Smartphone batteries *ARE* getting better, at about 6% per year. But that improvement is being eaten by better displays, and by making phones thinner (and therefore batteries smaller).
I doubt there's that much scope for making EVs more efficient, other than improving the batteries. That means either lighter weight, better motors, or reduced HVAC.
They're already making them light. The better batteries is the main place where they can make weight savings. And motors are a very mature technology, so one can't imagine huge improvements there. And HVAC is kind of fixed for a given level of comfort.
Some are free. They want to attract custom. Some may roll it into the parking fee. Networks of chargers use account cards that mean it can be charged to the user.
This is already happening. Scaling up to the point where everyone has an EV may change the mix. But there's no problem here. People need electricity, and one way or another someone will pay for it. Capitalism means that market will be served.
By this logic, no one has a right to an opinion that doesn't have a given degree.
No. By this logic you don't have any right to contradict the scientists that are qualified in relevant fields and are doing this stuff everyday. Well you can contradict them, but you will inevitably be wrong.
You must concede the point or declare yourself as illogical.
Actually that would be you saying "As such having or not having the qualification doesn't mean anything you're saying is inherently right or wrong." Of course it does.
Pretty stupid to think that the charging network won't grow to accomodate the increase in cars. By the time every car is an EV, every parking space will have a charger.
Pretty much everyone who owns an EV has a charger at home. And will do most of their charging there.
As to public chargers, they'll simply expand to service the demand they have. If pretty much every car is an EV then pretty much every parking space will have a charger to keep the batteries topped up.
Lets face it, it was far more difficult for gas station network to be built to support the growth of ICE cars. That needs tanks and pumps and tanker deliveries. Electric chargers are easy by comparison.
Batteries have been improving density at about 6% per year. So about 80% in 10 years.
Smartphone and laptop batteries don't seem to have been improving that quick, because they are thinner and the power better screens than they did a few years ago. But for cars, for sure, every percent of battery density improvement counts.
We've been spoiled by Moore's law for electronics. So batteries may not double in capacity every 18 months. But they are improving by the otherwise quite impressive margin of 6% per year. Which means that capacity will double in 12 years.
Your comments suggest you may want to re-think things
You wouldn't know. Given you have no experience. You are trying to align your opinion with Apple's on the basis of you having read the HIG. But I'm arguing with you, not your idea of hat Apple thinks. Apple would accept that embedding a manual in their phone productivity apps was an unfortunate compromise. One that follows from having to support editing of desktop office documents.
You have misread, I have not suggested commenting on opinions.
If you provide the facility how are you going to stop them? App Stores have enough work approving the apps themselves without approving the review responses too.
I understand perfectly what you think it would be for. I'm telling you what would happen.
This is simply a bad feature idea. And you can't see that a good app (and an App Store is an app in itself) is as much about what you leave out as what you add.
If anyone is making rookie mistakes here, it's not me. I've been in mobile apps for 17 years. You don't appear to be in the mobile app development industry at all.
What makes you think only hearing one side is a benefit to the public?
Because a review writer is entitled to give their opinion without being contradicted by the vendor.
And it's not just a benefit to the public, but the developer too. Though many won't realise it. As I've tried to get across to you because it means their answer to a bad review is to make a better app rather than make an excuse or imply the user is wrong in not finding some unintuitive functionality.
All the parts the other poster already pointed out. He's right, the web-site is wrong. I'm not going to waste my time googling for you. I know he's right and the article is wrong, because I'm old enough to remember most of it.
And bear in mind I'm saying this as someone who's often accused of being an Apple Shill. I have no reason to defend Microsoft.
Choose to believe we're both wrong if you want. Your loss if your historical knowledge remains ill-informed.
It wasn't satire. It was a line within a post were you were making a straight argument.
Context: Your suggestion that everything can be intuitive.
I never made any such suggestion. My point is that the better response to a bad review is to make the app more intuitive, rather than answer back to the review.
Actually some do, they are embedded, see Apple's Pages, Numbers and Keynote.
Very much the exception. And yes, a failure.
And various tutorials that take place on the first run perform a similar role, as well as other methods.
You mean onboarding. That's an entirely different thing, and is not a failure. It's very much one of the tools in the armoury of making apps intuitive. All good games do this.
Myopic.
Clearly you aren't in the mobile development industry. This is basic stuff.
There is no magic bullet, user confusion is inevitable. It will always happen. The ability to correct some confusion when it is offered in public is a useful service to other users doing research.
Non trivial apps have support pages. Review sections of stores are not support pages.
No, you completely misunderstood and oversimplify.
Says the guy using a flashlight app as his example.
Focus, and not succumbing to featureitis is very much a part of intuitiveness. Mobile apps don't come with manuals. And their active time per use is typically measured in seconds rather than minutes or hours. If you can't find a way to make an element of an app intuitive, hire a UX designer who can. Or consider that the feature does not belong in the app. (It may be that it deserves an app of it's own.)
Different thing. There's two existing approaches to recycling electronics
1) Shred the electronics, then roughly sort the resulting shreds by magnets, density, size, optical properties, manual sorting etc.
2) Ship it to a third world country where children will end up recycling by dismantling with hammers and open fires.
Apple's approach is a new one. Because all the models they are recycling are there's and they know how they are constructed, they have robots reverse the process, unscrewing, unclipping and ungluing each part down to it's components. And they know exactly what's in each of those components, and the components can be recycles on mass.
This is far more efficient than the other methods, better for the environment, and doesn't damage worker's health.
The difference of opinion here is whether the previews are part of the show or not. People seem to accept that the straight adverts are not, and the movie is.
It tends to depend on how seriously you take your movie going. For the casual person who's going to a one off movie, and is't really up on the etiquette, the previews tend to not be a part of the show. They don't care about choosing the next week's film because they probably won't be there to see it.
For regular cinema goers, they take the previews far more seriously, and want to know what's coming up. They will get pissed off with the casuals who don't know to at last minimise their talking and whisper during the previews.
Similarly regular opera and playgoers will be hushed/whisper at most if it's one of those productions where there are actors already onstage as the audience come in.
That's a BS answer. Some apps are more complicated than a flashlight app.
An argument that only makes sense if you think that only flashlight apps can be intuitive. It suggests you couldn't design a good app to save your life. Which is why you want the ability to explain or make excuses when customers can't understand your app.
Sorry but no. I picked a random app in Google Play store. You might say that there's nothing wrong with these developer comments. But they are changing the tone of the reviews section. Thanking for the feedback and giving the support email address over and over again is not adding to the experience of reviews for people reading the reviews.
It's a reviews section, it's not customer support, and it's not chat.
We've had a couple of our apps featured in the Best New Apps section. Apple's iTunes marketing team got in touch, in our case that led to an actual face to face meeting with our CEO. They told us they were interested in featuring our apps. A short time later we got a formal request by email for assets for the appropriate sizes to be featured, with no promise that we actually would be. Then a few days later we were featured. No money changed hands either way.
It's got nothing to do with reviews as this happened before release of that app. In our case it seems to be based on reputation given many apps already shipped, plus the household names of the various trademarks connected to the apps.
These are free apps BTW, so neither Apple nor ourselves earn directly from number of downloads. The gains for each are indirect.
There's no way Apple will sell placement in the App Store. It's not their sort of thing at all. This is clearly an invented story.
Slashdot Mirror
Smartphone batteries *ARE* getting better, at about 6% per year. But that improvement is being eaten by better displays, and by making phones thinner (and therefore batteries smaller).
I doubt there's that much scope for making EVs more efficient, other than improving the batteries. That means either lighter weight, better motors, or reduced HVAC.
They're already making them light. The better batteries is the main place where they can make weight savings. And motors are a very mature technology, so one can't imagine huge improvements there. And HVAC is kind of fixed for a given level of comfort.
Some are free. They want to attract custom.
Some may roll it into the parking fee.
Networks of chargers use account cards that mean it can be charged to the user.
This is already happening. Scaling up to the point where everyone has an EV may change the mix. But there's no problem here. People need electricity, and one way or another someone will pay for it. Capitalism means that market will be served.
By this logic, no one has a right to an opinion that doesn't have a given degree.
No. By this logic you don't have any right to contradict the scientists that are qualified in relevant fields and are doing this stuff everyday. Well you can contradict them, but you will inevitably be wrong.
You must concede the point or declare yourself as illogical.
Actually that would be you saying "As such having or not having the qualification doesn't mean anything you're saying is inherently right or wrong." Of course it does.
No. Most of Europe has 4-5 weeks annual leave. That doesn't mean that most people use them all in a single block.
I couldn't imagine having less. I feel sorry for Americans that don't.
Pretty stupid to think that the charging network won't grow to accomodate the increase in cars. By the time every car is an EV, every parking space will have a charger.
There's no shortage of land.
Pretty much everyone who owns an EV has a charger at home. And will do most of their charging there.
As to public chargers, they'll simply expand to service the demand they have. If pretty much every car is an EV then pretty much every parking space will have a charger to keep the batteries topped up.
Lets face it, it was far more difficult for gas station network to be built to support the growth of ICE cars. That needs tanks and pumps and tanker deliveries. Electric chargers are easy by comparison.
Batteries have been improving density at about 6% per year. So about 80% in 10 years.
Smartphone and laptop batteries don't seem to have been improving that quick, because they are thinner and the power better screens than they did a few years ago. But for cars, for sure, every percent of battery density improvement counts.
We've been spoiled by Moore's law for electronics. So batteries may not double in capacity every 18 months. But they are improving by the otherwise quite impressive margin of 6% per year. Which means that capacity will double in 12 years.
Stay in the caravan's they are towing whilst the car recharges.
I'm not missing anything. We simply have a difference of opinion. Many years ago I might have agreed with you. Now I know better.
Your comments suggest you may want to re-think things
You wouldn't know. Given you have no experience. You are trying to align your opinion with Apple's on the basis of you having read the HIG. But I'm arguing with you, not your idea of hat Apple thinks. Apple would accept that embedding a manual in their phone productivity apps was an unfortunate compromise. One that follows from having to support editing of desktop office documents.
You have misread, I have not suggested commenting on opinions.
If you provide the facility how are you going to stop them? App Stores have enough work approving the apps themselves without approving the review responses too.
I understand perfectly what you think it would be for. I'm telling you what would happen.
This is simply a bad feature idea. And you can't see that a good app (and an App Store is an app in itself) is as much about what you leave out as what you add.
If anyone is making rookie mistakes here, it's not me. I've been in mobile apps for 17 years. You don't appear to be in the mobile app development industry at all.
What makes you think only hearing one side is a benefit to the public?
Because a review writer is entitled to give their opinion without being contradicted by the vendor.
And it's not just a benefit to the public, but the developer too. Though many won't realise it. As I've tried to get across to you because it means their answer to a bad review is to make a better app rather than make an excuse or imply the user is wrong in not finding some unintuitive functionality.
All the parts the other poster already pointed out. He's right, the web-site is wrong. I'm not going to waste my time googling for you. I know he's right and the article is wrong, because I'm old enough to remember most of it.
And bear in mind I'm saying this as someone who's often accused of being an Apple Shill. I have no reason to defend Microsoft.
Choose to believe we're both wrong if you want. Your loss if your historical knowledge remains ill-informed.
Clue: Satire.
It wasn't satire. It was a line within a post were you were making a straight argument.
Context: Your suggestion that everything can be intuitive.
I never made any such suggestion. My point is that the better response to a bad review is to make the app more intuitive, rather than answer back to the review.
Actually some do, they are embedded, see Apple's Pages, Numbers and Keynote.
Very much the exception. And yes, a failure.
And various tutorials that take place on the first run perform a similar role, as well as other methods.
You mean onboarding. That's an entirely different thing, and is not a failure. It's very much one of the tools in the armoury of making apps intuitive. All good games do this.
Myopic.
Clearly you aren't in the mobile development industry. This is basic stuff.
There is no magic bullet, user confusion is inevitable. It will always happen. The ability to correct some confusion when it is offered in public is a useful service to other users doing research.
Non trivial apps have support pages. Review sections of stores are not support pages.
No, you completely misunderstood and oversimplify.
Says the guy using a flashlight app as his example.
Focus, and not succumbing to featureitis is very much a part of intuitiveness. Mobile apps don't come with manuals. And their active time per use is typically measured in seconds rather than minutes or hours. If you can't find a way to make an element of an app intuitive, hire a UX designer who can. Or consider that the feature does not belong in the app. (It may be that it deserves an app of it's own.)
I went to take a real example rather than take one you selected or made up.
Your idea that more information is necessarily better is another clue that you couldn't design a decent app to save your life.
I don't know about Quicktime, but he's not an idiot for doubting that site, given that the DOS claims are indeed horse-shit.
Most of that "dismantling" is either with a shredder, or shipped to the third world for hammer and open fire recycling though.
Different thing. There's two existing approaches to recycling electronics
1) Shred the electronics, then roughly sort the resulting shreds by magnets, density, size, optical properties, manual sorting etc.
2) Ship it to a third world country where children will end up recycling by dismantling with hammers and open fires.
Apple's approach is a new one. Because all the models they are recycling are there's and they know how they are constructed, they have robots reverse the process, unscrewing, unclipping and ungluing each part down to it's components. And they know exactly what's in each of those components, and the components can be recycles on mass.
This is far more efficient than the other methods, better for the environment, and doesn't damage worker's health.
The difference of opinion here is whether the previews are part of the show or not. People seem to accept that the straight adverts are not, and the movie is.
It tends to depend on how seriously you take your movie going. For the casual person who's going to a one off movie, and is't really up on the etiquette, the previews tend to not be a part of the show. They don't care about choosing the next week's film because they probably won't be there to see it.
For regular cinema goers, they take the previews far more seriously, and want to know what's coming up. They will get pissed off with the casuals who don't know to at last minimise their talking and whisper during the previews.
Similarly regular opera and playgoers will be hushed/whisper at most if it's one of those productions where there are actors already onstage as the audience come in.
That's a BS answer. Some apps are more complicated than a flashlight app.
An argument that only makes sense if you think that only flashlight apps can be intuitive. It suggests you couldn't design a good app to save your life. Which is why you want the ability to explain or make excuses when customers can't understand your app.
Sorry but no. I picked a random app in Google Play store. You might say that there's nothing wrong with these developer comments. But they are changing the tone of the reviews section. Thanking for the feedback and giving the support email address over and over again is not adding to the experience of reviews for people reading the reviews.
It's a reviews section, it's not customer support, and it's not chat.
https://play.google.com/store/...
We've had a couple of our apps featured in the Best New Apps section. Apple's iTunes marketing team got in touch, in our case that led to an actual face to face meeting with our CEO. They told us they were interested in featuring our apps. A short time later we got a formal request by email for assets for the appropriate sizes to be featured, with no promise that we actually would be. Then a few days later we were featured. No money changed hands either way.
It's got nothing to do with reviews as this happened before release of that app. In our case it seems to be based on reputation given many apps already shipped, plus the household names of the various trademarks connected to the apps.
These are free apps BTW, so neither Apple nor ourselves earn directly from number of downloads. The gains for each are indirect.
There's no way Apple will sell placement in the App Store. It's not their sort of thing at all. This is clearly an invented story.
Absolutely. It's not going to happen. It's just someone inventing a story for clickbait purposes.