> I mean, who buys new thermostats every 15 years?
I'll take "Honeywell Customers" for $200.
Oh, and try *reading* the license on their smart ones . . . it basically says "we can do anything we want with your data, and disclose it to whomever we choose, especially if they're going to pay us."
viing for puns, are we?
But don't necessarily write off iOS and "big boy" Applications. Apple now sells (rents) full-blown Logic Pro for iPad. $5/mo or $50/yr. And Projects can Round-Trip to-from macOS Logic Pro.
The very fact that they're able to do that, rather than having to sell the app outright, is prima facie proof of an unhealthy ecosystem with inadequate competition.
I've used Logic on the Mac, but I prefer Digital Performer. Others prefer Cubase. Only one of these three exists in its full form on iOS. The same is true across a wide range of products.
The problem is that there's no advantage to using an iPad over a computer for any of this stuff and a giant pile of huge disadvantages (limited screen size, limited storage, limited connectivity, etc.), so most users don't really want to use these apps on an iPad, so the developers mostly don't bother to port their full apps to iPad. And realistically, I don't see that changing any time soon.
As for the whole "App Store Only" on Mac thing not happening, if Apple thought they could get away with it, I'm pretty sure they would, but they couldn't, so they won't. They would have to go back in time and build the platform that way back in 1984, so that people wouldn't have thousands of dollars in software that can't be readily shoehorned into that distribution model.
But the App-Store-only model definitely holds back the iOS platform. If you could run actual Mac apps on iOS, all of those limitations would go away, and the iPad would be a viable second computer for a lot of people while traveling, and could replace the computer for a much larger percentage of people than it currently can. And the fact that Apple still hasn't recognized this and opened up the iOS platform is what makes me so certain that if Apple could somehow make Mac users stomach the idea of not allowing direct distribution, they would. Fortunately for everyone, there's zero chance of their users accepting it.
We just have to hope they are willing to invest, and to fire the current show runners
Fixed that for you.
Also, on a more serious note, I know it runs counter to modern day TV, but I would argue the very last thing Trek needs to be is a franchise. TNG was novel because it was all that was on the air at the time. By the time they got to ENT the franchise was burned out and ratings reflected it. I have a lot of issues with NuTrek, but I do really enjoy SNW, can find redeeming things about DSC, but if they try to make it into the Trek version of the Marvel Universe or copy what Disney has done with Star Wars they're going to burn it the fuck out.
Greenshot can be launched via PrtScn too....
Apple or Amazon would also be decent homes for Paramount, IMO, for the same reason as Netflix.
Sony, IMO, is already way too big in the content industry. Antitrust regulators should absolutely step in and block any consolidation like this.
The ipad works great with printers. I know its very confusing, but any wireless printer works pretty well with cloud printing. It detects the printer automatically and can print to it if its on the same network. It works better than any windows or linux based device does with HP's own drivers.
Wireless printers with AirPrint are to printers as Ford Fiestas are to cars. Let me know when it natively supports sending PostScript (including duplexing options, paper tray routing options, paper thickness options, etc.) to my large-format Konica Minolta color laser without having to run an AirPrint server on my Mac and without everything being scaled down to 80% page coverage, and then I'll start to take iOS printing seriously.
The iPad is for people who need a computer, not a phone, but don't need any of the accessories of a computer (Eg no printers, computer mice, keyboards, cameras, storage, etc)
The iPad is for people who need an office suite and/or a web browser — the same sorts of people for whom a Chromebook would be effective. It is way too limited to be a good general-purpose computer replacement, and will continue to be way too limited until you can either run macOS or Windows on it (whether directly or in a virtualization environment).
Tablets are great as web browsers or for consuming video content. They're downright miserable for everything else. It's all about the apps, and even now, 14 years after the iPad came out, the rich app ecosystem still just isn't there.
MacBooks aren't moving toward being iPads; iPads are moving toward being "Lite" MacBooks.
The firmware and middleware was created on the ipad, then made its way to macos. Not the other way around.
Having said that, I do wish I could just load macOS onto an iPad Pro
Apple really wouldn't like that. In fact, during litigation in recent years they've only ever made a case for why they believe it should be exactly the opposite. Right now they're working to convince you that you don't need to install unapproved applications on your mac. When, not if, they succeed in that, there won't be a macos.
And all of the Mac users will switch to Windows. Right now, at least the Mac is useful. iOS is a toy that can only replace about 1% of what I use my laptop for, because approximately none of the software I have to use exists on iOS. There's no Finale, no KiCad, no OpenSCAD, no Snapmaker Luban, no Xcode, etc. A large percentage of the apps I run are licensed under licenses that are incompatible with Apple's App Store, and most of the others are unlikely to get ported to UIKit ever.
Well, one of them broadcasts his crimes pretty publicly, via social media, and the other wrote a book about it....
I want to see this work for a criminal in court.
It would if they had money. See: Simpson, Orenthal James and Trump, Donald John.
Disagree. My iPad fills two niches: I read on it, a lot, both eBooks and general web browsing. I could do these things on my significantly smaller iPhone but that hurts both my eyes and wrists after a while. The other niche, streaming video, on the road and at home when away from the TV (e.g., in bed, out on the porch, etc.) Streaming video isn't as fun on an iPad as it is on a large 4K television but I can't take the 4K TV with me on a flight or intercity rail ride, and while the iPhone could do this, the iPad is the perfect balance between screen size and portability.
Another minor niche, video calls with friends. I tend to prefer an actual laptop for this use case but if it's unavailable or I'm too lazy to go get it, the iPad is better than the phone.
I'll confess I don't understand the folks using iPads as a laptop replacement. I get illustrators who use them, I have a contingent of those at work I support, but the road warriors I see in airports using iPad Pros as a laptop replacement, uhh, why?! It's just as large as a real laptop -- hell, some of the extreme iPads are LARGER -- and a lot less flexible.
Yes but the argument that all those measures add cost and weight is still valid.
Not enough weight to meaningfully affect range, though. A few extra ounces is margin-of-error stuff when the car weighs two tons.
Whether it is phase cancellation (which would require a redesign, still have lots of noise harmonics and consume more power) or shielding.
Sure. Anything you do will consume more power. But a more complicated radio circuit with a differential amplifier that probably draws just milliwatts more power would once again be completely lost in the noise when compared with a self-driving computer that consumes two or three hundred watts continuously, and adding a couple more loop antennas right next to the drive motors would likely add just ounces to the vehicle's weight.
The point is that this doesn't necessarily have to involve some thick metal shield that adds a hundred pounds, and nobody is going to complain because the vehicle's maximum range drops by ten or fifteen feet.
Moving the antenna isnâ(TM)t an option since the motors are in each corner of the car for most EV.
No, they're actually in the middle underneath the car, typically. EVs almost always have two electric drive motors, not four. (CyberTruck has an option for three motors.) With antennas on top, that's a heck of a lot of metal between you and the noise source.
Case in point, the snapshot program. I need it whenever I find something worth reporting and need to do a screenshot. What's its name?
Are you really using the program you can launch with a single keypress (PrtScn) as an example of why the UI is terrible?
They can try but I can tell you as a consumer the deletion of CarPlay/Android Auto would be a deal breaker for me. I suspect many people feel the same way. Very few people are interested in Yet Another Subscription that duplicates functionality they already have.
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.
