I didn't hear applause, I heard a lot of laughter at the idea that this matters. The interest is mostly from people who are happy with the proprietary toolchains from the involved vendor.
I agree it is a good thing, though. But in a very, very tiny way. cups was important. This is not.
You need to go to your Otolaryngologist (ear-doctor).
They almost got a standing-ovation at the announcement that Swift 2 would be Open Sourced. I was by far the most enthusiastic audience reaction during the entire Keynote.
Companies don't just open source code when they feel they can't sell it. The entire revenue model for open source is that the software is incidental to something you can sell.
That's precisely why Apple is so perfect a partner for Open Source, and why they embrace Open Source.
They didn't have to adjust their business model to include Open Source; they were already there.
And the reason why Apple is a good thing for Open Source in general is that they actually have the resources to devote to develop, maintain, and improve Open Source Projects that they have an interest in, which, if the Open Source Development Community in general would be honest with themselves, is one of the biggest problems with F/OSS Development overall: Lack of enough dedicated resources to actually do the hard work. A company like Apple simply doesn't have that problem.
And since their business model doesn't require them to value their software development in a way that requires them to always have an eye towards "profitability", they can be, and are, far more altruistic in their interaction with the F/OSS Development Community, and F/OSS in general, than pretty much any other ostensibly "for profit" hardware/software company on the planet.
In many cases, selling more copies of the software is simply not the primary goal... The goal is to to increase mindshare, to increase the ecosystem to support other products. The more people who are developing applications for iOS and OSX the better for Apple.
In Apple's case, selling more copies of software is not a primary, nor even secondary, goal. Apple's goal is to sell more hardware, period.
And in that regard, that makes Apple, as a software developer/vendor, utterly unique in the entire computing industry.
I'm not saying that Apple doesn't profit from some of their software products; just that that isn't the goal. And I would be surprised if most of their software titles aren't continually "in the red". You have to sell a lot of copies of Final Cut/Compressor/DVD Studio, Logic/MainStage, Pages/Numbers/Keynote etc. to pay off projects like those, and then consider stuff like Aperture, which could not possibly have been more than a massive money-sink.
I do not know for sure; but if I had to guess, Metal is similar in INTENT to Microsoft's DirectX API. It would be difficult to make a generic, one size fits all Open Source API as efficient as a tightly coded, highly optimized, proprietary API.
Why do you think that? It's not as though DirectX targets any significant subset of desktop computing hardware over OpenGL, I don't think I've seen any benchmarks demonstrating any significant performance advantage of DirectX over OpenGL and certainly not related to the availability of the spec. Also why would it be less efficient if they released the spec?
Remember? Apple tried going the OSS route with OpenGL, and people complained about sluggish performance of games on OS X vs Windows; so they took a page out of the MS manual and decided to write their own "DirectX"-type API.
OpenGL isn't OSS - in fact pretty much all commercial implementations are proprietary, the spec is open if that's what you mean but I don't see how that affects performance - and the performance issue vs Windows is not down to DirectX which is why we don't see this "sluggish performance" issue in Windows vs Linux (take a look at games available on Steam), in fact the DirectX improvements for low driver overhead that Metal is doing are in DirectX 12 which isn't even commercially available yet.
Ok. As I said, I don't know for sure, and I haven't the slightest clue about game development; however, if there wasn't a performance improvement to be had with Metal, why would Apple spend what must be thousands of hours doing development, documentation, testing, internal training, etc.on Metal? And "Lock-in" isn't a good-enough reason, due to the fact that, except for possibly in iOS, Apple still holds a severely-minority stake in the PC gaming market, and the fact that developers are still free to use OpenGL.
And in the case of DirectX and Metal, in neither case do those APIs have to target specific hardware (although in Apple's case, it would be far more likely to be able to pull-of such an advantage); instead, both APIs can still offer significant performance improvements by essentially being simply a more efficient way to get from "high-level" drawing commands to the underlying BitBlt-style primitives. IOW, both could be nothing more than a more efficient "Presentation Layer", and still achieve faster overall performance, relative to the usual "Draw" API.
And yes, I realize I am leaving out the fact that both DirectX and Metal also bundle a lot of common "game logic" functions for the convenience of game developers, and that that alone is a good argument for their existence; but in my original comment, I was concentrating on the potential performance advantages.
Let me let you in on a little secret about Alpine: It IS cheap!
Alpine is the car-stereo division of the electronic component manufacturer, Alps Electronics. Alps makes a wide variety of crappy passive components, mainly potentiometers and switches. ALL of their components are craptastic, failure-prone stuff that is found in virtually every cheap-ass car stereo and portable radio, tape/disc player, "boombox", etc. NOTHING they make is in any way, shape, or form "high quality".
And guess whose components are in that $800 Alpine car stereo?
Where are you getting 10 years from? Even if it were to take 10 years for some reason, Apple are a member of Khronos so make the Metal spec open so everybody can use it.
It cannot be an Open Standard; it is proprietary for the same reason DirectX is proprietary; it has to be allowed to pull every cycle-saving, down-and-dirty, low-down, ugly trick in the book to be AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. It is likely written largely in old-fashioned, hand-coded, hand-optimized Assembly, with all sorts of exception code for different GPUs, etc, etc. IOW, it is the direct antithesis of the way you would write something that you were going to publish an Open Standard on.
Metal: Not a new Graphics Engine. It's been on iOS for two years.
But what is the point of it? Instead of contributing their work to an open standard - like AMD has done with Mantle - they have switched from an open standard and created their own Apple-centric 3D graphics API that is just another case of NIH syndrome.
I do not know for sure; but if I had to guess, Metal is similar in INTENT to Microsoft's DirectX API. It would be difficult to make a generic, one size fits all Open Source API as efficient as a tightly coded, highly optimized, proprietary API.
Remember? Apple tried going the OSS route with OpenGL, and people complained about sluggish performance of games on OS X vs Windows; so they took a page out of the MS manual and decided to write their own "DirectX"-type API.
And so, now everyone will bitch that it's proprietary.
I'd really like Apple to put Swift and Metal out there as open source - it will only increase the adoption rate. But past performance leads me to doubt...
Sorry, but past performance shows you are wrong. FWIW, Apple never promised to make FaceTime Open Source; what they said was that they were going to openly publish the protocol. I'm rather cheesed that never happened as well, but they never promised to open their source code to FaceTime.
On the other hand, Webkit is a huge OSS project, which is used by a variety of products and companies, and which has a lot of non-Apple/non-Webkit contributors. Indeed, if not for WebKit, there wouldn't be Google Chrome. CUPS is, of course, the print subsystem used by virtually every Linux distro.
Those are the projects you need to judge Apple's OSS track record on.
Yaz
And don't forget about Darwin and Bonjour and OpenCL, and GrandCentralDispatch, and launchd, and LLVM and ResearchKit and ALAC and DarwinStreamingServer and...
Certainly not the ones here. They're mostly haters without rationality. Doesn't matter what Apple does - they are successful so they need to be attacked.
But meanwhile, at WWDC, the real developers (ya know, the ones that don't have the time to hangout on Slashdot), almost gave a Standing Ovation when the Open Sourcing of Swift 2 was announced.
It by far got the most enthusiastic reaction from those in attendance when it was announced that Apple had ported it to Linux.
So you're right. The Apple-Hater pseudo-developers here on Slashdot (which I realize is not everyone) aren't going to even acknowledge that (yet again), Apple has given thousands upon thousands of hours of Development work to the world.
You think it's easy to write a language? Try it some time. Then, write the mountain of documentation needed. Then write the complier, linker, debugger, etc. for it.
Ever try and close Safari? Operate the mouse? I pretty much had to do everything through the Finder as I at least understood how that operated.
Why don't you try out Windows 8?
I was practically in TEARS by the time I ACCIDENTLY stumbled on the way to close the Metro version of IE.
If you can't handle a quick trip to the Menu Bar (which is in the same place in EVERY OS X App) and find the "Quit [appname]" command (which is in the same place in EVERY OS X App), then you are either illiterate, or truly sad.
How about Mac OS X? It was released in this century, and against the backdrop of Windows 2000 and Classic MacOS 9, it absolutely counted as "stunning."
And besides, it was kind of refreshing to NOT see an endless parade of new APIs, paradigm-shifts, etc. with this release. It means that Apple is (finally!) getting satisfied with OS X, and can now concentrate on making the existing features better and more stable, which was unfortunately NOT the case with Yosemite, to the point that, even though I wanted some of the features, I decided to skip that version and stick with the much more stable Mavericks.
But, after a brief waiting period, I think I will be installing El Capitan...
Swift 2: Get me a version where I can make apps in Windows or Linux too... Otherwise OK that is fine, but staying to one platform development isn't my thing.
You apparently missed the part where Swift 2 is OPEN SOURCE, and is going to be available for LINUX.
Who gives a shit about Windows? It is on its way out.
"So who cares what you call a phase of the moon indicator on a mechanical watch when deciding what it should be called on a smartwatch?"
If you haven't noticed, Apple has been bending-over-backwards to get the horological community to consider the Apple Watch a "Real" watch. So far, they've actually had some success in that endeavor, which is quite surprising for a fanbase that should, by all rights-and-privileges, despise them. For a contrast, I'd really like to see what the Horologists think of the Samsung Watch(es).
Using Horological Terms-of-Art such as "Crown" and "Complication" are consistent with that vocabulary and marketing goal.
I mean when you have FREE services out there why would you spend 15 bucks a month?
Apple is vigorously working, right now, to convince the Big Music Publishers that they should stop allowing ANY free streaming of their music on the Internet.
No, seriously. They're doing that, and working really hard at it.
Neither Pandora nor the free tier of Spotify allow you to create your own playlist of songs.
iTunes lets me create my own playlists of songs already. For free. Why the fuck would I pay for a service to create a playlist? Or do they intend to cripple iTunes now unless you've paid up for Apple Music this month?
Mods, mark the Parent as "Troll".
Re: Apple Music - too expensive
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 1, Troll
What are you comparing? pandora is $5 a month so your $45 for 18 month seems like a discount. And for that you don't get arbitrary music playlists, just more skips of some algorithmic genre ordering. There's no comparison to here and it's not much of a savings if you really care about what you are listening too. If not just tune in an internet radio station that plays what you like there's thousands of channels out there so you can find one you like.
Not to mention the fact that Spotify and Pandora, et al, no DOUBT sell your musical tastes into slavery; which it is pretty clear that Apple has no interest in doing. That alone is worth some real $$$.
There will still be a free tier on Apple music - the radio station thing they have - but the (self directed/semi-curated) streaming service will be paid. They've clearly looked at it and decided that the free streaming market is already well supplied - Pandora and Spotify in the US, for example, and want to go after the customers who are willing to pay to be ad free.
And it isn't like Apple doesn't know about services like Pandora. Remember a few years ago, when basically no one was allowed to develop iOS Apps that ran in the background? Remember who else besides Apple was granted special permission to run in the background on iOS? Pandora.
No, simply trying to compare on equal terms. You can go ad-supported, or you can go subscriber-supported, or you can be ridiculously greedy like the cable companies, and suck down on both; but that's an entirely different thread...
Anyway it's more expensive than either Netflix or Crunchyroll, so I'll pass.
Probably the cheapest they could negotiate with the "record" labels, who seem to have conveniently forgotten the role that broadcast played in their popularity, back when the LABEL payed the BROADCASTER, not the other way around...
Re:yeah less features, smaller storage.
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
As someone once said "Lame."
Yeah, and we all know how that assesment turned out...
No, actually. It appears to have far fewer offerings than Shoutcast at this point. So Apple invented a less broad service with a higher cost.
There must be more to this than I got from the conference.
Um, it just got started. Wanna give it a few weeks/months to get some user-feedback?
Re: Can/Should I Upgrade to iOS 9, or not?
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Does that include the iPad?
Anything that can run iOS 8 can run iOS 9; so iPad 2 and up. Split-Screen-Multitasking restricted to a few newer models (can't remember which ones); but that appears to be the only restriction on iPads.
I have no interest in being connected 24/7, I always own an older model of iPhone (free hand-me-down) which can never run the latest version of iOS, I don't want a smart watch let alone at the price Apple are asking, Metal on OS X is great news but I finally built myself a low-end Windows gaming PC and my music tastes are so far from mainstream that Apple music will probably be 99% useless (I'll check out the three free months to confirm that).
This is the first time in a decade that I feel like I wasted time watching a Keynote.
And yet you wasted even more time to tell us about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't hear applause, I heard a lot of laughter at the idea that this matters. The interest is mostly from people who are happy with the proprietary toolchains from the involved vendor.
I agree it is a good thing, though. But in a very, very tiny way. cups was important. This is not.
You need to go to your Otolaryngologist (ear-doctor).
They almost got a standing-ovation at the announcement that Swift 2 would be Open Sourced. I was by far the most enthusiastic audience reaction during the entire Keynote.
Companies don't just open source code when they feel they can't sell it. The entire revenue model for open source is that the software is incidental to something you can sell.
That's precisely why Apple is so perfect a partner for Open Source, and why they embrace Open Source.
They didn't have to adjust their business model to include Open Source; they were already there.
And the reason why Apple is a good thing for Open Source in general is that they actually have the resources to devote to develop, maintain, and improve Open Source Projects that they have an interest in, which, if the Open Source Development Community in general would be honest with themselves, is one of the biggest problems with F/OSS Development overall: Lack of enough dedicated resources to actually do the hard work. A company like Apple simply doesn't have that problem.
And since their business model doesn't require them to value their software development in a way that requires them to always have an eye towards "profitability", they can be, and are, far more altruistic in their interaction with the F/OSS Development Community, and F/OSS in general, than pretty much any other ostensibly "for profit" hardware/software company on the planet.
In many cases, selling more copies of the software is simply not the primary goal... The goal is to to increase mindshare, to increase the ecosystem to support other products. The more people who are developing applications for iOS and OSX the better for Apple.
In Apple's case, selling more copies of software is not a primary, nor even secondary, goal. Apple's goal is to sell more hardware, period.
And in that regard, that makes Apple, as a software developer/vendor, utterly unique in the entire computing industry.
I'm not saying that Apple doesn't profit from some of their software products; just that that isn't the goal. And I would be surprised if most of their software titles aren't continually "in the red". You have to sell a lot of copies of Final Cut/Compressor/DVD Studio, Logic/MainStage, Pages/Numbers/Keynote etc. to pay off projects like those, and then consider stuff like Aperture, which could not possibly have been more than a massive money-sink.
The whole Apple developer world will rejoice when Apple finally writes all the documentation needed.
I think you can include EVERY platform in that shortcoming, don'tcha think?
I do not know for sure; but if I had to guess, Metal is similar in INTENT to Microsoft's DirectX API. It would be difficult to make a generic, one size fits all Open Source API as efficient as a tightly coded, highly optimized, proprietary API.
Why do you think that? It's not as though DirectX targets any significant subset of desktop computing hardware over OpenGL, I don't think I've seen any benchmarks demonstrating any significant performance advantage of DirectX over OpenGL and certainly not related to the availability of the spec. Also why would it be less efficient if they released the spec?
Remember? Apple tried going the OSS route with OpenGL, and people complained about sluggish performance of games on OS X vs Windows; so they took a page out of the MS manual and decided to write their own "DirectX"-type API.
OpenGL isn't OSS - in fact pretty much all commercial implementations are proprietary, the spec is open if that's what you mean but I don't see how that affects performance - and the performance issue vs Windows is not down to DirectX which is why we don't see this "sluggish performance" issue in Windows vs Linux (take a look at games available on Steam), in fact the DirectX improvements for low driver overhead that Metal is doing are in DirectX 12 which isn't even commercially available yet.
Ok. As I said, I don't know for sure, and I haven't the slightest clue about game development; however, if there wasn't a performance improvement to be had with Metal, why would Apple spend what must be thousands of hours doing development, documentation, testing, internal training, etc.on Metal? And "Lock-in" isn't a good-enough reason, due to the fact that, except for possibly in iOS, Apple still holds a severely-minority stake in the PC gaming market, and the fact that developers are still free to use OpenGL.
And in the case of DirectX and Metal, in neither case do those APIs have to target specific hardware (although in Apple's case, it would be far more likely to be able to pull-of such an advantage); instead, both APIs can still offer significant performance improvements by essentially being simply a more efficient way to get from "high-level" drawing commands to the underlying BitBlt-style primitives. IOW, both could be nothing more than a more efficient "Presentation Layer", and still achieve faster overall performance, relative to the usual "Draw" API.
And yes, I realize I am leaving out the fact that both DirectX and Metal also bundle a lot of common "game logic" functions for the convenience of game developers, and that that alone is a good argument for their existence; but in my original comment, I was concentrating on the potential performance advantages.
To be perfectly honest, it felt "cheap".
Let me let you in on a little secret about Alpine: It IS cheap!
Alpine is the car-stereo division of the electronic component manufacturer, Alps Electronics. Alps makes a wide variety of crappy passive components, mainly potentiometers and switches. ALL of their components are craptastic, failure-prone stuff that is found in virtually every cheap-ass car stereo and portable radio, tape/disc player, "boombox", etc. NOTHING they make is in any way, shape, or form "high quality".
And guess whose components are in that $800 Alpine car stereo?
Where are you getting 10 years from? Even if it were to take 10 years for some reason, Apple are a member of Khronos so make the Metal spec open so everybody can use it.
It cannot be an Open Standard; it is proprietary for the same reason DirectX is proprietary; it has to be allowed to pull every cycle-saving, down-and-dirty, low-down, ugly trick in the book to be AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. It is likely written largely in old-fashioned, hand-coded, hand-optimized Assembly, with all sorts of exception code for different GPUs, etc, etc. IOW, it is the direct antithesis of the way you would write something that you were going to publish an Open Standard on.
Metal: Not a new Graphics Engine. It's been on iOS for two years.
But what is the point of it? Instead of contributing their work to an open standard - like AMD has done with Mantle - they have switched from an open standard and created their own Apple-centric 3D graphics API that is just another case of NIH syndrome.
I do not know for sure; but if I had to guess, Metal is similar in INTENT to Microsoft's DirectX API. It would be difficult to make a generic, one size fits all Open Source API as efficient as a tightly coded, highly optimized, proprietary API.
Remember? Apple tried going the OSS route with OpenGL, and people complained about sluggish performance of games on OS X vs Windows; so they took a page out of the MS manual and decided to write their own "DirectX"-type API.
And so, now everyone will bitch that it's proprietary.
I'd really like Apple to put Swift and Metal out there as open source - it will only increase the adoption rate. But past performance leads me to doubt...
What, do you mean like with WebKit or CUPS?
Sorry, but past performance shows you are wrong. FWIW, Apple never promised to make FaceTime Open Source; what they said was that they were going to openly publish the protocol. I'm rather cheesed that never happened as well, but they never promised to open their source code to FaceTime.
On the other hand, Webkit is a huge OSS project, which is used by a variety of products and companies, and which has a lot of non-Apple/non-Webkit contributors. Indeed, if not for WebKit, there wouldn't be Google Chrome. CUPS is, of course, the print subsystem used by virtually every Linux distro.
Those are the projects you need to judge Apple's OSS track record on.
Yaz
And don't forget about Darwin and Bonjour and OpenCL, and GrandCentralDispatch, and launchd, and LLVM and ResearchKit and ALAC and DarwinStreamingServer and...
Certainly not the ones here. They're mostly haters without rationality. Doesn't matter what Apple does - they are successful so they need to be attacked.
But meanwhile, at WWDC, the real developers (ya know, the ones that don't have the time to hangout on Slashdot), almost gave a Standing Ovation when the Open Sourcing of Swift 2 was announced.
It by far got the most enthusiastic reaction from those in attendance when it was announced that Apple had ported it to Linux.
So you're right. The Apple-Hater pseudo-developers here on Slashdot (which I realize is not everyone) aren't going to even acknowledge that (yet again), Apple has given thousands upon thousands of hours of Development work to the world.
You think it's easy to write a language? Try it some time. Then, write the mountain of documentation needed. Then write the complier, linker, debugger, etc. for it.
Ever try and close Safari? Operate the mouse? I pretty much had to do everything through the Finder as I at least understood how that operated.
Why don't you try out Windows 8?
I was practically in TEARS by the time I ACCIDENTLY stumbled on the way to close the Metro version of IE.
If you can't handle a quick trip to the Menu Bar (which is in the same place in EVERY OS X App) and find the "Quit [appname]" command (which is in the same place in EVERY OS X App), then you are either illiterate, or truly sad.
How about Mac OS X? It was released in this century, and against the backdrop of Windows 2000 and Classic MacOS 9, it absolutely counted as "stunning."
And besides, it was kind of refreshing to NOT see an endless parade of new APIs, paradigm-shifts, etc. with this release. It means that Apple is (finally!) getting satisfied with OS X, and can now concentrate on making the existing features better and more stable, which was unfortunately NOT the case with Yosemite, to the point that, even though I wanted some of the features, I decided to skip that version and stick with the much more stable Mavericks.
But, after a brief waiting period, I think I will be installing El Capitan...
Swift 2: Get me a version where I can make apps in Windows or Linux too... Otherwise OK that is fine, but staying to one platform development isn't my thing.
You apparently missed the part where Swift 2 is OPEN SOURCE, and is going to be available for LINUX.
Who gives a shit about Windows? It is on its way out.
(Apple) Worldwide Developers Conference. I had to look it up for myself, so I thought I would post it.
You had to look-up an annual developer event like this that has been held for something like 20 years, and which sells-out in seconds?
I don't care if you've never even touched an Apple product; hand in your geek card, now.
"So who cares what you call a phase of the moon indicator on a mechanical watch when deciding what it should be called on a smartwatch?"
If you haven't noticed, Apple has been bending-over-backwards to get the horological community to consider the Apple Watch a "Real" watch. So far, they've actually had some success in that endeavor, which is quite surprising for a fanbase that should, by all rights-and-privileges, despise them. For a contrast, I'd really like to see what the Horologists think of the Samsung Watch(es).
Using Horological Terms-of-Art such as "Crown" and "Complication" are consistent with that vocabulary and marketing goal.
I mean when you have FREE services out there why would you spend 15 bucks a month?
Apple is vigorously working, right now, to convince the Big Music Publishers that they should stop allowing ANY free streaming of their music on the Internet.
No, seriously. They're doing that, and working really hard at it.
Citation, please, or STFU, hater.
Neither Pandora nor the free tier of Spotify allow you to create your own playlist of songs.
iTunes lets me create my own playlists of songs already. For free. Why the fuck would I pay for a service to create a playlist? Or do they intend to cripple iTunes now unless you've paid up for Apple Music this month?
Mods, mark the Parent as "Troll".
What are you comparing? pandora is $5 a month so your $45 for 18 month seems like a discount. And for that you don't get arbitrary music playlists, just more skips of some algorithmic genre ordering. There's no comparison to here and it's not much of a savings if you really care about what you are listening too. If not just tune in an internet radio station that plays what you like there's thousands of channels out there so you can find one you like.
Not to mention the fact that Spotify and Pandora, et al, no DOUBT sell your musical tastes into slavery; which it is pretty clear that Apple has no interest in doing. That alone is worth some real $$$.
There will still be a free tier on Apple music - the radio station thing they have - but the (self directed/semi-curated) streaming service will be paid. They've clearly looked at it and decided that the free streaming market is already well supplied - Pandora and Spotify in the US, for example, and want to go after the customers who are willing to pay to be ad free.
And it isn't like Apple doesn't know about services like Pandora. Remember a few years ago, when basically no one was allowed to develop iOS Apps that ran in the background? Remember who else besides Apple was granted special permission to run in the background on iOS? Pandora.
moving the goalposts???
No, simply trying to compare on equal terms. You can go ad-supported, or you can go subscriber-supported, or you can be ridiculously greedy like the cable companies, and suck down on both; but that's an entirely different thread...
Anyway it's more expensive than either Netflix or Crunchyroll, so I'll pass.
Probably the cheapest they could negotiate with the "record" labels, who seem to have conveniently forgotten the role that broadcast played in their popularity, back when the LABEL payed the BROADCASTER, not the other way around...
As someone once said "Lame."
Yeah, and we all know how that assesment turned out...
No, actually. It appears to have far fewer offerings than Shoutcast at this point. So Apple invented a less broad service with a higher cost. There must be more to this than I got from the conference.
Um, it just got started. Wanna give it a few weeks/months to get some user-feedback?
Does that include the iPad?
Anything that can run iOS 8 can run iOS 9; so iPad 2 and up. Split-Screen-Multitasking restricted to a few newer models (can't remember which ones); but that appears to be the only restriction on iPads.
Yeah, but with APPS!
I have no interest in being connected 24/7, I always own an older model of iPhone (free hand-me-down) which can never run the latest version of iOS, I don't want a smart watch let alone at the price Apple are asking, Metal on OS X is great news but I finally built myself a low-end Windows gaming PC and my music tastes are so far from mainstream that Apple music will probably be 99% useless (I'll check out the three free months to confirm that).
This is the first time in a decade that I feel like I wasted time watching a Keynote.
And yet you wasted even more time to tell us about it.