to buy a 6S while they can still get a phone with a headphone jack. I just bought one today for that exact reason. Tried a 7, kept wanting to listen to music only to remember, wait, I don't have the adapter on me.
Why now, though? The 7 has been out for several months now, and people who didn't already know saw what it doesn't have. They could have snapped up a 6 or even a 5s during that time.
One thing that puzzles me - if this is such a great innovation for the 7, why don't they also do it on the iPads and iPods? Have a common headphone/speaker infrastructure? I recently bought a Nano as well, which they are about to end, and even that doesn't have this.
Because, like with the MacBook Pro (which has a 3.5mm jack, even in the 2017 model), people don't generally drop their iPad in the water like people do with their phones. As far as iPods go, I would imagine the next gen. iPod touch will lose the 3.5 mm jack as well. It just hasn't caught up, yet.
How many of those "better than expected" iPhone sales were channel "presales" to MVNOs and the like? I smell a return of the Apple from the mid-90s when they were able for a few years to meet their growth and revenue targets by stuffing their retail channel.
It could just be oddly coincidental that I'm seeing so many "deals" on iPhones now for switching to this carrier or that, or just $150 prepaid for a new iPhone SE tied to boost or virgin when it retails for $400.
That's the funny thing about Apple: They ONLY count actual END-USER sales; not sales into their "Distribution Channel".
So, unlike others (looking at you, Samsung!), Apple's sales numbers don't "count" until there is an actual, END-USER purchase.
Every product Apple has ever made since day one has been overpriced and with worse specs than competing products. But, you clearly demonstrate the problem: Apple Up the Ass Syndrome. Whereby you don't know that a whole universe of better products exist outside Apple's prison system.
Sounds like jealousy to me.
And EVERY product Apple has EVER made SINCE DAY ONE...
So, we're also talking about products that had no actual "peer" when Apple produced them, too? How were THOSE "inferior", since there were no equivalents when Apple announced them?
Agree with this completely. Which has greater impact on education, 5000 new computers or one good math teacher? If you wanted to teach children to code you could do it on an IBM XT from 1984. As you pointed out, maybe educators save on materials by going digital instead of paying for textbooks, but as to a computer's educational value, depends entirely on the teacher and what they are teaching.
Rather do it with an Apple ][ from 1978.
Built in BASIC, built in mini-Assembler, built in low and hi-res graphics. Game paddles. And just a more friendly machine overall.
Not to mention that learning Assembly language on the 6502 is a LOT easier than on the 8086 or 8088.
yes correctly interpreting the colours is pointless since apple has forged them previously to make it "look better"
what complete and utter rubish this man espouses clearly he cant even use the platform he helped create...
Show me a mobile-device camera system that DOESN'T play fast and loose with color, overall levels, contrast, and dynamic range to make the shots "look better".
Don't try and spin it as a negative thing ("forged") exclusive to Apple, when EVERYONE does the same thing.
No, the face is in focus in both lenses. The Portrait Mode software takes the wide-angle image, selects and deletes the face, which though in focus would be distorted by the wide angle, and drops in the ore natural looking face from the image in the long lens
Sorry, man. It is using pseudo-depth-info gleaned from the two lenses.
Did you not watch the Keynote? They spent about 10 minutes going into the technical details of how this effect was calculated and rendered.
Like most generalizations it applies "in general" to lowest common denominator users. So yes maybe a walled garden appliance works very competently. If that is what you need, then it is indeed the best. If you want a choice of applications to use with your camera then it definitely is not the best. The guy is just spouting marketing speak, or half truths as most critical thinkers will concur.
Got NOTHIN' to do with "Walled Garden", you imbecilic TOOL.
No that's not how it works. apple copies and steals from others all the time. Sometime they get caught. Sometime they dont. This time they did. No need to make up any other "innocent" apple stories.
Automative companies still receive new patents for what are largely tweaks or just different ways of doing the same thing and that's on technology that's been around for over one hundred years at this point. There's typically more than one way to accomplish something and Apple was free to use methods for which the patents had expired or to develop their own approach. If they think the patent should be invalid, they had ample chance to demonstrate that during the trial.
Right. Because most judges would even know a branch-predictor from a washing-machine.
Apple could have licensed the tech for far less, but they decided to just keep using it, even after being informed of the infringement. For a company worth billions and billions of dollars, not a bad thing to get a slap on the wrist and being forced to divest some of their cash and reinvest it back into basic research.
So, you really think a company worth billions of dollars, with a team of people that do nothing but patent research, and who have successfully been sued for things as stupid an obvious as the data organization in an iPod (FFS!!!), and who likely already HAS hundreds of license agreements in place, is just going to roll-the-dice in this day and age of drop-of-the-hat patent litigation?
That doesn't make them "not a troll". All trolls represent "inventors" in some way. But very very few of these inventions are "stolen". What generally happens is someone (Apple in this case) comes up with an idea independently, implements it in a real product, and is then sued by the troll for "stealing" the idea. Almost anything you can imagine is already patented. It is very rare for a company designing a new product to search the patent database for ideas to license, and equally rare for inventors to go out and market their inventions to established companies. The "inventors" are adding nothing of value to the process. They are just parasites. That doesn't change just because they work at a university.
Woz was a one hit wonder. Jobs went on to build an empire and spearheaded the creation of devices which irrevocably changed our world. All while staying true to his nature.
The iPhone uses the same DAC as the iPod, but it was crippled through software, likely to improve battery life. Anyone who was interested in music quality and had a decent pair of headphones could easily hear the difference for the exact same song played on an iPod vs an iPhone.
Too bad you don't know anything about hardware.
How in the FUCK do you "cripple" a DAC? It has exactly ONE job: Convert a number into a voltage (or current) level. That's it.
You're insane. Try looking into the EQ settings on that phone. Somebody probably fucked-around and put some sort of ridiculous "Bass Boost" EQ preset on the phone you were listening to.
That's exactly the point, I last had an mp3 player a decade ago before I had a phone that could play music. Why carry a second device to do the same thing?
Have you ever tried jogging with a Samsung Note in your pocket? Or even a regular sized smart phone as opposed to something the size of an iPod nano or shuffle? There are reasons to have a small, dedicated MP3 player, even if they don't apply to everyone. It just doesn't have to cost so much and has no new features to try to sell, which is why I suspect they would prefer to discontinue it. Fortunately, they aren't the only provider for that kind of device.
They are discontinuing it because hardly anyone buys them anymore. If people bought them, Apple would continue to build them, and even improve them.
Slashdot Mirror
to buy a 6S while they can still get a phone with a headphone jack. I just bought one today for that exact reason. Tried a 7, kept wanting to listen to music only to remember, wait, I don't have the adapter on me.
Why now, though? The 7 has been out for several months now, and people who didn't already know saw what it doesn't have. They could have snapped up a 6 or even a 5s during that time.
One thing that puzzles me - if this is such a great innovation for the 7, why don't they also do it on the iPads and iPods? Have a common headphone/speaker infrastructure? I recently bought a Nano as well, which they are about to end, and even that doesn't have this.
Because, like with the MacBook Pro (which has a 3.5mm jack, even in the 2017 model), people don't generally drop their iPad in the water like people do with their phones. As far as iPods go, I would imagine the next gen. iPod touch will lose the 3.5 mm jack as well. It just hasn't caught up, yet.
Sure, with a big, ugly adapter. Better than nothing but hardly ideal.
If you think the Apple Lightning headphone adapter is "big", that must be from referring to your micropenis as "big", too:
https://www.apple.com/shop/pro...
Now STFU, you ignorant tool.
How many of those "better than expected" iPhone sales were channel "presales" to MVNOs and the like? I smell a return of the Apple from the mid-90s when they were able for a few years to meet their growth and revenue targets by stuffing their retail channel.
It could just be oddly coincidental that I'm seeing so many "deals" on iPhones now for switching to this carrier or that, or just $150 prepaid for a new iPhone SE tied to boost or virgin when it retails for $400.
That's the funny thing about Apple: They ONLY count actual END-USER sales; not sales into their "Distribution Channel".
So, unlike others (looking at you, Samsung!), Apple's sales numbers don't "count" until there is an actual, END-USER purchase.
Every product Apple has ever made since day one has been overpriced and with worse specs than competing products. But, you clearly demonstrate the problem: Apple Up the Ass Syndrome. Whereby you don't know that a whole universe of better products exist outside Apple's prison system.
Sounds like jealousy to me.
And EVERY product Apple has EVER made SINCE DAY ONE...
So, we're also talking about products that had no actual "peer" when Apple produced them, too? How were THOSE "inferior", since there were no equivalents when Apple announced them?
Button press unnecessary when on board the Enterprise.
Unless it is necessary for the plot...
Star Trek had it right. First you poke the button on the communicator, then it listens...
Except for the hundreds of times when the actor forgets to touch the communicator until halfway through his/her utterance.
Agree with this completely. Which has greater impact on education, 5000 new computers or one good math teacher? If you wanted to teach children to code you could do it on an IBM XT from 1984. As you pointed out, maybe educators save on materials by going digital instead of paying for textbooks, but as to a computer's educational value, depends entirely on the teacher and what they are teaching.
Rather do it with an Apple ][ from 1978.
Built in BASIC, built in mini-Assembler, built in low and hi-res graphics. Game paddles. And just a more friendly machine overall.
Not to mention that learning Assembly language on the 6502 is a LOT easier than on the 8086 or 8088.
Because that's what you are suggesting all your Subjects do...
She's not the queen, you know: not every female in a senior position in the UK is isomorphic to the queen.
I knew that; but I am not familiar enough with British terminology to figure out what to call them. "Citizens" is not correct though, right?
The depth information is used to figure out which parts of the image are sharpest, hence 'wanted'.
No.
The depth information is used to figure out which parts of the image are CLOSER, and the algorithm ASSUMES that's the part that is "wanted".
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. High and Mighty.
Publish your DOB, National ID #, Bank Account Info and Home address.
Oh, yes, and publish your entire IM and TXT History, Facebook, Twitter etc. Logins while you're at it.
Because that's what you are suggesting all your Subjects do...
Perhaps you've never heard the phrase, "the best camera is the one you have with you."
Thank you, Ansel Adams. Truly one of the greats.
yes its flame bait
yes correctly interpreting the colours is pointless since apple has forged them previously to make it "look better"
what complete and utter rubish this man espouses clearly he cant even use the platform he helped create...
Show me a mobile-device camera system that DOESN'T play fast and loose with color, overall levels, contrast, and dynamic range to make the shots "look better".
Don't try and spin it as a negative thing ("forged") exclusive to Apple, when EVERYONE does the same thing.
No, the face is in focus in both lenses. The Portrait Mode software takes the wide-angle image, selects and deletes the face, which though in focus would be distorted by the wide angle, and drops in the ore natural looking face from the image in the long lens
Sorry, man. It is using pseudo-depth-info gleaned from the two lenses.
Did you not watch the Keynote? They spent about 10 minutes going into the technical details of how this effect was calculated and rendered.
Apple is using the two lenses to calculate rudimentary depth info
That is exactly how it was explained in the Keynote.
Like most generalizations it applies "in general" to lowest common denominator users. So yes maybe a walled garden appliance works very competently. If that is what you need, then it is indeed the best. If you want a choice of applications to use with your camera then it definitely is not the best. The guy is just spouting marketing speak, or half truths as most critical thinkers will concur.
Got NOTHIN' to do with "Walled Garden", you imbecilic TOOL.
FFS, give it a REST!
This is supposed to be a Tech (Nerd) NEWS site.
It is NOT supposed to be a "Linux Fanboi" site.
So why is there a Story-Tagging Category named "fuckapple"? Is there a Tag called "fuckandroid" or "fucklinux"? I think not.
Why? (can anyone give a NON-snarky, non Apple-Hating AC answer)?
Jeezus, people: What ever happened to journalistic integrity?
No that's not how it works. apple copies and steals from others all the time. Sometime they get caught. Sometime they dont. This time they did. No need to make up any other "innocent" apple stories.
Prove it, motherfucker, or GTFO.
Automative companies still receive new patents for what are largely tweaks or just different ways of doing the same thing and that's on technology that's been around for over one hundred years at this point. There's typically more than one way to accomplish something and Apple was free to use methods for which the patents had expired or to develop their own approach. If they think the patent should be invalid, they had ample chance to demonstrate that during the trial.
Right. Because most judges would even know a branch-predictor from a washing-machine.
Apple could have licensed the tech for far less, but they decided to just keep using it, even after being informed of the infringement. For a company worth billions and billions of dollars, not a bad thing to get a slap on the wrist and being forced to divest some of their cash and reinvest it back into basic research.
So, you really think a company worth billions of dollars, with a team of people that do nothing but patent research, and who have successfully been sued for things as stupid an obvious as the data organization in an iPod (FFS!!!), and who likely already HAS hundreds of license agreements in place, is just going to roll-the-dice in this day and age of drop-of-the-hat patent litigation?
Doesn't pass the smell-test, sorry.
They genuinely represent university inventors
That doesn't make them "not a troll". All trolls represent "inventors" in some way. But very very few of these inventions are "stolen". What generally happens is someone (Apple in this case) comes up with an idea independently, implements it in a real product, and is then sued by the troll for "stealing" the idea. Almost anything you can imagine is already patented. It is very rare for a company designing a new product to search the patent database for ideas to license, and equally rare for inventors to go out and market their inventions to established companies. The "inventors" are adding nothing of value to the process. They are just parasites. That doesn't change just because they work at a university.
This. Exactly.
I'm hopeful, since this would have been the perfect time to discontinue the Mac Mini if they had no intention of updating it.
Apple claimed in April that the mini was "Still a very important part of our product line-up."
They also hinted at a redesigned mini. Look for something in 2018, to coincide with the new "modular" Mac Pro.
Woz was a one hit wonder. Jobs went on to build an empire and spearheaded the creation of devices which irrevocably changed our world. All while staying true to his nature.
At least TWO hits.
And oh, what hits they were, too...
BTW, your jealousy is showing.
The iPhone uses the same DAC as the iPod, but it was crippled through software, likely to improve battery life. Anyone who was interested in music quality and had a decent pair of headphones could easily hear the difference for the exact same song played on an iPod vs an iPhone.
Too bad you don't know anything about hardware.
How in the FUCK do you "cripple" a DAC? It has exactly ONE job: Convert a number into a voltage (or current) level. That's it.
You're insane. Try looking into the EQ settings on that phone. Somebody probably fucked-around and put some sort of ridiculous "Bass Boost" EQ preset on the phone you were listening to.
Moron.
That's exactly the point, I last had an mp3 player a decade ago before I had a phone that could play music. Why carry a second device to do the same thing?
Have you ever tried jogging with a Samsung Note in your pocket? Or even a regular sized smart phone as opposed to something the size of an iPod nano or shuffle? There are reasons to have a small, dedicated MP3 player, even if they don't apply to everyone. It just doesn't have to cost so much and has no new features to try to sell, which is why I suspect they would prefer to discontinue it. Fortunately, they aren't the only provider for that kind of device.
They are discontinuing it because hardly anyone buys them anymore. If people bought them, Apple would continue to build them, and even improve them.
Why is it ALWAYS some sort of "ulterior motive"?
This sounds to me like the latest exploit-vector.
I DO NOT WANT "worker processes" being shoved onto my computer, regardless of Sandboxing.
Just wait. There WILL be an exploit or hundred that use this.
And I will sit back and laugh.