retrogusto

I suspect Apple would want to minimize the number of moving parts in their devices, but this sounds like it could be great in all kinds of applications for blind people.

I hope one of the main streaming services will take the opportunity to license more of the vast number of great movies that will now be impossible to see otherwise. I’ve kept my Netflix DVD subscription because it still has a broader catalog than any streaming service, maybe better than all of them combined, because they have almost everything released on home video in the past 25 years, which includes most of the original content from the streaming services (e.g. HBO series, Hulu series, Netflix original movies). Plus, blu-ray picture quality is better than 1080p streaming, and of course, no commercials apart from maybe trailers on the DVD or blu-ray. I subscribe to a lot of streaming services, but still have 172 movies in my Netflix queue. I guess I’d better get watching. To their credit, Netflix is allowing customers to download a file with some of their personal stats, includIng the movies they’ve seen and rated.

AutigerMark said:

beowulfschmidt said:

Gods forbid they maintain thickness and increase battery capacity instead...

Wouldn't thinning the display allow them to keep overall device thickness the same with a thicker battery?

My preference would be to make the hardware thinner and lighter, and to increase battery life through hardware and software optimizations, but in recent years Apple has been prioritizing performance and battery life with no interest in thinner and lighter premium devices, so I doubt those of you with pro-level budgets but limited access to electrical outlets have much to worry about. Probably a number of developments over the past nine years, including more efficient processors and the removal of the headphone jack, could have enabled them to make the iPhone thinner, but never once did. 

Amazing that they have the technology to do this, but making a decent pizza is still beyond their reach. 

This doesn’t seem like a particularly harmful move, as long as there is some concession (no pun intended) for smaller-budget pictures that may not be able to swing a wide initial release but could definitely benefit from the attention that an Academy Award could foster. A lot of filmmakers want their films to be seen in theaters on a big screen. It’s obviously different from the home experience and can be pretty pricey these days, but it’s also hard to deny that theaters can still provide a very significant source of revenue for the industry if some current problems like public health concerns can be solved. So it’s hard to blame the Academy for wanting to help theaters stay in business—their primary purpose is to support the film industry, not to serve the general public by evaluating various types of moving images. And I say this as a longtime shareholder of Apple and Netflix who also has an excellent home theater set-up. It should also be noted that there’s a long history of Oscars being limited to films shown in theaters, and only recently would content produced primarily for the small screen even have been considered. And it’s also just an Oscar after all.