sagan_student
About
- Username
- sagan_student
- Joined
- Visits
- 67
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 445
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 188
Reactions
-
Apple 'pushes the envelope' with iPad Pro say executives
I have to disagree with you. I have been using an iPad Pro 12.9” as my sole computer since the original came out in 2015. I am high school teacher and have also just finished my masters. Back in 2015-2016 I would have agreed with you. The transition was difficult with significant changes to my workflow and far too many convoluted hacks just to make it tolerable. But things started to change with iOS 10 in 2016, with the split screen and the ability to make multiple selections. Since then it has only continued to improve. I plan all my lessons; make videos and handouts for all my classes; provided written or voice feedback to student assignments; annotated research papers; and planned, organized, wrote and edited papers.mike54 said:The iPad hardware is good, its iPadOS that is holding it back. iPadOS is severely limited. The workflow is not efficient and apps have to much power over your iPad.I can say that it’s taken some time and plenty of frustration and growth on my part, but I can confidently say that I am faster at selecting, copying, and pasting on my iPad then using a mouse now. The exactness that people love about the mouse is actually a hindrance. So from this perspective I am beginning to see a possible reason for the separation of iPad OS and why it will never the needs that you are saying that limits it.The biggest issue I think that people have with the productivity argument against iPad is screen size. With a mouse you can move effortlessly across two or three wide screen monitors. Each monitor having one or two programs that you want to immediate access to open and ready for that mouse to hover over it; all from the small motions of your worst arm on the desk. But that’s the difference, iPad is a device meant to be held, to be manipulated by touch. One isn’t going to reach across three monitors to touch them, that’s just not efficient.So where does that leave iPad and all of its power? My thinking has lead me to recognize that the power of iPad and iPad OS will be the OS that powers Apples push into AR and VR. The hand gestures that I have been trained to do over these past few years will transfer far better to an AR/VR environment than those that rely on a mouse as an input device. This transition will also remove that biggest barrier of screen size when it comes to talk of productivity. Just my two cents.Cheers
-
Developers claim that Apple's privacy-first features are 'atomic bomb' for revenue
Quick question, as I would rather poll the crowd than search for it. 🤓How much money do developers make from in-game advertisements and are these the same prices that YouTubers would qualify for?
I ask because I am trying to better understand the differences (if any) in pay scales between in-game advertising/YouTubers and pay-per-stream for musicians.
Thanks, K -
Apple to banish iPhone's TrueDepth 'notch' with sub-display Face ID in 2023, Kuo says
In the interim, Kuo predicts Apple could turn to hole-punch camera designs seen in other flagship handsets like Samsung's Galaxy S10.
This sentence is ridiculous. First, Kuo predicts that Apple ‘could’ do something... you can predict anyone ‘could’ do anything. That’s like betting with someone else’s money. Second, there is NO WAY Apple would do a hole-punch. The only way one can tell if you are using an iPhone from the front is the notch. Even if it was a better design (personally, I don’t think so), they would not do it for that reason. Unless Apple can think of a way that their hole-punch would be easily differentiated from Samsung’s then possibly, but I can’t think of how else you would make a hole-punch uniquely identifiable.
-
Toyota president tells Apple to prepare for the long-haul with 'Apple Car'
Because it hasn’t happened yet, does NOT imply that it can never happen. Some markets are just not ripe until some technology or innovation or change in culture has come and opened those doors. This is not to say this service would be for everyone, but if the timing is right and all the necessary requirements all intersect, then who is to say if it will or will not be profitable. I personally do not know. But I do know that Apple is all about user experience and a customized driverless transportation vehicle could be a very wonderful user experience.13485 said:
Absolutely will never happen--a taxi / rent-by-the-hour service? If anyone outside of San Francisco ever thought since 1920 that was a viable (read profitable) business model, it would already be everywhere. The rental car business is not exactly the most profitable in case you haven't noticed. In the US, with about 227 million licensed drivers, how long do you think it will take to get a vehicle to your house? Forgot to pick something up--or worse, someone? Good luck with that. A personal car is available instantaneously even in the middle of the night for any trip to anywhere with all your family accoutrements intact.mark fearing said:I still think Apple will go the route of Car as a service. I really would be surprised to see them sell to individuals. That’s so 1920. Honestly. Transportation as a subscription service. You call it, it shows up. You choose the size and distance you need ETC. Cars are the single largest depreciated asset in most peoples lives. You lose half the value driving off the lot, and it sits in a garage or parking lot more than it is driven. I’d be really surprised to see Apple chase a 100 year old business model. You pay a monthly fee, maybe 3 tiers, and that gets you so many miles or so many trips and a choice of what type of vehicle you want. There is more money in that than there is in selling cars via a dealership model. They will start in the large cities and move out. It’s not going to be a car for every town.
If you have paid attention to the patents Apple is pursuing for this project, you would see that they go way beyond a rental vehicle basic transportation model. And I'm not sure how you think it's more profitable to build the cars on Apple's own dollar and sit on a parking ramp full of vehicles that they have to clean, service and repair, for an hourly or trip-based fee. Or you could sell the cars to the public (rapid (ROI) and have them pay you a regular fee for servicing for the life of the vehicle (programmed income stream).
While you don't lose "half the value" when you leave the dealer, yes, it does sit a fair amount. Of course the car also sits, for instance, while you're wasting a third of your life sleeping.
-
Toyota president tells Apple to prepare for the long-haul with 'Apple Car'
I don’t think this is an issue as my guess is they will not be selling cars, they will be selling a service. All maintenance and decisions to take older versions off the road to be recycled are completely within Apple’s capabilities.rotateleftbyte said:prismatics said:robin huber said:Yes, because Apple knows nothing about long term service and support.
In terms of cars, they actually don't.Very true. They won't be able to get out of stopping support and spares production after 5 years. Then there is the right to repair. There is no way that Apple would ever be charging me through the nose to change the brake pads. These are commodity items and any half-decent mechanic including myself can change them. The same goes for tyres and wiper blades.Apple will be on a huge learning curve. What has worked for their business so far won't work when you get into the Automotive business.
