I'm amazed at the indolent culture spawned by the iPhone: Nowadays, you can't just go to a website. You have to have a special executable for every single different website you visit!
It seems like there are people who don't go to certain websites, until they announce "Announcing the blah.com iPhone App!"
In the case of Youtube and the iPhone it was because at the time of the app's release (and it hasn't been updated since then), the iPhone needed it because Youtube was flash based and in the middle of its H.264/HTML5 transition.
You haven't needed the "special app" for a long time, and in fact you get a better experience going directly to youtube via Safari. This is just a non-story about Apple removing an app that hasn't changed since 2007 and hasn't beed needed for a couple of years at least.
He does have a point - the built in app is really outdated. The web version provided by Google via Safari is much better. I'm not sure who still uses the built in one any more - now that it's gone that's an extra icon that I previously had to stash in a junk folder that's no longer an issue since as a stock app you couldn't remove it. This is a good move.
You can get to it via Safari and set it into a self-contained web app. Apple doesn't need to approve anything. Google doesn't need to create an app that is distributed via the store. This is the very reason that the old Apple app is being removed - it's obsolete and inferior to the version that Google offers directly to iOS users via Safari/web-app.
*I* am also able to decide that I want a YouTube app and I don't have to let Apple make that decision for me.
Err, you can make the Youtube site into a self-contained app that launches from the springboard, or choose not to. Either way, via Safari or via the springboard directly it's much better than the old, obsolete Youtube app written by Apple and now being retired.
I guess if you want to keep an obsolete app around you can jailbreak and reinstall it if you really want.
First no Google Maps, now this. iOS is really heading south.
What do you mean?
Do you mean "Youtube is no longer accessible on iOS"? You must do, since you think iOS is "heading south", but the built in Youtube app that has been almost unchanged since the original launch of the iPhone (and written by Apple) is not as good as accessing youtube directly from within Safari on the phone. You can have a better experience by simply making a web-app (making an icon for youtube on the springboard) that works better than the "official" app.
It was only a matter of time before Apple took out the now-superfluous outdated app - Google provides youtube functionality via the browser much more effectively.
This has nothing at all to do with "removing" Youtube from iOS, simply getting rid of an outdated app that has served its purpose and been usurped by something better.
Primarily certain vitamins and amino acids that you don't get from vegetables in sufficient quantities. Without access to these supplements (either in the form of additional taken supplements, or via fortified foods), living as a pure vegetarian is very difficult - if you were to "live off the land" as a veggie with no access to society, for example. You'd need to grow a specific set of plants to be able to get some of the amino acids that are plentiful in meat.
It's likely not totally impossible to survive with no meat, but practically it is very hard - we are omnivorous mammals and it really works best if we eat a balanced diet that includes meat and vegetables. (This doesn't address the issue that as a culture we do tend to eat *too much* meat, and too much of everything really).
They add supplements to meat and animal-food. Think about that. A piece of pork can be considered a supplement aswell. And of course killing animals is bad. It's better to not eat them and care about them.
Of course they do, I didn't suggest otherwise. My point is that if civilisation were to end tomorrow, or you decided to go off and live off the land with no processed foods you would not survive solely on vegetables. You need meat too.
No we don't. There are life long vegetarians/vegans who are still not dead - must be surprising for you.
You are just accustomed and used to eat meat. It's like a bad habit or maybe even like cold turkey symptoms. And like any drug addict you try to defend your drug.
You are able to be lifelong vegetarians because of supplements added to your foods.
It's not a "bad habit" to eat meat. Being a pure vegetarian is unnatural, but sustainable with supplements that you don't get from pure vegetables.
To be fair though, if people in the UK are considering adding bugs to their diet, that'd probably represent an improvement on the typical British food, from what I've heard.
Says the man from the country that gave us the drive through fast food joint and the 52 oz "medium" soda.
It worked for rape seed oil, err, I mean "canola" and for mechanically reclaimed meat in place of "lips, ringpieces and bits of meat blasted off the bones".
The human body does not require meat. There are some amino acids that humans have to consume from animal sources, which include milk or eggs.
If this is talking about what to replace meat with, then this is somewhat of a moot point, since there is a dietary change required anyway (i.e. there is no thing to replace meat with that is not just as thinkable as another). For example, we could just be eating more carrots.
If less meat gets consumed, there will be more food available to humans overall, since the ratio of food used to food gained (by converting plants etc. to meat via e.g. feeding a cow) is about 10.
Humans are omnivores. We need meat to survive - to be accurate, we need a balanced diet of meat and plant matter (veg/fruit) to survive.
I think it's because they are in the business of science.
Weird. Some of the unwashed masses thought that the funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was for the business of aeronautics and space. Bunch of stupid uneducated wankers, obviously.
I see you haven't read their mission statement. You also forgot to log in, kid.
Should science drop the "Climate Change" mantra and get back to basics like pollution and sustainability? I believe climate change has become a political boogeyman and that science would be better off focusing on more clearly defined goals (making renewable energy usage more affordable etc).
I think you're under the mistaken impression that "scientists" all do one thing at a time.
We already *are* focussing on renewable energy, improved drugs, advances in medicine, the search for the Higgs field...
It's only the media and various special interests with a financial stake in discrediting the inconvenient results of climate science that create such a stir. In the actual world of science and research, climate science is just a small part. It gets far more media attention in proportion to the work and money being spent on it.
Looks like you want to blame all your failings on everyone else and on "The Man" being out to get you.
If you can't read road signs, and aren't paying enough attention to the road to be able to determine what lights are showing then you are unfit to operate a vehicle.
Let me guess, if you go through a red light "not out of malice" and T bone some helpless motorist then it's not your fault? It's his fault for being in your way, or the government for trying to catch you out with a fine by bad positioning of the traffic lights?
The friend who got a fine for driving with expired registration "on the way to renew it" was dead on - he was breaking the law. The rules are clear - it doesn't matter what his intent is. Driving with expired registration is ripe for a fine if you are caught. I have no sympathy.
6 year old Mac here. Might upgrade later this year, might not.
I think you're under the impression that because Apple releases new machines every year that automatically means everyone using a Mac simply must buy one. I'm not sure where you get that ridiculous idea. Do you think everyone who owns a Toyota buys a new one every year too?
I think you mean OSX is not for people who are good with money.
Because people who continually purchase and re-purchase goods at artifically inflated prices that are pretty much the same as the goods they already own, simply for the cachet of having the label, well generally those people are what we call "bad at managing money".
Well hello there Captain Generalisation, how are the waters around The Isle of Stereotypes.
This machine is coming up on 6 years old, and has run every version of OS X available since it's release date. If it weren't for the fact that I'd like an updated GPU, this machine would last much longer. Bonus, it also runs Windows for those last couple of apps that don't have Mac versions (ACD, some Steam games, one or two others), so I saved money and space by only having one computer instead of two.
Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. "I've bought every computer Apple have released in the past 6 years purely because they released one. My need to buy the newest hardware just because its been released is insatiable". Better?
I don't include ACs in the discussion generally. They are beneath my attention threshold.
In other words, you got called out for being foolish, and are now trying to backtrack and blame it on some ideological position that resulted in you failing reading comprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm amazed at the indolent culture spawned by the iPhone: Nowadays, you can't just go to a website. You have to have a special executable for every single different website you visit!
It seems like there are people who don't go to certain websites, until they announce "Announcing the blah.com iPhone App!"
In the case of Youtube and the iPhone it was because at the time of the app's release (and it hasn't been updated since then), the iPhone needed it because Youtube was flash based and in the middle of its H.264/HTML5 transition.
You haven't needed the "special app" for a long time, and in fact you get a better experience going directly to youtube via Safari. This is just a non-story about Apple removing an app that hasn't changed since 2007 and hasn't beed needed for a couple of years at least.
He does have a point - the built in app is really outdated. The web version provided by Google via Safari is much better. I'm not sure who still uses the built in one any more - now that it's gone that's an extra icon that I previously had to stash in a junk folder that's no longer an issue since as a stock app you couldn't remove it. This is a good move.
You're assuming that Apple will approve it.
You can get to it via Safari and set it into a self-contained web app. Apple doesn't need to approve anything. Google doesn't need to create an app that is distributed via the store. This is the very reason that the old Apple app is being removed - it's obsolete and inferior to the version that Google offers directly to iOS users via Safari/web-app.
*I* am also able to decide that I want a YouTube app and I don't have to let Apple make that decision for me.
Err, you can make the Youtube site into a self-contained app that launches from the springboard, or choose not to. Either way, via Safari or via the springboard directly it's much better than the old, obsolete Youtube app written by Apple and now being retired.
I guess if you want to keep an obsolete app around you can jailbreak and reinstall it if you really want.
First no Google Maps, now this. iOS is really heading south.
What do you mean?
Do you mean "Youtube is no longer accessible on iOS"? You must do, since you think iOS is "heading south", but the built in Youtube app that has been almost unchanged since the original launch of the iPhone (and written by Apple) is not as good as accessing youtube directly from within Safari on the phone. You can have a better experience by simply making a web-app (making an icon for youtube on the springboard) that works better than the "official" app.
It was only a matter of time before Apple took out the now-superfluous outdated app - Google provides youtube functionality via the browser much more effectively.
This has nothing at all to do with "removing" Youtube from iOS, simply getting rid of an outdated app that has served its purpose and been usurped by something better.
According to the guy from Gizmodo...
What's that saying about an ionic solid made up of sodium and chlorine atoms and grabbing a small amount of it between your fingers?
We should really wait for some actual confirmation, rather than the word of Gizmodo.
You are not correct.
I'm 100% more correct than someone who forgot to log in, even if I'm wrong. Onus is on you to log in and debate it.
Primarily certain vitamins and amino acids that you don't get from vegetables in sufficient quantities. Without access to these supplements (either in the form of additional taken supplements, or via fortified foods), living as a pure vegetarian is very difficult - if you were to "live off the land" as a veggie with no access to society, for example. You'd need to grow a specific set of plants to be able to get some of the amino acids that are plentiful in meat.
It's likely not totally impossible to survive with no meat, but practically it is very hard - we are omnivorous mammals and it really works best if we eat a balanced diet that includes meat and vegetables. (This doesn't address the issue that as a culture we do tend to eat *too much* meat, and too much of everything really).
They add supplements to meat and animal-food. Think about that. A piece of pork can be considered a supplement aswell. And of course killing animals is bad. It's better to not eat them and care about them.
Of course they do, I didn't suggest otherwise. My point is that if civilisation were to end tomorrow, or you decided to go off and live off the land with no processed foods you would not survive solely on vegetables. You need meat too.
No we don't. There are life long vegetarians/vegans who are still not dead - must be surprising for you.
You are just accustomed and used to eat meat. It's like a bad habit or maybe even like cold turkey symptoms.
And like any drug addict you try to defend your drug.
You are able to be lifelong vegetarians because of supplements added to your foods.
It's not a "bad habit" to eat meat. Being a pure vegetarian is unnatural, but sustainable with supplements that you don't get from pure vegetables.
To be fair though, if people in the UK are considering adding bugs to their diet, that'd probably represent an improvement on the typical British food, from what I've heard.
Says the man from the country that gave us the drive through fast food joint and the 52 oz "medium" soda.
It worked for rape seed oil, err, I mean "canola" and for mechanically reclaimed meat in place of "lips, ringpieces and bits of meat blasted off the bones".
It will work for grasshoppers.
What is this meat gap?
The human body does not require meat. There are some amino acids that humans have to consume from animal sources, which include milk or eggs.
If this is talking about what to replace meat with, then this is somewhat of a moot point, since there is a dietary change required anyway (i.e. there is no thing to replace meat with that is not just as thinkable as another). For example, we could just be eating more carrots.
If less meat gets consumed, there will be more food available to humans overall, since the ratio of food used to food gained (by converting plants etc. to meat via e.g. feeding a cow) is about 10.
Humans are omnivores. We need meat to survive - to be accurate, we need a balanced diet of meat and plant matter (veg/fruit) to survive.
The phrase is "champing at the bit", but otherwise, salient points.
I counted Civ 5. It's a major game from 2+ years ago. Diablo 3 isn't on Steam. Troll harder.
"A major game from 2+ years ago" that happened to launch at the same time on Mac as it did on Windows.
They still fucked it up (no cross platform multiplayer), but it did launch at the same time.
"Troll harder" indeed.
Cool story bro.
I think it's because they are in the business of science.
Weird. Some of the unwashed masses thought that the funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was for the business of aeronautics and space. Bunch of stupid uneducated wankers, obviously.
I see you haven't read their mission statement. You also forgot to log in, kid.
Should science drop the "Climate Change" mantra and get back to basics like pollution and sustainability? I believe climate change has become a political boogeyman and that science would be better off focusing on more clearly defined goals (making renewable energy usage more affordable etc).
I think you're under the mistaken impression that "scientists" all do one thing at a time.
We already *are* focussing on renewable energy, improved drugs, advances in medicine, the search for the Higgs field...
It's only the media and various special interests with a financial stake in discrediting the inconvenient results of climate science that create such a stir. In the actual world of science and research, climate science is just a small part. It gets far more media attention in proportion to the work and money being spent on it.
I think it's because they are in the business of science.
Looks like you want to blame all your failings on everyone else and on "The Man" being out to get you.
If you can't read road signs, and aren't paying enough attention to the road to be able to determine what lights are showing then you are unfit to operate a vehicle.
Let me guess, if you go through a red light "not out of malice" and T bone some helpless motorist then it's not your fault? It's his fault for being in your way, or the government for trying to catch you out with a fine by bad positioning of the traffic lights?
The friend who got a fine for driving with expired registration "on the way to renew it" was dead on - he was breaking the law. The rules are clear - it doesn't matter what his intent is. Driving with expired registration is ripe for a fine if you are caught. I have no sympathy.
You suck at recognizing sarcasm on the internet.
That wasn't sarcasm.
You also forgot to log in, kid.
6 year old Mac here. Might upgrade later this year, might not.
I think you're under the impression that because Apple releases new machines every year that automatically means everyone using a Mac simply must buy one. I'm not sure where you get that ridiculous idea. Do you think everyone who owns a Toyota buys a new one every year too?
"runs better on systems with less than 4G of RAM"
Tempted to add my own remarks but this kind of speaks for itself.
So which is it? Bash Apple for leaving usable hardware behind with forced obsolescence, or bash Apple for improving performance on older machines?
You have to pick one troll direction and stick to it or you look wishy washy. I've seen you do better.
I think you mean OSX is not for people who are good with money.
Because people who continually purchase and re-purchase goods at artifically inflated prices that are pretty much the same as the goods they already own, simply for the cachet of having the label, well generally those people are what we call "bad at managing money".
Well hello there Captain Generalisation, how are the waters around The Isle of Stereotypes.
This machine is coming up on 6 years old, and has run every version of OS X available since it's release date. If it weren't for the fact that I'd like an updated GPU, this machine would last much longer. Bonus, it also runs Windows for those last couple of apps that don't have Mac versions (ACD, some Steam games, one or two others), so I saved money and space by only having one computer instead of two.
Oh wait, sorry. I forgot. "I've bought every computer Apple have released in the past 6 years purely because they released one. My need to buy the newest hardware just because its been released is insatiable". Better?
I don't include ACs in the discussion generally. They are beneath my attention threshold.
In other words, you got called out for being foolish, and are now trying to backtrack and blame it on some ideological position that resulted in you failing reading comprehension.