The problem is that every professional case is a niche case, and every niche is angry that Apple's not directly catering to their needs and instead offering a platform that requires they buy a couple dongles (which are a pain, no argument) over having one port they'll use and three more they won't.
"No SD slot? Who cares! But I need HDMI-out/firewire/ethernet/RS-232/etc. to do my job! Clearly Apple doesn't care about their professional users!
Actually, I've already got one: a pacemaker is a medical device, and altering its code changes it, thus is verboten.
The article mentions that the exemption is mainly focused on researchers in laboratory conditions. It's unlikely that anyone's planning to alter the code on their (or anyone's) pacemaker, but this opens up avenues for further research and analysis. If we're lucky, it could feed back into the device maker's coding processes, and speed up testing, meaning more (certified) updates. Public betas for pacemakers, as it were.
But as you pointed out, there's a hell of a lot of paperwork involved with the FDA already, and internal changes will probably have to be made to accommodate outside research in the recertification processes. So who knows.
The side effects are equivalent to the ones women have been putting up with since the approval of the pill. Are you arguing that we've been putting women at unnecessary risk for decades?
Only the airpods and the new Beats wireless headphones have the chips. The Watches, iPhones, and various MacBooks don't, because they don't need them. Any machine running one of the supported OSes (iOS 10, watchOS 3, and macOS Sierra) will work, including things like the iPhone 5 and Macbooks from 2009 onward. Apple says so itself (under "system requirements" and "compatibility").
Microsoft was pushing AR/VR today, and while Paint 3D is going to be a quick-and-dirty toy in the same way MS Paint is, I'm wondering if it'll have actual VR, TiltBrush-style functionality. When I had a chance to demo a Vive, TiltBrush was one of the apps I tried, and it immediately became a killer app.
Which is something MS is going to need if they want to sell those 300$ headsets.
In addition, revenue for the entire fiscal year 2016 was lower than fiscal year 2015.
And it's noteworthy (as the article mentions, it's the first time sales have fallen in fifteen years). I just don't take it as a sign of Apple's impending doom, or that they're doing something inherently wrong.
They are quite profitable, they won't be returning to something they already are.
Yeah, that was poor wording on my part. I meant to say something more like "sales growth". Q1'17 improving over Q1'16 (and maybe Q1'15, who knows).
Apple chooses their end of year to come shortly after the introduction of new phones for a reason, it lets them manage their Q4 revenue and earnings in orderto make their numbers without pulling too much revenue into Q4 from the next year. Tim Cook is about managing Wall Street, they don't forecast more than a quarter out and make their forecast when the quarter is already 1/3rd done.
Thanks for helping clear that up a bit.
there is going to be an end high priced, high margin phones.
Maybe? Pundits have been declaring inexpensive, "good enough" phones to be the death of high-priced phones for years, and even as mid-priced, high-quality flagship phones have appeared the iPhone's share of market and profits has been strong. I agree there'll be an end, but probably only once the smartphone itself is pushed aside.
Indeed it may well be that the idea of carting around a phone with a screen disappears as completely as carting around a music player did. Amazon and Google think they can wean us away from carting phones around in our homes and I think they'll succeed.
You're totally right. From what I hear products like Alexa are pretty impressive, and as everything becomes more connected- hopefully with fewer problems than we're dealing with now- and more functions are offloaded to AI assistants there'll definitely less reason to have a phone on hand. I don't think Apple's oblivious to that either. Apple's positioning Siri more forwardly and the Watch has room to grow. One Alexa on your wrist (or in your ear or on your glasses or hell let's wear Star Trek communicators) is better than several scattered around your home.
Apple's Q4 has been the weakest or second weakest quarter since 2012. New iPhones are released only during the final month of the quarter and are supply-constrained, limiting the revenue that can be pulled from there. Cook said that Q1 2017 (Oct-Dec 2016 for reasons only known to accountants) will see a return to profitability, and Apple has consistently been spot-on with their numbers. Q1 has consistently been Apple's biggest since the iPhone eclipsed the Mac in revenue.
Now, if Apple undershoots its targets for Q1 (entirely possible), then I'd start watching for sweating Apple execs.
I would have totally agreed with you before iOS 10 came out. There would have been zero reason for an Android user to use iMessage before then. But Apple's added a lot of features to iMessage. Nothing particularly new in the world of IM, but they still greatly expand its utility, and if Apple did port iMessage to Android it'd undoubtedly make sure the apps and features would go along with it.
As XXer pointed out in another post here, Apple would benefit from porting iMessage to Android- more people using it, and they would probably profit from more people buying iMessage apps. Having Android users on board would mean fewer people jumping ship to alternate services. From the user side, I'd imagine Apple is counting on its users evangelizing/pressuring their friends to install it over a dozen other options (and before you scoff at that, anecdotally I have pressured and have been pressured to join all sorts of IM clients because friends were on them). If none of your friends have iDevices, it's going to be a hard sell of course.
But once the ball gets rolling more people will hop on, and iMessage already has a massive install base. And a much more reliable revenue source than most of the services du jour.
Services like Dark Sky can provide predictions that are accurate to the minute. If you're worried about rain or snow, getting a tap on your wrist alerting you to a change is that much nicer and more convenient than having to check your phone.
That doesn't mean that weather apps will be the killer app for everyone. It's really a matter of finding out what simple, small conveniences you need more of in your life. And that (in part) makes it a lot harder to sell smartwatches: once you have them they can be great and incredibly useful, but they're also very much "you have to try them for yourself". It's not a cheap leap of faith to make.
They do, which were a result of Europe's power adapter laws if I recall correctly. Besides that, reputable companies like Belkin offer similar solutions.
There's just an extra GPU that's identical to the old one. Games that support the Pro, through patch or on release, use the extra GPU, and unsupported games leave it off. All games use at least one of the two GPUs, and share the rest of the hardware. The PS3/PS2 comparison feels off to me because the PS2 hardware was completely distinct and different from the PS3's. No PS3 games used it (that I've heard of).
The original PS3 had PS2 hardware inside of it to handle the backwards compatibility (I had one! It sounded like a goddamned turbine). The PS4 Pro is just going to be upgraded components, so it's more akin to upgrading a PC, but devs will have to release patches to make use of the extra horsepower.
That's the easiest kind of PVR to put together yourself.
Because when I imagine "reinventing television to make things as convenient as possible" I imagine everyone building themselves an HTPC/PVR to work around existing inconveniences.
It is and it isn't. The technology is already out there. The cat wrangling's coming from dealing with the myriad of rights owners and distributors, as other slashdotters have already said. Bringing everyone and everything into the fold.
After that, just having a slick interface, exclusive content, and as wide a range of non-exclusive content as possible. Also, provide a catalog of everything ever made even if you're not offering it (perhaps at an additional cost?) so that I can make a master queue of everything I ever want to watch.
Netflix is a philosophy, for sure, and it's definitely had an effect on how we watch TV. I think what Cue (and pretty much everyone else who's looking at "reinventing television") is asking is "how do we take the mindset Netflix has created, and make it bring it in and work across all television content?" And then, inevitably, "how do we profit off of that?"
You still pay, though. You pay through having to put up with ads and being beholden to the OTA channels' scheduling. Time is money, and you pay with your time.
are we really becoming so dumb and slow that we can't even figure out how the TV works? I know I have no problems with it, what about you?
We've simply gotten to the point that we're questioning why we should tolerate a television model that existed since 1950, when more or less all other media has moved on.
You're probably right that Apple won't broker deals like they got with record companies. They don't necessarily need to. Cable-only is slowly dying out, and more production studios are going to have to jump ship to streaming services (either their own or make deals with larger companies). All Apple/Google/Roku/Amazon have to do is build the platform and convince the streaming companies to support it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that every professional case is a niche case, and every niche is angry that Apple's not directly catering to their needs and instead offering a platform that requires they buy a couple dongles (which are a pain, no argument) over having one port they'll use and three more they won't.
"No SD slot? Who cares! But I need HDMI-out/firewire/ethernet/RS-232/etc. to do my job! Clearly Apple doesn't care about their professional users!
Actually, I've already got one: a pacemaker is a medical device, and altering its code changes it, thus is verboten.
The article mentions that the exemption is mainly focused on researchers in laboratory conditions. It's unlikely that anyone's planning to alter the code on their (or anyone's) pacemaker, but this opens up avenues for further research and analysis. If we're lucky, it could feed back into the device maker's coding processes, and speed up testing, meaning more (certified) updates. Public betas for pacemakers, as it were.
But as you pointed out, there's a hell of a lot of paperwork involved with the FDA already, and internal changes will probably have to be made to accommodate outside research in the recertification processes. So who knows.
The side effects are equivalent to the ones women have been putting up with since the approval of the pill. Are you arguing that we've been putting women at unnecessary risk for decades?
Well, that's the only one that *really* counts...
I'm glad to learn that me and all the other gay, lesbian, and otherwise-non-conforming people in the world don't really count.
Shitheel.
Slashdot headline: "Linux is the default choice".
There's... sort of a significant gap between the two.
And who here is going to stand up for how much they want to use iTunes?
Man there are rhetorical questions and then there are rhetorical questions.
and no special wireless chip.
Only the airpods and the new Beats wireless headphones have the chips. The Watches, iPhones, and various MacBooks don't, because they don't need them. Any machine running one of the supported OSes (iOS 10, watchOS 3, and macOS Sierra) will work, including things like the iPhone 5 and Macbooks from 2009 onward. Apple says so itself (under "system requirements" and "compatibility").
I mean, really.
Microsoft was pushing AR/VR today, and while Paint 3D is going to be a quick-and-dirty toy in the same way MS Paint is, I'm wondering if it'll have actual VR, TiltBrush-style functionality. When I had a chance to demo a Vive, TiltBrush was one of the apps I tried, and it immediately became a killer app.
Which is something MS is going to need if they want to sell those 300$ headsets.
In addition, revenue for the entire fiscal year 2016 was lower than fiscal year 2015.
And it's noteworthy (as the article mentions, it's the first time sales have fallen in fifteen years). I just don't take it as a sign of Apple's impending doom, or that they're doing something inherently wrong.
They are quite profitable, they won't be returning to something they already are.
Yeah, that was poor wording on my part. I meant to say something more like "sales growth". Q1'17 improving over Q1'16 (and maybe Q1'15, who knows).
Apple chooses their end of year to come shortly after the introduction of new phones for a reason, it lets them manage their Q4 revenue and earnings in orderto make their numbers without pulling too much revenue into Q4 from the next year. Tim Cook is about managing Wall Street, they don't forecast more than a quarter out and make their forecast when the quarter is already 1/3rd done.
Thanks for helping clear that up a bit.
there is going to be an end high priced, high margin phones.
Maybe? Pundits have been declaring inexpensive, "good enough" phones to be the death of high-priced phones for years, and even as mid-priced, high-quality flagship phones have appeared the iPhone's share of market and profits has been strong. I agree there'll be an end, but probably only once the smartphone itself is pushed aside.
Indeed it may well be that the idea of carting around a phone with a screen disappears as completely as carting around a music player did. Amazon and Google think they can wean us away from carting phones around in our homes and I think they'll succeed.
You're totally right. From what I hear products like Alexa are pretty impressive, and as everything becomes more connected- hopefully with fewer problems than we're dealing with now- and more functions are offloaded to AI assistants there'll definitely less reason to have a phone on hand. I don't think Apple's oblivious to that either. Apple's positioning Siri more forwardly and the Watch has room to grow. One Alexa on your wrist (or in your ear or on your glasses or hell let's wear Star Trek communicators) is better than several scattered around your home.
Apple's Q4 has been the weakest or second weakest quarter since 2012. New iPhones are released only during the final month of the quarter and are supply-constrained, limiting the revenue that can be pulled from there. Cook said that Q1 2017 (Oct-Dec 2016 for reasons only known to accountants) will see a return to profitability, and Apple has consistently been spot-on with their numbers. Q1 has consistently been Apple's biggest since the iPhone eclipsed the Mac in revenue.
Now, if Apple undershoots its targets for Q1 (entirely possible), then I'd start watching for sweating Apple execs.
I would have totally agreed with you before iOS 10 came out. There would have been zero reason for an Android user to use iMessage before then. But Apple's added a lot of features to iMessage. Nothing particularly new in the world of IM, but they still greatly expand its utility, and if Apple did port iMessage to Android it'd undoubtedly make sure the apps and features would go along with it.
As XXer pointed out in another post here, Apple would benefit from porting iMessage to Android- more people using it, and they would probably profit from more people buying iMessage apps. Having Android users on board would mean fewer people jumping ship to alternate services. From the user side, I'd imagine Apple is counting on its users evangelizing/pressuring their friends to install it over a dozen other options (and before you scoff at that, anecdotally I have pressured and have been pressured to join all sorts of IM clients because friends were on them). If none of your friends have iDevices, it's going to be a hard sell of course.
But once the ball gets rolling more people will hop on, and iMessage already has a massive install base. And a much more reliable revenue source than most of the services du jour.
Don't underestimate the effect of being seen as the green bubble in a sea of blue.
That would be a great joke if the summary didn't mention it was Budweiser. :(
Normally I just go to the liquor store a few blocks away.
Services like Dark Sky can provide predictions that are accurate to the minute. If you're worried about rain or snow, getting a tap on your wrist alerting you to a change is that much nicer and more convenient than having to check your phone.
That doesn't mean that weather apps will be the killer app for everyone. It's really a matter of finding out what simple, small conveniences you need more of in your life. And that (in part) makes it a lot harder to sell smartwatches: once you have them they can be great and incredibly useful, but they're also very much "you have to try them for yourself". It's not a cheap leap of faith to make.
They do, which were a result of Europe's power adapter laws if I recall correctly. Besides that, reputable companies like Belkin offer similar solutions.
I don't care if five of them go out in a month, but I do care when one of them destroys my hardware.
How comfortably light their wallets feel.
You made me RTFA, dammit.
There's just an extra GPU that's identical to the old one. Games that support the Pro, through patch or on release, use the extra GPU, and unsupported games leave it off. All games use at least one of the two GPUs, and share the rest of the hardware. The PS3/PS2 comparison feels off to me because the PS2 hardware was completely distinct and different from the PS3's. No PS3 games used it (that I've heard of).
The original PS3 had PS2 hardware inside of it to handle the backwards compatibility (I had one! It sounded like a goddamned turbine). The PS4 Pro is just going to be upgraded components, so it's more akin to upgrading a PC, but devs will have to release patches to make use of the extra horsepower.
That's the easiest kind of PVR to put together yourself.
Because when I imagine "reinventing television to make things as convenient as possible" I imagine everyone building themselves an HTPC/PVR to work around existing inconveniences.
It's really not that complicated.
It is and it isn't. The technology is already out there. The cat wrangling's coming from dealing with the myriad of rights owners and distributors, as other slashdotters have already said. Bringing everyone and everything into the fold.
After that, just having a slick interface, exclusive content, and as wide a range of non-exclusive content as possible. Also, provide a catalog of everything ever made even if you're not offering it (perhaps at an additional cost?) so that I can make a master queue of everything I ever want to watch.
Exactly.
Netflix is a philosophy, for sure, and it's definitely had an effect on how we watch TV. I think what Cue (and pretty much everyone else who's looking at "reinventing television") is asking is "how do we take the mindset Netflix has created, and make it bring it in and work across all television content?" And then, inevitably, "how do we profit off of that?"
and not paying anything for TV ever again
You still pay, though. You pay through having to put up with ads and being beholden to the OTA channels' scheduling. Time is money, and you pay with your time.
are we really becoming so dumb and slow that we can't even figure out how the TV works? I know I have no problems with it, what about you?
We've simply gotten to the point that we're questioning why we should tolerate a television model that existed since 1950, when more or less all other media has moved on.
You're probably right that Apple won't broker deals like they got with record companies. They don't necessarily need to. Cable-only is slowly dying out, and more production studios are going to have to jump ship to streaming services (either their own or make deals with larger companies). All Apple/Google/Roku/Amazon have to do is build the platform and convince the streaming companies to support it.