mpantone

The 64-bit only stipulation has been a long time coming. While I will be keeping a Mojave boot drive around, I reluctantly acquiesced and bought a $180 Windows 10 box so I could run legacy applications like the Harmony Remote utility from Logitech.

I'm more concerned about the perceived quality of Catalina 10.15 as it currently stands. For the same reason, I have not upgraded my eligible iDevices to iOS 13. Both operating systems sound buggy as hell right now and Apple couldn't pay me to make them my default boot OSes at this time.

While eventually I will upgrade to both operating systems, it might be Q1 2020 before I do so. If anything, I might try to find a spare drive and install Catalina on that before I install it on the built-in SSDs.

This is the first year in a decade that I haven't installed the new OS within a day or two of release.

M68000 said:

It would be nice if the people who write for this forum would do an article soon talking about their collective thoughts as to whether they recommend going from iOS 12.x.x. To 13.x.x  Or whether to wait. 

That is wishful thinking but ultimately unrealistic.

Let's say Media Source X says that iOS 13 in its current state is a piece of junk and that users should hold off from upgrading. How do you think Apple will feel about that?

Do you think Media Source X will continue to receive media screener preview demo units? Invitations to launch events? Open access to Apple's corporate communications team? This is no different than what any journalist has to balance. If you're the beat writer for Team B and you start annoying the coach with pointed questions, how much 1-on-1 time do you think he/she will be willing to provide in the future, mmmm? The expression "biting the hand that feeds you" could come into play.

It is far safer to do a comparison between two competitive devices rather than take an editorial critique with no comparison. Comparing photo quality between the latest iPhone and the latest Samsung smartphone is okay and evidence can be provided (e.g., side-by-side low light photos).

Media organizations like AppleInsider must be very thoughtful about what they write. Reporting the news is far less fraught with peril than writing an opinion piece.

rogifan_new said:

Will most people notice a difference in sound or does it depend on the hardware used to listen?

No. There have been many discussions over the years about lossless and/or high-definition music and the overall consensus is Joe Consumer listening to whatever contemporary music (rock, pop, hip-hop, rap, country, whatever) on his/her smartphone's earbuds or in their car can't tell the difference. 256kbps 16-bit AAC is perfectly adequate. Hell, contemporary music for the past 20-30 years has mostly been authored and mastered to play back adequately in a compressed range.

Lossless and/or high-def audio makes more sense when certain conditions come together. First of all are the listening conditions/hardware: you need very good speakers in a room with decent acoustics. Then you need the appropriate music that would benefit from an expanded dynamic range: classical, baroque, opera, some jazz. Then you need someone with a good set of ears who is really paying attention. 

I've acquired high-def audio tracks which I've ripped to 256kbps AAC and yes, I can hear the difference if I am concentrating and listening to it on my big speakers, particularly in the pianissimo sections or in pieces with an extremely wide dynamic range (some symphonies, some operas). If I have the stereo blasting while I am in the kitchen, again it doesn't matter; I can't tell the difference.

Streaming lossless/high-def audio to a portable device is basically a big waste of bandwidth unless it's plugged into a $500 headphone amp and $1000 headphones.

I expect there will always be some reluctance by the big chains like Walmart, Home Depot and until recently CVS and Target.

One of the biggest problems is the US restaurant industry's Stone Age mentality (not talking about fast food).

In quaint little Austria, when it's time to pay at a decent restaurant, the server pulls out handheld wireless POS terminal that has NFC contactless payment capabilities and a built-in printer from their belt holster. They process the transaction tableside, takes about 30 seconds hands you the receipt.

Here in the big badass Mr. Macho "We Rule" USA, the server takes your credit card and walks away with it to a POS terminal to process the transaction. Takes about 5 minutes on average. Sooo back asswards.

By far the best payment system on the planet is Japan's, particularly places that take IC cards like Suica. Bain's focus on China is relevant because it's one of the world's largest economies and the fact that adoption rates are improving quickly while in an modern, open economy like the USA, adoption rates are nearly stagnant.

nethan9 said:

That's roughly 0.8% of his net worth. What a guy.

There is no requirement for anyone to donate a large percentage of their annual income to charity while they are still alive. One can easily donate the money after one has passed away.

In fact, Warren Buffet decided early in his life to withhold charitable contributions until later in his life. He figured out that growing the capital would ultimately result in a much larger asset base to donate later in life. Now that he is in his Eighties, he has started to make some significant charitable contributions.

I figure this is probably way beyond what a lot of Internet commenters can understand, but there are more strategic gift giving options than donating cash while you are still alive.

And it's legal. Just go ask the IRS.