Apple is known to block apps that might in any way compete with its business model. For example, Apple blocked a developer from publishing an app that allowed wireless iTunes sync before later adding it as a feature exclusive to newer iPhones. Apple also blocks any apps that might compete with their NFC payments, they block voice assistants from having any meaningful functionality, and they block web browsers from having their own rendering engine.
None of these cases "lead to higher prices" as claimed - quite the opposite, because Apple's offerings are free.
Calling Cook the Ballmer of Apple is an insult to Ballmer because at least Ballmer consistently raised revenues and profits and demonstrated a deep commitment to Microsoft's core markets.
The fact is that putting Steve Ballmer in charge of Apple now would make more sense than keeping Cook. Ballmer would probably have a better shot of resurrecting the Mac's nose-diving reputation than Cook at this point.
Let's ignore that especially in the later years of Balmer, Microsoft's revenue and profits was very volatile.
You can only make the claim about Cook's performance because he introduced the iPhone 6 (Plus) at the end of 2014, and because that product was so outstandingly successful that 2015 was a black swan year for Apple. If Apple had sold 22 million less iPhone 6 (Plus), there would be a nice steady growth for both 2015 and 2016.
IOW claim that Cook wasn't successful hinges on the fact that he was extremely successful in one year. And that's just plain nuts.
Every indication points to the entertainment market being completely over-saturated. What makes Apple think they can do better than the existing studios?
Odd, that's what they said about every market (and every producer in it) Apple has entered.
Not really, even a little bit. Because, in TFA they state, quite clearly, why they do so. It is for consistency of load across platforms. Please try again.
And why? Which major browser hasn't been using browser caching for at least twenty years (or since it exists, whichever is shorter) consistency across platforms?
Hell, actually enabling caching would mean they eliminate differences in testing due to variations in network load. Unless of course a browser had inefficient caching. Which (unlike a bug that only appears when caching is off) would actually be something affecting a Consumer, and would be worthy of a Report.
Neither. It is a comparison test that removes variables as much as possible so all laptops are on the same playing field. From CR itself:
... our battery tests are not designed to be a direct simulation of a consumer's experience.
If your testing relies on going to a bunch of web pages that may or may not have a lot of cached content depending on when the test is done, or the caching is set differently between models by default, then the caching is a variable that could make a model with lower battery capacity show up as being better than a model with more capacity. Battery life is not an absolute measure that you can depend on because users do different things. But battery comparisons are relative -- a model with double the lifetime in CR's tests should last twice as long as the other model in real life, too. That's what "a good proxy" means.
Let me get this straight: if a browser in default mode uses more power than others - you want the test to hide that fact, because that would be unfair? Because consumers aren't actually interested in "consumer's experience" but some "fair and balanced" reporting bullshit?
Unless you were visiting using Lynx, it's hard to believe that you didn't benefit from having all the CSS and image files that make up every page on Slashdot cached.
I can't speak to the CSS because that is normally invisible, but I can speak to "image files that make up every page". They are invisible here. A banner at the top, a couple of small icons at the bottom, but other than that -- what images?
When I visit a/. page I explicitly refresh the page because I want to see everything that is new. If I wanted to see the same things over and over I'd just print the page and tack it up on the wall.
Okay. Measure the time it takes to load the Slashdot homepage. Now turn off caching and try again. Report. Especially if any of the icons next to each story changed - which each needs a TCP connection to the web server to download.
Sure, it's a great help in real life, but a big problem for repeatable testing and A/B comparison.
Disabling cache does seem like the fairest option. While in real life you might get somewhat better results, you won't get any worse results.
It certainly isn't fair to allow reliance on unrealistic caching to inflate battery life.
Let me put it this way: you could argue this would be fairer when comparing the speed of the browser - but what the hell does this have to do with real life battery runtime? At best it could hide that you are testing with a very limited test set, which in itself could make the test susceptible to "benchmark optimization" - but that could mean actually still caching exactly those pages. How would CR find out about it?
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
So you are claiming that realistic settings in Consumer Reports testing would give unrealistic results? Maybe they should load different pages instead of trying to hide the fact that they load the same few pages over and over again.
Actually, the Ice Age did NOT end 12K years ago. We're merely between Continental Glacial Advances. The current Ice Age started ~2.58 million years ago.
Yeah. That means no. I wasn't talking about the "Quaternary glaciation" aka the "current ice age", I was talking about the last glacial period popularly known as the Ice Age..Please do mind the Capitalization.
But fine, pretend that "Earth has been unnaturally stable for the last 20k years", like the AC did. I sure hope that was your point, or your little nit-pickery (that failed) totally made you look like an ass otherwise. Well, if that was your actual point, it also made you look like an ass. Congrats.
The official release announcement was in December, but it was shown in the iF Design Awards in September. So actually more like 16 weeks. (For some reason, I incorrectly thought that was in October.)
Wrong. There is no iF Design Awards in September, and never was. The iF Design Awards ceremony 2007 was at the Hannover Fair on March 15th 2007, coinciding with the start of the exhibition of the awarded produts. Late September 2006 was the date by which products had to be delivered to the International Forum Design. The only people who saw the products were the jury, neither Apple nor any other outsiders did. The awardees were informed in December (and LG promptly issued a press release). Everything else is (at best) make-self-believe by LG.
Then LG Prada got released, won awards and they probably decided to copy it
Official announcement of the iPhone: Jan. 9th 2007 (Happy Birthday)
Official announcement of the LG Prada: Jan. 18th 2007. First blurry pictures Dec. 15th 2006. First mention of an award won (as third to last device in list, with no mention of Prada): Dec. 7th 2006. ("LG Electronics (LG), a leader in consumer electronics and mobile communications, announced the awards for 21 remarkable products given by the prestigious iF product design award 2007"... "Mobile Phone (KE850)" http://www.newswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=210316&picno=82493&ected=
How the hell did Apple copy a phone in just one month, when all they had to go by was the mention of the product number in a list?
I hate to say this, but this is the perfect time to insert the why is this news, comment. Garner had proven over and over to be useless. Palm readers would be as reliable. That would be news.
The news is that Gartner no longer predicts a bright future for Windows Phones.
Slashdot Mirror
IE in Microsoft Windows was found anti-competitive for less than that.
No they were not.
But, as this is about software - you can only buy iOS apps from Apple's store. Right?
It stopped being about software when you suddenly talked about cars.
All the things you say are correct except for where you conclude that this means the behavior isn't anticompetitive.
All the things you say are correct except for where you conclude that this means the behavior is anticompetitive.
Apple is known to block apps that might in any way compete with its business model. For example, Apple blocked a developer from publishing an app that allowed wireless iTunes sync before later adding it as a feature exclusive to newer iPhones. Apple also blocks any apps that might compete with their NFC payments, they block voice assistants from having any meaningful functionality, and they block web browsers from having their own rendering engine.
None of these cases "lead to higher prices" as claimed - quite the opposite, because Apple's offerings are free.
Calling Cook the Ballmer of Apple is an insult to Ballmer because at least Ballmer consistently raised revenues and profits and demonstrated a deep commitment to Microsoft's core markets. The fact is that putting Steve Ballmer in charge of Apple now would make more sense than keeping Cook. Ballmer would probably have a better shot of resurrecting the Mac's nose-diving reputation than Cook at this point.
Let's ignore that especially in the later years of Balmer, Microsoft's revenue and profits was very volatile.
You can only make the claim about Cook's performance because he introduced the iPhone 6 (Plus) at the end of 2014, and because that product was so outstandingly successful that 2015 was a black swan year for Apple. If Apple had sold 22 million less iPhone 6 (Plus), there would be a nice steady growth for both 2015 and 2016.
IOW claim that Cook wasn't successful hinges on the fact that he was extremely successful in one year. And that's just plain nuts.
Every indication points to the entertainment market being completely over-saturated. What makes Apple think they can do better than the existing studios?
Odd, that's what they said about every market (and every producer in it) Apple has entered.
Each show will feature bearded hipsters from San Francisco, dialog about organic food, and indie music from pitchfork.
Hunh? Google will make shows?
You are too stupid to get the "fair and balanced" bit? Why should I even argue with you?
Not really, even a little bit. Because, in TFA they state, quite clearly, why they do so. It is for consistency of load across platforms. Please try again.
And why? Which major browser hasn't been using browser caching for at least twenty years (or since it exists, whichever is shorter) consistency across platforms?
Hell, actually enabling caching would mean they eliminate differences in testing due to variations in network load. Unless of course a browser had inefficient caching. Which (unlike a bug that only appears when caching is off) would actually be something affecting a Consumer, and would be worthy of a Report.
Was it a stress test? Or a typical usage test?
Neither. It is a comparison test that removes variables as much as possible so all laptops are on the same playing field. From CR itself:
If your testing relies on going to a bunch of web pages that may or may not have a lot of cached content depending on when the test is done, or the caching is set differently between models by default, then the caching is a variable that could make a model with lower battery capacity show up as being better than a model with more capacity. Battery life is not an absolute measure that you can depend on because users do different things. But battery comparisons are relative -- a model with double the lifetime in CR's tests should last twice as long as the other model in real life, too. That's what "a good proxy" means.
Let me get this straight: if a browser in default mode uses more power than others - you want the test to hide that fact, because that would be unfair? Because consumers aren't actually interested in "consumer's experience" but some "fair and balanced" reporting bullshit?
Unless you were visiting using Lynx, it's hard to believe that you didn't benefit from having all the CSS and image files that make up every page on Slashdot cached.
I can't speak to the CSS because that is normally invisible, but I can speak to "image files that make up every page". They are invisible here. A banner at the top, a couple of small icons at the bottom, but other than that -- what images?
When I visit a /. page I explicitly refresh the page because I want to see everything that is new. If I wanted to see the same things over and over I'd just print the page and tack it up on the wall.
Okay. Measure the time it takes to load the Slashdot homepage. Now turn off caching and try again. Report. Especially if any of the icons next to each story changed - which each needs a TCP connection to the web server to download.
Sure, it's a great help in real life, but a big problem for repeatable testing and A/B comparison.
Disabling cache does seem like the fairest option. While in real life you might get somewhat better results, you won't get any worse results.
It certainly isn't fair to allow reliance on unrealistic caching to inflate battery life.
Let me put it this way: you could argue this would be fairer when comparing the speed of the browser - but what the hell does this have to do with real life battery runtime? At best it could hide that you are testing with a very limited test set, which in itself could make the test susceptible to "benchmark optimization" - but that could mean actually still caching exactly those pages. How would CR find out about it?
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
So you are claiming that realistic settings in Consumer Reports testing would give unrealistic results? Maybe they should load different pages instead of trying to hide the fact that they load the same few pages over and over again.
Actually, the Ice Age did NOT end 12K years ago. We're merely between Continental Glacial Advances. The current Ice Age started ~2.58 million years ago.
Yeah. That means no. I wasn't talking about the "Quaternary glaciation" aka the "current ice age", I was talking about the last glacial period popularly known as the Ice Age..Please do mind the Capitalization.
But fine, pretend that "Earth has been unnaturally stable for the last 20k years", like the AC did. I sure hope that was your point, or your little nit-pickery (that failed) totally made you look like an ass otherwise. Well, if that was your actual point, it also made you look like an ass. Congrats.
One theory on why we have farming is that the Earth has been unnaturally stable for the last 20k years.
Errm, apart from the Ice Age ending 12k years ago?
. So what is new again?
Macbooks
So you finally admt everything you claimed so far is wrong. Well, that's a certainly new.
I am waiting for the MacBook wheel!
Oh stop it. Apple would never release anything like that... it's way too thick.
Yeah, if it were any thicker, it would be you.
The official release announcement was in December, but it was shown in the iF Design Awards in September. So actually more like 16 weeks. (For some reason, I incorrectly thought that was in October.)
Wrong. There is no iF Design Awards in September, and never was. The iF Design Awards ceremony 2007 was at the Hannover Fair on March 15th 2007, coinciding with the start of the exhibition of the awarded produts. Late September 2006 was the date by which products had to be delivered to the International Forum Design. The only people who saw the products were the jury, neither Apple nor any other outsiders did. The awardees were informed in December (and LG promptly issued a press release). Everything else is (at best) make-self-believe by LG.
I actually heard that they designed the iPad FIRST. (Sorry for the obnoxious link).
That's pretty certain: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/05/05/10/226205/apple-patents-tablet-mac-with-photos - even if people at the time still thought it would be a Mac. Note that in 2005 it was publicly known how the iPad would look, yet people later claimed the design was stolen from Samsung's 2006 picture frame.
Then LG Prada got released, won awards and they probably decided to copy it
Official announcement of the iPhone: Jan. 9th 2007 (Happy Birthday) ... "Mobile Phone (KE850)" http://www.newswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=210316&picno=82493&ected=
Official announcement of the LG Prada: Jan. 18th 2007. First blurry pictures Dec. 15th 2006. First mention of an award won (as third to last device in list, with no mention of Prada): Dec. 7th 2006. ("LG Electronics (LG), a leader in consumer electronics and mobile communications, announced the awards for 21 remarkable products given by the prestigious iF product design award 2007"
How the hell did Apple copy a phone in just one month, when all they had to go by was the mention of the product number in a list?
Well, almost all articles of the time about the LG Prada mention how much it looks like the iPhone, not the other way around. http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/LG-Prada-Make-iPhone-Look-a-Like And people who actually compared them said there was no comparison really http://gizmodo.com/261172/settling-this-iphone-vs-lg-prada-nonsense
I hate to say this, but this is the perfect time to insert the why is this news, comment. Garner had proven over and over to be useless. Palm readers would be as reliable. That would be news.
The news is that Gartner no longer predicts a bright future for Windows Phones.
Show me anyone's laptop which is fundamentally different now than it was in 2013.
Even $400 bargain machines at Best Buy have touch screen and/or are convertibl
Which was all the hype in 2013. So what is new again?
Yeah, go to Germany or France so you can get run over by a truck!
To appropriate the favourite argument of gun advocates: But those trucks were illegal!
Says the moron who believes he has a "high-end" Sennheiser that needs no adapter to connect to his phone. Damn marketing believing Hipsters.
Because I'd end up like you. Let's face it, you can't get more retarded than your argument.
Keep telling yourself that man.
I'm not telling myself, I'm telling you moron. And It's getting boring.