicated. Not surprising that, even still with USB-C and having learned from the past, there are still all sorts of bugs and quirks in the driver stack on most OSes. The complexity of USB is part of the reason Apple went in their own direction at the time.