If this is true (it seems to be just a rumour) then it will be two years in a row that Apple made users' existing headphones obsolete. That would be brave/arrogant/foolish even by Apple's standards.
Honestly the sooner they drop lightning and other proprietary connectors the better. Not many people bought lightning headphones yet so the sooner they switch the less painful it is going to be. It would be even more arrogant to keep lightning for 4-5 years so that people invest into headphones and accessories* and then switch to USB-C.
*Even tough stupid people buying headphones with a proprietary connector only have themselves to blame.
4. easier to charge for each message 5. easier for the police to get the meta data (who you've sent messages to) 6. easier to block you from keeping your identifier (phone number) when you migrate to another country
RCS should be killed with fire. The only worse messaging protocol is Apple iMessage, because it is single vendor.
So? When is it the last time Apple released something that matters for Android? And no, that "move to iOS" app doesn't count. Android had this important feature first. Just like the others I mentioned and many more.
Turn by turn GPS navigation, WiFi hotspot, contact cloud synchronization, large displays, water resistance all worked just fine on Android before being copied by Apple. I don't mind if it is called "beta" by Google as long as it works.
Again, as I said most apps are free. If you are developing a free app, you don't care about app purchase revenue since you know you will get $0.
If you are a city wanting to develop an app for your mass transit system or parking, if you are a bank wanting to reach your customers, if you are developing a web browser, if you are developing a communication / social media app, what you want is to develop a free app with as much reach as possible.
The paid app market (or should we say the paid game market, since it's pretty much what it is?) is a very small portion of the app market. Also most developers selling apps don't make money because no one is buying their crappy app. A tiny few are successful.
Given that it's the highest revenue source, seems like a smart idea.
To begin with most developers don't develop mobile phone applications. Then what you don't get is that most of these apps are free, therefore are not driven by potential sales. The most popular and most useful applications, by a wide margin, are all free.
Also, on a Mac, you can run Windows, Linux *and* MacOS all at the same time.
Seems liike the most versatile and most economically smart decision.
Or you can just forget about iOS and loose only about 15% of the market while having one less platform to develop on. Even smarter.
You can develop for Android just fine on any Linux/Windows/Mac PC, which is what 99.9% of developers are using. You can develop for iOS only if you are one of the ~10% or so with a Mac.
Sure, if you want to sell that $2 fart app. But if you want to develop a useful application, which others will continue to improve, you will stick to open source development for Android. How much did you pay for your text editor? Web browser? PDF reader? And you want me to pay for your fart app I wouldn't use even for free?
However look at the other responses here, proclaiming how proud they are to have spent $0! Is there any wonder why Android continues to be a second tier when it comes to app development? It makes you question if there is any use at all in ever developing an app for Android if what you get out of it is to be anything but breadth of exposure.
Most of the people claiming to spend $0 on apps in this thread say they are iPhone owners. You are the first one to bring Android to this discussion.
I myself am proud to spend money on apps and help support a sustainable app ecosystem where I will see real improvements to apps because people are willing to spend money...
How much did you pay for your ZIP utility, text editor, web browser or file manager on your PC? The best ones are free (often open source). I don't care about phone games. I don't pay for these kind of software on my PC. Why do you expect me to pay for apps on my phone? The best apps are free. Paying for apps won't improve the free ones. Money doesn't go to the app ecosystem. Money goes to Apple, and the developer of the paying app. Neither of them serves your interest.
I'm guessing phones will soon join them once 5G arrives (5G data will be fast enough there will be no compelling reason to upgrade your phone for 5-10 years).
Why 5G? 4G LTE is already at that point. Why would you upgrade your 150 Mbps LTE phone for a 300 Mbps one? That won't make any difference for sending emails or browsing facebook. Even for music/video streaming, it's more than fast enough to bust your cap in minutes. A recent smartphone can last at least 5 years, as long as you can change the battery and do not break the display.
Speed of the cellular connection is now like speed of the Ethernet card on a PC. Most people don't care and won't even notice their brand new PC only has a 100 Mbps Ethernet. And for the few who do care, 1 Gbps is fast enough.
When you will stop transferring CO2 from rich nations to poor ones, you may have a point. But rich nations emit far more CO2 per capita than poor ones.
If you don't need to run Adobe software, or some other specialized thing, and you have the ability to figure things out for yourself, seriously, it's the way to go.
Probably less than 1% of the population need to run Adobe software. You can read PDF and even run flash just fine on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is true (it seems to be just a rumour) then it will be two years in a row that Apple made users' existing headphones obsolete. That would be brave/arrogant/foolish even by Apple's standards.
Honestly the sooner they drop lightning and other proprietary connectors the better. Not many people bought lightning headphones yet so the sooner they switch the less painful it is going to be.
It would be even more arrogant to keep lightning for 4-5 years so that people invest into headphones and accessories* and then switch to USB-C.
*Even tough stupid people buying headphones with a proprietary connector only have themselves to blame.
Yeah well that wall makes a big difference if more than one person is living there. Even for a couple a wall is a must.
-Your phone queries the network to see if tethering is permitted, or it explicitly tells the network it's tethering.
Is there such a stupid feature in unlocked Nexus or iPhones? Did Google and Apple pander to the carriers that much?
If I bring my own phone and insert their SIM card?
Well if you go to the theater with a group of friends it can add up quickly to $50 or more especially if you buy pop corn and the movie is in 3D.
you forget:
4. easier to charge for each message
5. easier for the police to get the meta data (who you've sent messages to)
6. easier to block you from keeping your identifier (phone number) when you migrate to another country
RCS should be killed with fire. The only worse messaging protocol is Apple iMessage, because it is single vendor.
But you are stuck with Apple. Not worth it.
So? When is it the last time Apple released something that matters for Android? And no, that "move to iOS" app doesn't count.
Android had this important feature first. Just like the others I mentioned and many more.
The web site where it is published use SHA-256
Turn by turn GPS navigation, WiFi hotspot, contact cloud synchronization, large displays, water resistance all worked just fine on Android before being copied by Apple. I don't mind if it is called "beta" by Google as long as it works.
Again, as I said most apps are free. If you are developing a free app, you don't care about app purchase revenue since you know you will get $0.
If you are a city wanting to develop an app for your mass transit system or parking, if you are a bank wanting to reach your customers, if you are developing a web browser, if you are developing a communication / social media app, what you want is to develop a free app with as much reach as possible.
The paid app market (or should we say the paid game market, since it's pretty much what it is?) is a very small portion of the app market. Also most developers selling apps don't make money because no one is buying their crappy app. A tiny few are successful.
Given that it's the highest revenue source, seems like a smart idea.
To begin with most developers don't develop mobile phone applications.
Then what you don't get is that most of these apps are free, therefore are not driven by potential sales.
The most popular and most useful applications, by a wide margin, are all free.
Also, on a Mac, you can run Windows, Linux *and* MacOS all at the same time.
Seems liike the most versatile and most economically smart decision.
Or you can just forget about iOS and loose only about 15% of the market while having one less platform to develop on. Even smarter.
You can develop for Android just fine on any Linux/Windows/Mac PC, which is what 99.9% of developers are using.
You can develop for iOS only if you are one of the ~10% or so with a Mac.
Sure, if you want to sell that $2 fart app.
But if you want to develop a useful application, which others will continue to improve, you will stick to open source development for Android.
How much did you pay for your text editor? Web browser? PDF reader? And you want me to pay for your fart app I wouldn't use even for free?
However look at the other responses here, proclaiming how proud they are to have spent $0! Is there any wonder why Android continues to be a second tier when it comes to app development? It makes you question if there is any use at all in ever developing an app for Android if what you get out of it is to be anything but breadth of exposure.
Most of the people claiming to spend $0 on apps in this thread say they are iPhone owners. You are the first one to bring Android to this discussion.
I myself am proud to spend money on apps and help support a sustainable app ecosystem where I will see real improvements to apps because people are willing to spend money...
How much did you pay for your ZIP utility, text editor, web browser or file manager on your PC? The best ones are free (often open source).
I don't care about phone games. I don't pay for these kind of software on my PC. Why do you expect me to pay for apps on my phone? The best apps are free. Paying for apps won't improve the free ones. Money doesn't go to the app ecosystem. Money goes to Apple, and the developer of the paying app. Neither of them serves your interest.
It still matters for most people, and it has been a problem for AMD.
Will they offer lower priced Core i5/i3 competitors based on this architecture?
you forgot Apple Mail and all Outlook/Windows Live/Microsoft variants.
I'm guessing phones will soon join them once 5G arrives (5G data will be fast enough there will be no compelling reason to upgrade your phone for 5-10 years).
Why 5G? 4G LTE is already at that point. Why would you upgrade your 150 Mbps LTE phone for a 300 Mbps one? That won't make any difference for sending emails or browsing facebook. Even for music/video streaming, it's more than fast enough to bust your cap in minutes.
A recent smartphone can last at least 5 years, as long as you can change the battery and do not break the display.
Speed of the cellular connection is now like speed of the Ethernet card on a PC. Most people don't care and won't even notice their brand new PC only has a 100 Mbps Ethernet. And for the few who do care, 1 Gbps is fast enough.
When you will stop transferring CO2 from rich nations to poor ones, you may have a point.
But rich nations emit far more CO2 per capita than poor ones.
Poor people (and even rich people, but that's another story) tend to lease/finance cars instead of buying them outright.
What's wrong with lying to a corporation like Dell? Other than the nuisance to lose 10 seconds entering the information, I don't see any problem.
If you don't need to run Adobe software, or some other specialized thing, and you have the ability to figure things out for yourself, seriously, it's the way to go.
Probably less than 1% of the population need to run Adobe software. You can read PDF and even run flash just fine on Linux.
Are you saying NZ has a very large (and fast) LAN but its actual connection to the Internet (the outside world) is slow?
It's 5400 gbit/sec but that cable also serves Australia. But let say it was only for NZ, that's still only 1.2 Mbps / person.
is that an excuse to offer crappy slow Internet in populated coastal areas?