deminsd

zroger73 said:

anantksundaram said:

MplsP said:

As for Sirius, I don't see why they couldn't make an app, but I found Sirius dreadfully overpriced and dumped it as soon as the 6 month trial period was over. 

I pay $8.99 a month. I think that is hardly ‘dreadfully overpriced.’

That's too much. I've been renewing the 6-for-$30 "promotion" for years. With taxes and fees, that comes out to about $6 per month, but that's still too much for the limited selection and poor sound quality. The only reason I keep it is for the convenience of having background music. When I want selection and sound quality, I use Apple Music through CarPlay.

Exactly this.  Currently on a free 6 month trial.  For music, there are MUCH BETTER choices (Spotify, Google) that I can stream, or even my own music.  While it *seems* there are lots of genres, when it comes to the ones I want (contemporary Jazz) there is only one channel, and it's full of sleepytime music.

So I use Sirius to listen to stations like CNN while driving, only to be annoyed every 5 minutes with 3 minutes of the worst radio commercials with people screaming their 800 number 5 times (like we have a hearing problem) and just plain useless commercials for obscure nobody companies I'd never call in the first place!  Since I'm paying for Sirius, why do I have commercials at all?  

Did I mention losing signal if under an overpass for more than a few seconds?  Annoying.

Once my 6 months is up, it's gone.

With regards to CarPlay, I hope they spruce it up and make it more rich/graphical with album art, etc.  Anything left to car makers will never happen.  Period.  So if wireless Carplay is up to the car makers then I guess I'll have to buy a new car in 10 years.

foregoneconclusion said:

All I get from this guy's comparison is that Adobe is lazy with their software. 

Yet putting the exact same 2018 Macbook Pro in the freezer to cool it, and run the same test, drops render times from 39 minutes to 27 minutes.   Doesn't sound like a software problem to me.

lkrupp said:

If anybody still thinks a tablet can never replace a desktop or laptop you’re whistling past the graveyard. Adobe seems to be skating to where they think the puck will be. I have been in a real quandary over whether to buy a MacBook or an iPad Pro as a mobile platform. 

If running one app is what you do, then possibly in your case, a tablet can replace a desktop/laptop.  It depends on what you do.  But for every app like this, there are 100 others that have no tablet version, making it impossible to REPLACE a desktop/laptop.  Not to mention the lack of a real filesystem and no connectivity to Windows networks, lackluster printing, etc. 

A tablet is a tool.  A handsaw is also a tool that has it's place, but I wouldn't build a house using it.

tht said:

Biggest issue I see in the product is running MS Office on a 10” display device isn’t a productive experience, and there are a lot of 13” Windows laptops that people can get for the same price. Windows applications in generation won’t be a good fit for 10” devices.

There doesn’t seem to be anything different strategy wise from MS’ attempts with the older generation 10” Surface devices.

And yet, people run MS Office apps on an 9.7" iPad all the time.   So, what's the difference?  Also, it's much easier to "dock" this Surface GO to an external monitor/mouse/kb than an iPad will ever be, making for an easy "desktop" transition.  And with a USB port you can add or do anything with this, unlike the iPad, again hampered by a lowly lightning connector with very limited functionality.

I really think comparing the iPad to a Surface PRO/GO is comparing apples and oranges.  An iPad isn't a computer replacement for most people and a Surface isn't a convenient touch device meant for media consumption (mostly due to Windows 10 and apps aren't touch-friendly).

With Apple maps out, there will be fewer cars driving onto train tracks and off cliffs due to Apple Map's "directions".  Lives saved!