polymnia

mac_128 said:

MplsP said:

mac_128 said:

wood1208 said:

Good part is physical connector still USB Type-C and protocol backward compatibility to Thunderbolt 3, USB 3.x

Yes, but sounds like a potential cable nightmare ... 

Actually, I think it would be an improvement. Or a potential one anyway. 

The nightmare is what we have now - USB C connector but no standard on what the cables are capable of in terms of power, speed, etc, nor any standard as to whether a given USB port is straight USB or thunderbolt. And then there's the whole USB 3 naming cluster...

Yes, but this won’t make that go away... doesn’t it just add yet another type of cable connection that won’t be supported by lesser cables, making confirming you have the right one necessary? 

Im not using USB-C cables at the moment, but there seem to be a lot of complaints about this. It reminds me of the HDMI problem, where even cables rated to support high speed connections don’t actually do that on some sets, something I have had first hand experience with.

I find it funny that when a company (lets just say Apple) simplifies it’s product line with very clearly differentiated capabilities we hear people complain about engineering by marketing department. 

Now, USB seems to have no coherent marketing whatsoever and all communications about product capability comes straight from the engineering department.

Maybe it’s not such a bad idea to let marketing have a seat at the table after all. 

Apples rules are common sense to me but this should have been standardized 15 years ago. More evidence Apple doesn't care about Podcasts.

Rather than “Apple doesn’t care” I think this is evidence “Apple didn’t care”

The fact that they are tightening any policy relating to podcasts is evidence the do care now.

Why now is anyone’s guess. Spotify? Changing listener habits? I listen to more podcasts than I used to. Business reasons? Podcasts don’t cost Apple anything (no royalties). 

crowley said:

polymnia said:

jungmark said:

Why would they want to remove episode numbers?

I doubt they want to abolish episode numbers entirely. The simplest answer is they want to separate episode number from the title field. I haven’t done the legwork to check, but there must be another metadata field for episode numbers. Then podcast players can choose how to display the episode number field, likely [episode number field] - [episode title field]. 

Does anyone remember the sad state of MP3 file naming back in the pre-iTunes world? They often started with a track number which carried through to the song title field in the player software. It was ugly and an organizational disaster. 

Structuring the metadata is smart.  

I'm pretty sure iTunes still uses the track number and song title as the filename, at least by default, and to be apparent when viewing those files in a Finder window.  Thankfully iTunes itself doesn't give a jot what the filename actually is, just what the metadata is.

Exactly. iTunes shipped files with structured metadata from day one. You can’t embed track numbers into track titles in the iTunes Store. It’s about time they got around to enforcing the same structure into podcasts.

jungmark said:

Why would they want to remove episode numbers?

I doubt they want to abolish episode numbers entirely. The simplest answer is they want to separate episode number from the title field. I haven’t done the legwork to check, but there must be another metadata field for episode numbers. Then podcast players can choose how to display the episode number field, likely [episode number field] - [episode title field]. 

Does anyone remember the sad state of MP3 file naming back in the pre-iTunes world? They often started with a track number which carried through to the song title field in the player software. It was ugly and an organizational disaster. 

Structuring the metadata is smart.  

1983 said:

Overall a better value to performance ratio than the Z7. Also I think Nikon did a better job with their first FF mirrorless camera’s than Canon did (Canon always seem to disappoint with their new camera bodies, at least over the last few years anyway) even though both aren’t up to Sony standards yet, when it comes to FF mirrorless.

I kind of love the way there is a clear technical benefit to picking the Z6 over the Z7: twice the light sensitivity. 

I’ve been doing a bit of Astrophotography this year and to increase my gear’s capability for this kind of imaging, I’d prefer light sensitivity to megapixels.