CloudTalkin

Nice design with nice colors and nice features at a nice price.   Nice.

williamlondon said:

Rayz2016 said:

I suspect those won’t stay in my weird ears. 

Though I haven’t yet tried the AirPods Pro, the AirPods never did for me (strangely formed ears I must have), but what I wonder is what is the difference between these and AirPods? Why continue to keep the two lines/brands separate? Do they simply lack the extras like Siri integration, and perhaps other things like the new audio enhancements? What’s the point of keeping the Beats brand around?

They keep both brands because it's good business.  Before AirPods, Beats was the top brand in revenue, profit and volume.  Without sales numbers it can't be verified but Beats is still thought to be the second best selling brand in revenue, profit, and volume.  Companies tend to not dissolve successful products.  VW Group didn't make their of their Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bentley, or Bugatti brands all Volkswagens because they understand their products appeal to different audiences.  Tons of companies with multiple brands realize it. Apple realizes that too.  

Short answer: Beats makes Apple money.  

williamlondon said:

AppleZulu said:

So Apple releases expensive hardware with obvious capacity for future expansion of operating system capabilities, and the complaint is that the OS doesn’t max out the hardware out of the gate. Got it.

Of course, if iPadOS already took full advantage of the capabilities of the M1 model, there would be much louder complaints about how last year’s pre-M1 hardware has been rendered obsolete so quickly by OS features the pre-M1 devices can’t handle. 

THIS! As usual, perfectly stated, perfectly logical, and sadly ignored or simply incomprehensible to people seeking and demanding a reason to complain about their first world problems.

That argument is neither perfectly stated nor perfectly logical.  It should be ignored though.  It's kinda sad that you find any logic in that quote.  There is none.  Any logic that could have been gleaned that quote was rendered moot by the absence of nuance.  It's simply a  hyperbolic binary argument.  No one is arguing the OS doesn't max out the hardware.  That's an argument manufactured to support a narrative. The argument is, and has been for years, the OS doesn't properly take advantage of the hardware capabilities.  That's far from complaining about maxing out the iPad.  There's a world of difference.  Besides, the requested capabilities wouldn't even max out a last-gen iPad. 

foregoneconclusion said:

It's mostly older releases from series like Doom, Fallout, Fable, Halo, Gears of War, Elder Scrolls, Yakuza etc. Don't expect much that's new for $14.99 a month. New = pay $60-$70 for a console game. 

Of course it's mostly older releases.  The new consoles are barely 6 months old.  But in those releases are a lot of AAA titles. A helluva lot.  Also which games are you referencing that requires a $60 purchase for new?  Most games have announced day one releases on Game Pass.  Heck even Sony's IP MLB the Show 21 was a day one release on Game Pass.  Sony fans were pissed to high heaven they actually did have to pay $70 for a game that Game Pass subscribers got on day one for free.  

The catalog is massive and available on PC, console, mobile and contains tons of AAA titles.  $15 is a bargain imo.  You're not going to find better.

Seems they're also trying to get xCloud as a smart TV app as well.  I guess they want Game Pass available everywhere for everyone regardless of ecosystem.  

gregoriusm said:

Google Stada for iOS is in beta testing. 

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/12/16/22176273/google-stadia-ios-beta-live-now-mobile-safari-iphone-ipad-cloud-gaming

That's an old old article.  Google Stadia is out of beta... today https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/222250