More accurate traffic displays and turn-by-turn directions that work pretty well in my city (ymmv). I seriously don't get the uproar. Anecdotally, Apple Maps have been better than Google maps (in the Austin area) for my specific use-cases.
But they did do a demonstration of the product, using the 3d flyover feature and turn-by-turn directions at the WWDC (or one of their conferences) before the product was released.
Apple has NOT made "exactly this move" with iOS because that's been the paradigm from day 1. They haven't "moved" from anything. It was the paradigm invented with iTunes + iPod that makes sense for iOS. It doesn't make sense for OS X, which is why they haven't and won't do that.
People need to stop conflating iOS with OS X. They are two very distinct things with very different business goals.
Let's address the first guy's issue, not some hypothetical that people keep saying will happen, yet hasn't (and probably won't). The guy was peeved that Lion/Mt. Lion didn't work somehow with three monitors (I use three, so not sure what his "particular needs" were). I imagine probably less than 1% of OS X users use 3 monitors, so why swiss army knife the OS to meet every one-of need? Apple is famous for being focused, not for laundry lists of features.
To your point, I couldn't care less if Apple did that. The apps I use at work are supplied by work, so I imagine they'd eat the costs, and everything else I use at home, comes with the computer, or is free or cheap on the App Store. That would be a pretty bad PR move for them to do that and given how much money they make, probably not worth the short term gains.
Surprise. Your "particular needs" of your setup require you to go buy some cheap app on the App Store to compensate. Good thing Apple makes OS X for the needs of most people and let's the "particular needs" be handled by the App Store.
For all of you saying a cell phone is only good for tracking your kid if the phone is on, you obviously don't have teenagers. Show me a time when their phones aren't on.
Yes, I know, the story is about little kids, but I have a three year old who is constantly toting around my old iPhone (as a touch). I could easily have him toss that in his book bag when he gets to be school-aged, if only to use the "find my friends" feature to know where he is. I use that feature with my oldest son (17, doesn't live with me) when he's coming to visit so I know where he is on his drive (70 miles), and help him if he gets turned around in The Big City once he gets into town.
And sure, all this only works if you have cell coverage or if the phone is on, but like I said, show me a teenager who turns his or her phone off...ever.
Of course they don't, but Apple isn't requiring a specific Apple plug-in. They merely suggest you use QuickTime for Windows because that's the Apple-provided plug-in that works with h264. There are plenty of PC players that handle h264.
And the fact Apple is "requiring" a plug-in at all is unavoidable. Given the lack of video players/containers/codeds/browsers/OS standards for video (outside of producing video for playback in the Apple ecosystem), Apple has no option other than to pick a format that works best on as many platforms as possible with the least amount of hassle. Sure it sucks that QuickTime for Windows sucks, but Apple is clearly not a fan of putting something out there and then letting anyone and everyone muck it up with their crappy code. That is something that is out of their business model, which is why their PC offerings lag far behind their Mac versions. That's the nature of the free-for-all world of developing for PCs.
On second review, I must have been responding to something somewhere else, because what I thought I was responding to, the guy said that h.264 was a proprietary Apple plug-in that forces you to use Apple hardware only, stating unequivocally that only Apple users could watch the keynote....which was totally wrong, but I guess I replied to the wrong thread.
My entire post is relevant because I'm not addressing what the system requirements to view the Apple event were, I'm correcting the fallacious assertion that h.264 was used in order to force anyone who wanted to view the even to buy a Mac or iOS device. As your post shows, no, you don't have to have a Mac to have watched the event. And no, QuickTime 7 is not the only player that would work to watch the event, but of course that's what Apple is going to put as the system requirement. As if Apple would say, "hey, don't use our software, use some other video thing you downloaded from some shady site that may or may not work, and then bitch about it blaming us!".
h.264 is not a plug-in. It's a codec. Anyone who even hints that h.264 is some sort of Apple lock-in mechanism has no idea what they are talking about.
If Zimmerman just wanted to shoot Martin, why did he get in to a physical altercation first? Why did he call 911?
Because that's what coward vigilante wannabes do. They call the cops, then bring a gun to a fist-fight (that they instigate), then seek approval from the source of authority they so desperately wish to be part of. Hanging around the police station, joking around, pal-ling around with the cops...all fits the sociopathic behavior.
I'm not sure anybody would ever want to work for you if you summarily dismiss people for things you find questionable. Was he a Nazi, having sex with goats, or attending a Klan meeting? If not, why in the hell would you care? Do you want everyone to be a clone of you or your corporation? Do you not value individualism and the inherent strengths of hiring a diverse pool of employees? I'm pretty sure I can find something somebody will find questionable about you, but that's their hangup. Smart companies understand this and don't go on social media witch hunts when hiring candidates.
That, plus my social media is an extension of who I am. I'm proud of my accomplishments and of my personality, so I consider social media to be an asset. If you are an asshat with poor judgment, you probably aren't leading the type of life that leads to many great career opportunities in the first place. If you are an asshat employer trying to find things to dislike about a candidate, you're not the kind of employer many of us want to work for. Furthermore, if you can't tell a candidate is an asshat long before you decide to google them, then your hiring practices need some work.
Just how much tweeting did Martin do after he was dead? And at what point did the police read Martin his Miranda rights? Before or after he was dead? Wait....what are you even talking about?
This argument makes no sense. Even if Trayvon Martin DID approach him and even if he assaulted him, the entire thing was provoked by Zimmerman. You know what doesn't happen if you don't strap a pistol to your belt and tail people doing nothing wrong? That's right, you don't end up being charged with 2nd degree murder.
I'm a manager at a call center. We track time away from calls, not because we care how long it takes you to take a smoke, or to take a crap, but for metrics. We have over 25,000 people on the phones world wide and how many minutes a call takes vs. how many workers are available for a call vs. how many workers are away from their desk (for whatever reason, we don't care) is critical to improving wait time.
As usual for the paranoia gang around here, it's not really about you. It's a big wad of data that is considered on the whole to make better business decisions.
Fuel-injectors vs. carbs...exactly my point. That's an incremental "improvement", and some people (not me) will argue the carb is "better" (cheaper, simple, blah blah). Fuel injectors, with their superior engineering and associated benefits, only provide a minor blip in performance. I'm looking for huge increments since 1950, not a doubling of fuel efficiency for equivalent power output.
NASCAR uses 50 year old technology and Formula 1 uses cutting edge technology. Both engines produce similar performance, even though they have 60 years of technology advances between them. Of course F1 is superior, but the common man can't afford that in a passenger car, which is my point. Why not? Why is it 1,000 fold more expensive to get 800 hp out a F1 car than it is to get 800 hp out of a 1950s era NASCAR engine?
A similar rant I like to use is why in the hell has the internal combustion engine remained unchanged for 50 years? Why can't my car produce 500 horsepower and get 100 mpg? Is it engineering or is it capitalism (or something else entirely?).
I'm not asking for flying cars here, just a modest update to 50 year old tech.
How can something be revolutionary when nobody wants it? Maybe that's harsh, but I can think of a lot of other things to get excited about...3D printing seems a bit out of place. It's like trying to get excited about haptics, touchscreen computers, 3D movies, that stupid Xbox motion sensor thingy...gimmicks, all of them.
Taking an existing paradigm and engineering it in new, different, exciting ways is the definition of innovation. Most of the nerds I know still think Blackberry are better phones than the iPhone, so of course the iPhone will never be innovative to them.
If you are going to talk about synergy on slashdot, it helps to use World of Warcraft terminology...as in The Sword of a Thousand Truths has excellent synergy with my Elf-Lord Palladin Tank-healer's Bezerker talent tree because the Charisma bonus buffs the Strength proc and AOE...especially in PvP realms. But I hear it's getting nerfed in Pandaria.
You made the same mistake MBA guy cited in his post. Synergy is not about motivation, it's about the whole is better than the parts. A group indeed can be better than the individual, if synergy is present, whereas each member of the group contributes a particular piece of expertise or skill that the others don't have. I know the stereo-typical slashdot developer type thinks they are the best at everything, but part of being good is knowing what you don't know and depending on others for that part.
Of course just slapping a bunch of diversely skilled people together won't automatically ensure synergy.
I find slashdot nerds who try to ridicule MBAs usually just don't understand the terminology correctly. Then the nerd goes off into one of his own peculiar tirades of terrible terms and starts "architecting" the next "instantiation" of database atTRIButes. Throw in some waterfalls and iterative processeses and one group's jargon sounds as silly as any other's.
Unfortunately I work with both. Fortunately, I'm neither.
Slashdot Mirror
More accurate traffic displays and turn-by-turn directions that work pretty well in my city (ymmv). I seriously don't get the uproar. Anecdotally, Apple Maps have been better than Google maps (in the Austin area) for my specific use-cases.
But they did do a demonstration of the product, using the 3d flyover feature and turn-by-turn directions at the WWDC (or one of their conferences) before the product was released.
Ahh, Newton. You mean that thing from 1993? That is a ridiculous argument.
And to my point, OS X still allows you to load software from unknown sources.
Apple has NOT made "exactly this move" with iOS because that's been the paradigm from day 1. They haven't "moved" from anything. It was the paradigm invented with iTunes + iPod that makes sense for iOS. It doesn't make sense for OS X, which is why they haven't and won't do that.
People need to stop conflating iOS with OS X. They are two very distinct things with very different business goals.
Let's address the first guy's issue, not some hypothetical that people keep saying will happen, yet hasn't (and probably won't). The guy was peeved that Lion/Mt. Lion didn't work somehow with three monitors (I use three, so not sure what his "particular needs" were). I imagine probably less than 1% of OS X users use 3 monitors, so why swiss army knife the OS to meet every one-of need? Apple is famous for being focused, not for laundry lists of features.
To your point, I couldn't care less if Apple did that. The apps I use at work are supplied by work, so I imagine they'd eat the costs, and everything else I use at home, comes with the computer, or is free or cheap on the App Store. That would be a pretty bad PR move for them to do that and given how much money they make, probably not worth the short term gains.
Surprise. Your "particular needs" of your setup require you to go buy some cheap app on the App Store to compensate. Good thing Apple makes OS X for the needs of most people and let's the "particular needs" be handled by the App Store.
For all of you saying a cell phone is only good for tracking your kid if the phone is on, you obviously don't have teenagers. Show me a time when their phones aren't on.
Yes, I know, the story is about little kids, but I have a three year old who is constantly toting around my old iPhone (as a touch). I could easily have him toss that in his book bag when he gets to be school-aged, if only to use the "find my friends" feature to know where he is. I use that feature with my oldest son (17, doesn't live with me) when he's coming to visit so I know where he is on his drive (70 miles), and help him if he gets turned around in The Big City once he gets into town.
And sure, all this only works if you have cell coverage or if the phone is on, but like I said, show me a teenager who turns his or her phone off...ever.
Of course they don't, but Apple isn't requiring a specific Apple plug-in. They merely suggest you use QuickTime for Windows because that's the Apple-provided plug-in that works with h264. There are plenty of PC players that handle h264.
And the fact Apple is "requiring" a plug-in at all is unavoidable. Given the lack of video players/containers/codeds/browsers/OS standards for video (outside of producing video for playback in the Apple ecosystem), Apple has no option other than to pick a format that works best on as many platforms as possible with the least amount of hassle. Sure it sucks that QuickTime for Windows sucks, but Apple is clearly not a fan of putting something out there and then letting anyone and everyone muck it up with their crappy code. That is something that is out of their business model, which is why their PC offerings lag far behind their Mac versions. That's the nature of the free-for-all world of developing for PCs.
On second review, I must have been responding to something somewhere else, because what I thought I was responding to, the guy said that h.264 was a proprietary Apple plug-in that forces you to use Apple hardware only, stating unequivocally that only Apple users could watch the keynote....which was totally wrong, but I guess I replied to the wrong thread.
My entire post is relevant because I'm not addressing what the system requirements to view the Apple event were, I'm correcting the fallacious assertion that h.264 was used in order to force anyone who wanted to view the even to buy a Mac or iOS device. As your post shows, no, you don't have to have a Mac to have watched the event. And no, QuickTime 7 is not the only player that would work to watch the event, but of course that's what Apple is going to put as the system requirement. As if Apple would say, "hey, don't use our software, use some other video thing you downloaded from some shady site that may or may not work, and then bitch about it blaming us!".
h.264 is not a plug-in. It's a codec. Anyone who even hints that h.264 is some sort of Apple lock-in mechanism has no idea what they are talking about.
Um, no. You need to research harder. And his post arrest behavior has been even less upstanding.
I said nothing of the sort. I said if you don't follow somebody, they don't beat your ass for following them.
If Zimmerman just wanted to shoot Martin, why did he get in to a physical altercation first? Why did he call 911?
Because that's what coward vigilante wannabes do. They call the cops, then bring a gun to a fist-fight (that they instigate), then seek approval from the source of authority they so desperately wish to be part of. Hanging around the police station, joking around, pal-ling around with the cops...all fits the sociopathic behavior.
Yeah, because that kind of guy applies for jobs that require a resume and interview....uh huh.
I'm not sure anybody would ever want to work for you if you summarily dismiss people for things you find questionable. Was he a Nazi, having sex with goats, or attending a Klan meeting? If not, why in the hell would you care? Do you want everyone to be a clone of you or your corporation? Do you not value individualism and the inherent strengths of hiring a diverse pool of employees? I'm pretty sure I can find something somebody will find questionable about you, but that's their hangup. Smart companies understand this and don't go on social media witch hunts when hiring candidates.
That, plus my social media is an extension of who I am. I'm proud of my accomplishments and of my personality, so I consider social media to be an asset. If you are an asshat with poor judgment, you probably aren't leading the type of life that leads to many great career opportunities in the first place. If you are an asshat employer trying to find things to dislike about a candidate, you're not the kind of employer many of us want to work for. Furthermore, if you can't tell a candidate is an asshat long before you decide to google them, then your hiring practices need some work.
Just how much tweeting did Martin do after he was dead? And at what point did the police read Martin his Miranda rights? Before or after he was dead? Wait....what are you even talking about?
This argument makes no sense. Even if Trayvon Martin DID approach him and even if he assaulted him, the entire thing was provoked by Zimmerman. You know what doesn't happen if you don't strap a pistol to your belt and tail people doing nothing wrong? That's right, you don't end up being charged with 2nd degree murder.
I'm a manager at a call center. We track time away from calls, not because we care how long it takes you to take a smoke, or to take a crap, but for metrics. We have over 25,000 people on the phones world wide and how many minutes a call takes vs. how many workers are available for a call vs. how many workers are away from their desk (for whatever reason, we don't care) is critical to improving wait time.
As usual for the paranoia gang around here, it's not really about you. It's a big wad of data that is considered on the whole to make better business decisions.
Now back to your extended shitter break.
Fuel-injectors vs. carbs...exactly my point. That's an incremental "improvement", and some people (not me) will argue the carb is "better" (cheaper, simple, blah blah). Fuel injectors, with their superior engineering and associated benefits, only provide a minor blip in performance. I'm looking for huge increments since 1950, not a doubling of fuel efficiency for equivalent power output.
NASCAR uses 50 year old technology and Formula 1 uses cutting edge technology. Both engines produce similar performance, even though they have 60 years of technology advances between them. Of course F1 is superior, but the common man can't afford that in a passenger car, which is my point. Why not? Why is it 1,000 fold more expensive to get 800 hp out a F1 car than it is to get 800 hp out of a 1950s era NASCAR engine?
A similar rant I like to use is why in the hell has the internal combustion engine remained unchanged for 50 years? Why can't my car produce 500 horsepower and get 100 mpg? Is it engineering or is it capitalism (or something else entirely?).
I'm not asking for flying cars here, just a modest update to 50 year old tech.
How can something be revolutionary when nobody wants it? Maybe that's harsh, but I can think of a lot of other things to get excited about...3D printing seems a bit out of place. It's like trying to get excited about haptics, touchscreen computers, 3D movies, that stupid Xbox motion sensor thingy...gimmicks, all of them.
Taking an existing paradigm and engineering it in new, different, exciting ways is the definition of innovation. Most of the nerds I know still think Blackberry are better phones than the iPhone, so of course the iPhone will never be innovative to them.
If you are going to talk about synergy on slashdot, it helps to use World of Warcraft terminology...as in The Sword of a Thousand Truths has excellent synergy with my Elf-Lord Palladin Tank-healer's Bezerker talent tree because the Charisma bonus buffs the Strength proc and AOE...especially in PvP realms. But I hear it's getting nerfed in Pandaria.
You made the same mistake MBA guy cited in his post. Synergy is not about motivation, it's about the whole is better than the parts. A group indeed can be better than the individual, if synergy is present, whereas each member of the group contributes a particular piece of expertise or skill that the others don't have. I know the stereo-typical slashdot developer type thinks they are the best at everything, but part of being good is knowing what you don't know and depending on others for that part.
Of course just slapping a bunch of diversely skilled people together won't automatically ensure synergy.
I find slashdot nerds who try to ridicule MBAs usually just don't understand the terminology correctly. Then the nerd goes off into one of his own peculiar tirades of terrible terms and starts "architecting" the next "instantiation" of database atTRIButes. Throw in some waterfalls and iterative processeses and one group's jargon sounds as silly as any other's.
Unfortunately I work with both. Fortunately, I'm neither.