thrang

lkrupp said:

thrang said:

The huge problem for me with this show is I can never get over the fact they the characters move, behave, and act as though they are sighted even while the conceit of the entire story is they are blind. They traverse great distance, engage in complicated interactions, fights, and other movements, often with group orchestration. That's all I see and cannot understand.

I mean, they do things most sighted slobs like us could not do. So the main dramatic element is constantly undermined and ultimately unnecessary. And while I understand that other senses would become heightened to compensate to the loss of vision, the action here seems far beyond this compensation...

Otherwise, there would be a lot to like about this show....

Who ever said Science Fiction had to be based on reality or historical accuracy? That’s the thing that gets me about criticisms like yours. In any drama those who look for such things will always find discrepancies, factual errors, plot holes. What about ‘For All Mankind’ for example. The crux of the series NEVER happened. The Russians did NOT beat the U.S. to the Moon. The producers of the movie ‘Interstellar’ consulted some of the top theoretical physicists in the world, including Nobel Laureate Kip Thorn to try and get the science right when it came to black holes and Einstein/Rosen bridges (wormholes). The movie was still criticized by the reality crowd. Science Fiction just that, FICTION, and not based on reality.

Not at all. Fictional content can certainly invent its own rules and reality, and I enjoy a lot of different films (my favorite part of Interstellar was the end, and the infinite parallel universes, which many did not get).

But those rules and reality must be believable within the context of its own universe, and See fails in this manner, primarily because the primary conceit is rooted in something most of us are acutely and very literally familiar with - sight (and the inverse of no sight when blindfolded or in pitch dark). There is no attempt to even invent how they are able to do what they do without sight, much less how well they accomplish complicated things singularly and as a group. Dune will have Mentats -  human computers - and I suspect we'll be much more likely to accept that as part of the larger universe they will be part of, partly because we don't have an immediate comparative to prove/disprove (and I say this referring to our subconscious response). I didn't set out watching See with a preconceived notion of this option. But as first episode progressed, it became acutely evident this was a problem.

Good stories and scripts do not rely on "anything goes" just because its fiction. That's bad writing. Good scripts will make it believable enough for the audience's reality and plausible enough in the movie's reality to be effective.

And See is not science fiction as much as a real drama set in a dystopian future in the aftermath of calamity. It's not Star Wars-ish, which by it's popcorn-munching comic book nature, probably has a wider berth for accepting less-than-plausible things.

Rather than the conceit of no sight, perhaps they should have been afflicted by the inability to learn new things, or invent, or communicate ideas/pass down information in certain ways, (some affliction of the brain that happened long ago), inexorably dimming their future existence - until the the children come along that have this ability, and the conflicts ensue around that. Or whatever...

Among the many ludicrous things to consider here is that there is nearly ZERO groundswell from the public that they feel they are being wronged. In fact, people want exactly what Apple is offering, and the vanishingly few that legitimately don't like the model - tough.

Apple's wall-garden is appreciated by nearly everyone thats uses it. it is appreciated for the ease of use, the integration, the interoperability, and most importantly, the security of their approach. Nothing is perfect, but I have yet to see anyone describe how permitting third party app stores will offer the same level of integration and security of my personal information. It's really not possible. The only approach would be a completely separate sandbox for third party-sourced apps that does not have access to anything on the other side of the fence, negating all the aforementioned benefits. And even then, you would have introduced another vector for a possible crossover bug to be exploited.

Is any user clamoring they want to save $20-$40 a year in lower cost apps and sacrificing functionality and security? No one is. Only other entities, it appears, that stand to profit from such actions both private and governmental. 

Finally, this is Apple's ecosystem. It's not in their interests to spend development time and money, and support resources, to another sandbox. Apple doesn't make phones. They offer an ecosystem that is a combination of HW/OS/SW/Services. 

Their wild success is not due to coercion, but the genius what they do, don't do, and deliver, better than just about any other company out there. They really should be celebrated, not chastized.

If I invite you over for dinner, you don't have a say in what I make or where I buy the food from. It's my home, my idea, my efforts, my money. And of course, I choose who to invite over.

Iamnotrory said:

Spoke to phone support last week after automatic update bricked HomePod, said there was nothing they can do because it is out of warranty. Have a call scheduled with them for 9:00am tomorrow

They had you try a hard reset I presume?

darkvader said:

Hopefully this will become law soon.  Antitrust law in the US is far too weak, and companies like Apple take advantage of that to abuse consumers and their own channel partners.

Time for a smackdown.

Yeah, Apple abuses their customers sooooo much that then can barely sell an iPhone anymore.... oh wait....

The issues that need to be addressed are the arbitrary and inequitable nature of suppression of speech on social media platforms, given the protections the Section 230 law provides them. Either publish everything and continue to enjoy the protection, or strike down 230 and then they can do what they want... within the law.

Apple should be heralded as the most innovative company hit this planet in decades, with products and services people desire - thus their tremendous success and customer satisfaction rankings. If people were "abused," they would look for alternatives. Windows Phone failed because Microsoft could NOT convince users to switch to their ecosystem. Others have come and gone as well. Android in all its flavors and device manufacturers are there too...

 It really is lunacy to consider harming Apple's business just because they are successful.

Ultimately user engagement is the market (wow much time, usefulness, and positivity a user gains from spending time with an ecosystem). And for that, there are plenty of competitive forces that Apple must deliver against. 

So no, the only smackdown should be the heads of dopey politicians who only look at high company valuation as bad and onerous, without having the capacity to consider the broader market and consumer desire. People buy Apps because they WANT the ecosystem, stability, security, and interoperability they can provide.

Let someone else go and build a better mousetrap.  There are lots of companies with deep pockets out there. Go do it. 

Did I mention Microsoft???

Does Spotify do what they do for the money, or just the dewey-eyed love of music?

Ass....