I never said Metal was better. Just because I disagree with what I think is a bad argument coming from you, it doesn't mean I'd support the same bad argument coming from someone on the other side. I honestly don't care which "wins" between Metal and Vulkan.
I never said WebGL was unsafe to use. I was confused why you even brought it up, and still am. It's safe to use and it was designed for the web, but it doesn't provide the close-to-the-metal access this new standard is designed to provide, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
None of the close-to-the-metal APIs (i.e. Metal, Vulkan, and Direct 3D 12) are safe to use with the web as they are now. Additionally, keep in mind that this standard is not just about opening up the graphics layer, it's also about exposing the compute layer. Between that and the fact that none of these APIs provide sandboxing, it should be obvious that they're unsafe.
Just think about it for a sec: if Vulkan or even OpenGL were already safe as they are, why does WebGL only expose a subset of the features they provide? We already have implementations for them, after all, so if they were safe to use, we'd already be using them.
I never implied, nor said, nor would say said that Metal is designed to deal with untrusted code. In fact, I never asserted in any of my posts that Metal was in any way superior in any regard whatsoever to the other, competing APIs, nor would I. I merely criticized some overstated headlines and then some poor arguments that would have been just as poor had they come from a Metal or Direct 3D 12 supporter. They just happened to come from someone supporting Vulkan.
Understandably, I won't be replying to the rest of your comment, since you're making a point that I already agree with.
I'm simply pointing out that Apple don't really care for open standards. If they did they'd implement Vulkan.
As I've already pointed out elsewhere in response to you, you seem to be very confused about what all of this means. You're basically suggesting Apple doesn't care about open standards because they're making a car (a safe abstraction for the graphics/compute layer) instead of implementing a gasoline engine (the unsafe graphics/compute layer). Never mind that they intend to use the gas engine--as well as other engines--in their car.
> For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code,
[[Citation]]
Do you have an _actual example_ that shows this or are you just repeating dogma that everyone else does?
Do you have an _actual example_ that shows there is not an invisible, intangible unicorn standing next to you right now, or are you just repeating dogma that everyone else does?
Repeat after me: you can't prove nonexistence, which is why the onus is on the side claiming existence. If you want to claim that they designed it that way, the onus is on you to prove it. Have fun.
Moreover, what does the cross-platform capabilities of WebGL have to do with my statements regarding Vulkan? Yes, WebGL is cross-platform. What of it? Apple's proposed standard may compete with or attempt to displace WebGL, but both of those are built on top of underlying technologies like OpenGL, Vulkan, and Metal, and between Vulkan, Metal, and Direct 3D 12, none are widely available across a multitude of platforms yet.
But then how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry? How can they force adoption of their own standard
Yeah, it's a real shame how they used their stranglehold over WebKit to control the direction Chrome is going; LLVM and related technologies (e.g. Clang) to control the direction a huge chunk of the software industry is going; CUPS to control the printer industry...
I agree that Apple does do a lot of proprietary stuff (e.g. connectors, protocols, etc.), but they're used as a means for tying people to their hardware (i.e. where they make about 90% of their money), rather than as a means for extending their reach to other platforms. When Apple engages in community-driven projects like this, it tends to be for one reason alone: their interests align with the community's, so they stand to gain from involving the community. That's it, plain and simple, and their track record backs that up. It's when they don't involve the community, that we tend to see the sort of stuff you're talking about (e.g. MPEG).
The only other valid explanation for what they're doing is that they perceive a competing graphics API as providing a competitive advantage to someone else (e.g. maybe they think Microsoft can leverage Direct 3D 12 in Edge?), so they're willing to commoditize web graphics, including their own, in order to negate that advantage. But even if that were true, we still benefit.
Everyone in the comments suggesting we should just use their favorite graphics API is missing the point entirely.
Neither Vulkan nor its competitors are safe to use with untrusted code from the web. Allowing any random web developer to have access to the full capabilities of any of those APIs is a recipe for disaster. This standard is, from what I can gather, intended to be a layer that abstracts away the underlying API, whether it be Metal, Vulkan, or Direct 3D 12, which should provide a safe means for using them.
For an initial implementation, Apple is providing a prototype that is compatible with Metal, given that they had apparently already done quite a bit of work mapping Metal to Javascript, but it's clear that the end goal with this standard is to provide something that is compatible with all of these close-to-the-metal APIs. I imagine that version 1 of the standard will resemble an intersection of features between the competing APIs, that way they can ensure the broadest compatibility right from the get-go.
In addition to but separate from the web standard, they're talking about taking Metal cross-platform. That wouldn't affect the web standard (which, again, should be able to work on top of any of these competing APIs), but it would ensure that the standard is usable on any platform they choose to support with Metal. If they do take Metal cross-platform, that would seem to suggest an uptick in their interest in creating web-based products that are consistent and in top-shape across a variety of platforms, in much the same way that Google created Chrome to do the same.
You clearly have no idea what any of this is about, because what you just said is a terrible idea regardless of whether you support Vulkan or not.
For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code, so there are quite a number of significant security and technical concerns with your notion that we can simply adopt one of them as a web standard that any random web developer has full access to (which would've been just as true had you said Metal or Direct 3D 12 instead). What you "need", then, is a safe layer that abstracts the underlying API and provides safety to the user (I say "need" in quotes, because I'm not actually clear that this is something we want, let alone need).
Second, neither Vulkan nor its competitors are actually cross-platform in practice today. It may be the case that one of them will become more widespread over time, but, for now, the world we live in is a fragmented one. Any given platform likely supports at least one of these competing standards, but you can't count on having support for any particular one. A web standard that lives over all of them would make it possible to tap into that power without having to know anything about any of them.
When they talk about using Metal for this standard's initial implementation, what they mean is that they've already done most of the work of mapping Metal back to existing web standards (e.g. Javascript), so they have a head start on which features a standard may be able to support and what that web API may look like. They'll likely take something resembling the intersection of Metal's features with Direct 3D 12's and Vulkan's features so as to provide an initial release of the standard that works across most platforms.
When they talk about Metal going cross-platform, that's a separate (but related) topic. It wouldn't affect this standard (i.e. you should eventually be able to use this standard with Metal as easily as with Vulkan), but it would provide them with a means for ensuring the availability of the standard across any platforms supported by Metal.
Where in the article does it suggest that Apple is making a power play here to position Metal like the headline says? This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Metal specifically, and is instead about leveraging the entire class of APIs that have been coming out that are closer to the (lowercase) metal. In fact, they specifically said so in the summary:
As noted by Dean Jackson from the WebKit team, advancements in the GPU hardware space has led to identical enhancements in software APIs. He cites platform technologies like Apple's Metal, Microsoft's Direct3D 12 and the Khronos Group's Vulkan as offering lower overhead, and thus better performance, than the OpenGL standard.
The only thing special about Metal that's mentioned in the article is its role in the initial implementation. To pull the relevant quote:
While Metal appears to underpin Apple's initial web graphics proposal, the company does not expect its concept to become the ultimate standard. That said, it appears Apple is angling to take Metal cross-platform.
"We don't expect this to become the actual API that ends up in the standard, and maybe not even the one that the Community Group decides to start with, but we think there is a lot of value in working code," Jackson says.
So, basically, Apple folks have access to Metal and understand how it works, so they're starting with what they know and have so that they can get the ball rolling quickly. Where it goes from there is up to the community, which, given Apple's typical approach their open source/community-driven projects (e.g. WebKit, LLVM, Clang, Swift, etc.), it's likely that they actually mean that. Of course, they'll no doubt use their role in the community to try and steer things to their own advantage, but if they do so too much it's likely that this will simply become another dead-end "standard" that no one adopts.
+1 for Radiolab. The best explanation I've come up with for it so far is that it's a variety series of incredibly well-produced audio micro-documentaries. I listened to one on a whim (Bigger than Bacon, which was about the mystery of a crackling sound one of their reporters used to hear at boat dock near their house) and was immediately hooked. It finds the perfect balance between being educational and entertaining.
I also love their More Perfect podcast. It's worth a listen for anyone who wishes they knew more about the US Supreme Court but doesn't actually want to devote any time to the subject. They manage to find the human interest side to each story and present them in a way that keeps you on the edge of your seat, despite the fact that in most of the cases I knew how the cases would turn out.
As for my complete list and why I like them, it's pretty short: - Accidental Tech Podcast - Three guys talking about tech and cars. They play well off each other and, between the three, usually have some decent insight into the tech community and how it interacts with a mostly inscrutable company (i.e. Apple).
- Serial - Everyone and their grandma listens to this one, so it needs no explanation
- Under the Radar - Two guys talking iOS development. I'm not in the space, but it's always under 30 minutes, they stay on topic, and they frequently provide a veteran's perspective that runs contrary to what an outsider like me might think makes sense, so I find it to be a decent listen. Others will likely find it boring.
I'm also going to give the just-begun The Important Thing a shot in the next few days, since the guy doing it writes a frequently-insightful blog that I really enjoy reading and is typically really good on the other podcasts I've heard him on. I expect it'll become part of my usual group of podcasts, but I can't yet offer that recommendation.
Regarding the gap with the MacBook Pro, I quite agree that that's the biggest factor at play. I didn't realize you were getting at quite that point, so I apologize for arguing about something that we actually agree on.
That said, when I said the factors were the same, I was intending to speak primarily towards your comments regarding vendor lock-in. The lock-in has remained unchanged over the years, so it alone doesn't produce changes in sales. It does, however, enable other factors (e.g. pent-up demand) to drive changes in sales. That's what I was getting at when I said it hasn't changed. Put differently, they haven't improved their lock-in by a significant margin anytime recently, so it alone can't explain any growth we see in their unit sales.
the iPhone 6 had a lacklustre reception too
That's not at all backed up by the facts (see Q1 '15). Again, I'm talking about units sold, and in that regard it's unquestionably true that the iPhone 6 had anything BUT a lackluster reception. You can argue that some reviewers panned it, but that's true of every model and not at all relevant to anything I'm discussing. Up until the iPhone 6s, each model broke the unit sales record set by the previous model, but the iPhone 6 was a massive outlier in the degree to which it broke the record, and it's my belief that the iPhone 7 is benefitting from the uncommonly large number of iPhone 6 users looking to now upgrade.
Your response makes no sense to me (what don't you disagree with? what did they announce now? what's slimy?), so I'll address it in generalities.
Anyone paying attention has known for years that this particular quarter would be a 14-week quarter for Apple, since their fourth quarters always end on the last Saturday of the calendar year. They didn't suddenly and arbitrarily choose to make this quarter longer to pad their numbers. It just happened to be that way. Other companies have to deal with leap quarters as well, or else have other means for dealing with these sorts of issues. This isn't a problem that's unique to Apple. The fact that it just happened to land right now for them is entirely coincidental, not strategic, though there is a strategy in the way that they're using it to their advantage by not mentioning it up front in the briefing.
they don't release sales figures unless it's beneficial to them.
Apple consistently releases quarterly sales figures for all of their major products except the Apple TV and Apple Watch and is legally obligated to do so until they announce otherwise. That's true for most of the big companies in this space. If they suddenly stopped reporting iPhone, iPad, or Mac sales numbers, it'd be huge news and a major indicator that sales had fallen off a cliff (in much the same way that Amazon's refusal to announce hard numbers for the Fire Phone and other products shortly before their demise was taken as an accurate indicator of poor sales).
Let me clarify what I was getting at, since it seems you aren't picking up what I was putting down.
You know 90%+ of desktop users run Windows, so it must be *a lot* better than macOS and Linux
This seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding. I wasn't arguing that these were better products. I was pointing out that consumer demand for these products isn't being driven by the things the tech community cares about, which should be plainly obvious to anyone who does an Apples-to-Apples comparison of their current sales figures with their previous sales figures. If sales go up relative to previous years when they drop a feature the tech community cares about, it should be evident that the tech community's desires are not aligned with those of the general population. That's all I was getting at with the statement you quoted.
So, no, I don't think I'm relying on flawed logic here. You're ascribing conclusions to me that I wasn't jumping to.
That's the Microsoft effect, they have lock in through iOS and macOS so if you are tied to those platforms you have no choice on the hardware, they could sell shit on a stick and if it ran iOS and had an Apple logo you'd buy it.
This, however, is faulty logic. The latest iPhone and MacBook Pro outsold the previous models (in the case of the MacBook Pro, it did so by a factor of 7x in the launch period), but Apple's previous models benefitted from lock-in just as much as their current models, so, contrary to what you're saying, it should be clear that lock-in isn't the factor driving changes in demand. I've already commented elsewhere with regards to what factors may actually be at play, so I'll refrain from repeating myself here unnecessarily.
Suffice to say, no, I'm not saying more sales = better product, and I think it's disingenuous to suggest that vendor lock-in is a sufficient explanation for any of this. It's certainly a factor that's at play, but if it's the same now as it's always been, it should be obvious that it doesn't explain the changes we're seeing.
especially in a lineup of devices replacing ageing and obsolete equipment with very high levels of vendor lock-in. What's a person gonna do? Throw away their software library and adopt another platform?
The previous MacBook Pro and iPhone updates benefitted from those same factors, yet these latest updates are the ones that set new sales records. The fact that they're seeing sales growth suggests that some new factors are at play, rather than factors that have been true all along, such as the ones you said.
In the case of the MacBook Pro update, my best guess is a combination of the tech community completely missing the appeal of the devices (i.e. par for the course, though I include myself in that group, since I don't get the appeal either) and that there was a lot of pent-up demand as a result of the update being long-overdue. The numbers Apple posted shortly after the launch indicated that their sales were 7x that of their previous MacBook Pro update, so I don't think it was just one factor or the other. I think both were at play.
For the iPhone 7, we need to look back a few years to make sense of things. The iPhone 6 was not just a typical record-breaker in terms of iPhone sales: it shattered the previous records by a HUGE margin. The iPhone 6s that followed it would have been a record-breaking model, but the iPhone 6 was such a massive outlier that it resulted in year-over-year declines. But now, the bulk of those iPhone 6 users are starting to upgrade on the typical two-year cycle, so that translates to higher sales on the iPhone 7, resulting in a new record-setting model.
Of course, if Apple can't come out with something outstanding for next year's model, we can probably anticipate lower or equal sales for the next iPhone, given the nature of the typical upgrade cycle.
The tech crowd echo chamber had a lot to say about the headphone jack disappearing and the new MacBook Pros being a lousy update, but the unit sales on both of those devices point to the masses simply not caring. Both of them were stated to be setting sales records for Apple even before these financials came out.
I do agree that there is plenty of criticism warranted against Tim Cook's Apple. I feel as if he's fallen into the profits trap that Steve Jobs famously talked about when he was asked in 1995 about why the Mac failed to be a bigger deal. But I also see this whole "no innovation" argument as a bit of a double standard. Under Jobs, they put out evolutionary products (i.e. incremental updates) each year, but only put out revolutionary products (i.e. Mac, iPod, iPhone, and arguably the iPad) once per decade or so. The fact that they haven't had one since his 2011 death is not surprising, though it doesn't bode well for the company either. They clearly thought the Watch would be a revolutionary product, but, as with the iPad, it took them a couple of years before they even realized what it should be used for, let alone to start marketing it so that people would understand the benefits.
No, it's probably a down quarter for 13W, because many people shop on the sales directly after x-mas or get promised a cell phone at x-mas and buy it afterward because they don't know the color they'd like or something like that.
The post-Christmas week is always part of their fourth quarter financials, so it makes no sense to remove it from consideration like you're suggesting we do.
Anyone that watches Apple knows this, and it isn't that big of a deal. Next year they will be penalized by IT in the same vein.
Exactly. Next year they'll have that much further to have to go if they don't want to report a down quarter, so it's of virtually no net-benefit to them.
That said, it is of interest that the last few times they've had a 14-week quarter, they've mentioned it right at the start of their briefing in order to set expectations, whereas there was no mention of it this time. I don't think they were trying to hide anything, but I don't think they were doing the media any favors. In fact, I'd wager that they were trying to let the media jump to the obvious conclusions so that they might benefit from a short-term reversal in the narrative that's been playing out.
Of course, it's also questionable whether or not they even would have had a down quarter had it been a 13-week quarter, given the positioning of Christmas within the quarter. The summary pulled just the "had another down quarter" portion from DaringFireball's comments, but the original quote actually continued on with:
I don’t think it’s quite right to ding the quarter by a full 8 percent — the entire last week started with Christmas day — but surely some sort of correction is necessary for year-over-year comparisons.
Ideally, we'd consider the last 13 weeks of the year, eliminating the first week from their 14-week quarter. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't break the numbers down so we can do that, which means our best approximation is to knock their numbers down by 1/14th. Doing that, however, results in us giving as much weight to their first week—which was likely their weakest—as we give Christmas week, thus unfairly punishing them for having a longer quarter. Obviously, that would result in a greater downward shift than is warranted.
For even more proof that the OP is way off-base, reports just came in indicating that Apple sold 5.2 million Apple Watches in the last quarter alone. Contrast that with Rolex, which makes 2,000 watches a day, equating to about 700,000 per year. Granted, the holiday quarter is Apple's strongest, but those numbers would suggest that Apple in one quarter outsold Rolex's entire year by a factor of 7, indicating that their unit sales are doing just fine and that they're not hiding behind revenue numbers like the OP was suggesting.
Depends on how we want to scope and define things to suit our narrative. All of the following are true statements, so far as I'm aware.
A) Apple sold more smartphones than anyone else last quarter B) Android phones outsold iPhones by about 4:1 last quarter Reality: Apple did sell more smartphones than anyone else last quarter, beating out second-place Samsung by a tenth of a percent, but Android manufacturers as a whole accounted for about 82% of smartphone sales globally.
A) iPads accounted for over 85% of premium tablet sales last quarter B) Android accounted for over 75% of the tablet market last year Reality: iPads have seen declining sales, both in terms of units sold and market share, for the last several years. Despite that, they still dominate the ($200+) high-end of the market.
A) Apple made 102% of smartphone profits in the quarter previous B) Android's marketshare has gone up YoY for several years Reality: Unit sales numbers are up for both iOS and Android, but Android is making less money while capturing more of the market and Apple is making more money while capturing less of the market.
The fact is, both sides have apologists who like to ignore the statistics they find less convenient while emphasizing the ones that favor their side. For my part, I think that both market share and profit share need to be considered. After all, a company who makes no money won't stay in business for long, but a company who only sells a few units can go out of business by losing just a few sales.
Towards that end, I think it's disingenuous when Android fanboys ignore the lack of profits posted by Android manufacturers and dismiss the fact that Apple consistently posts profits that are greater than the rest of the industry combined by quibbling over nonessentials (e.g. "A company making more than 100% of the industry's profits doesn't make any sense to me, so it must be invalid."). Likewise, I think it's disingenuous when Apple fanboys reframe market arguments in terms of manufacturers in an effort to hide the fact that Apple has been consistently losing the market share fight on a global level across all price points against a monolithic ecosystem that is perfectly capable of outlasting any particular manufacturer.
For me, the only question is where we go from here. Either the Android manufacturers keep posting bad profits and commoditize themselves right out of business, or Apple becomes marginalized as the market expands faster than their sales, or we hit a state of equilibrium where Apple continues to be relevant but gets pigeonholed into a "premium" niche, like what's happened with Macs. I'd bet on #3, personally.
And I've seen more Apples Watches than Rolexes. Yay for anecdotes?
In your Microsoft example, revenue was used to mask bad unit sales, but all indications point towards the opposite being the case here. The average selling price for an Apple Watch is far below that of a Rolex. If Apple can sell a significantly less expensive product while coming second-only to Rolex in terms of revenue, it would suggest that their sales volume is significantly higher than that of Rolex.
That said, Rolex has a head start of a few decades on Apple and sells a product that oftentimes outlasts its owner, so it's unsurprising that you've seen more Rolexes up to this point. For my part, I've already seen more Apple Watches in person than I ever saw Rolexes, but that's to be expected as well, given the demographics for the region where I live.
Provided Apple keeps up their current trend for just a few more years, my anecdotal experience will become the more common one for the vast majority of people.
While the Librarian of Congress hasn't granted an exemption to the DMCA for ripping copy-protected videos for personal use, the courts seem to be divided over whether or not it actually matters, with some of them ruling that the activity is permissible. From what I've gathered, the MPAA isn't exactly pursuing anyone over it, which actually makes sense, given that the current situation of uncertainty is in their favor.
If the courts established a clear precedent saying that format-shifting copy-protected videos is legal, it'd open the floodgates to ripping products going mainstream, making it harder for them to capitalize on upgrades to digital copies. If the courts established a clear precedent the other way, they'd be killing the value proposition of discs without providing any alternative (if their DRM-encumbered digital copies were a valid alternative, honest people like me wouldn't be going to all this trouble with discs).
Either way, I'm morally in the clear, given that I'm paying for what I receive and only use what I paid for in accordance with consumer rights that go back decades. Besides which, there's no lack of media clamoring for my attention, and that's only becoming more and more true with time, so if they successfully push through a clear precedent against format-shifting copy-protected media, I'll simply turn to other entertainment that wants my money.
So, Is the following statement true or false? Is it true all over the state or only outside Austin?
"everyone can smoke in public along with most businesses being smoker-friendly indoors"
As a Texan who's been living in the College Station area (where Texas A&M University is) since 2002, I can't think of anytime in the last decade that I've seen smoking indoors. And I'm an asthmatic, so I tend to take note of people smoking around me.
I still remember the not-so-fond days (i.e. the '80s and '90s, for me) of places like Cracker Barrel using an open lattice to separate the smoking and "non-smoking" sections of the restaurant. These days though? The last time I remember seeing anyone smoking indoors was at a bar back in 2005 or so. I'll admit, I don't frequent bars, so it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if smoking was still allowed at some or all of the ones in town, but other than that, I can't remember the last time I saw anyone smoking indoors, whether we're talking about a restaurant, a store, or some other indoor establishment. And while it's generally allowed outdoors, it's such a rare occurrence to actually encounter someone smoking in public that when my wife and I were on a cruise this last December, we were struck by just how unusual it felt to have so many smokers around us when we went out on the deck of the ship.
Really, about the only time I see people smoking at all around here is when I visit the university campus. I'll see clusters of international grad students at the cigarette disposal receptacles 30 ft away from the entrances to major buildings on campus, since they're required by law to maintain that distance if they want to smoke.
I do. Discs are the only means I'm aware of by which I can legally obtain content to watch on any device, at the highest quality, online or offline, at home or away, without previews, without affecting my data cap, and without having to worry about it going away after a licensing deal expires. Nothing else available today can provide all of that with certainty.
Going into specifics: 1) There's media worth owning. I sometimes want to support companies with my wallet. Other times, I want to ensure that I'll have perpetual access to a show or film. Netflix et al. can't guarantee that, so for media I want to be able to re-watch in perpetuity, it's oftentimes worth it to me to purchase a copy.
2) Media that's worth owning is typically worth owning in high quality. While Netflix is great, I can still get a higher quality image and sound from a blu-ray (e.g. lossless surround audio) than I can via streaming. For media worth owning, it's nice to know that it's in the highest quality, that way it'll still look and sound good in the future.
3) I can bring discs with me anywhere. Unlike streaming services, which are a mixed bag when it comes to the content that's available for offline viewing, physical copies can be watched offline in cars, on airplanes, or away from civilization.
4) It isn't an either/or between discs and streaming. I rip all of my discs, encode them using Don Melton's transcoding scripts, and load them onto my Plex server. Plex lets me do everything I could with a disc, plus provide the benefits of streaming.
5) I don't run afoul of the legal and moral concerns. While companies need to be doing a much better job of making their content more accessible (e.g. less locked down, no forced ads, etc.), it's nonsensical, immature (il)logic to suggest that we're magically entitled to free copies of their content if they don't give it to us on our terms. Especially so since it's possible to watch it on our terms legally already.
Piracy's only additional benefits are that it's free and that it's oftentimes available before an official release is available, but neither of those are benefits I'm entitled to, so, as per #5, they don't factor into my thinking. Moreover, DVDs are apparently still relevant today, despite hitting peak sales about a decade back. Given that blu-ray sales only hit their peak about 2-3 years back, I expect they'll remain relevant for at least a decade or more.
Which is to say, the reports of disc-based media's death have been greatly exaggerated.
DVDs weren't actually locked to a particular resolution. In NTSC markets (e.g. North America), 720x480 interlaced (i.e. 480i) was probably the most common, whereas in PAL markets (e.g. Europe), 720x576 interlaced (i.e. 576i) was more common. That said, DVDs were kinda weird, since they supported legacy formats and some various extensions to the standards. They could go down to 240p on the low-end, but they also supported anamorphic widescreen (i.e. using the same resolutions as above, but telling the player to stretch the pixels wide, that way it would fill a widescreen TV), which were typically marketed as widescreen versions of the movie, and that would look squished if you tried to play them on a 4:3 TV, since it wouldn't stretch the pixels wide.
All of which is to say, DVDs weren't in HD. Or, at least, the use of DVDs to support HD was never adopted in the mainstream, though there were some efforts to do so.
Exactly. And it's a shame Slashdot went for it, since it would've been a lot more fun to report on the actual technology and the Internet's idiotic reaction, rather than joining in on saying something that was obviously not true.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said Metal was better. Just because I disagree with what I think is a bad argument coming from you, it doesn't mean I'd support the same bad argument coming from someone on the other side. I honestly don't care which "wins" between Metal and Vulkan.
I never said WebGL was unsafe to use. I was confused why you even brought it up, and still am. It's safe to use and it was designed for the web, but it doesn't provide the close-to-the-metal access this new standard is designed to provide, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
None of the close-to-the-metal APIs (i.e. Metal, Vulkan, and Direct 3D 12) are safe to use with the web as they are now. Additionally, keep in mind that this standard is not just about opening up the graphics layer, it's also about exposing the compute layer. Between that and the fact that none of these APIs provide sandboxing, it should be obvious that they're unsafe.
Just think about it for a sec: if Vulkan or even OpenGL were already safe as they are, why does WebGL only expose a subset of the features they provide? We already have implementations for them, after all, so if they were safe to use, we'd already be using them.
Hi Ash-Fox,
I never implied, nor said, nor would say said that Metal is designed to deal with untrusted code. In fact, I never asserted in any of my posts that Metal was in any way superior in any regard whatsoever to the other, competing APIs, nor would I. I merely criticized some overstated headlines and then some poor arguments that would have been just as poor had they come from a Metal or Direct 3D 12 supporter. They just happened to come from someone supporting Vulkan.
Understandably, I won't be replying to the rest of your comment, since you're making a point that I already agree with.
I'm simply pointing out that Apple don't really care for open standards. If they did they'd implement Vulkan.
As I've already pointed out elsewhere in response to you, you seem to be very confused about what all of this means. You're basically suggesting Apple doesn't care about open standards because they're making a car (a safe abstraction for the graphics/compute layer) instead of implementing a gasoline engine (the unsafe graphics/compute layer). Never mind that they intend to use the gas engine--as well as other engines--in their car.
> For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code,
[[Citation]]
Do you have an _actual example_ that shows this or are you just repeating dogma that everyone else does?
Do you have an _actual example_ that shows there is not an invisible, intangible unicorn standing next to you right now, or are you just repeating dogma that everyone else does?
Repeat after me: you can't prove nonexistence, which is why the onus is on the side claiming existence. If you want to claim that they designed it that way, the onus is on you to prove it. Have fun.
Moreover, what does the cross-platform capabilities of WebGL have to do with my statements regarding Vulkan? Yes, WebGL is cross-platform. What of it? Apple's proposed standard may compete with or attempt to displace WebGL, but both of those are built on top of underlying technologies like OpenGL, Vulkan, and Metal, and between Vulkan, Metal, and Direct 3D 12, none are widely available across a multitude of platforms yet.
But then how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry? How can they force adoption of their own standard
Yeah, it's a real shame how they used their stranglehold over WebKit to control the direction Chrome is going; LLVM and related technologies (e.g. Clang) to control the direction a huge chunk of the software industry is going; CUPS to control the printer industry...
A real shame.
Not to mention all of the other projects and code they contribute to the open source community.
I agree that Apple does do a lot of proprietary stuff (e.g. connectors, protocols, etc.), but they're used as a means for tying people to their hardware (i.e. where they make about 90% of their money), rather than as a means for extending their reach to other platforms. When Apple engages in community-driven projects like this, it tends to be for one reason alone: their interests align with the community's, so they stand to gain from involving the community. That's it, plain and simple, and their track record backs that up. It's when they don't involve the community, that we tend to see the sort of stuff you're talking about (e.g. MPEG).
The only other valid explanation for what they're doing is that they perceive a competing graphics API as providing a competitive advantage to someone else (e.g. maybe they think Microsoft can leverage Direct 3D 12 in Edge?), so they're willing to commoditize web graphics, including their own, in order to negate that advantage. But even if that were true, we still benefit.
Everyone in the comments suggesting we should just use their favorite graphics API is missing the point entirely.
Neither Vulkan nor its competitors are safe to use with untrusted code from the web. Allowing any random web developer to have access to the full capabilities of any of those APIs is a recipe for disaster. This standard is, from what I can gather, intended to be a layer that abstracts away the underlying API, whether it be Metal, Vulkan, or Direct 3D 12, which should provide a safe means for using them.
For an initial implementation, Apple is providing a prototype that is compatible with Metal, given that they had apparently already done quite a bit of work mapping Metal to Javascript, but it's clear that the end goal with this standard is to provide something that is compatible with all of these close-to-the-metal APIs. I imagine that version 1 of the standard will resemble an intersection of features between the competing APIs, that way they can ensure the broadest compatibility right from the get-go.
In addition to but separate from the web standard, they're talking about taking Metal cross-platform. That wouldn't affect the web standard (which, again, should be able to work on top of any of these competing APIs), but it would ensure that the standard is usable on any platform they choose to support with Metal. If they do take Metal cross-platform, that would seem to suggest an uptick in their interest in creating web-based products that are consistent and in top-shape across a variety of platforms, in much the same way that Google created Chrome to do the same.
You clearly have no idea what any of this is about, because what you just said is a terrible idea regardless of whether you support Vulkan or not.
For one, Vulkan and its competitors aren't designed for use with untrusted code, so there are quite a number of significant security and technical concerns with your notion that we can simply adopt one of them as a web standard that any random web developer has full access to (which would've been just as true had you said Metal or Direct 3D 12 instead). What you "need", then, is a safe layer that abstracts the underlying API and provides safety to the user (I say "need" in quotes, because I'm not actually clear that this is something we want, let alone need).
Second, neither Vulkan nor its competitors are actually cross-platform in practice today. It may be the case that one of them will become more widespread over time, but, for now, the world we live in is a fragmented one. Any given platform likely supports at least one of these competing standards, but you can't count on having support for any particular one. A web standard that lives over all of them would make it possible to tap into that power without having to know anything about any of them.
When they talk about using Metal for this standard's initial implementation, what they mean is that they've already done most of the work of mapping Metal back to existing web standards (e.g. Javascript), so they have a head start on which features a standard may be able to support and what that web API may look like. They'll likely take something resembling the intersection of Metal's features with Direct 3D 12's and Vulkan's features so as to provide an initial release of the standard that works across most platforms.
When they talk about Metal going cross-platform, that's a separate (but related) topic. It wouldn't affect this standard (i.e. you should eventually be able to use this standard with Metal as easily as with Vulkan), but it would provide them with a means for ensuring the availability of the standard across any platforms supported by Metal.
Where in the article does it suggest that Apple is making a power play here to position Metal like the headline says? This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Metal specifically, and is instead about leveraging the entire class of APIs that have been coming out that are closer to the (lowercase) metal. In fact, they specifically said so in the summary:
As noted by Dean Jackson from the WebKit team, advancements in the GPU hardware space has led to identical enhancements in software APIs. He cites platform technologies like Apple's Metal, Microsoft's Direct3D 12 and the Khronos Group's Vulkan as offering lower overhead, and thus better performance, than the OpenGL standard.
The only thing special about Metal that's mentioned in the article is its role in the initial implementation. To pull the relevant quote:
While Metal appears to underpin Apple's initial web graphics proposal, the company does not expect its concept to become the ultimate standard. That said, it appears Apple is angling to take Metal cross-platform.
"We don't expect this to become the actual API that ends up in the standard, and maybe not even the one that the Community Group decides to start with, but we think there is a lot of value in working code," Jackson says.
So, basically, Apple folks have access to Metal and understand how it works, so they're starting with what they know and have so that they can get the ball rolling quickly. Where it goes from there is up to the community, which, given Apple's typical approach their open source/community-driven projects (e.g. WebKit, LLVM, Clang, Swift, etc.), it's likely that they actually mean that. Of course, they'll no doubt use their role in the community to try and steer things to their own advantage, but if they do so too much it's likely that this will simply become another dead-end "standard" that no one adopts.
+1 for Radiolab. The best explanation I've come up with for it so far is that it's a variety series of incredibly well-produced audio micro-documentaries. I listened to one on a whim (Bigger than Bacon, which was about the mystery of a crackling sound one of their reporters used to hear at boat dock near their house) and was immediately hooked. It finds the perfect balance between being educational and entertaining.
I also love their More Perfect podcast. It's worth a listen for anyone who wishes they knew more about the US Supreme Court but doesn't actually want to devote any time to the subject. They manage to find the human interest side to each story and present them in a way that keeps you on the edge of your seat, despite the fact that in most of the cases I knew how the cases would turn out.
As for my complete list and why I like them, it's pretty short:
- Accidental Tech Podcast - Three guys talking about tech and cars. They play well off each other and, between the three, usually have some decent insight into the tech community and how it interacts with a mostly inscrutable company (i.e. Apple).
- Radiolab - See above
- Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - See above
- Serial - Everyone and their grandma listens to this one, so it needs no explanation
- Under the Radar - Two guys talking iOS development. I'm not in the space, but it's always under 30 minutes, they stay on topic, and they frequently provide a veteran's perspective that runs contrary to what an outsider like me might think makes sense, so I find it to be a decent listen. Others will likely find it boring.
I'm also going to give the just-begun The Important Thing a shot in the next few days, since the guy doing it writes a frequently-insightful blog that I really enjoy reading and is typically really good on the other podcasts I've heard him on. I expect it'll become part of my usual group of podcasts, but I can't yet offer that recommendation.
Regarding the gap with the MacBook Pro, I quite agree that that's the biggest factor at play. I didn't realize you were getting at quite that point, so I apologize for arguing about something that we actually agree on.
That said, when I said the factors were the same, I was intending to speak primarily towards your comments regarding vendor lock-in. The lock-in has remained unchanged over the years, so it alone doesn't produce changes in sales. It does, however, enable other factors (e.g. pent-up demand) to drive changes in sales. That's what I was getting at when I said it hasn't changed. Put differently, they haven't improved their lock-in by a significant margin anytime recently, so it alone can't explain any growth we see in their unit sales.
the iPhone 6 had a lacklustre reception too
That's not at all backed up by the facts (see Q1 '15). Again, I'm talking about units sold, and in that regard it's unquestionably true that the iPhone 6 had anything BUT a lackluster reception. You can argue that some reviewers panned it, but that's true of every model and not at all relevant to anything I'm discussing. Up until the iPhone 6s, each model broke the unit sales record set by the previous model, but the iPhone 6 was a massive outlier in the degree to which it broke the record, and it's my belief that the iPhone 7 is benefitting from the uncommonly large number of iPhone 6 users looking to now upgrade.
Your response makes no sense to me (what don't you disagree with? what did they announce now? what's slimy?), so I'll address it in generalities.
Anyone paying attention has known for years that this particular quarter would be a 14-week quarter for Apple, since their fourth quarters always end on the last Saturday of the calendar year. They didn't suddenly and arbitrarily choose to make this quarter longer to pad their numbers. It just happened to be that way. Other companies have to deal with leap quarters as well, or else have other means for dealing with these sorts of issues. This isn't a problem that's unique to Apple. The fact that it just happened to land right now for them is entirely coincidental, not strategic, though there is a strategy in the way that they're using it to their advantage by not mentioning it up front in the briefing.
they don't release sales figures unless it's beneficial to them.
Apple consistently releases quarterly sales figures for all of their major products except the Apple TV and Apple Watch and is legally obligated to do so until they announce otherwise. That's true for most of the big companies in this space. If they suddenly stopped reporting iPhone, iPad, or Mac sales numbers, it'd be huge news and a major indicator that sales had fallen off a cliff (in much the same way that Amazon's refusal to announce hard numbers for the Fire Phone and other products shortly before their demise was taken as an accurate indicator of poor sales).
Let me clarify what I was getting at, since it seems you aren't picking up what I was putting down.
You know 90%+ of desktop users run Windows, so it must be *a lot* better than macOS and Linux
This seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding. I wasn't arguing that these were better products. I was pointing out that consumer demand for these products isn't being driven by the things the tech community cares about, which should be plainly obvious to anyone who does an Apples-to-Apples comparison of their current sales figures with their previous sales figures. If sales go up relative to previous years when they drop a feature the tech community cares about, it should be evident that the tech community's desires are not aligned with those of the general population. That's all I was getting at with the statement you quoted.
So, no, I don't think I'm relying on flawed logic here. You're ascribing conclusions to me that I wasn't jumping to.
That's the Microsoft effect, they have lock in through iOS and macOS so if you are tied to those platforms you have no choice on the hardware, they could sell shit on a stick and if it ran iOS and had an Apple logo you'd buy it.
This, however, is faulty logic. The latest iPhone and MacBook Pro outsold the previous models (in the case of the MacBook Pro, it did so by a factor of 7x in the launch period), but Apple's previous models benefitted from lock-in just as much as their current models, so, contrary to what you're saying, it should be clear that lock-in isn't the factor driving changes in demand. I've already commented elsewhere with regards to what factors may actually be at play, so I'll refrain from repeating myself here unnecessarily.
Suffice to say, no, I'm not saying more sales = better product, and I think it's disingenuous to suggest that vendor lock-in is a sufficient explanation for any of this. It's certainly a factor that's at play, but if it's the same now as it's always been, it should be obvious that it doesn't explain the changes we're seeing.
especially in a lineup of devices replacing ageing and obsolete equipment with very high levels of vendor lock-in. What's a person gonna do? Throw away their software library and adopt another platform?
The previous MacBook Pro and iPhone updates benefitted from those same factors, yet these latest updates are the ones that set new sales records. The fact that they're seeing sales growth suggests that some new factors are at play, rather than factors that have been true all along, such as the ones you said.
In the case of the MacBook Pro update, my best guess is a combination of the tech community completely missing the appeal of the devices (i.e. par for the course, though I include myself in that group, since I don't get the appeal either) and that there was a lot of pent-up demand as a result of the update being long-overdue. The numbers Apple posted shortly after the launch indicated that their sales were 7x that of their previous MacBook Pro update, so I don't think it was just one factor or the other. I think both were at play.
For the iPhone 7, we need to look back a few years to make sense of things. The iPhone 6 was not just a typical record-breaker in terms of iPhone sales: it shattered the previous records by a HUGE margin. The iPhone 6s that followed it would have been a record-breaking model, but the iPhone 6 was such a massive outlier that it resulted in year-over-year declines. But now, the bulk of those iPhone 6 users are starting to upgrade on the typical two-year cycle, so that translates to higher sales on the iPhone 7, resulting in a new record-setting model.
Of course, if Apple can't come out with something outstanding for next year's model, we can probably anticipate lower or equal sales for the next iPhone, given the nature of the typical upgrade cycle.
The tech crowd echo chamber had a lot to say about the headphone jack disappearing and the new MacBook Pros being a lousy update, but the unit sales on both of those devices point to the masses simply not caring. Both of them were stated to be setting sales records for Apple even before these financials came out.
I do agree that there is plenty of criticism warranted against Tim Cook's Apple. I feel as if he's fallen into the profits trap that Steve Jobs famously talked about when he was asked in 1995 about why the Mac failed to be a bigger deal. But I also see this whole "no innovation" argument as a bit of a double standard. Under Jobs, they put out evolutionary products (i.e. incremental updates) each year, but only put out revolutionary products (i.e. Mac, iPod, iPhone, and arguably the iPad) once per decade or so. The fact that they haven't had one since his 2011 death is not surprising, though it doesn't bode well for the company either. They clearly thought the Watch would be a revolutionary product, but, as with the iPad, it took them a couple of years before they even realized what it should be used for, let alone to start marketing it so that people would understand the benefits.
No, it's probably a down quarter for 13W, because many people shop on the sales directly after x-mas or get promised a cell phone at x-mas and buy it afterward because they don't know the color they'd like or something like that.
The post-Christmas week is always part of their fourth quarter financials, so it makes no sense to remove it from consideration like you're suggesting we do.
Anyone that watches Apple knows this, and it isn't that big of a deal. Next year they will be penalized by IT in the same vein.
Exactly. Next year they'll have that much further to have to go if they don't want to report a down quarter, so it's of virtually no net-benefit to them.
That said, it is of interest that the last few times they've had a 14-week quarter, they've mentioned it right at the start of their briefing in order to set expectations, whereas there was no mention of it this time. I don't think they were trying to hide anything, but I don't think they were doing the media any favors. In fact, I'd wager that they were trying to let the media jump to the obvious conclusions so that they might benefit from a short-term reversal in the narrative that's been playing out.
Of course, it's also questionable whether or not they even would have had a down quarter had it been a 13-week quarter, given the positioning of Christmas within the quarter. The summary pulled just the "had another down quarter" portion from DaringFireball's comments, but the original quote actually continued on with:
I don’t think it’s quite right to ding the quarter by a full 8 percent — the entire last week started with Christmas day — but surely some sort of correction is necessary for year-over-year comparisons.
Ideally, we'd consider the last 13 weeks of the year, eliminating the first week from their 14-week quarter. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't break the numbers down so we can do that, which means our best approximation is to knock their numbers down by 1/14th. Doing that, however, results in us giving as much weight to their first week—which was likely their weakest—as we give Christmas week, thus unfairly punishing them for having a longer quarter. Obviously, that would result in a greater downward shift than is warranted.
For even more proof that the OP is way off-base, reports just came in indicating that Apple sold 5.2 million Apple Watches in the last quarter alone. Contrast that with Rolex, which makes 2,000 watches a day, equating to about 700,000 per year. Granted, the holiday quarter is Apple's strongest, but those numbers would suggest that Apple in one quarter outsold Rolex's entire year by a factor of 7, indicating that their unit sales are doing just fine and that they're not hiding behind revenue numbers like the OP was suggesting.
Depends on how we want to scope and define things to suit our narrative. All of the following are true statements, so far as I'm aware.
A) Apple sold more smartphones than anyone else last quarter
B) Android phones outsold iPhones by about 4:1 last quarter
Reality: Apple did sell more smartphones than anyone else last quarter, beating out second-place Samsung by a tenth of a percent, but Android manufacturers as a whole accounted for about 82% of smartphone sales globally.
A) iPads accounted for over 85% of premium tablet sales last quarter
B) Android accounted for over 75% of the tablet market last year
Reality: iPads have seen declining sales, both in terms of units sold and market share, for the last several years. Despite that, they still dominate the ($200+) high-end of the market.
A) Apple made 102% of smartphone profits in the quarter previous
B) Android's marketshare has gone up YoY for several years
Reality: Unit sales numbers are up for both iOS and Android, but Android is making less money while capturing more of the market and Apple is making more money while capturing less of the market.
The fact is, both sides have apologists who like to ignore the statistics they find less convenient while emphasizing the ones that favor their side. For my part, I think that both market share and profit share need to be considered. After all, a company who makes no money won't stay in business for long, but a company who only sells a few units can go out of business by losing just a few sales.
Towards that end, I think it's disingenuous when Android fanboys ignore the lack of profits posted by Android manufacturers and dismiss the fact that Apple consistently posts profits that are greater than the rest of the industry combined by quibbling over nonessentials (e.g. "A company making more than 100% of the industry's profits doesn't make any sense to me, so it must be invalid."). Likewise, I think it's disingenuous when Apple fanboys reframe market arguments in terms of manufacturers in an effort to hide the fact that Apple has been consistently losing the market share fight on a global level across all price points against a monolithic ecosystem that is perfectly capable of outlasting any particular manufacturer.
For me, the only question is where we go from here. Either the Android manufacturers keep posting bad profits and commoditize themselves right out of business, or Apple becomes marginalized as the market expands faster than their sales, or we hit a state of equilibrium where Apple continues to be relevant but gets pigeonholed into a "premium" niche, like what's happened with Macs. I'd bet on #3, personally.
I've seen more Rolexes than Apple Watches.
And I've seen more Apples Watches than Rolexes. Yay for anecdotes?
In your Microsoft example, revenue was used to mask bad unit sales, but all indications point towards the opposite being the case here. The average selling price for an Apple Watch is far below that of a Rolex. If Apple can sell a significantly less expensive product while coming second-only to Rolex in terms of revenue, it would suggest that their sales volume is significantly higher than that of Rolex.
That said, Rolex has a head start of a few decades on Apple and sells a product that oftentimes outlasts its owner, so it's unsurprising that you've seen more Rolexes up to this point. For my part, I've already seen more Apple Watches in person than I ever saw Rolexes, but that's to be expected as well, given the demographics for the region where I live.
Provided Apple keeps up their current trend for just a few more years, my anecdotal experience will become the more common one for the vast majority of people.
While the Librarian of Congress hasn't granted an exemption to the DMCA for ripping copy-protected videos for personal use, the courts seem to be divided over whether or not it actually matters, with some of them ruling that the activity is permissible. From what I've gathered, the MPAA isn't exactly pursuing anyone over it, which actually makes sense, given that the current situation of uncertainty is in their favor.
If the courts established a clear precedent saying that format-shifting copy-protected videos is legal, it'd open the floodgates to ripping products going mainstream, making it harder for them to capitalize on upgrades to digital copies. If the courts established a clear precedent the other way, they'd be killing the value proposition of discs without providing any alternative (if their DRM-encumbered digital copies were a valid alternative, honest people like me wouldn't be going to all this trouble with discs).
Either way, I'm morally in the clear, given that I'm paying for what I receive and only use what I paid for in accordance with consumer rights that go back decades. Besides which, there's no lack of media clamoring for my attention, and that's only becoming more and more true with time, so if they successfully push through a clear precedent against format-shifting copy-protected media, I'll simply turn to other entertainment that wants my money.
So, Is the following statement true or false? Is it true all over the state or only outside Austin?
"everyone can smoke in public along with most businesses being smoker-friendly indoors"
As a Texan who's been living in the College Station area (where Texas A&M University is) since 2002, I can't think of anytime in the last decade that I've seen smoking indoors. And I'm an asthmatic, so I tend to take note of people smoking around me.
I still remember the not-so-fond days (i.e. the '80s and '90s, for me) of places like Cracker Barrel using an open lattice to separate the smoking and "non-smoking" sections of the restaurant. These days though? The last time I remember seeing anyone smoking indoors was at a bar back in 2005 or so. I'll admit, I don't frequent bars, so it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if smoking was still allowed at some or all of the ones in town, but other than that, I can't remember the last time I saw anyone smoking indoors, whether we're talking about a restaurant, a store, or some other indoor establishment. And while it's generally allowed outdoors, it's such a rare occurrence to actually encounter someone smoking in public that when my wife and I were on a cruise this last December, we were struck by just how unusual it felt to have so many smokers around us when we went out on the deck of the ship.
Really, about the only time I see people smoking at all around here is when I visit the university campus. I'll see clusters of international grad students at the cigarette disposal receptacles 30 ft away from the entrances to major buildings on campus, since they're required by law to maintain that distance if they want to smoke.
Who wants DVDs? [...] Or Blu-Ray disks?
I do. Discs are the only means I'm aware of by which I can legally obtain content to watch on any device, at the highest quality, online or offline, at home or away, without previews, without affecting my data cap, and without having to worry about it going away after a licensing deal expires. Nothing else available today can provide all of that with certainty.
Going into specifics:
1) There's media worth owning. I sometimes want to support companies with my wallet. Other times, I want to ensure that I'll have perpetual access to a show or film. Netflix et al. can't guarantee that, so for media I want to be able to re-watch in perpetuity, it's oftentimes worth it to me to purchase a copy.
2) Media that's worth owning is typically worth owning in high quality. While Netflix is great, I can still get a higher quality image and sound from a blu-ray (e.g. lossless surround audio) than I can via streaming. For media worth owning, it's nice to know that it's in the highest quality, that way it'll still look and sound good in the future.
3) I can bring discs with me anywhere. Unlike streaming services, which are a mixed bag when it comes to the content that's available for offline viewing, physical copies can be watched offline in cars, on airplanes, or away from civilization.
4) It isn't an either/or between discs and streaming. I rip all of my discs, encode them using Don Melton's transcoding scripts, and load them onto my Plex server. Plex lets me do everything I could with a disc, plus provide the benefits of streaming.
5) I don't run afoul of the legal and moral concerns. While companies need to be doing a much better job of making their content more accessible (e.g. less locked down, no forced ads, etc.), it's nonsensical, immature (il)logic to suggest that we're magically entitled to free copies of their content if they don't give it to us on our terms. Especially so since it's possible to watch it on our terms legally already.
Piracy's only additional benefits are that it's free and that it's oftentimes available before an official release is available, but neither of those are benefits I'm entitled to, so, as per #5, they don't factor into my thinking. Moreover, DVDs are apparently still relevant today, despite hitting peak sales about a decade back. Given that blu-ray sales only hit their peak about 2-3 years back, I expect they'll remain relevant for at least a decade or more.
Which is to say, the reports of disc-based media's death have been greatly exaggerated.
DVDs weren't actually locked to a particular resolution. In NTSC markets (e.g. North America), 720x480 interlaced (i.e. 480i) was probably the most common, whereas in PAL markets (e.g. Europe), 720x576 interlaced (i.e. 576i) was more common. That said, DVDs were kinda weird, since they supported legacy formats and some various extensions to the standards. They could go down to 240p on the low-end, but they also supported anamorphic widescreen (i.e. using the same resolutions as above, but telling the player to stretch the pixels wide, that way it would fill a widescreen TV), which were typically marketed as widescreen versions of the movie, and that would look squished if you tried to play them on a 4:3 TV, since it wouldn't stretch the pixels wide.
All of which is to say, DVDs weren't in HD. Or, at least, the use of DVDs to support HD was never adopted in the mainstream, though there were some efforts to do so.
Exactly. And it's a shame Slashdot went for it, since it would've been a lot more fun to report on the actual technology and the Internet's idiotic reaction, rather than joining in on saying something that was obviously not true.
Correction: 65%, not 72%. Not sure how I messed the math up, but clearly I did.