Apple's never going to have another iPhone success. It's reasonable to believe that no product like the smartphone is ever going to spring up again.
But people still spend huge amounts of time in front of their televisions, whether it be cable, over-the-air, streaming services, consoles, whatever. Being able to take more control over that space, build a better experience, and put yourself between content and viewers still promises to be lucrative, even if the solution won't be technologically groundbreaking. Netflix is great, but it's just content. A better mousetrap (how we manage all the shows and services we watch) is still waiting to be built.
In any case most people have a smartphone now; and most people don't have a smartwatch and I'd go as far as to say most people don't really want one either. So I'd ask you to consider apple pay from that standpoint.
I've got no problem agreeing that pulling out a phone to pay is less convenient than having Apple Pay right on my wrist. Arguably a phone would be more convenient than a wallet for some people, since they're more likely to have their phone already out, but that's admittedly not something I'm paying attention to since it's moot in my case.
My father has one of those iphone cases with the flap to hold cards -- the phone case doubles as his wallet.
Wallet cases are a good point I hadn't considered.
re: your dad using Apple Pay, judging by your description I've got to ask: is he unlocking the phone and going into the Wallet app when he uses it? All that needs to be done is double-tapping the home button (even from lock), and I'm assuming he has Touch ID enabled on his phone. I don't want to be a "you're holding it wrong" Apple fanboy, but based on the description it seems like he's taking a lot of unnecessary steps.
Of course, he has his wallet case, so it's a non-issue.
On the other hand, Apple can't make a cable to save its life and I'd much rather swap out a male-male USB-C cable when it inevitably begins fraying instead of having to buy a whole new power supply.
Totally willing to accept that I'm wrong on that (I was repeating what I've heard). I've never had a contactless debit (my card's getting old), so I jumped right from chip-and-pin to Apple Pay. So my bad.
As opposed to pulling out your phone?
I mentioned having a Watch, which is what I use. Pulling out a phone would arguably be easier than pulling out your wallet and then card, assuming you don have more than one contactless card (then you could just use your whole wallet. It's a minor convenience at best, but it's still a convenience.
Or maybe you have more than one card and you want to use a different card, so now you have futz around in settings to change which card to use.
On the Watch you literally just swipe to select the card you want. On the phone it acts like the Wallet app, with the default already selected. Any cards in the system have already been added beforehand, and the only reason to go into settings is to change the default card.
While the refusal to allow the use of alternative (non-applepay) payment apps is anti-consumer/anti-competitive and should be stomped on.
The thing is that I trust Apple to keep its secure enclave secure (and it's fair to argue that even that much is too much trust). I don't trust anybody else will. I'd love to see Apple open up the iPhone's NFC features, but at the same time I definitely don't want my payment information anywhere but the secure enclave. Hopefully a solution can be found.
My credit card already indemnifies me against fraud, so the risk is already negligible.
Apple Pay prevents fraud through its use of one-time codes, which is different from you being protected from fraud after the fact.
Contactless payments were already simple to manage and administer.
It's slightly more convenient (very slight, but you still notice when you have to pull out your card), and more secure, as I have to verify my identity either 1. through Touch ID as I hold the phone when making payment or 2. entering my Watch's passcode at the start of the day. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in Canada debit contactless payments require a PIN every three transactions to reduce fraudulent charges from card theft and Apple Pay tied to a debit card does not, tacitly admitting that it's more secure.
Um, how is creating contactless payment hardware innovation when contactless payments were already very widespread.
Yeah, it's not really especially innovative. The ease-of-use and security factors plus Apple's shine, however, acted as a convenient way for consumers to apply some pressure to banks/merchants to update payment systems in the US.
Fair enough! I'm looking at this as a Canadian, where Interac (our debit payment system) has been ubiquitous my entire adult life- literally the only time I can't use it up here is with Square- so worrying about if they'll take a certain card* honestly feels absurd to me.
*Not everyone has an NFC-capable payment, though, and some of them are finicky enough that I have to pull the card out anyway.
Another feature of Apple Pay (and Google's version) is that you aren't tied to a bank, a credit card (VISA, MC, etc.).
I'm not following your thinking here. You still need either a credit or debit card to be able to use Apple Pay (and I'm assuming Android Pay as well). I'm no less tied to my bank than I was before. I'm less tied to a physical card, but that's hardly the same thing.
It's entirely anecdotal, but I re-subscribed to Netflix for the original content (Bojack Horseman, to be specific).
I've said it elsewhere, but it's perfectly fine if the shows that Netflix puts out aren't for someone. Luckily other streaming companies are finally starting to do the follow suit, giving people options. What's impressed me with Netflix is the range of shows they currently offer. Besides their award-winners, they've got a broad variety of documentaries, anime, even old fashioned sitcoms. I'd never have known about the last one if it wasn't for my brother watching some. There's a lot of stuff they make that I have zero interest in, but they're smartly casting as wide a net as possible.
Apple is looking to make a big splash for the iPhones 10th anniversary next year so I wouldn't put it past them to do something like this.
I'm kind of two minds of this.
On one hand, I think it's "too soon" for Apple to jump in. They're rarely the first to actually put out an on-the-shelves product of any given technology (the HoloLens is real and from what I've read pretty cool, but it's not exactly at my local Best Buy, and the less said about Glass the better). Typically Apple jumps in late to the game with a smart implementation of tech that ends up copied by others, and my gut tells me that AR wouldn't be any different.
That said, Apple also lays the pieces of its tech puzzle out over years. AR isn't exactly new tech in phones, but Siri and (especially) Maps have become better over the years. The dual camera on the iPhone 7 Plus isn't just nifty, they've built a quality depth-mapping system out of it. Surprising everyone, they're further ahead in machine learning than suspected. Hell, work on Project Titan probably includes some sort of automobile HUD. So arguably all the parts are there to make a good AR system, and you could be right and the next iPhone will boast one.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If it's not there, the best explanation is that it just needs a bit more time in the oven.
True. However, like many popular things, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's not the best. After all, try getting reservations at a Michelin 3-star restaurant.
But regardless we're going about it the wrong way. Netflix is more like a good Chinese restaurant. Maybe you're in the mood for it, or maybe you prefer Indian. Or a burger. Maybe you want to watch Bojack Horseman and TNG. Maybe you'd prefer to subscribe to Filmstruck and catch up on Kurosawa. Maybe all you care about is Game of Thrones and well hey, HBO Now's got you covered. It's art and entertainment, there's not going to be an objective "best" while everyone's serving up totally different things.
Because software is like a meal at a restaurant, in that it's finitely reproducible, and has to be rebuilt from scratch each time someone wants a copy on their computer. You also have to travel to the programmer's house to get your version, but only when the functions are in season.
You're completely right. There's plenty of room for both, because they're totally different experiences.
I don't think Apple could even do VR justice. While there's plenty of progress to be made in the field, it just doesn't feel like a "fit" for Apple. Products like the smartphones and wearables aim to be as unobtrusive* and complimentary to their users' day-to-day reality as possible. AR does that while VR, by definition, pulls the user out of that reality. Cook seems to be selling VR short, but in part because (I think) he sees how AR can fit into Apple's ecosystem in ways that VR can't.
*yes, I'm aware of the irony of calling a smartphone unobtrusive
We picked up the PSVR yesterday, and to quell your fears: the Move controllers included with the system are the exact same ones that came out with the PS3. Right down to USB Mini-B and the aggravating need to be plugged into the PS4 to be charged.
That said it's a solid system so far. The fidelity can't match the Vive (which I've demoed), and using a camera for tracking has its limits, but the headset is so comfortable and easy-to-use it makes you wonder how the other hardware companies dropped the ball, Sony throws plenty of free content at you, and there are great launch games.
Human contact largely disappeared with the emergence of the smartphone and social networking.
"Human contact largely disappeared with the emergence of additional avenues of human contact."
I mean seriously, have you been hanging out with a lot of teenagers? If they're not hanging out with each other, they're on their phones to communicate with each other.
HBO Now is available in the United States, but god help you if you're not living there. In Canada there's a long-term exclusivity deal between Bell Media and HBO, and if you want to stream HBO you have to have 1. a cable service subscription and 2. a separate HBO subscription. And then you can only use Bell's streaming service, which doesn't always offer up HBO shows as they air.
As someone who won't ever get a cable subscription, I've got the choice to either 1. pirate, 2. wait, or 3. jump through the hoops of VPNs and prepaid credit cards. I'm lazy, impatient, and want HBO to get my money, so 1 and 2 in combination is hands-down the best.
Scott... the man who uses sock puppets to brag about how he has a "certified genius IQ".
It's irrelevant to the greater discussion but worth pointing out that all of his sock puppets get found out, on average, immediately after their very first post.
I think Google could absolutely build industrial robotics that's at least as good as what's currently out there. I don't think Google wants to build the support system that such products would require. It's a massive commitment that would demand a pivot from how Google typically deals with customers and manufactures products. Nest and Google Home is not even close.
It's not that they couldn't- especially since the structure of Alphabet is perfect for it- but the company seems very hesitant to branch out in ways that are fundamentally at odds with the current model.
Google's entire business model is built on massive scale. Small-but-hugely-profitable industries require a completely different approach to dealing with clients and users. If a user is having trouble with, say, their Nest thermostat, Google can log the problem and work on a fix in their own time. If an industrial client is having trouble with a robot arm, Google would be expected to be dedicating resources to that specific arm within twenty-four hours, if not sooner.
I mentioned having been up north for work. I was on the Ungava Peninsula, which is a fraction of the Canadian north. It's 252,000 sq km. There is zero infrastructure out there. When I mean zero, I mean literally zero. It's not much different from much of the north once you step outside of Yellowknife or Whitehorse.
The communities on the Ungava are all on the coast, which in theory would make it easier to deploy (and this applies to much of the north) since you don't actually have to provide 100% coverage, but I'd like to hear your proposal for building the stations and digging the necessary trenches when there is, as I said, literally zero infrastructure to help you along. Not just building roads, but providing the power necessary, where all power generation is dependent on boat-delivered diesel fuel. How do you manage that, year round? What do you do when something fails? Fiber + microwave is great, but the Ungava isn't, say, the Gaspé Peninsula.
There are certainly solutions to be found, and I think at least part of it involves existing technologies. But I genuinely think that the best-fit solution won't rely just on what we've done before, elsewhere.
There's really no reason Canada shouldn't be the world leader in telecommunications. We have the manpower and rationale for tackling the issue, and it would benefit us in so many ways.
And while I'm 100% with you in that northern communities need better internet (and that the PM should lay out some sort of vision for it), having been up north myself and experienced it first-hand, I think you're underestimating just how costly and difficult it is to get internet up there. It's not just a matter of distance, but access, infrastructure, and natural conditions that pile on to complicate matters. It's a problem that needs to be solved, but "just lay fiber" isn't necessarily the best solution.
You make it sound like there's a handful of kooks living in a shed. That's bull. These are long-established and recognized communities, mining operations, fishing outposts, and the like. Isolated isn't remotely the same as being out in the middle of the wilderness.
The issue is that there's a single point of failure for what is a huge amount of the country's landmass. One that's only going to grow in financial and military importance as time goes on. So why should Canada tolerate that? Satellite is the only viable option up north for good reason, but solutions still have to be found.
A one hour window every 41 days isn't very practical for card thieves when there's much easier options available. Assuming that one hour window isn't a predictable one (which is a big assumption depending on how it cycles the numbers), reusing the numbers shouldn't hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's never going to have another iPhone success. It's reasonable to believe that no product like the smartphone is ever going to spring up again.
But people still spend huge amounts of time in front of their televisions, whether it be cable, over-the-air, streaming services, consoles, whatever. Being able to take more control over that space, build a better experience, and put yourself between content and viewers still promises to be lucrative, even if the solution won't be technologically groundbreaking. Netflix is great, but it's just content. A better mousetrap (how we manage all the shows and services we watch) is still waiting to be built.
In any case most people have a smartphone now; and most people don't have a smartwatch and I'd go as far as to say most people don't really want one either. So I'd ask you to consider apple pay from that standpoint.
I've got no problem agreeing that pulling out a phone to pay is less convenient than having Apple Pay right on my wrist. Arguably a phone would be more convenient than a wallet for some people, since they're more likely to have their phone already out, but that's admittedly not something I'm paying attention to since it's moot in my case.
My father has one of those iphone cases with the flap to hold cards -- the phone case doubles as his wallet.
Wallet cases are a good point I hadn't considered.
re: your dad using Apple Pay, judging by your description I've got to ask: is he unlocking the phone and going into the Wallet app when he uses it? All that needs to be done is double-tapping the home button (even from lock), and I'm assuming he has Touch ID enabled on his phone. I don't want to be a "you're holding it wrong" Apple fanboy, but based on the description it seems like he's taking a lot of unnecessary steps.
Of course, he has his wallet case, so it's a non-issue.
On one hand, I'll miss it.
On the other hand, Apple can't make a cable to save its life and I'd much rather swap out a male-male USB-C cable when it inevitably begins fraying instead of having to buy a whole new power supply.
And Yes. In Canada.
Totally willing to accept that I'm wrong on that (I was repeating what I've heard). I've never had a contactless debit (my card's getting old), so I jumped right from chip-and-pin to Apple Pay. So my bad.
As opposed to pulling out your phone?
I mentioned having a Watch, which is what I use. Pulling out a phone would arguably be easier than pulling out your wallet and then card, assuming you don have more than one contactless card (then you could just use your whole wallet. It's a minor convenience at best, but it's still a convenience.
Or maybe you have more than one card and you want to use a different card, so now you have futz around in settings to change which card to use.
On the Watch you literally just swipe to select the card you want. On the phone it acts like the Wallet app, with the default already selected. Any cards in the system have already been added beforehand, and the only reason to go into settings is to change the default card.
While the refusal to allow the use of alternative (non-applepay) payment apps is anti-consumer/anti-competitive and should be stomped on.
The thing is that I trust Apple to keep its secure enclave secure (and it's fair to argue that even that much is too much trust). I don't trust anybody else will. I'd love to see Apple open up the iPhone's NFC features, but at the same time I definitely don't want my payment information anywhere but the secure enclave. Hopefully a solution can be found.
My credit card already indemnifies me against fraud, so the risk is already negligible.
Apple Pay prevents fraud through its use of one-time codes, which is different from you being protected from fraud after the fact.
Contactless payments were already simple to manage and administer.
It's slightly more convenient (very slight, but you still notice when you have to pull out your card), and more secure, as I have to verify my identity either 1. through Touch ID as I hold the phone when making payment or 2. entering my Watch's passcode at the start of the day. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in Canada debit contactless payments require a PIN every three transactions to reduce fraudulent charges from card theft and Apple Pay tied to a debit card does not, tacitly admitting that it's more secure.
Um, how is creating contactless payment hardware innovation when contactless payments were already very widespread.
Yeah, it's not really especially innovative. The ease-of-use and security factors plus Apple's shine, however, acted as a convenient way for consumers to apply some pressure to banks/merchants to update payment systems in the US.
Fair enough! I'm looking at this as a Canadian, where Interac (our debit payment system) has been ubiquitous my entire adult life- literally the only time I can't use it up here is with Square- so worrying about if they'll take a certain card* honestly feels absurd to me.
*Not everyone has an NFC-capable payment, though, and some of them are finicky enough that I have to pull the card out anyway.
I wonder what ever happened to Samsung's ISIS?
I'm guessing an explosion was involved.
Another feature of Apple Pay (and Google's version) is that you aren't tied to a bank, a credit card (VISA, MC, etc.).
I'm not following your thinking here. You still need either a credit or debit card to be able to use Apple Pay (and I'm assuming Android Pay as well). I'm no less tied to my bank than I was before. I'm less tied to a physical card, but that's hardly the same thing.
It's entirely anecdotal, but I re-subscribed to Netflix for the original content (Bojack Horseman, to be specific).
I've said it elsewhere, but it's perfectly fine if the shows that Netflix puts out aren't for someone. Luckily other streaming companies are finally starting to do the follow suit, giving people options. What's impressed me with Netflix is the range of shows they currently offer. Besides their award-winners, they've got a broad variety of documentaries, anime, even old fashioned sitcoms. I'd never have known about the last one if it wasn't for my brother watching some. There's a lot of stuff they make that I have zero interest in, but they're smartly casting as wide a net as possible.
An iphone7 with "dual cameras" is not capable of producing depth maps
And yet it does.
What's with the scare quotes around "dual cameras", anyway? Do you not believe that the 7 Plus has two cameras?
Apple is looking to make a big splash for the iPhones 10th anniversary next year so I wouldn't put it past them to do something like this.
I'm kind of two minds of this.
On one hand, I think it's "too soon" for Apple to jump in. They're rarely the first to actually put out an on-the-shelves product of any given technology (the HoloLens is real and from what I've read pretty cool, but it's not exactly at my local Best Buy, and the less said about Glass the better). Typically Apple jumps in late to the game with a smart implementation of tech that ends up copied by others, and my gut tells me that AR wouldn't be any different.
That said, Apple also lays the pieces of its tech puzzle out over years. AR isn't exactly new tech in phones, but Siri and (especially) Maps have become better over the years. The dual camera on the iPhone 7 Plus isn't just nifty, they've built a quality depth-mapping system out of it. Surprising everyone, they're further ahead in machine learning than suspected. Hell, work on Project Titan probably includes some sort of automobile HUD. So arguably all the parts are there to make a good AR system, and you could be right and the next iPhone will boast one.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If it's not there, the best explanation is that it just needs a bit more time in the oven.
True. However, like many popular things, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's not the best. After all, try getting reservations at a Michelin 3-star restaurant.
But regardless we're going about it the wrong way. Netflix is more like a good Chinese restaurant. Maybe you're in the mood for it, or maybe you prefer Indian. Or a burger. Maybe you want to watch Bojack Horseman and TNG. Maybe you'd prefer to subscribe to Filmstruck and catch up on Kurosawa. Maybe all you care about is Game of Thrones and well hey, HBO Now's got you covered. It's art and entertainment, there's not going to be an objective "best" while everyone's serving up totally different things.
Because software is like a meal at a restaurant, in that it's finitely reproducible, and has to be rebuilt from scratch each time someone wants a copy on their computer. You also have to travel to the programmer's house to get your version, but only when the functions are in season.
You're completely right. There's plenty of room for both, because they're totally different experiences.
I don't think Apple could even do VR justice. While there's plenty of progress to be made in the field, it just doesn't feel like a "fit" for Apple. Products like the smartphones and wearables aim to be as unobtrusive* and complimentary to their users' day-to-day reality as possible. AR does that while VR, by definition, pulls the user out of that reality. Cook seems to be selling VR short, but in part because (I think) he sees how AR can fit into Apple's ecosystem in ways that VR can't.
*yes, I'm aware of the irony of calling a smartphone unobtrusive
We picked up the PSVR yesterday, and to quell your fears: the Move controllers included with the system are the exact same ones that came out with the PS3. Right down to USB Mini-B and the aggravating need to be plugged into the PS4 to be charged.
That said it's a solid system so far. The fidelity can't match the Vive (which I've demoed), and using a camera for tracking has its limits, but the headset is so comfortable and easy-to-use it makes you wonder how the other hardware companies dropped the ball, Sony throws plenty of free content at you, and there are great launch games.
Human contact largely disappeared with the emergence of the smartphone and social networking.
"Human contact largely disappeared with the emergence of additional avenues of human contact."
I mean seriously, have you been hanging out with a lot of teenagers? If they're not hanging out with each other, they're on their phones to communicate with each other.
HBO Now is available in the United States, but god help you if you're not living there. In Canada there's a long-term exclusivity deal between Bell Media and HBO, and if you want to stream HBO you have to have 1. a cable service subscription and 2. a separate HBO subscription. And then you can only use Bell's streaming service, which doesn't always offer up HBO shows as they air.
As someone who won't ever get a cable subscription, I've got the choice to either 1. pirate, 2. wait, or 3. jump through the hoops of VPNs and prepaid credit cards. I'm lazy, impatient, and want HBO to get my money, so 1 and 2 in combination is hands-down the best.
Scott... the man who uses sock puppets to brag about how he has a "certified genius IQ".
It's irrelevant to the greater discussion but worth pointing out that all of his sock puppets get found out, on average, immediately after their very first post.
Life imitating the THX 1138 director's cut? Now you've gone too far.
I think Google could absolutely build industrial robotics that's at least as good as what's currently out there. I don't think Google wants to build the support system that such products would require. It's a massive commitment that would demand a pivot from how Google typically deals with customers and manufactures products. Nest and Google Home is not even close.
It's not that they couldn't- especially since the structure of Alphabet is perfect for it- but the company seems very hesitant to branch out in ways that are fundamentally at odds with the current model.
Google's entire business model is built on massive scale. Small-but-hugely-profitable industries require a completely different approach to dealing with clients and users. If a user is having trouble with, say, their Nest thermostat, Google can log the problem and work on a fix in their own time. If an industrial client is having trouble with a robot arm, Google would be expected to be dedicating resources to that specific arm within twenty-four hours, if not sooner.
I mentioned having been up north for work. I was on the Ungava Peninsula, which is a fraction of the Canadian north. It's 252,000 sq km. There is zero infrastructure out there. When I mean zero, I mean literally zero. It's not much different from much of the north once you step outside of Yellowknife or Whitehorse.
The communities on the Ungava are all on the coast, which in theory would make it easier to deploy (and this applies to much of the north) since you don't actually have to provide 100% coverage, but I'd like to hear your proposal for building the stations and digging the necessary trenches when there is, as I said, literally zero infrastructure to help you along. Not just building roads, but providing the power necessary, where all power generation is dependent on boat-delivered diesel fuel. How do you manage that, year round? What do you do when something fails? Fiber + microwave is great, but the Ungava isn't, say, the Gaspé Peninsula.
There are certainly solutions to be found, and I think at least part of it involves existing technologies. But I genuinely think that the best-fit solution won't rely just on what we've done before, elsewhere.
There's really no reason Canada shouldn't be the world leader in telecommunications. We have the manpower and rationale for tackling the issue, and it would benefit us in so many ways.
And while I'm 100% with you in that northern communities need better internet (and that the PM should lay out some sort of vision for it), having been up north myself and experienced it first-hand, I think you're underestimating just how costly and difficult it is to get internet up there. It's not just a matter of distance, but access, infrastructure, and natural conditions that pile on to complicate matters. It's a problem that needs to be solved, but "just lay fiber" isn't necessarily the best solution.
You make it sound like there's a handful of kooks living in a shed. That's bull. These are long-established and recognized communities, mining operations, fishing outposts, and the like. Isolated isn't remotely the same as being out in the middle of the wilderness.
The issue is that there's a single point of failure for what is a huge amount of the country's landmass. One that's only going to grow in financial and military importance as time goes on. So why should Canada tolerate that? Satellite is the only viable option up north for good reason, but solutions still have to be found.
A one hour window every 41 days isn't very practical for card thieves when there's much easier options available. Assuming that one hour window isn't a predictable one (which is a big assumption depending on how it cycles the numbers), reusing the numbers shouldn't hurt.