colinng

Oh this Apple page mentions how some independent filmmakers shoot with iPhone: 

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/01/emerging-la-filmmakers-create-short-films-with-small-budgets-and-big-ideas/

Includes such tidbits as:

Fortunately, their metadata was automatically organized after being imported straight into Final Cut Pro X from Shot Notes X and Lumberjack, along with the secondary source audio via Sync-N-Link X, which spared days of hand-syncing.

rogifan_new said:

What market is that exactly? Apple bought Beats at its plateau. I remember going into Best Buy years ago and seeing hardly any headphones that weren’t Beats. Not anymore. Now Best Buy is showcasing JBL, Sony, AKG, AudioTechnica, B&O, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic, etc. Maybe celebrities & althletes are still big Beats users. But when I’m at the gym I see more people wearing AirPods than Beats.

There are lots of variables that lead to the outcome you see. I don’t think retail in general (except for Apple and a few others) is doing that well. In Canada we lost NCIX (computer/tech retailer), and Future Shop (when Best Buy bought it - then shut it down). That leaves Memory Express, Best Buy, and a few mom-and-pop stores, all fighting against Amazon. It’s actually quite sad. 

The big name retailers used to make more money charging for “placement” than from selling the actual goods. I’ll bet a boatload of “marketing” expenses are incurred by any manufacturer paying to have its products featured at Best Buy. Major laptop vendors typically paid a branch of a store tens of thousands to feature their laptops. At 1-3% margin a store would have to sell a TON of PC laptops to get the same profit. Yet other that Macs, are laptops flying off the shelves?

Then what Best Buy pushes on its customers (a name brand or their house brand) is a matter of which item has the most commission. 

My guess: Best Buy is playing one audio brand against another to see who will fight to pay Best Buy the most to “feature” their product. When Best Buy needs to justify the cost, they either shrug and say, “well online sales are causing drops in retail”, or they can promise to do better and then just jack the commission on that particular brand, to spike the sales until the watchdogs leave. 

Its sad really. Not many people read enough and test products enough to force only good products to appear on the market. Manufacturers then play this stupid game of who can shout the loudest (biggest ad spend) while we are just wishing we could get good stuff and pay fair price. Who wins? Ad agencies. Who loses? Engineers and consumers. 

Apple Retail doesn’t just sell lots, it saves Apple from having to pay the big box tax. When there are multiple Apple stores in every major city, and they are in great areas, like high end malls, and places that people want to go to, then Apple is no longer subject to Best Buy trying to raise the “placement” rate.  

When Beats are found at every Apple Store worldwide, why would Apple even give a penny to Best Buy? Why not sink extra pennies into new retail locations? 

I hatched a new pet theory after reading your article. 


I felt that Walt was a very different writer after Steve passed away. He seemed less enthusiastic about Apple, and less correct about predicting the future in general. It takes years to deal with the grief of losing a friend. But also Steve had an uncanny ability to predict the future. Well, some would say he had that knack because he and his team were busy inventing it! 


Walt was a friend not just to Steve, but also to Apple. Walt's personality, character, and candour earned him the trust of Steve, and being on the inside scoop definitely helped Walt's career. In turn Walt's publications prevented a lot of unjustified criticism against Apple.


I am grateful for Walt's well-thought out articles, bold directions, justified and well-tempered criticism, and yes, he absolutely shined during the All Things D conferences where he and Kara really asked some questions I didn't think many journalists would be smart and brave enough to think up, or have empathy and character enough to ask in a way that opened up rather than closed off their interviewee.


Through Walt we got a peek into how Steve saw the world, and it was interesting to say the least, if not outright enlightening. I'll always remember Walt as the one who asked questions that made Steve's eyes pop, but also tempered the question such that Steve could reply with something very thoughtful. Just one example of how Walt brought out the best in people.


Tim is different from Steve and has different friends. It is human nature to fear the risk of a different take on a past success, but I think the whole spirit of "Think Different" (as I interpret) means to: reach out to see things from yet a different perspective, gain insight and drop old, even cherished, beliefs that no longer serve us, because we now have a new perspective that has far more predictive power.


I recognize many great things that Tim has done:

• where to be open (AI research, owning up to product gaps) and where to double-down on secrecy
• really pushing for fundamental human rights, working conditions
• grasping the rare occasion it is necessary to stand up against the establishment (FBI San Bernardino case)
• pushing for environmental standards (96% renewable energy is nothing to sneeze at - if every company and household did that - we would achieve the "impossible" task and actually reverse climate change). 

 I also watch where he experimented and corrected course:

• certain "not great fit" hires
• his experiments on different ways to market Apple products, even down to "do we really have to do a keynote each time? Or shouldn't we give private 1-on-1s to certain trustworthy journalists and Phil?"

I think Apple is in great shape (although the stress of being coxswain is certainly adding wrinkles to Tim's face).


Yes, a few cherished people have left Apple, but that doesn't mean the ship is sinking.


Sometimes people leave to another company that is funding R&D that has far higher risk and far longer ROI timeframe than Apple's governance will allow. And sometimes they come back through acquisitions, with key technologies underlie Apple's NeXT renaissance. 

There's no need for Apple to show off its hardware at this point. Fully autonomous vehicles are years out in spite of what some CEOs of certain companies say, or all the tech buzz. Reminds me of when "hover boards" which never actually hovered and certainly weren't boards, were being talked about. Everywhere. Ridiculous. 

The state of AI doesn't Peter out for fully autonomous vehicles. And then the question is - what's the point of a partially autonomous vehicle? It's more work to review (and know when the machine is about to make an error) than it is to... simply drive. I'd venture to say it is safer if the driver felt fully responsible for their safety - rather than be half asleep, than to be in a partially automated vehicle. 

I think Apple knows this too, so they will continue to carry out R&D and meticulously compare AI decisions with human decisions, and refine the AI. Which will take years. Once they are close to completion then they can get back into making hardware - this time for a completely autonomous vehicle. 

Just like the iPhone ditched the plastic button keyboards, scroll wheels and balls, hardware focus cameras, styluses, memory cards, and even headphone jacks, the Apple Car, driven by carOS, could ditch lot of things: Steering wheels, pedals, gear selectors, parking brakes, horn, instrument cluster, dashboard, engines, jumper cables, bumpers, mirrors, sun shades, forward facing main windshield, forward facing seats, etc.

But the hardest part is the software - and their modified cars are adequate for the development they need to do. 

This will be the hardest thing they've ever done. It can't launch like Apple Maps. It has to be perfect on day one. And it's so doable by a company like Apple that has such bright dedicated people working together.