Again, you have already suggested that other manufacturers had wifi in their phones prior to the Iphone, so such a commercial release of prior art makes inclusion of wifi obvious to all other manufacturers. That is basic "product innovation 101" that, for some reason, Apple fan boys cannot understand.
And what you don't seem to understand is that being absolutely first does not exclusively lock down being innovative. Innovative can mean improving upon a design. Google wasn't the first search engine by years but it was far better than the predecessors.
wifi wasn't miniaturized enough for the earlier Prada phone, even though it would be obvious to include it, however wifi was smaller with the timing of the later Iphone. I doubt that this is actually the (only) reason wifi was not included as product development of advanced electronics is extremely complex.
Except that the Prada came out mid May 2007 while the iPhone came out late June 2007. It wasn't years earlier. It was 1 month earlier. Please tell me how Apple was able to miniaturize something to fit in a phone while LG didn't do it within a month. Or Apple just was better at engineering it than LG. Or that Apple placed a priority on this feature but LG did not.
I doubt that wifi software had anything to do with the lack/inclusion of wifi in the Prada or Iphone. It really isn't much of a stretch to port wifi code between platforms.
After your huge diatribe about how many factors might come into play about why a feature isn't added, you now assert software isn't one of them? What OS did the Prada use? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Android. Did the software used by the Prada even allow it to do the things the iPhone did? Apple had to write their own OS based on OS X. In doing so they had to decide what belonged in iOS and what did not. I do not believe that LG had such expertise. What also helped smart phones take off is also the Android OS which Google championed.
Furthermore, you previously suggested that wifi on smart phones already existed prior to the Prada/Iphone, so the "problem" had already been solved.
Which destroys your argument about how great a Prada is if it didn't include a feature other smart phones had.
Also, LG/Prada controlled both their hardware and software, so the notion that Apple had some advantage with the Iphone is moot. Fan boys who use this argument usually don't admit how generic the components are inside Apple products.
Really? The UI of the Prada was based on Adobe Flash Lite. Does LG control Adobe Flash enough to where they could add in features? What was the OS of the LG Prada again? Also remember at the time, while the manufacturers installed the OS, the carriers had lots of control over what was allowed on the phone. So when you say LG "controlled" the software, that is laughable at best.
On the contrary, UIs (and in the case of smart phones, you probably really meant "GUIs") are important and there can be some innovation in UIs.
No I meant UI as in User Interface. I mean how the iPhone had a multi-touch UI before any other smart phone (by the way, did the LG Prada have multi-touch?). I mean also the decision to use a minimal amount of physical buttons and focus primarily on touch as an interface.
Additionally, Apple has not really invented much in the way of GUIs (nor UIs) -- please list any GUI items that Apple originated, other than the trash can (which a lot of people don't use) or Expose.
Bahahahaha. So you want to ignore all that Apple has done in GUIs. How much time do you have.
Also, it would be enlightening to hear exactly what you think Apple invented UI/GUI-wise with the Iphone. Please list all of these smart phone GUI innovations that were originated by Apple.
Multi-touch. Anyone also you seem to ignore my whole poin
Putting wifi on phones or handheld devices is obvious, and, saying "many smart phones didn't have wifi built-in at the time" means that some smart phones did have wifi at the time. So, Apple didn't "invent" wifi on the smart phone.
If it was so obvious why didn't the Prada have Wifi? if you are the one that praised the LG Prada, that seems like a huge technology feature that was missing.The problem which many people ignore and seem to forget that Wifi to put a smart phone was technically possible but also impractical without some engineering. The size of the wifi chip had to be shrunk down. The chips themselves were not as efficient as they are today. That's why many didn't have Wifi at the time.
The second part to overcome was the software. These days a phone OS can handle the transition from Cell to Wifi and back easy. Back then working out the kinks of doing that simple transfer wasn't easy. Add to that setting up Wifi on a computer desktop much less phone wasn't necessarily easy. Multiple step and multiple menus and there might still be something that went wrong. Where Apple has always had an edge was that they controlled both hardware and software to make this part easier.
Most Apple fan boys don't understand what actual innovation is and they don't realize that a lot of electronics products evolve within and without an entire industry. Apple did not originate nor invent the smart phone -- not by a long shot.
What haters like you don't understand is that innovation isn't always more technical features. A better UI is innovative. A better workflow is innovation. Making hard things easier is innovative. What Apple did is bring the smart phone to the masses by designing a consumer smart phone. Before Apple, smart phones were relegated to businesses and the tech savvy. UI, ease of use, target market were after-thoughts. After Apple, anyone can use a smart phone.
If I wanted to make a phone call, I pressed the green phone button under the screen and the number pad appeared on the screen.
Making a call wasn't the problem. If you were on a call and wanted to conference someone in (which happened a lot at work), how did you do that? Or forward a call. It wasn't obvious. It wasn't easy. I remember having to go to my desktop while on a call and using the web to find the answer. If I remember right, you had to tab out of the Call interface and then go to Settings and then down a few sub-menus.
I do remember when the iPhone was released and my needs were mainly for business. Unfortunately the first iteration of the iPhone was not designed with that in mind. It was more of a phone/iPod/web browser device from what I could tell. I ended up going with another Win phone with a touch screen and slider keyboard.
The first iPhones (and I would argue the iPhone in general) was never designed for businesses. Over time, they added more and more features that businesses could use. They were primarily for consumers.
It wasn't that you had to be smart. It was the phone design was dumb. With WinMobile, MS never really thought about adapting the UI to be a phone. They just shoe-horned the desktop UI in and called it done. For example, to unlock it, you had to do a multi-button press (just like Windows) so it took 2 hands. That's idiotic. Everything was based on Windows not just in function but in size. You needed to close windows by clicking on a tiny "X" in a corner. Good luck if your fingers weren't tiny. Functions were buried under sub-menus with little thought about a user needing to access a function without multiple clicks. Like on a phone 3-way calling at best shouldn't be multiple sub-menus down from the interface during a call. Functions also weren't obvious. Everything required searching on Google (on a desktop) to figure out how to do something.
. Most namely the Pocket PC and Windows CE, before the iPhone Windows Mobile and Pocket PC "apps" were sold by the millions through PocketGear and Handango, which were third party app stores that existed for many years.
And if you had Windows CE at the time, you would know how terrible it was.
These devices were open like Android as far as customization and installation, had web browsers, all kinds of apps and devices, there were even add on hard drives for them.
Oh many phones even some dumb phones had web browsers but they were all crap. Browsing was painful at best.
Think silicon/GaAs.Because silicon was so dominant and so much money was thrown at it, GaAs never got a chance.
You've reversed the premise and and the conclusion. Silicon is dominant because it is more abundant and cheaper. Thus more money is thrown at it. Silicon is the 2nd most abundant element (26%) after oxygen (46%). Gallium is 35th with (0.0019%) . Arsenic is in trace amounts at 0.00021%. Add to that, arsenic is more toxic to work with, there's a reason why GaAs isn't leading.
The only arguments that the fanboys have come up with are qualitative claims, such as the Prada's web browser or touch screen was not as "good" as that of the Iphone, and such subjective claims are not only dubious, but they have nothing to do with the innovation of the smart phone.
Ok let's start with the obvious: the Prada didn't have Wifi. Many smart phones didn't have Wifi built-in at the time. They used cell networks mainly.
Smart phones existed probably a decade before Apple. Did you have one? Chances are no. Did the masses have no. Again no. Part of the problem was the earliest smart phones did not yet have the technology to be practical (Wifi, powerful yet efficient CPUs, etc). The other problem was that most of the UIs were thinly veiled desktop computer designs. The last problem was stability. I had a WinMo phone from work. It lasted barely a day on standby. It crashed all the time. To 3-way conference a call took clicking like 3 sub-menus, two of which were not obvious. I hated using it.
The used market seems to have nearly evaporated for them due to the hysteria surrounding the new models, so it is generally fair to expect each phone to have only one owner before going to disposal.
What? The used market for most smart phones much less the iPhone is terrible as newer models generally make the old ones obsolete. Especially in the Android market where updates stop much earlier than Apple's ecosystem. These days you can keep a phone longer than 3 years with iOS and might have updates still coming.The oldest phone compatible with the upcoming iOS 11 is the 5S which was released Sept 2013. With Android it has always been "depends"**
**Mileage may vary with manufacturer, model, version, and carrier.
Let's compare:
Pai: 22 ISPs that no one has heard of and that I have not named are against Net Neutrality.
vs
40 ISPs sign a public letter for Net Neutrality.
The problem is even if you believe that ISPs are out to screw over their customers, small ISPs are actually protected by Net Neutrality against bigger ISPs. It is in the interest of small ISPs to favor Net Neutrality.
Anyone having a formal meeting in person or over the phone is required to file an ex parte describing exactly who attended the meeting on both sides, along with what was discussed.
I find it hard to believe however that Pai had a private meeting with 22 of them in a week until it was 1) all at once or 2) they merely emailed or called the FCC. Either of the two should have a record.
No according to the 22 he allegedly said was against it. Also Pai didn't disclose how many contacted the FCC being for Net Neutrality. Hundreds could be for it and he could have cherry picked 22 against.
Communication with the FCC should be public record especially when the ISPs are discussing legislation and regulation. Why hasn't Pai disclosed the names? Also Pai failed to disclose how many ISPs were in favor of Net Neutrality. The fact that 40 of them went as far as to sign a public letter about their stance says more.
Pai said this back in May: "Just last week, we heard from 22 small ISPs, companies that nobody has ever heard of in towns very few people will ever visit, and what they told us is, look, we are being inhibited." As far as I know, Pai has never named the ISPs nor shared the communications. Whereas this week 40 ISPs through the EFF signed a letter stating the opposite. I'll let you decide who is not telling the whole truth.
Oh it's not that confusing. Anything that benefits Trump is what Trump proposes. It doesn't matter if it's terrible for other people or the country. Trump is all about himself.
You are talking about older people here. Think it through.
I'm talking about people who don't need to create much. That's a lot of people. For most people, how many write papers or use spreadsheets at home? At work, people are given a laptop or desktop for that work.
Tablets have relatively small screens compared to cheap laptops while older people have poorer eyesight.
If you are not doing detail work, why does that matter? Does your favorite Games of Thrones character look than much better on a 17" screen one foot in front of you as opposed to a 10" screen one foot in front of you. Also you seem to ignore that changing UI settings to accommodate poor eyesight doesn't exist on every single tablet UI like iOS or Android.
Good tablets start at 300 dollars. Keep this last point in mind.
And how much does a good laptop or desktop with a monitor cost? About the same or more. In some cases more.
Compare this with Chromebooks. Large screen, real full size comfortable keyboard. Sits on a desk or in a lap where you only have to swipe a little square to access anything on the screen. And the cheapest Chromebooks are less than 200 dollars.
Again your assumption is that your need and use of Chromebook to sit on a desk is everyone's need. It's not. People don't really need a laptop to surf the web or watch movies in bed or on a couch. In some cases a laptop is cumbersome for these purposes.
An iPad is the stupidest thing you can get for elderly people.
I would say this statement says you haven't thought that through in the slightest. An iPad: Simplified UI. Lightweight. Touch interface. Seems ideal for an elderly person who doesn't care to know anything about computing.
Then maybe Apple shouldn't advertise the fact that this device should replace your laptop. The deserve to be called out on their marketing as much as their product, especially when the product fails utterly given the premise of the marketing.
For most of us on this site, it isn't. For people like my parents they never needed a laptop anyway. They are fine with tablets like Androids and iPads.
What is a review if not an opinion of a person? The fact he's angry has no bearing on it.
Well as a former editor, the guy knows how to write a review or an opinion piece that is more than 140 characters at a time. A series of tweets seems to be more of a spontaneous reaction than a thoughtful review.
Yes, Apple users should get an entire review dedicated to them. *Dons my asbestos overcoat*
Which is contrary to the point of reviewing the product.
And if you buy food to eat elsewhere that would be a valid WTF comment about the review. But a restaurant is far more than just its food. Just like a supposed replacement for my laptop which can't do everything the laptop can do is far more than the OS it comes installed with.
The problem is you seemed to ignore that the 0 stars ignored the food which is probably the most important part of a restaurant.
It's possible that you can find a colonoscopy for cheaper than $8,000. But that's not the point. The point is the AC implied that Oliver lied when he played a clip from Al-Jazeera America where a woman claimed it would cost her $8,000 for one. Now I don't know where she got her quote. However I do know that she didn't qualify for Medicaid so it could not pay for it. She also claims she has a family history of colon cancer so most likely she would have needed a full colonoscopy (upper and lower) which is more expensive. Also she lived in Texas which didn't take the Medicaid expansion. $8,000 is high but not out of the realm of possibility.
So . . . yeah. I normally don't give credence to style over content but would it kill him to put up a blog instead of a series of Tweets. Also as a former editor, you'd think he could get someone to let him pen an opinion piece or review on a tech site or something.
What part of the summary did you not understand "public beta". If you had Developer's access you were granted earlier access but as of now, it's public.
Microsoft and Kaspersky failed to coordinate to update their respective software in tandem to ensure proper compatability for both of their customers.
I would argue that it was more MS than Kapersky.
It seems based on the evidence Microsoft was being proactive to ensure a better customer experience whereas Kaspersky did not. I'm not a Microsoft fan by the way.
I think quite the opposite of "better customer experience". I am not privy to any private conversations between the two but it seems these days that MS is putting in "features" into newer updates that few customers want like telemetry and as well as tricking customers into updates that they did not want. Not caring about how a 3rd party vendor suffers does seems typical of MS behavior these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, you have already suggested that other manufacturers had wifi in their phones prior to the Iphone, so such a commercial release of prior art makes inclusion of wifi obvious to all other manufacturers. That is basic "product innovation 101" that, for some reason, Apple fan boys cannot understand.
And what you don't seem to understand is that being absolutely first does not exclusively lock down being innovative. Innovative can mean improving upon a design. Google wasn't the first search engine by years but it was far better than the predecessors.
wifi wasn't miniaturized enough for the earlier Prada phone, even though it would be obvious to include it, however wifi was smaller with the timing of the later Iphone. I doubt that this is actually the (only) reason wifi was not included as product development of advanced electronics is extremely complex.
Except that the Prada came out mid May 2007 while the iPhone came out late June 2007. It wasn't years earlier. It was 1 month earlier. Please tell me how Apple was able to miniaturize something to fit in a phone while LG didn't do it within a month. Or Apple just was better at engineering it than LG. Or that Apple placed a priority on this feature but LG did not.
I doubt that wifi software had anything to do with the lack/inclusion of wifi in the Prada or Iphone. It really isn't much of a stretch to port wifi code between platforms.
After your huge diatribe about how many factors might come into play about why a feature isn't added, you now assert software isn't one of them? What OS did the Prada use? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Android. Did the software used by the Prada even allow it to do the things the iPhone did? Apple had to write their own OS based on OS X. In doing so they had to decide what belonged in iOS and what did not. I do not believe that LG had such expertise. What also helped smart phones take off is also the Android OS which Google championed.
Furthermore, you previously suggested that wifi on smart phones already existed prior to the Prada/Iphone, so the "problem" had already been solved.
Which destroys your argument about how great a Prada is if it didn't include a feature other smart phones had.
Also, LG/Prada controlled both their hardware and software, so the notion that Apple had some advantage with the Iphone is moot. Fan boys who use this argument usually don't admit how generic the components are inside Apple products.
Really? The UI of the Prada was based on Adobe Flash Lite. Does LG control Adobe Flash enough to where they could add in features? What was the OS of the LG Prada again? Also remember at the time, while the manufacturers installed the OS, the carriers had lots of control over what was allowed on the phone. So when you say LG "controlled" the software, that is laughable at best.
On the contrary, UIs (and in the case of smart phones, you probably really meant "GUIs") are important and there can be some innovation in UIs.
No I meant UI as in User Interface. I mean how the iPhone had a multi-touch UI before any other smart phone (by the way, did the LG Prada have multi-touch?). I mean also the decision to use a minimal amount of physical buttons and focus primarily on touch as an interface.
Additionally, Apple has not really invented much in the way of GUIs (nor UIs) -- please list any GUI items that Apple originated, other than the trash can (which a lot of people don't use) or Expose.
Bahahahaha. So you want to ignore all that Apple has done in GUIs. How much time do you have.
Also, it would be enlightening to hear exactly what you think Apple invented UI/GUI-wise with the Iphone. Please list all of these smart phone GUI innovations that were originated by Apple.
Multi-touch. Anyone also you seem to ignore my whole poin
Putting wifi on phones or handheld devices is obvious, and, saying "many smart phones didn't have wifi built-in at the time" means that some smart phones did have wifi at the time. So, Apple didn't "invent" wifi on the smart phone.
If it was so obvious why didn't the Prada have Wifi? if you are the one that praised the LG Prada, that seems like a huge technology feature that was missing.The problem which many people ignore and seem to forget that Wifi to put a smart phone was technically possible but also impractical without some engineering. The size of the wifi chip had to be shrunk down. The chips themselves were not as efficient as they are today. That's why many didn't have Wifi at the time.
The second part to overcome was the software. These days a phone OS can handle the transition from Cell to Wifi and back easy. Back then working out the kinks of doing that simple transfer wasn't easy. Add to that setting up Wifi on a computer desktop much less phone wasn't necessarily easy. Multiple step and multiple menus and there might still be something that went wrong. Where Apple has always had an edge was that they controlled both hardware and software to make this part easier.
Most Apple fan boys don't understand what actual innovation is and they don't realize that a lot of electronics products evolve within and without an entire industry. Apple did not originate nor invent the smart phone -- not by a long shot.
What haters like you don't understand is that innovation isn't always more technical features. A better UI is innovative. A better workflow is innovation. Making hard things easier is innovative. What Apple did is bring the smart phone to the masses by designing a consumer smart phone. Before Apple, smart phones were relegated to businesses and the tech savvy. UI, ease of use, target market were after-thoughts. After Apple, anyone can use a smart phone.
If I wanted to make a phone call, I pressed the green phone button under the screen and the number pad appeared on the screen.
Making a call wasn't the problem. If you were on a call and wanted to conference someone in (which happened a lot at work), how did you do that? Or forward a call. It wasn't obvious. It wasn't easy. I remember having to go to my desktop while on a call and using the web to find the answer. If I remember right, you had to tab out of the Call interface and then go to Settings and then down a few sub-menus.
I do remember when the iPhone was released and my needs were mainly for business. Unfortunately the first iteration of the iPhone was not designed with that in mind. It was more of a phone/iPod/web browser device from what I could tell. I ended up going with another Win phone with a touch screen and slider keyboard.
The first iPhones (and I would argue the iPhone in general) was never designed for businesses. Over time, they added more and more features that businesses could use. They were primarily for consumers.
It wasn't that you had to be smart. It was the phone design was dumb. With WinMobile, MS never really thought about adapting the UI to be a phone. They just shoe-horned the desktop UI in and called it done. For example, to unlock it, you had to do a multi-button press (just like Windows) so it took 2 hands. That's idiotic. Everything was based on Windows not just in function but in size. You needed to close windows by clicking on a tiny "X" in a corner. Good luck if your fingers weren't tiny. Functions were buried under sub-menus with little thought about a user needing to access a function without multiple clicks. Like on a phone 3-way calling at best shouldn't be multiple sub-menus down from the interface during a call. Functions also weren't obvious. Everything required searching on Google (on a desktop) to figure out how to do something.
. Most namely the Pocket PC and Windows CE, before the iPhone Windows Mobile and Pocket PC "apps" were sold by the millions through PocketGear and Handango, which were third party app stores that existed for many years.
And if you had Windows CE at the time, you would know how terrible it was.
These devices were open like Android as far as customization and installation, had web browsers, all kinds of apps and devices, there were even add on hard drives for them.
Oh many phones even some dumb phones had web browsers but they were all crap. Browsing was painful at best.
Think silicon/GaAs.Because silicon was so dominant and so much money was thrown at it, GaAs never got a chance.
You've reversed the premise and and the conclusion. Silicon is dominant because it is more abundant and cheaper. Thus more money is thrown at it. Silicon is the 2nd most abundant element (26%) after oxygen (46%). Gallium is 35th with (0.0019%) . Arsenic is in trace amounts at 0.00021%. Add to that, arsenic is more toxic to work with, there's a reason why GaAs isn't leading.
The only arguments that the fanboys have come up with are qualitative claims, such as the Prada's web browser or touch screen was not as "good" as that of the Iphone, and such subjective claims are not only dubious, but they have nothing to do with the innovation of the smart phone.
Ok let's start with the obvious: the Prada didn't have Wifi. Many smart phones didn't have Wifi built-in at the time. They used cell networks mainly.
Smart phones existed probably a decade before Apple. Did you have one? Chances are no. Did the masses have no. Again no. Part of the problem was the earliest smart phones did not yet have the technology to be practical (Wifi, powerful yet efficient CPUs, etc). The other problem was that most of the UIs were thinly veiled desktop computer designs. The last problem was stability. I had a WinMo phone from work. It lasted barely a day on standby. It crashed all the time. To 3-way conference a call took clicking like 3 sub-menus, two of which were not obvious. I hated using it.
The used market seems to have nearly evaporated for them due to the hysteria surrounding the new models, so it is generally fair to expect each phone to have only one owner before going to disposal.
What? The used market for most smart phones much less the iPhone is terrible as newer models generally make the old ones obsolete. Especially in the Android market where updates stop much earlier than Apple's ecosystem. These days you can keep a phone longer than 3 years with iOS and might have updates still coming.The oldest phone compatible with the upcoming iOS 11 is the 5S which was released Sept 2013. With Android it has always been "depends"**
**Mileage may vary with manufacturer, model, version, and carrier.
Pai: 22 ISPs that no one has heard of and that I have not named are against Net Neutrality.
vs
40 ISPs sign a public letter for Net Neutrality.
Who do you believe?
The problem is even if you believe that ISPs are out to screw over their customers, small ISPs are actually protected by Net Neutrality against bigger ISPs. It is in the interest of small ISPs to favor Net Neutrality.
Anyone having a formal meeting in person or over the phone is required to file an ex parte describing exactly who attended the meeting on both sides, along with what was discussed.
I find it hard to believe however that Pai had a private meeting with 22 of them in a week until it was 1) all at once or 2) they merely emailed or called the FCC. Either of the two should have a record.
No according to the 22 he allegedly said was against it. Also Pai didn't disclose how many contacted the FCC being for Net Neutrality. Hundreds could be for it and he could have cherry picked 22 against.
Communication with the FCC should be public record especially when the ISPs are discussing legislation and regulation. Why hasn't Pai disclosed the names? Also Pai failed to disclose how many ISPs were in favor of Net Neutrality. The fact that 40 of them went as far as to sign a public letter about their stance says more.
Oh he probably knows. He doesn't care but he's lying through his teeth to sell falsehoods is the problem.
Next thing you'll expect this administration to respect checks and balances. Hahahaha.
Pai said this back in May: "Just last week, we heard from 22 small ISPs, companies that nobody has ever heard of in towns very few people will ever visit, and what they told us is, look, we are being inhibited." As far as I know, Pai has never named the ISPs nor shared the communications. Whereas this week 40 ISPs through the EFF signed a letter stating the opposite. I'll let you decide who is not telling the whole truth.
Oh it's not that confusing. Anything that benefits Trump is what Trump proposes. It doesn't matter if it's terrible for other people or the country. Trump is all about himself.
You are talking about older people here. Think it through.
I'm talking about people who don't need to create much. That's a lot of people. For most people, how many write papers or use spreadsheets at home? At work, people are given a laptop or desktop for that work.
Tablets have relatively small screens compared to cheap laptops while older people have poorer eyesight.
If you are not doing detail work, why does that matter? Does your favorite Games of Thrones character look than much better on a 17" screen one foot in front of you as opposed to a 10" screen one foot in front of you. Also you seem to ignore that changing UI settings to accommodate poor eyesight doesn't exist on every single tablet UI like iOS or Android.
Good tablets start at 300 dollars. Keep this last point in mind.
And how much does a good laptop or desktop with a monitor cost? About the same or more. In some cases more.
Compare this with Chromebooks. Large screen, real full size comfortable keyboard. Sits on a desk or in a lap where you only have to swipe a little square to access anything on the screen. And the cheapest Chromebooks are less than 200 dollars.
Again your assumption is that your need and use of Chromebook to sit on a desk is everyone's need. It's not. People don't really need a laptop to surf the web or watch movies in bed or on a couch. In some cases a laptop is cumbersome for these purposes.
An iPad is the stupidest thing you can get for elderly people.
I would say this statement says you haven't thought that through in the slightest. An iPad: Simplified UI. Lightweight. Touch interface. Seems ideal for an elderly person who doesn't care to know anything about computing.
Then maybe Apple shouldn't advertise the fact that this device should replace your laptop. The deserve to be called out on their marketing as much as their product, especially when the product fails utterly given the premise of the marketing.
For most of us on this site, it isn't. For people like my parents they never needed a laptop anyway. They are fine with tablets like Androids and iPads.
What is a review if not an opinion of a person? The fact he's angry has no bearing on it.
Well as a former editor, the guy knows how to write a review or an opinion piece that is more than 140 characters at a time. A series of tweets seems to be more of a spontaneous reaction than a thoughtful review.
Yes, Apple users should get an entire review dedicated to them. *Dons my asbestos overcoat*
Which is contrary to the point of reviewing the product.
And if you buy food to eat elsewhere that would be a valid WTF comment about the review. But a restaurant is far more than just its food. Just like a supposed replacement for my laptop which can't do everything the laptop can do is far more than the OS it comes installed with.
The problem is you seemed to ignore that the 0 stars ignored the food which is probably the most important part of a restaurant.
It's possible that you can find a colonoscopy for cheaper than $8,000. But that's not the point. The point is the AC implied that Oliver lied when he played a clip from Al-Jazeera America where a woman claimed it would cost her $8,000 for one. Now I don't know where she got her quote. However I do know that she didn't qualify for Medicaid so it could not pay for it. She also claims she has a family history of colon cancer so most likely she would have needed a full colonoscopy (upper and lower) which is more expensive. Also she lived in Texas which didn't take the Medicaid expansion. $8,000 is high but not out of the realm of possibility.
So . . . yeah. I normally don't give credence to style over content but would it kill him to put up a blog instead of a series of Tweets. Also as a former editor, you'd think he could get someone to let him pen an opinion piece or review on a tech site or something.
What part of the summary did you not understand "public beta". If you had Developer's access you were granted earlier access but as of now, it's public.
Microsoft and Kaspersky failed to coordinate to update their respective software in tandem to ensure proper compatability for both of their customers.
I would argue that it was more MS than Kapersky.
It seems based on the evidence Microsoft was being proactive to ensure a better customer experience whereas Kaspersky did not. I'm not a Microsoft fan by the way.
I think quite the opposite of "better customer experience". I am not privy to any private conversations between the two but it seems these days that MS is putting in "features" into newer updates that few customers want like telemetry and as well as tricking customers into updates that they did not want. Not caring about how a 3rd party vendor suffers does seems typical of MS behavior these days.
I didn't say Enterprise Support.