dick applebaum

bitmod said:

Man, surprising news - considering people can get the equivalent of a $50,000 audiophile system for $350 - plus the added bonus of a smart system (according to the usual AI fanboys). 
Meanwhile, back in reality - I think there are a few barriers:
- Privacy. Not a lot of people want an 'always listening' device. 
- Competition. There are better 'smart' systems out there.
- Sound Quality. It's good for a smart speaker - but audiophiles don't buy toys to listen to audio. If sound quality is your main priority - a smart speaker isn't on your radar. 
- Limitations. No Spotify or 3rd party native support. Extremely limited connection capabilities. 
- Requires Apple Music Subscription to take advantage of 'smart' functionality. 

But it sure fills a hallway with good sound... 

foggyhill said:

Modern Javascript is much closer to things like Swift than you think :-), but since it has been developed piece meal and by committee, it is a lot more disjointed.

Swift has been created from scratch with less input so it has much less idiosyncrasies for sure.

AppleInsider said:

Apple's open-source Swift has just broken into the top 10 programming languages, according to a quarterly ranking, in the process supplanting its predecessor on Apple platforms, Objective-C.

The language's position is based on data from GitHub and Stack Overflow, analysis firm RedMonk said this week. "The idea is not to offer a statistically valid representation of current usage, but rather to correlate language discussion and usage in an effort to extract insights into potential future adoption trends," it explained.

The top five languages were JavaScript, Java, Python, PHP, and C#.

"Finally, the apprentice is now the master," RedMonk said in regards to Swift. "Technically, this isn't entirely accurate, as Swift merely tied the language it effectively replaced - Objective C - rather than passing it. Still, it's difficult to view this run as anything but a changing of the guard."

The platform is also said to have managed the feat at a record pace, reaching the top 10 in under four years, even if it hasn't gained much traction as a server-side language.

• you use a common language to code both the client- side and the server-side
• you can run both the client-side and server-side at the same time on a single computer
• more productive for development, testing and maintenance

1. KB case with trackpad
2. Display cursor
3. Rear-facing TrueDepth cameras -- capable of creating a 3D point cloud of a large area

DanielEran said:

cgWerks said:

Essentially, though, the article could be summarized by.... 'even if Siri sucks, it still has a much bigger install base.' It's hard to argue with that, I guess. But, Windows had a much bigger install base than Mac, too, which said little about quality. And, if we step back a couple decades, not many would expect Microsoft to be in the position they are now in, nor Apple.

Too big to fail now has some credence in regard to Apple. But future Apple might not look anything like the Apple we once loved, or even the Apple of today, if they aren't careful.

No that's incorrect. The point of the article is that Apple isn't trying to rival Alexa/Assistant as a voice platform because:
- Apple (unlike Amazon or Google) isn't desperately trying to create a valuable/useful platform. It already has THE mobile platform that makes money and matters.
- Voice is of limited utility. useful for some things, but often just a gimmick. It is not a huge priority for Apple because it is not the most useful thing to deliver for users.
- For this reason, voice is of limited value commercially. Amazon is establishing that the value of a voice-centric WiFi mic is around $50
- The bullshitter tech media has contrived a false narrative that says the future is 100% voice. This is obvious bullshit, just like the last narrative about bots. 

If you actually read this article and didn't catch any of that, I pity you. Try opening your brain up to facts rather than just repeating nonsense you've heard a pundit say.

Apple isn't too big to fail, but neither are Amazon and Google. The fact that you can only imagine Apple failing when it's really Amazon and Google that have failed most spectacularly in delivering things people actually want to buy, says a lot about the insight and value of your comments and explains why you so contemptuously dismiss actual facts when they're laid out in front of you.