MplsP

About

Username
MplsP
Joined
Visits
2,881
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
9,916
Badges
2
Posts
4,181
  • Trump Mobile's made-in-US iPhone 17 competitor is really made in China


    mattinoz said:
    netrox said:
    I am betting that Trump phone will be used to harvest user data and to pump their propaganda into users. 
    Yep good luck installing anything other than Truth-Social[sic] 
    You can probably use Signal
    right_said_fredronnmattinozwatto_cobramacgui
  • Trump Mobile's made-in-US iPhone 17 competitor is really made in China

    narwhal said:
    I just don’t know if the world is ready for a urine-colored phone.
    😂 😂 😂

    In all fairness, virtually every new iPhone unveiling has had Tim Cook (or someone from apple) proudly announcing the latest color addition to the lineup followed by an expectant pause then some obligatory/dutiful applause. Although none of the iPhones are Trump-urine colored…
    williamlondonronn9secondkox2watto_cobra
  • Liquid Glass is more than skin deep on macOS Tahoe

    So, AI's writers seem to be having trouble distinguishing what is Liquid Glass and what is not. Liquid Glass is specifically a full cosmetic makeover, including some changes in the way UI elements behave and react, that is being applied simultaneously to all of Apple's OSs. The Spotlight changes — e.g., a clipboard manager — you reference above, apart from the appearance and behavioral changes in the controls themselves, are not part of Liquid Glass.

    Likewise, not every enhancement to every OS is necessarily related to Liquid Glass. Yes, these new features do appear with Liquid Glass UI elements, but that doesn't mean they depend on Liquid Glass to exist. Apple could have added a clipboard manager even if they had not included Liquid Glass in this release. So, basically, if you are looking at enhancements that are, "more than skin deep," they are probably not part of Liquid Glass, even if you have never seen them using any other "skin".
    It’s both ui and UX. Comprehensive UI and only changing some UX. 
    The point was that there is no connection between Liquid Glass, and changes to Spotlight or Clipboard managers. Rather these are separate things that are only coincidentally associated because they are in the same release. That Liquid Glass almost literally is in fact only skin deep.
    Exactly. They could have made all of the changes without the liquid glass appearance. Conversely, they could have applied the liquid glass appearance to Sequoia without changing how it functioned. 
    The one area where all of this transparency or translucency falters, though, is in readability. If you can't read what you need or you can't find the app you want, Liquid Glass would be sap productivity. And it's possible to get into just that situation.
    This is the critical flaw with Liquid Glass. None of the examples in the article seem to improve usability at all and often seem to hinder it. That, folks, is simply poor design.
    VictorMortimer
  • Hands on with all the new CarPlay features in iOS 26

    Meh, still waiting for the next generation CarPlay they demoed with Jaguar. 
    watto_cobra
  • Craig Federighi says macOS would ruin what makes the iPad special

    In general I agree with Federighi. The iPad generally works well at what it does but not so well when you push to do things outside of what it (or the OS) is designed to do. What people really want is a device with the strengths and ease if the iPad touch interface with the power and flexibility of a Mac. That's far easier said than done. 

    The iPad is absolutely capable of running MacOS but Apple clearly doesn't want a Microsoft Surface cluster where you have something that doesn't work well in either capacity. That was part of the problem with many early touch devices - they tried to take the desktop interface and use it as a touch interface and it didn't work. Apple rethought things with the iPhone and iPad and make something that works well and has slowly evolved the interface.

    The problem with 'writing one program for both devices' is that the interface is different between the two devices so you'd either having a poorly designed program that works on both or effectively writing two programs anyway. It would be far easier to have an iPad program work on a Mac but then people would complain that its functionality was crippled. 

    Finally, for the people who say 'Apple should let us install MacOS on the iPad,' that would require some significant rewriting of the OS and if Apple were to do that then they would also be endorsing MacOS on the iPad with all the limitations, which is exactly what this entire thread is about.
    watto_cobra