Ha ha ha! How many years have you been saying shit like this about Apple, Bing Tsher E? And every year you've been wrong. You're hoping for the success of a stopped clock. To keep saying the same thing wrongly in the hope of eventually being right.
do you really think third party app support for Mac OS X is better than for Windows?
Like all the people that buy Apple, yes. In quality if not quantity.
The gap on reliability is bigger than you say, e.g. http://www.pcworld.com/article... And the perception of reliability is bigger even than the reality.
And security is certainly a reason. Mac has a reputation for not getting viruses.
Let's put this another way. Apple products are 80% marketing and 20% technology.
Reality: Apple's biggest competitor is Samsung. Samsung's marketing spend dwarfs Apple's. When you have great products, the word of mouth marketing comes for free.
The idea that Apple is mostly marketing comes from people that don't understand why most people consider Apple the best available tech products. Either the one they buy, or the one they aspire to buying. Because they don't understand it they assume it must be mostly marketing rather than technology. But it's neither, it's design.
Yeah, concentrating on the consumer rather than the pro market has certainly been a mistake for the tech company that has grown to be the biggest in the world in the last few years.
At the moment Apple is the most successful company in the world.
They COULD jump the shark like Microsoft did. But everyone that's been suggesting that's already happening have been wrong for the last decade and a half. Chances are you are wrong too.
An alternative is that Apple does to the Motor industry what they did to the Phone industry. That would give them a continued future of growth for a long time yet.
They're buying them for aesthetics and user friendliness.
And reliability, and security, and because of the third party app support, and because if they do have any problems they can go into an Apple store and have their problems solved without being conned or fleeced.
Apple can only go so long asking $700 for a phone with only 16 GB of non-upgradable storage.
About 6 months, until the next generation iPhone comes along. For sure there won't be a 16GB model. But don't expect the price to fall. Someone has to have the high end of the market, and Apple is very successful at being that one.
I bought a 6S. I wouldn't buy an Android other than the occasional one I have to buy for development reasons. The OS and the available apps are shit.
Apple is affordable luxury. I see children of ordinary average families with iPhones every day. Sure, many of them will be hand-me downs from parents. But that means the parents have upgraded their iPhone.
Most people buy their phones through a contract, which means that even if iPhones are more expensive, they are quite affordable over 18 months.
Apple is of course very successful at what they do. Let other less good companies serve the cheap end of the market.
Not quite a period there. Apple is developing a car. Whilst they are not yet competing for customers, they are competing for engineers in specialisms to do with hi-tech cars. And this article is about competing for engineers.
A lot of people seem to find Chrome better than Safari. But for me, I don't get any further than seeing it's UI and thinking no thanks. It looks like a Windows app.
I was with you right up until the moment you mentioned CoreData. CoreData is shit, and even Apple don't tend to use it for their apps. And it's non-portable. A very bad thing for data.
But for sure using some variety of SQL for record based data makes a lot of sense.
(Of course Core data is hackable on other platforms, as it has SQL (or XML) underlying it. But that doesn't make it a good choice over using SQL directly.)
Not quite. The relevant question is "What is the crash rate involving injury for a desired level of traffic throughput.
It's a question. But not a very interesting one as we already know that people driving steadily at moderate speed is better for throughput than when aggressive cars accelerate, brake and change lanes unnecessarily. Additionally AI cars will, as time goes on, be able to travel closer to each other, as their reaction times will be far faster than humans can manage.
Still, if it is necessary for humans to change and adapt to make autonomous driving a possibility, then it is clear indication that AI is not up to the task of driving by itself.
No it's not. Ever single one of these crashes were investigated, and they were all the fault of human drivers. It's the humans that aren't up to the task of coping with other cars that are driving legally and carefully!
Indeed. If more accidents are prevented or at least the seriousness of them reduced from other aspects of enforcing the speed limit, then it's worth the occasional fantastical corner case crash.
Or... it's simply a learning curve. For both AI and human drivers.
Besides, all of the robot crashes have been minor fender benders. It may be worth living with double the rate of those if the serious crashes that injure people are perhaps halved.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha ha! How many years have you been saying shit like this about Apple, Bing Tsher E? And every year you've been wrong. You're hoping for the success of a stopped clock. To keep saying the same thing wrongly in the hope of eventually being right.
Apple's is no failure. You are.
do you really think third party app support for Mac OS X is better than for Windows?
Like all the people that buy Apple, yes. In quality if not quantity.
The gap on reliability is bigger than you say, e.g.
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
And the perception of reliability is bigger even than the reality.
And security is certainly a reason. Mac has a reputation for not getting viruses.
Tea-leaves or astrology?
At what point do you imagine Apple will be unable to produce products? Duh!
Let's put this another way. Apple products are 80% marketing and 20% technology.
Reality: Apple's biggest competitor is Samsung. Samsung's marketing spend dwarfs Apple's. When you have great products, the word of mouth marketing comes for free.
The idea that Apple is mostly marketing comes from people that don't understand why most people consider Apple the best available tech products. Either the one they buy, or the one they aspire to buying. Because they don't understand it they assume it must be mostly marketing rather than technology. But it's neither, it's design.
The stock flatlined over the Ballmer years.
http://media.ycharts.com/chart...
You've been saying similar things for years, right through Apple's success. One day you might be right.
You forgot the Watch.
The bigger one up ahead is a car.
There is nothing anyone has to offer Johnny Ives that he doesn't already have.
Yeah, concentrating on the consumer rather than the pro market has certainly been a mistake for the tech company that has grown to be the biggest in the world in the last few years.
Duh.
At the moment Apple is the most successful company in the world.
They COULD jump the shark like Microsoft did. But everyone that's been suggesting that's already happening have been wrong for the last decade and a half. Chances are you are wrong too.
An alternative is that Apple does to the Motor industry what they did to the Phone industry. That would give them a continued future of growth for a long time yet.
2002 was only a long time ago if you were born yesterday.
And the meme of being shouted at by VPs is a lot older than 2002.
They're buying them for aesthetics and user friendliness.
And reliability, and security, and because of the third party app support, and because if they do have any problems they can go into an Apple store and have their problems solved without being conned or fleeced.
Apple can only go so long asking $700 for a phone with only 16 GB of non-upgradable storage.
About 6 months, until the next generation iPhone comes along. For sure there won't be a 16GB model. But don't expect the price to fall. Someone has to have the high end of the market, and Apple is very successful at being that one.
I bought a 6S. I wouldn't buy an Android other than the occasional one I have to buy for development reasons. The OS and the available apps are shit.
Apple is affordable luxury. I see children of ordinary average families with iPhones every day. Sure, many of them will be hand-me downs from parents. But that means the parents have upgraded their iPhone.
Most people buy their phones through a contract, which means that even if iPhones are more expensive, they are quite affordable over 18 months.
Apple is of course very successful at what they do. Let other less good companies serve the cheap end of the market.
Not quite a period there. Apple is developing a car. Whilst they are not yet competing for customers, they are competing for engineers in specialisms to do with hi-tech cars. And this article is about competing for engineers.
A lot of people seem to find Chrome better than Safari. But for me, I don't get any further than seeing it's UI and thinking no thanks. It looks like a Windows app.
I was with you right up until the moment you mentioned CoreData. CoreData is shit, and even Apple don't tend to use it for their apps. And it's non-portable. A very bad thing for data.
But for sure using some variety of SQL for record based data makes a lot of sense.
(Of course Core data is hackable on other platforms, as it has SQL (or XML) underlying it. But that doesn't make it a good choice over using SQL directly.)
Not quite. The relevant question is "What is the crash rate involving injury for a desired level of traffic throughput.
It's a question. But not a very interesting one as we already know that people driving steadily at moderate speed is better for throughput than when aggressive cars accelerate, brake and change lanes unnecessarily. Additionally AI cars will, as time goes on, be able to travel closer to each other, as their reaction times will be far faster than humans can manage.
Automated cars will inevitably outperform humans.
Still, if it is necessary for humans to change and adapt to make autonomous driving a possibility, then it is clear indication that AI is not up to the task of driving by itself.
No it's not. Ever single one of these crashes were investigated, and they were all the fault of human drivers. It's the humans that aren't up to the task of coping with other cars that are driving legally and carefully!
Indeed. If more accidents are prevented or at least the seriousness of them reduced from other aspects of enforcing the speed limit, then it's worth the occasional fantastical corner case crash.
Or... it's simply a learning curve. For both AI and human drivers.
Besides, all of the robot crashes have been minor fender benders. It may be worth living with double the rate of those if the serious crashes that injure people are perhaps halved.
They tried a common currency across the Eurozone. It's been a disaster.
How is it in topsy turvey land?
Who's talking about savings in weight? I'm saying that battery technology continually advances, constantly increasing energy density.
Yes, the stuff you describe is pie-in-the sky. Not even in research other than for military purposes. You're talking where EVs were 25 years ago.