Dropbox, at least, can do LAN syncing between devices. Of course, I didn't read the article, so I have no clue if they had it enabled on the computers so that it could be used, but based on the results, I'd doubt they did.
I tried it back when it was called Mailbox. I stopped using it because it didn't work with anything other than Gmail, and I was migrating away from Gmail to FastMail (they've since added support for Yahoo!, but still no general IMAP support, which is what I'm eagerly waiting for).
Granted, I won't be using this feature either, since, as I just said, I migrated away from Gmail, but the fact is, I've already seen it implemented better elsewhere. The one shown in the videos wasn't nearly as understandable or pleasant to view as the competing products.
What does cancelling Netflix have to do with this? They used Netflix as an example, yes, but Netflix doesn't use Flash on any platform (it uses either Silverlight or HTML5), and no one has said anything about them setting third-party cookies either in the browser, on the set-top boxes, or while using gaming consoles. It seems to me that they just used Netflix as an example of the sort of stuff they'd like to handle, but the article had no specifics about Netflix itself actually being involved in any of this.
The Chevrolet Suburban was quite possibly the first SUV, and do you know how they built it way back in the 1930s when it first came out? With a "stationwagon body on a truck frame", just like what you're describing. It was built that way for reasons entirely unrelated to what you're describing here.
The reasons SUVs became popular in the '90s and 2000s is because the big three American manufacturers were, for various reasons, no longer competitive with the Asian manufacturers in the small cars market. Because the margins were either negligible or negative for small cars, they decided to refocus their efforts elsewhere, and SUVs made a good deal of sense, since their margins there were significantly higher.
Also, you're rewriting history a bit. Sociologists actually study the whole SUV phenomenon, since Americans largely didn't want big cars before SUVs became popular. A huge amount of marketing went into convincing people that these bigger cars were more protective than the smaller Asian cars, gave you a better view of the road, and were generally just safer to drive, leading to a massive change in the public's perception of large cars. It may be hard to remember now, but when SUVs were first getting pushed on consumers in the '90s, they were perceived for quite awhile as being utterly ridiculous. It took a few years (and the realization that they were a "cooler" alternative to the minivan) before they were widely accepted or even viewed as being desirable.
Quick self-correction: I was bothered by my own lack of specificity regarding the use of Helvetica and its variants in iOS, so I just looked it up and found out I was slightly off. Helvetica was used in iOS 1-3, Helvetica Neue was used in 4-6, and Helvetica Neue Ultra Light has been used since iOS 7. I apologize for the incorrect statements earlier.
All this announcement means is that Apple has finally decided to pay whomever has the copyright on Helvetica for the rights to use it as their default system font.
You managed to pack a lot of factual inaccuracy into such a small package.
Geneva—the font you linked—was never used as Mac OS' default font, was not a rip-off of Helvetica (though it originally shared the same classification as Helvetica), and never had its metrics in common with Helvetica (unlike Arial, which does). The Geneva Wikipedia article linked to a great PDF file as source material on the subject, and you should definitely take some time to read through it, since it's a fascinating read. But, to make a long story short, the differences back then were still apparent enough that even a layperson could have easily told the two apart. Suggesting the one was a rip-off of the other is patently untrue.
With the introduction of TrueType to Macs in 1991, Helvetica itself was licensed for inclusion on all Macs, so Geneva's design was moved away from what little resemblance it did have to Helvetica such that it could fill a different void. During that entire time (all the way through '97, in fact), the actual typeface used by the Mac OS was Chicago, not Geneva, though the two do share the same creator (who also designed many of the iconic Apple icons from the early days). That's about all they share though, since they look nothing alike.
Moreover, your assertion that Apple only just now licensed the rights to use it for a system font are also wrong, since Helvetica was used as iOS' system font at least as far back iOS 2 or iOS 3 (possibly from the very beginning, though I haven't managed to verify that), before being switched to Helvetica Neue with iOS 7. Apple's move to bring Helvetica Neue to OS X now seems to be in line with maintaining a consistent design across their platforms, and has nothing to do with only just now securing the rights to the fonts after having ripped them off for decades, as you claimed.
Frankly, I find it absurd that you're seriously trying to assert that a company with over $100B in the bank and a strong presence in the design industry has been too stingy to pay for the rights to Helvetica this entire time.
Apple products are designed using focus groups
They've testified under oath to the contrary during some of the recent patent litigation. Your whole comment is predicated on an untruth.
I imagine Beats/Apple isn't too happy with Bose's shenanigans regarding telling NFL players they can't wear their Beats headphones until 90 minutes after the end of the game.
I just wish they'd compete on audio fidelity instead of who can be more petty, since that's one thing that both of those brands are sorely lacking.
Yup. I like Apple, but even I consider "perfectly timed" to be a case of revisionist history.
The rest of the summary falls apart under scrutiny too. Microsoft can do the Surface Pro 3 because it has a common OS across both platforms. Apple does not. In fact, despite some recent iOS-ification of OS X moves, Apple has always publicly stated that they think the two should remain separate, and with Yosemite they've made it ABUNDANTLY clear to anyone paying attention that they really do view them as two separate classes of devices intended for two entirely different sets of tasks and that each class should have an OS that fits it. Yosemite is one giant, "Now that we've finally decided we're not turning OS X into iOS, we need to give OS X users more control and then make the two OSes work well with each other" step.
In looking through the features that it shares with iOS (e.g. iCloud, Extensions, flat UI appearance, etc.), the one trend I keep seeing repeated is that Yosemite was allowed to diverge from iOS in a number of ways that make it more powerful (e.g. able to directly manipulate files in iCloud Drive, more varied types of Extensions allowed, more ability to customize the UI's appearance now than anytime in recent history), rather than being constrained to only do as much as iOS, which had been the somewhat worrying trend of the last few years. And then they've added methods for helping the two OSes to hand off work between each other or pass files back and forth more easily, allowing users to work on whichever system they feel best fits the task they're working on.
If Apple wanted to unify their devices on one OS in the very near future, Yosemite is pretty much the exact opposite of the OS you'd release.
Touch ID is only worth $25. The other $75 is a surcharge on all iPad mini 3 users for demanding that gold be added as one of the color options.
Someone else put together a handy picture highlighting a number of the errors present in just the description of the product:
Some of them seem to be worth a laugh.
Back in 2004 or 2005, I recall some friends whose son was over in Iraq saying that their son had told them he had been with a team that discovered Iraqi chemical weapons and that he saw them with his own eyes. His parents insisted that it was just a matter of time before it hit the news in a big way.
And then nothing.
I don't know what to think at this point. I guess it's a sad state we're in, since I can honestly say that neither the notion that we used them as a pretext for war, nor the notion that we covered up their presence in order to save face for some other reason, strike me as being particularly fanciful.
10.5 ran on Intel. Making Classic run, but only if you were using PPC hardware, was not an option, due to the large amount of kernel and interface changes necessary to support Intel.
Back up for a moment though, and you're recall that 10.4 supported Intel, which I believe would mean that those changes had already been made, wouldn't it? The way you guys avoided having to do a rewrite of Classic was by maintaining separate builds for PPC and Intel Macs during Tiger's run, with the PPC builds featuring Classic support and the Intel builds lacking it. Couldn't that pattern have been carried forward into 10.5, given that PPC hardware was not long for the world anyway? Instead, Apple merged the builds in 10.5 (which only lasted for that one version), which necessitated dropping Classic for the reasons you said.
This would have not only caused new PPC sales to cannibalize Intel sales, it would have also stretched out the support timeline for the PPC another 2 years.
All in all it would have sucked, a lot, from many perspectives.
Absolutely no disagreement from me. While I've been quibbling about the technical stuff, I was doing so to point towards the idea that Apple's primary motivation for dropping Classic support was because it made good business sense, and that any other considerations were secondary. I actually think they made the right decision, and that they did so for exactly the reasons you outlined (even if I was a little put off at the time that I never got the nice 10.5 features on my old PowerBook
If Intel support for Classic was the issue, then why not ditch Classic after 10.5, instead of 10.4? After all, PowerPCs were still supported for 10.5, so Classic could have been kept around without needing to port it to Intel. Post-10.5, PowerPCs were no longer supported, so Classic support could have been dropped at the same time. As it was, I ended up keeping a Hi-Res PowerBook G4 around running 10.4 for years, just so I could play a few of my old games that hadn't been ported to OS X, rather than being able to bump it up to 10.5.
No comment on Rosetta, since I simply enjoyed learning something new and don't disagree with you.
Near as I can tell, you've pointed out an additional difference between Microsoft and Apple, rather than addressing or contradicting anything I was discussing.
Basically, while Apple does indeed slap developers for misusing APIs, as you stated, it also frequently deprecates features and APIs that are working as intended while their customers are still using software that's dependent on those features and APIs, which is what I was pointing out. Both Classic and Rosetta were working as intended and were being used properly by the developers who suddenly discovered that their apps simply no longer worked, which is quite a bit different than the scenarios you're discussing.
I don't know why you started off with "No" as if to contradict me, when the entirety of your post is wholly unrelated to what I was talking about, and something with which I actually agree.