All things Apple0 posts
All things Apple0 posts
facebook’s main issue is that they want the site to be something else than what people use it for.
People used it mainly to connect with others and get updates on what everyone is doing.
I liked it when one could just choose for a post someone wrote to hide it and then it also offered the choices to generally show less from this person or nothing from this person.
But then they changed it so now facebook’s “clever” algorithm decides completely which posts by whom who sees.
So that, unless i click a person, i can in many cases miss their posts despite i actually maybe wanted to see all posts from that person. In return i see many posts by others where i’d rather see less by them (but not to the degree of wanting to kick them out fully).
So yeah, one of the main reasons why i use it less than in the past and i’m sure the same is the case for many others, too.
The other main issue is of course that meanwhile its clear that all data going to companies with servers in the US goes to some organisations whome i did not add to my friends list. So yeah..
Isn’t it kinda very important that the Samsung Exec said this about the iPhone 5 BEFORE it was even shown?
Its like any company would say “we know the competition could release something good this year, let’s prepare and have something good ready ourselves”
To me personally the iPhone 5 was one of the most boring iPhone upgrades ever and hence the first iPhone i have not bought since the very first iPhone, had all of them in between up to then.
The patent and trademark system is ridiculous in general, if something like that were in place when many of the first early big inventions of mankind came up, we’d not have most industries we have now cause most competition and innovation would be held back by companies constantly suing each other over patent and trademark cases.
If you have a good idea and others copy it and sell it better, well, tough luck buddy, but that’s reality, you based your thing on millions of other things that came before, too, so deal with it. Make it more affordable or even better. Next time try harder.
I’m not saying Samsung or others don’t copy Apple, of course they do. But just as much if not more does Apple copy the others, and in the last few years in more and more obvious ways.
Jobs said smaller tablets than the iPad and larger phones than the iPhone don’t work well and are not a good idea,
then contender “phablets” and small tablets do well, what does Apple do? Of course release a smaller tablet and a larger phone. So what, of course they should.
Apple’s notification and multitasking features are crap sauce, the competition has better implementations, Apple makes a quasi 1:1 copy of those.
One could go on and on.
Pretty much everyones work is based on what came before to certain degree and it has to be that way, else there can’t be evolutionary progress.
What, should now everyone make random shaped phones cause Apple was the first to make one in certain form factor? Or should Apple be forbidden to also sell a small tablet cause others did it before them?
And even more ridiculous than hardware patents are software patents.
As someone programming i can tell you everything can be implemented in a huge number of ways on codeside and unless someone stole your actual code, he should be allowed to do something similar if he came up with some own code implementation.
Sadly as it is, if i’d release something which makes a big wave, with the patent and trademark laws being what they are, i’d have to patent everything just to be sure i can at least counter sue when someone else sues me.
To me any company suing another for such things in attacking manner is weak and it totally turns me off from Apple that they constantly do this kind of thing. It shows me: they have so few really good really new things to add that they are super scared someone else may grab away some of their success they have by selling their old stuff over and over.
So yeah..Lamer move, Apple, what about thinking different?
We sorta talk about different things there on some points =)
I haven’t said Apple’s hardware and software issues make their products unusable (i use several iOS devices myself every day), i just listed a few examples for cases where Apple didn’t get things right the first time and like any other company it then had to change or refine those over one or several more iterations.
So that happens for all of them.
Of course a future generation of the galaxy fit may have let’s say even smaller bezels and hence be able to fit in more text when looked at it in portrait view.
That doesn’t mean the current one is rushed to market, it just means that’s the state of the tech right now where that’s the limit they had.
Otherwise, if you say its rushed to market just due to that, then well, any device is always rushed to market, cause there’s always better hardware coming up later.
Its not just rushed to market just cause some company makes several devices in the years of rumors of Apple making one in a category.
I get it that it would be totally valid to say the first galaxy gear was rushed to market, as its pretty obvious they were working on a better iteration which was ready to ship just a few months later.
But the gear fit seems a lot more refined and more in the vein of what i expect the best of the crop of the smartwatches/fitness bands of the next few months to reach at at best.
Will there be a better version in 6-12 months? Very likely. But then that’s the case for most other devices, always =)
I agree that a big reason for more people using computing devices and other gadgets is largely that it got easier to use.
Thing is: yes, compared to a usual put together phone its harder to put this together. But compared to putting a desktop computer together, this seems a lot more simplified. So it does actually simplify a process there for those who maybe would like to have some parts exchanged but couldn’t do so before.
And i know for a fact that actually many people want to have some parts of their smartphones swapped, if not for another reason then for the simple reason cause they broke a part in a way which is not covered by warranty, like putting it into water or cracking the screen or using the home button so often it becomes unresponsive or similar =)
If then only 1-2 replaceable parts are broken and one could replace those easier oneself than let’s say for an iPhone where such things are way more tricky since not as modular swappable, yeah, i think a good number of people would do that.
Just have a look at how many phone repair shops there are, there is some market there =)
And that’s just speaking about repairs/broken part replacements, the possible audience is way larger if one would also consider the millions of tech enthusiasts who buy a new phone every year despite their old one would likely work for another 3-4.
How frictionless the process of putting the phone together would end up being depends a lot on their implementation of course.
It sound slike they want to make something like the moto maker site where one can just click together which parts one wants to have. Maybe its then even delivered with those parts already put together, dunno.
I think actually lots and lots of millions of people would love to have something like the moto maker customizer and even an extended version which allows to choose the hardware internal parts, too.
The reason why that moto maker site has not taken off way bigger is because they a) only offered it for one phone b) have not promoted it well c) in most countries it rolled out way later if at all.
I know lots of people who love the phone with the back but just didn’t want to get that particular phone for it or loved the maker but couldn’t actually use it in their country.
If they get such things worked out better this time, yeah, there’s potential there.
Regarding the money making side and focus of companies:
I don’t think Google is not interested in making money at all. If they do a project and it doesn’t take off after a while, then they in many cases scrap it if they see no potential for it in the future.
Where i see the main difference between Google and Apple is thatGoogle actually tries out way more things in public to see if it takes off, give it a chance cause its cool.
Whereas Apple in the last few years has been very conservative (their last 4 phones largely even look the same at first glance for example) and they are focussed on releasing few things and maximising the profit of each to the max.
So yeah, Apple is focussed more on maximising profit per device, that doesn’t mean Google would not be interested to make this a success at all just cause its not their main focus to make as much profit per device as possible, they surely think it can be successful in other way, like by just selling more parts or some other way.
I think many consumers actually don’t feel like their phone is in whole form as they want it =)
One can see that from many indicators, like the huge variety of phones bought (so many seem to want something different), or all the cases, connectors and other accessories people buy for their phones.
Or an even not tiny group of people even having multiple devices for different use cases or getting new devices every 1-2 years.
Just as example: I like the iPhone 5S as device, but i would like it way more if it had a bigger screen and a larger battery. I’d also like it more if it had more RAM since for some apps its actually not that great and especially with iOS 7+ it got way more crash prone when using memory intensive things.
With Apple there’s no other way than hoping they add those things in the next device and buying a whole new device then.
And while at it, it has a pretty ok cam for a smartphone, but no highest lumia level one.
On the other side i don’t want to have a lumia since i don’t like windows phone OS that much in its current form.
So why not add a better camera module when i want to do some photography that day?
Now with the iPhone, those things are likely never going to happen, but with an android platform device where many manufacturers could make parts, i can see that actually working out.
And since the app store is also less regulated with Android, basically any third party dev/software/hardware maker could make their own custom module and even put an app into the store to use it.
With my Android devices there is already a larger selection in hardware setups than with iOS devices now, but even there, i get something like the HTC one and don’t like the position of the power button or the lack of a physical home button or that the casing looks nice but is slippery and hence not ideal to hold. I’d like it a lot if i could use a different skeleton where those things are addressed.
And if instead then buying another new phone for a speed bump, i could swap the gpu or cpu block (or use a different skeleton with just that on it and keep using the other parts onwards), that’d be sweet.
Regarding what other average joes would or wouldn’t buy or in which quantities, hard to tell upfront of course, but i can at least see lots of tech enthusiasts having interest in something like this and if its actually cool, then usually they also get a good chunk of their friends and family into it.
Interesting point regarding what the warranty of this thing or the parts would be, i’d guess it could vary by manufacturer of modules.
In either case, so far all smartphones which broke for me, all besides one broke cause they got wet (one case) or fell down and the screen broke (several cases). Neither of those cases was covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
The one case where i got a phone replaced for totally free was when an iPhone 3GS stopped working by itself after a week of purchase with what looked like a gpu failure. I guess for these types of manufacturing side error there would be a warranty for these modular devices, too.
If you break it while let’s say doodling around with your custom made module and short circuting something, well, tough luck i guess =)
One can’t tell if this will take off big time or be a thing for gadget geeks alone.
But your pessimism feels a bit overblown to me in either case =)
First: PCs which were customisable were used by lots of people, for a long time. Yes, then smaller form factor devices were used by more and more people, but that doesn’t mean noone enjoys being able to put in a different part or at least have the selection in purchase moment which parts should go into his machine.
Its just that the more the market moved towards smaller form factors, the less there were offerings which still allowed to tinker with the parts in halfway easy way.
So this is actually the first time in ages one could get such small factor computing devices with such high modularity and at that also easy to use modularity.
Then there’s also the side, that a smartphone or tablet is automatically a much more personal device than a traditional computer. One has it with one all the time and its actually fascinating how varied the use cases are. So due to those points already i can see how some people who like photography more could put in a bigger/better cam module while someone playing more or having other preferences could want to put in other parts.
To me how much it reaches the potential depends a lot on the variety and quality of the moduls put out, but yeah, i can totally see lots of people interested in tech getting something like this, and then also lots of their relatives getting something like this thanks to their more tech aware partners/friends etc.
I’ from the generation who got a computer at home when that was purely a geek thing, got internet at home when that was a niche thing, got a first mobile phone when that was looked at as weird for a teenager. A few years later, those “non geeks” all had those things, too.
I don’t think this will become mega huge as in every ordinary joe and jane on the street walking around with such a thing, but yeah, there’s totally the potential of at least a few million per country getting one if this is well done.
11 days ago on Here are some of the crazy phones you can build with Google's Project Ara 2 replies 2 recommends
I like some parts in many phones but not all parts in any phone, there’s always something wrong about it, so i look forward to this quite a bit, being able to pick and choose which parts should go in there.
I hope they get a good variety of modules going.
I would probably still buy a traditional smartphone, too once in a while, but if this is well done and takes off, as in there being many parts available, i can totally see myself getting a bunch of parts and play around with different combinations.
I’d really like it to put a super high end but in return larger camera module in when i know i go somewhere where i’d like to take many pictures or video for example.
Or if i want to play an intense game, i could put in the most powerful but in return most energy draining gpu module (or use the fitting skeleton if its onboard)
Or if Google then adds that tango module as option, that would be neat, too =)
Sorry, your argument makes no sense at all.
It would make sense if Apple always made perfect devices with perfect software at their first try for each hardware/software product.
But of course, just like everyone else, in some cases even more so, Apple does in fact quite often release stuff which requires many more iterations to get halfway right.
Even if one excludes the devices themselves cause yeah, usual yearly speed bumps and all (though even there one could list things like antenna gate or the iPad 3 which had a too weaksauce chipset to handle the retina res nicely so that then apps ran better on the iPad 2..), just to name some examples on software side:
-iCloud: buggy and not 100% reliable to this day, after many years and many iterations (and before that there was their even worse older cloud service)
-iOS 7.0 which made even the latest devices crash a lot, it only got better with 7.1
-pretty much every iOS version released making the oldest “supported” devices run worse and more crash prone after installing it thanks to the OS requiring more and more RAM and the old devices just not having that
one could go on for a LONG while, but i guess you get what i mean.
On your “Android copied iOS” point: there are many examples for Apple copying others with OS features quite a lot, too, especially in the last few versions it feels like they happily picked some stuff from WebOS, some from Windows Phone and some from Android to copy.
Why are some complaining cause they don’t like it? It still allows to show it with the other orientation, too, so what’s your issue with others being able to turn it to another orientation they like more?
Other comments are funny in how they complain it took Samsung a while to realize it would be good to add support for the second orientation, too or that that would somehow show Samsung releases stuff first and thinks about em afterwards.
If you would bring up the galaxy gear as example, that would be perfectly fitting.
But with the gear fit a) it has not been released yet, so they actually improve it before release and b)
in either case its something all companies do. How many iterations did it take for Apple to get basic things like copy and paste into iOS?
Now i’m not posting this to argue for Samsung in general, as i noted, i think it was a bad idea/move of them to release the first galaxy gear at all in that form and yeah, they do enough other wonky things on other ends.
But yeah, sometimes gotta wonder about some commenters.
Can’t you just take this thing for what it is?
Which is like the most promising fitness/smart watch thing so far.
Of course it will be improved over several more iterations, like sure, in another iteration or two it’ll probably have super thin bezels so way more content can be shown in both screen orientations.
Or it’ll get longer battery life or whatever.
Still, dunno why all the hatred.
Dunno if i’ll buy this thing, since dunno if i have a need/use for a smartwatch at all, but i like the curved screen and that’s a cool innovation i like and this and the recently shown google/motorola smartwatches are clearly the most innovative and most promising smartwatch pushes so far.
Maybe Apple makes something cool there, too, who knows, but i just don’t get how some people can get so rallied up about something like support for another screen orientation or the point that its added shortly before the device comes out.
13 days ago on Samsung might have fixed the Gear Fit's biggest problem 1 reply 5 recommends
Now what should also happen is that ISPs are not just not allowed to charge for not degrading the connection quality but should also get enforced to not charge more for enhancing the connection quality.
Really, most of the lines are build at least partially subsidised by the citizens, next to that internet access should be regarded as basic human right, due to that no ISP and Carrier should have control over the access.
I’m not for governments controlling everything (rather the opposite for most topics), but there’s clearly something wrong when a few ISPs and carriers control the access for everyone.
Actually a lot of it is up to MS.
They could at least add the support for these things on their end, OS end and in their apps.
Windows also already has a global zoom feature working on the desktop, why don’t they make at least that one also work with pinch to zoom gestures?
And why does n input textfield i press on the desktop not automatically bring up the onscreen keyboard when no hardware keyboard is connected or one pressed it via touch? Such things should be interceptable by MS so they can overlay the onscreen keyboard then.
good. now they should also make the start menu resizeable so one can have it at the dimensions one wants.
Then add proper touch functionality to the desktop side like these:
-pinch to zoom works in all menus/apps/desktop
-pressing an input textfield with the finger, or even with the mouse button when no keyboard is connected, brings up the onscreen keyboard
-there’s a toggle in the bottom right on the desktop which allows to change control hit areas/dimensions between touch and mouse dimensions, one can also set it to auto switch between them based on using a mouse or finger in that moment.
A few more improvements like these and it would actually become a really good touch+mouse OS
24 days ago
Yeah, i go for believing/hoping for a positive outcome until the opposite is proven, hence why i have not cancelled my DK2 order yet =)
I hope they handle it as well as possible and great things will happen.
Let’s see how it goes =)
Why is there an article about some people asking about a revenue share while in reality most people have a different issue regarding the FB aquisition and that one is at least morally a much more understandable one:
Lots of people don’t expect a revenue share on a kickstarter “investment” (cause that would be ridiculous to expect) but do expect that what was presented as product, company and vision is halfway fulfilled or attempted to be fulfilled.
In case of Oculus many backed that because they thought there is a company which does nothing else than VR, where by necessity alone it is already their main if not only goal to make VR as great as possible since else they go down and they are not owned by some other giant company which has other main motives , treats the thing as side hobby or binds it exclusively to some platform.
So all those promises feel like at least a lot less secured now if not completely eradicated.
And yes, it would make sense to write an article about this issue, not some guys asking for a financial revenue share where it is very obvious upfront that this backing platform does not give that to you.
Besides that, regarding the aquisition by FB itself, i feel like things could go either way now for Oculus, the FB investment could sure help em to get better hardware parts and if FB andles it well and at most offers an optional sdk devs can use to add optional FB connect features to their apps, that would be ok.
As soon as people would get the feeling FB features or control or overseeing is forced down their throats though, yeah, no good, so both FB and Oculus better watch out a lot regarding that.
24 days ago on If you back a Kickstarter project that sells for $2 billion, do you deserve to get rich? 2 replies 4 recommends
He has a point regarding google glass, but his comparison with segway is wrong.
At least the point he brings up against segway is wrong.
The reasons Segway did not catch on way more were not at all that one would look stupid when driving around with one, since yeah, it does not look particularly bad when one can drive around like that, especially when actually having seen one with the larger offroad wheels with which one can go faster and also do jumps and climb steeper hills, that is actually impressive to see.
The main reasons why the segway did not take off in big way were a) they were way out of the price range for average people regarding what they can/want to pay for something that basically can only transport them to short distance places, if they would cost less than 1k things would have looked a lot different on the streets nowadays.
and b) In many countries using a segway was heavily restricted by law to the degree where pretty much any use case most people would like to use them for is either completely forbidden or one needs extra cost and nerve factors for em like an own license plate or driver’s license etc.
Its basically too fast and motorized to be treated like a bike but not fast and motorized enough to be treated like a full proper road vehicle one can use on all car streets in most countries.
So yeah, its weird he compares it with segway, brings up the nonsense factor that segway’s main fail reason was not looking good on it, while in reality it can look pretty snazzy to drive around with one, especially the offroad version and yeah, more importantly there were other issues for the segway not taking off bigtime which were way more important there.
The reason i bring that up is because yeah, he could have compared it regarding those other actually valid points.
Google glass is just like the segway very expensive (too expensive for what most average joes would pay for something like that) and just like segway there are already pushes for restricting its usage more and more in several countries.
So yeah, its nonsense he compares it with that just cause he personally thinks the look was the reason for that other thing not taking off in big way, just false in that case.
Google Glass on the other hand, yeah, that has other issues, too like people not liking it when a cam is pointed at them nonstop, even if it is not recording that moment, but with Google Glass its also very obvious than one of the major faults is that it is way too ginormous and there’s no argument about whether one looks weird with it, one obviously does. I’m doing design, too but one does not have to be a designer to see that =)
If they could integrate it into the frame and usual glasses in a way where it was really totally not sticking out, sure, a lot more people could be interested in getting one.
Google glass is exciting as experimental device showing in which direction some things could go, but if they want it to have any mass market chances at all, they
1) would have to sell the end user version for ideally less than 300
2) release a version without camera which is also clearly identifiable as being different than the version with camera (different frame color or style or logo on the side of the frame or something), at least for the first few years that option would be a lot less problematic for most people
3) make the battery last way longer and the resolution be way higher for the cam version
4) most important in case of glass: make it integrated into the frame and usual glasses to the degree where it does not stick out at all anymore.
We'll email you a reset link.
If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.
Choose an available username to complete sign up.