rcfa
About
- Banned
- Username
- rcfa
- Joined
- Visits
- 120
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,678
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,124
Reactions
-
EU demanding Apple give equal treatment to all apps in privacy shakeup
-
Cryptocurrency should be Apple's future financial gambit, analyst says
-
State of Apple Silicon - half of the most popular Mac apps still need Rosetta
Apple Silicon support isn’t important because an
app “needs the extra power”, it’s important because emulation requires system resources, and thus steals away memory and resources from other apps.
Unless you’re one of few people who run a single app at a time in full-screen kiosk mode, Rosetta 2, as elegant as it is, needs to be seen as a stop gap measure for legacy apps: not more, not less.
Apps are ALWAYS supposed to run natively (unless you’re doing research in CPU emulation, or something similarly esoteric). There’s no need to justify the need with the app otherwise being too slow: software layers should always be reduced to a minimum, even if only to reduce attack vectors and potential sources of bugs. -
Apple requests return of Apple Silicon Developer Transition Kits, offers $200 toward purch...
Xed said:You could afford the $500 for the DTK but not the $600 for an M1 Mac mini?
By extension:
“You can afford $1100 but not $2420 ($1100+$1320)?“
“You can afford $2420 but not $5324 ($2420+$2904)?“
etc. etc.
In short: anyone who can afford to buy something for a penny should be able to afford the entire world, because at each stage one could ask the same question:
“So you can afford a 1bn yacht, but not a 2bn sky scraper?“Yes, people save up resources to get something relatively expensive, and then their resources are depleted. Buying something expensive doesn’t mean that you have a license to print money and can keep on going buying expensive stuff.
“You can afford a nice camera. Can’t you afford to buy some decent lenses to go with it?“
“You bought a nice home, you can’t afford the granite counter tops?“
“You bought a nice car, you can’t afford a turbo kit?“
God, how I hate that kind of stupid reasoning. -
'iPhone 13' more likely to get improved ultra-wide camera, says Kuo
As far as lenses go, Kuo has also previously predicted that the two higher-end "iPhone 13" models will feature an Ultra Wide lens that is f/1.8. Instead of the current fixed 13mm focal length, the "iPhone 13" is also rumored to include variable autofocus.So this paragraph mixed stuff up.
A new lens can differ in
- Aperture (fixed or variable through the use of an iris e.g. f1.8)
- Focal length (fixed or zoom, e.g. 13mm in 35mm-Film equivalent)
- focusing method (choice of fixed, manual or auto focus)
The phrase “ Instead of the current fixed 13mm focal length, the ‘iPhone 13’ is also rumored to include variable autofocus.” is utterly meaningless.The phone could have instead of a fixed 13mm focal length a zoom lens with a variable focal length.
Or it could go from fixed focus (employing depth of field and possibly deconvolution to ensure sharpness) to using autofocus.
It could do both, and on top of that it could get a bigger aperture.
But as phrased, it jumbles up three independent concepts into a meaningless mess of two sentences.
So: exactly WHAT are the differences supposed to be between iPhone 12 and iPhone 13? And which model iPhone are we talking about anyway? Mini, regular, Pro, Pro Max?