mike_galloway

It’s a little odd that we should be anxious over a processor that is too powerful for the tasks intended. 

As long as it does not materially effect the price of the product I see no harm in slimming down the number of different processors in Apples product range. It may even be that the minimum wafer quantities of the M1 dictate their use in more products that just Macs.

genovelle said:

rcfa said:

Most people never heard of lossless? Really?

Anyone who’s ever heard of these silver discs calls “CD”s has heard of lossless.

Only Napster, music piracy in conjunction with slow internet, metered cellular data and expensive flash memory brought us the “blessings” of lossy audio compression algorithms.

So, no, lossless isn’t “niche”, it was and should always be the normal case, lossy compression should be the exception.

CDs are not lossless. They are limited to 16 bits and 44.1 kHz while lossless is at least 24 bits and 96 kHz. Every record theses days is recorded well above CD quality. 

Mephisdogoles said:

mike_galloway said:

Mephisdogoles said:

Eddie Cue is quite right: it’s a small set of customers, alright. Most people can’t hear beyond the limits of 20Hz-20KHz, and even if you can, without the right audio chain there’s just no way you’d hear those differences anyway. Personally, I liked to know that it’s an option, but when I’m on the go, lossless isn’t as much a priority as having access to whatever I want to listen to at a relatively high standard. Lossless is for at home with the amplifier and head cans, a nice Scotch, and the time to actually sit and listen and appreciate. 

"A nice Scotch" removes the need for "lossless" - I personally find a bottle of wine gradually improves sound quality in direct relation to the amount drunk!

mike_galloway said:

"A nice Scotch" removes the need for "lossless" - I personally find a bottle of wine gradually improves sound quality in direct relation to the amount drunk!

Heh, well, quite. Mind you, pal, I’ve got a 34 year-old bottle of Bunnahabhain sitting on the mantelpiece that’s worth rather north of £600 per bottle — the remembrance of which is a guarantor of restraint and propriety.

Mike Wuerthele said:

randominternetperson said:

Nonsense.  None of those is an example of "Sherlocking."

One cannot "Sherlock" a company the size of Google or even Zoom.  Also, creating an application in an existing, robust product space doesn't count.  Did Apple "Sherlock" all the other browsers when they introduced Safari?  (No; that's ridiculous.)  Finally, adding features to the OS or an application that are already well established in the marketplace doesn't count.

Nearly every example above if one where Apple is (finally) entering a market with lots of existing players or adding features that numerous other competitors already have.

The Zoom example is particularly silly.  FaceTime predates Zoom by years.  Is the notion that it's somehow unfair for Apple to keep it's products up to date once competitors come along?

What's the dollar threshold where somebody can't be Sherlocked?

Mephisdogoles said:

Eddie Cue is quite right: it’s a small set of customers, alright. Most people can’t hear beyond the limits of 20Hz-20KHz, and even if you can, without the right audio chain there’s just no way you’d hear those differences anyway. Personally, I liked to know that it’s an option, but when I’m on the go, lossless isn’t as much a priority as having access to whatever I want to listen to at a relatively high standard. Lossless is for at home with the amplifier and head cans, a nice Scotch, and the time to actually sit and listen and appreciate.