MacPro

About

Username
MacPro
Joined
Visits
134
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
5,093
Badges
2
Posts
18,142
  • Editorial: How AirPods and Shortcuts shifted Apple's Siri story and blunted Amazon's Alexa...

    Talking of these systems that record everything you say here's a tip from Apple News for those using Google's spy system.  
    "Google Assistant has been recording my voice for years, here's how I deleted it - CNBC"
    https://apple.news/AMbPMH8bmTu-HvDNidVqDYg 
    correctionscornchipchasmwatto_cobra
  • Evidence of standalone Music, Podcasts apps for macOS surfaces, signals iTunes breakup

    The only times I use iTunes is when I want to add music to iCloud music library or want to load video on to my iPhone or iPad. You would think by now Apple would have a way to do this without needing to use desktop iTunes. Especially when they’re positioning iPad Pro as a laptop replacement. The iOS music and TV should allow you to add media. Having to download it on a desktop/laptop, import it into iTunes and then sync with your iPhone or iPad is retarded. Oh and while they’re at it, allow people to edit iCloud Music and imported video metadata on device. Having to do that through iTunes is silly too.
    As far as video goes, I don't know why you'd waste all that time versus using a DLNA player that does wifi transfers. No transcoding, no syncing, etc. Infuse, nPlayer, VLC, etc.
    I use Infuse for my video playback but never got the wireless transfer part to work so I gave up.
    I was banging my head against the wall with trying to get Airplay to run a video from my Photos app on a Mac to the Apple TV and hear the audio on the HomePods connected to the TV.  Then I hit the wall ... It seems to be Airplay video or HomePod audio, both are not possible it seems although part of me wonders if there is a way I have yet to find.
    cornchip
  • Editorial: Another F for Alphabet: Google's Android Wear OS still 'half baked' after five ...

    gatorguy said:
    sfolax said:
    Abalos65 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.

    You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch.
    The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?

    And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
    Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.  

    Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling. 

    If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it? 

    "The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"

    They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that: 

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/14/editorial-when-apple-is-2-years-behind-you-put-your-things-in-order


     I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

    The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED. 
    The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
    He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.  

    When "Corrections"  started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us.  The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.   
    The 'rest of us'. hahaha!  Why don't you explain what you do for a living?  24/7 on Apple Insider and no Apple products you have stated...  How do you earn your bread dude? You define disingenuous and deception. 
    watto_cobrabakedbananas
  • Editorial: Another F for Alphabet: Google's Android Wear OS still 'half baked' after five ...

    Great article as always from D.E.D.

    My two cents is everything here is predictable simply because as usual Google reacted as fast as they could to an Apple concept which may result in massive sales numbers but rarely profit.  Not that their original concepts fair too well!  I seem to recall many of us genuine Apple users on this blog (as opposed to a full-time tech journalist paid to post pro Google information 24/7)  asked at the time '.. and how long till Google copies this?'

    Here it all is summed up in a few news reports:

    Watch
    Rumors surrounded an Apple-developed wearable device back as far as 2011, which conceptualized the device as a variation of the iPod that would feature Siri integration. On February 10, 2013, both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple was beginning to develop an iOS-based smartwatch.

    Android Wear
    The platform was announced on March 18, 2014, along with the release of a developer preview. At the same time, companies such as Motorola, Samsung, LG, HTC and Asus were announced as partners. On June 25, 2014, at Google I/O, the Samsung Gear Live and LG G Watch were launched, along with further details about Android Wear. The LG G Watch is the first Android Wear smartwatch to be released and shipped. Motorola's Moto 360 was released on September 5, 2014.
    jbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Microsoft brings formerly Windows-centric Defender antivirus to macOS

    Since Satya Nadella came and Balmer 'went' I have increasingly become less anti-Microsoft.  I enjoy using Windows 10, initially in Boot Camp and now I have three PCs on my Network along with five Macs.  I may be 'at home' but this certainly sounds something I will look at because I still fear the weakest link is Windows and it is on my LAN so it may be worth adding an extra layer.  Windows Defender on my PCs in Windows 10 Pro is non-intrusive and seamless, it's not your old Windows.  Don't get me wrong, if I don't need it I won't use it, I am just willing to investigate without prejudice, something I would not have said a few years ago.
    chiabonobobolsdjames4242muthuk_vanalingamlostkiwiwatto_cobrachasm