neoncat

bestkeptsecret said:

neoncat said:

The irony of the Apple White Knight squad rushing to the rescue on AppleInsider is pretty rich.

We all know exactly why we’re here. 

Yes, it is pretty clear why you're here.

So you scrupulously skip over any articles that offer information on future products AI may have received from anonymous or curated sources? Good for you! How disciplined. In fact, I'm sure so many people here are so pious that AI must see a massive traffic drop when they post those articles.

mike1 said:

AppleInsider said:

It is thought that tweaks by Apple to algorithms used in the Apple Watch changed how the data was interpreted before being collected.

"These algorithms are what we would call black boxes - they're not transparent. So it's impossible to know what's in them," said Onnela. "What was surprising was how different they are. This is probably the cleanest example that I have seen of this phenomenon."

It's amazing how smart people can be so stupid. It's not a phenomenon. It's called continual updates to tweak the algorithm over the course of almost two years. If this is an issue for your research, you make sure the software is locked down for the length of the study.

I realize this is the new-normal for Apple sites—to be a dismissive prick, like a badge of honor—but the problem the article highlights is the researchers *don't have control* over this algorithmic versioning. This is public data, that *Apple itself* is encouraging be used for these studies (ResearchKit, anyone?) I think the frustration is entirely above-board. 

If you're going to welcome someone to do their job with your data, and create an interface for that data, don't be so surprised if that person says, "yeah but... this data isn't what we need." So, where's the problem again?

Right, yes, of course, Anyone But Apple™. Sorry, I'll be better.  

Dead_Pool said:

Tim tripped over the Performa power cord again. It will be back online as soon as it reboots.

Eh, they may need to boot into Conflict Catcher first, find out which extension caused the crash. So give it an extra half hour.

"Adobe does that with ‘creative Cloud."

Not to worry, some fossil will be along shortly to bemoan subscription software and how they own all their software, thankyouverymuch. <roll eyes> But yes, with the release of Photoshop and Illustrator for iPad, I'm finding new ways to use my 2017 iPad Pro in partnership with my main desktop iMac workhorse. My goal is not replacement, but augmentation, and while it'll take a while for me to figure out the best workflow, at least Adobe is making it easy for me to experiment. 

I think the fixation with the iPad replacing a desktop computer is misguided and highlights the sort of limitations the article's author runs into. Remember that Apple likely sells way more $299 10.2" iPads, so iPadOS is always going to be beholden to whatever that model's limitations are (and what that model's audience requires from the device).

I noticed there's been a wave of posts very similar to Owl's (similar wording) taking aim at Kosta the individual without addressing the substance of his points on here, 9to5Mac, MacRumors, and reddit, all posted this morning, some not even in reply to specific messages about this app. Looks like he rattled enough doors to make someone angry enough to spend a little money for an anti-marketing campaign.