65% of the London Underground is above the ground and we're not plagued by people trying to have obxiously loud calls - mainly because the trains are so noisy it's almost impossible to hear what is going on.
Whilst you might get a few people who try to make a call, the majority of people will use their phone (just like they do today) for mobile data.
According to Apple, the M1 is the right CPU for a $699 computer, and a $999 computer, and a $1,699 computer. It’s the right chip if you want maximum battery life and the right CPU for optimal performance
Apple’s willingness to position the M1 across so many markets challenges the narrative that such a vast array of x86 products is helpful or necessary. It puts Intel and AMD in the position of justifying why, exactly, x86 customers are required to make so many tradeoffs between high performance and low power consumption.
I'm sure Slashdot readers like the idea of comparing and buying CPUs based on specifications. However I do suspect that, for 95% of customers, the idea that you don't need to worry about the CPU specification (because you get the best possible at that time, irrespective of the price you paid) will be less daunting and very appealing.
I always assumed that part of the reason for having a "silly" name was that it made it slightly easier to find a domain name that isn't owned by some squatter who is demanding silly money for it.
I keep trying Waze but, here in the UK at least, it has a very annoying habit of redirecting you off a fast flowing 4 lane motorway onto a winding unlit single lane road if it thinks it can shave 2 minutes off your 3 hour drive.
It might just be me but, frankly, I'd rather stick on the easy well-lit main road for the minimal extra time.
Take a file of some music you made. Don't violate any copyrights of course, because that would be wrong, but start with a
.wav or .mp3 file of music you wrote and recorded. Now put that file on your iOS device. Try to stream it to your Sonos speaker via Bluetooth or wifi.
Ignoring the fact that "not supporting DRM-free music" and "not supporting my preferred streaming protocol" are two completely different arguments, you forgot about AirPlay.
In 2008, Sonos did support DRM-free music. In 2015? Not so much.
Nonsense, they still supported playing DRM-free music in 2015 too.
Today they support a raft of DRM-free formats including MP3, MP4, AAC, OGG, FLAC and even WAV.
I guess a lot depends on whether or not you have a Sonos speaker that Sonos has stopped supporting with "updates".
You guess incorrectly. Speakers that don't receive software updates still continue to work and play all the music formats they previously supported. They didn't just stop functioning overnight.
Did you hear what I just said?
Yes, you're completely clueless about Sonos speakers.
The old Sonos solution worked well with CDs. Rip them to a NAS. The Sonos would play them. No ads, no streaming over the internet, no recurring payments.
The current Sonos solution still works well with CDs and a NAS. We've got a decent selection of ripped music on a Synology NAS and it'll happily play that content on the Play:Ones we have dotted around the house with no ads, no streaming over the internet and no recurring payments.
I mean, they can't make up rules about it. they have to refund canceled or postponed shows at least in most of the world.
This is the company that offers you the option to print your own tickets at your own cost (thereby saving them printing and distribution fees)
If anyone can try to make up rules about refunds, I'm pretty sure Ticketmaster will have a good go.
...on the same network as their new speakers?
There is currently only one network. All speakers work on that single network. New speakers still work on the same network.
As I understand, and I am not a Sonos owner, the old and new speakers can co-exist, but not integrate into one seamless system.
Sort-of. They can still integrate into one seamless system but, in order to do so, the user must accept that they can never ever receive software updates for all of their other speakers ever again.
If the user wants to update the software for their other speakers (which could be to fix a bug or patch a security issue), then those legacy speakers must be moved onto a separate network where they can only be grouped/paired with other speakers in that same network. There is a rumour that you might even need to use a different mobile app to control them - although that just sounds bonkers to me.
The introduction of the new speakers in no way reduced the functionality of the old speakers.
This is technically true, but the selling point of Sonos was that it was a whole home audio solution that could be built up over time. In addition, the introduction of additional newer speakers to your home (which is what Sonos want to you to do) causes the user to have to decide which trade-off they want to have.
My point is that this is a needlessly complicated solution. A much simpler way would have been for Sonos to say "In May 2020, some speakers will no longer receive updates. You can continue to use them in your network to listen to music but they won't be able to take advantage of any newer features we introduce after then". This is precisely how they work today with things such as AirPlay - if your device doesn't support it, it falls back to being a basic wireless speaker.
This link provides a bit more details.
I'm arguing that if Sonos decides to no longer provide software updates (which isn't an unreasonable position) then I would like it if they at least allow the speakers to continue to sit on the same network - even if they only act as a basic wireless speaker.
This capability exists right now today (so it's not asking for much), but they are making it needlessly complex by introducing this incompatible legacy network.
Your really old gear will still work, it just won't get upgrades (after 10+ years of age).
It'll work but it needs to be moved onto a separate network which doesn't interact with the original network. You won't be able to pair or group devices which sit across different networks. The day before this change comes in you'll have whole home audio, the day after you'll have to chose between half-home audio or no longer having software updates for any of your devices*
This is another Sonos story which has been really badly reported on because most of the writers don't have a clue as to what the underlying problem is.
Essentially it's around Sonos' insistence that every device in the network runs the same firmware version. If they want to stop providing updates to some devices (which, itself, isn't unreasonable) then their self-imposed restriction means that all the other devices on the same network cannot be upgraded.
Rather than fix the underlying problem (allow mixed firmware versions on the same network - so that legacy devices can stop receiving firmware updates but at least be paired/grouped as they do today) Sonos have decided to push the old speakers onto a different network so they can continue to maintain their "same firmware version" restriction.
I hope they change their mind, but it doesn't look like that'll happen.
* Imagine the uproar if Apple decided that your old iPhone 6 could no longer be used with your new iPad Pro unless you agreed to never receive any further software updates for the iPad.
Most of the reporting I've seen on this has been inaccurate and most of the commentary has been of the "have cake and eat it" variety. Even the linked article gets it wrong in the first paragraph.
Sonos have never prevented you from giving or selling your old devices - provided you weren't trying to game the trade-in scheme.
The problem ultimately boils down to Sonos trying to run a recycling programme without incurring the costs of a recycling programme. They needed to come up with a way to ensure that people who voluntarily (key word here: voluntarily) claimed the 30% discount (and received it upfront) would actually go ahead with their commitment to recycle the device.
This lead to two things, (1) people being lazy and dumping them in landfill and (2) people trying to game the system by claiming the discount and then trying to quickly sell the devices before they stopped working.
At the end of the day, the lesson is that if you're going to run a recycling programme then you need to do it properly and incur the costs of doing it. Trying to do it on the cheap doesn't work.
Most of the reporting I've seen tends to completely gloss over the voluntary nature of the programme (if you think you can get more money for selling it, then go right ahead) and most of the commentary consists of people complaining that they cannot have their cake (the 30% discount) and eat it (the ability to re-sell the old one).
Search for anything in the URL field and you'll get the Google results for it with the URL field just displaying your search criteria
Even if you tap on the field, you'll only be able to edit your search criteria. The only way to get the actual URL is to use the share sheet
I'll be honest, it's not bothered me to date - although I appreciate that it might do for other people.
Not free. Free trial.
You play then for two months (to build hype), then they take them back.
Worth noting that, should you try them and find that you like them, you can purchase the entire Half-Life 1 collection for about £5 (probably around $7).
Seems like a pretty reasonable trial period - with a decent price if you decide that you want to take the plunge.
Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.
