Detnator

About

Username
Detnator
Joined
Visits
44
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
620
Badges
1
Posts
287

Reactions

390Like0Dislike26Informative

  • Intel is now making 'Mac versus PC' ads with Justin Long

    DetnatorDetnator
    longfang said:
    Why is Intel so afraid? Makes me skeptical about their ability to progress.
    Plot twist. Apple, not Intel, commissioned these ads, to add fuel to the fire. ;) 

    No, I highly doubt that, but it’d be a hoot if it were true.
    watto_cobra

  • Apple will not hold iPad Pro, 'AirTags' launch event on March 16

    DetnatorDetnator
    MplsP said:

    Detnator said:

    The iPad Mini’s design is long in the tooth and needs a redesign. 
    How would you change it? make the edges square instead of rounded? Look at a comparison of all the iPads - the bezel shrinks. the contour of the edges changes and the colors change. They finally added Face ID to the iPad pro and moved the TouchID sensor in the Air - those have been the only significant changes since the ipad was introduced.
    Well.. yeah.. That's exactly how I would change it.  

    I'm clamoring for a (relatively) bevel-less iPad mini.  Preferably the same screen size and smaller device, not increase the screen to fill the current device's size, but I'll take either.  I thought it was a long shot they'd ever bring the iPP features to the mini (eg. Face ID) but with last year's Air's design, with its Touch ID on the button and in other ways more affordable approach to the Pros' bevel-less design, I think they got that pretty well right.  So a redesign of the mini that matches that Air's redesign would be perfect.  As I say I'm clamoring for such a device and I wish they'd release it already.

    I'm pretty sure that's what pulseimages was referring to when he/she said it needs a redesign. And if so, I agree entirely and I really hope it's coming, preferably sooner rather than later.
    So if they release an iPad with the same screen but a smaller bezel you’ll be happy? I don’t get it. How does that affect how you use the iPad one bit? 

    Faster processor? Great. More features in iOS? wonderful? Smaller bezel - meh. Adding FaceID to the entire lineup would be really nice and is overdue IMO, but I just don’t get obsessing over things that really don’t matter, like bevel size and the edge profile. 
    Well, my particular need is I want a device that’s as small as physically possible while having as much screen as possible still. There is a certain use in my car that I have for something about iPad mini size but the current mini is just slightly too big physically for the physical location in the car I want to use it in. For now, in the absence of such a device, I use my iPhone Max instead. But that screen is a little too small for this use, plus i need some of the iPadOS features that the iPhone doesn’t have.  So it’s a compromise that the iPad mini device I’m describing would resolve perfectly. 

    That said... I acknowledge all of that is pretty specific and potentially unique to me. But that’s just answering your specific question as best I could. 

    Still, more broadly, the whole point of the iPad mini is it’s a smaller device than the full size iPads, but to make it smaller obviously necessitates making the screen a lot smaller too - which could be argued is a compromise - or at least a compromise if said screen is any smaller than it needs to be. If the point of a mini is making it smaller, doesn’t it make sense to make it as small as possible with as little compromise to the display as possible? Doesn’t that speak to the whole point of this specific device in the first place? 

    Laying my iPad mini 4 on top of my 1st gen iPad Pro 9.7” (same physical screen size as all the original iPads before they started making a myriad of screen sizes) I see that the height of the full size iPad’s display is marginally shorter than the iPad mini’s physical size.  If Apple made a full size 9.7” bezel-less iPad the physical device would be only marginally bigger than the current iPad mini. That’s one option. But I’ll argue that’s too close to what’s now the latest iPad Air, so a device with the current mini’s display size but physically smaller would make more sense to me, and be a nice sized device about midway between the largest iPhones and the otherwise smallest iPads.

    I’m really hoping they make such a device for my specific use case, but also in general and in principle because of that gap it fills as well. 
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • Minnesota the latest to introduce bill that allows developers to bypass App Store billing

    DetnatorDetnator
    dewme said:
    One thing Apple could possibly do to placate these miscreants would be to create a “Wild Wild West” sandbox in Apple devices that is totally walled off from the rest of the device and all native services. Users who are so inclined would then be allowed to directly load apps into the WWW sandbox using some sort of utility or web based protocol. What happens in the sandbox, stays in the sandbox. Yeah, it’s a stupid idea, 
    Actually it’s not a stupid idea, and the funny thing is there already is a Wild Wild West sandbox for apps, separate to iOS. And it has the WWW initials.  It’s called the web. 

    A web browser is a platform in which all kinds of apps can run and Apple imposes no restrictions on developers or users as to who can run whatever they want in their web browsers. 

    Epic could make a web version of Fortnite for use on iPhones and charge its customers anything they wanted and never pay Apple a cent of it. 

    There isn’t much a native app can do that a web app can’t do these days, so I’m actually not sure why developers aren’t ok with this. 

    ...Except that there’s some perception that native apps are “better”...? Are they?  How?  Unless it’s because of all the work Apple has put into all the native API’s which are all Apple’s intellectual property but they license out for developers to have full access to for a measly $99 per year.  But even then... what’s in those API’s that the likes of Epic benefit from that mean a web based Fortnite wouldn’t be just as good as the native one?

    I just don’t get it. None of this makes any sense to me. Why should Apple be forced to unlock their IP for anyone to leech off for free?

    watto_cobra

  • Minnesota the latest to introduce bill that allows developers to bypass App Store billing

    DetnatorDetnator
    dewme said:
    One thing Apple could possibly do to placate these miscreants would be to create a “Wild Wild West” sandbox in Apple devices that is totally walled off from the rest of the device and all native services. Users who are so inclined would then be allowed to directly load apps into the WWW sandbox using some sort of utility or web based protocol. 
    My proposal, which is similar to yours, is for Apple to allow users to replace iOS with Android or Linux. Apple already has this approach with its computers: you can replace macOS with any other OS. Giving users this "freedom" would probably win Apple a lot of points in the political arena. Doing this is much simpler, technically, than your idea of supporting two OSs and probably two file systems on the same device at the same time.
    Y’know, I’ve heard a lot of dumb ideas bandied around but this one actually makes a lot of sense. 

    To me the answer (without even needing anything to change) is pretty straight forward: People want to go on and on about how they OWN their device so they should be able to do whatever they want with it. And to a certain degree that’s true... until they want to use iOS - which they do NOT own.  Apple owns iOS and Apple has every right to protect it and restrict what people do with it as they see fit. 

    And then there’s the App Store. The iOS App Store. Not the iPhone App Store. If the App Store is entirely within iOS then I don’t see why anyone has any right to force Apple to do anything other than whatever Apple wants to do with their App Store inside their OS. 

    Epic wants to argue they should be able to engage their users, on the users devices, directly. Apple rightly says no and one of their arguments should at least be that Apple owns iOS so Apple has rights to restrict etc that. (To be honest I don’t understand why we don’t see Apple arguing that more loudly).

    However there’s still the people saying “But it’s my device!!”  

    At the moment, as I’ve said above, I believe it’s a perfectly reasonable answer to that to say: “Yep, it’s your device and you can do whatever you want with your device, but not with iOS.”  

    Still I can see some people - potentially reasonably - having a problem with the idea that an iPhone can’t do anything beyond say being a paperweight or a lousy mirror, without turning it on and running iOS. 

    To me it’s pretty reasonable that an iPhone runs only iOS and if you don’t like iOS (including all its restrictions) then don’t buy an iPhone. But others appear to be arguing - indirectly - that the fact that the iPhone is useless without running Apple’s IP on it isn’t reasonable. 

    So what happens if we address that?  What happens if Apple allow iPhones to do more than just weigh paper down without requiring iOS?

    If Apple allowed anyone to build and install any OS (Android, Windows, EpicOS, or anything else) on the physical device and allowed the physical device to be open in that regard, but Apple still held tight to the stuff that is absolutely theirs - Apple’s OS, Apple’s App Store, Apple’s services, and Apple’s entire ecosystem - and had them all tied together and locked down together (independent of the hardware) could there be any grounds for anyone to reasonably complain about Apple’s walled garden at that point?  If the walled garden is entirely limited to the software, while the hardware is open for you to install whatever you like on it (outside of Apple’s OS and walled garden if you prefer it that way) is there any room for reasonable complaint at that point?

    At the moment the Epic v Apple case is in a stage of both having been ordered to mutually define the market. Apple wants to define the market as mobile devices - which makes the most sense to me. Of course Epic wants to define iOS and iPhones as a market in itself - which makes as much sense to me as defining Big Macs as a market (ie. none).

    But the lawmakers appear to be entertaining the idea that Apple’s devices are a market in themselves. Personally I think that’s ridiculous, but maybe that has a chance of getting some traction on the “but it’s my device” argument. But how much argument is there for Apple’s OS’s and ecosystem being a market that lawmakers can regulate if Apple’s physical devices aren’t restricted to only Apple’s OS’s?

    And then, when only a tiny minority of people who buy iPhones actually install any OS other than iOS on them, I wonder what Epic’s (and anyone else’s) argument then is?  

    I just don’t understand how anyone can think it’s reasonable to force Apple to effectively open up portions of Apple’s intellectual property for a free for all. 

    I can’t see Apple opening up the iPhone for installation of other operating systems, but of all their options, it does seem like the one that makes the most sense and solves the problem most cleanly.

    ————————

    On another but still related note:

    Every time someone on this forum posts “but it’s my device” and I reply with “but it’s not your OS” - the original poster has never responded. Why?

    I challenge all you “it’s my device” people to answer the “but it’s not your OS” response with anything sensible/reasonable.
    watto_cobra

  • Minnesota the latest to introduce bill that allows developers to bypass App Store billing

    DetnatorDetnator
    chelin said:
    I don’t see the Target/McDonalds/Walmart analog. As a consumer you don’t own the store you’re shopping in. In this case the consumer owns the device. A better one would be if Samsung in some way limited me in what I’m allowed to put in my fridge. Or wanted to charge Wholefoods a surcharge for the milk I want to store in the fridge I purchased.
    Sigh. This again. No. 

    You don’t own the device. You own some of the device. Apple owns iOS and a bunch of other things in the device that you do not own and that Apple is licensing to you. 

    This is about Apple protecting their intellectual property. And they have every right to do so.

    If you want to run whatever you want on your iPhone without running it through iOS have at it, but if you’re running iOS then Apple have every right to set the rules for what you can and can’t do with their intellectual property. 
    DogpersonJanNLFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra