MacPro

rogifan_new said:

fastasleep said:

rogifan_new said:

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.

gatorguy said:

sfolax said:

Abalos65 said:

corrections 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.