151 posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
It's actually this petty anti-Apple agenda that stopped me reading The Register anywhere near as regularly as I used to.
I'm no Apple fan - I own some kit and find it flawed to broadly the same extent, in different ways, as kit from other manufacturers.
But this relentless campaign of demonising Apple is just so very tedious.
Re: Do Apple want the streaming licenses from Beats?
Possible. I'm glad to say I don't understand that sort of high-finance stuff :)
Do Apple want the streaming licenses from Beats?
From Daring Fireball (he's an Apple shill but he's nevertheless pretty intelligent):
Numerous people are wondering if it’s all about streaming rights from the music labels — i.e. rights that Apple couldn’t get on its own (because the music labels have long resented iTunes’s dominance in digital music downloads), so they’re buying a company that negotiated those rights on their own. The problem with this theory is that those licenses (to my understanding) aren’t transferable in the event of an acquisition. Music label executives may be dumb, but they’re not that dumb.
Re: Limited bit rate?
Yep. And since the author talks about what real people can actually hear, I find it odd that he seems to imply that 320kbps MP3/AAC is awful when blind tests have established that most people cannot tell the difference between that and CD.
Missing the obvious
Dear oh dear, 94 comments and not one of you has thought to call her a liar.
Losing your touch, you lot.
Re: "head of software design"
You seem to have fallen into the common trap of thinking that design means only what it looks like. Design is not just what it looks like, it's how it works and how people use it to achieve their goals.
Bass is everything
Unfortunately, to such a lot of people "audio quality" means "how loud is the bass?" Manufacturers know that's where the money is.
Bizarre omission of the Church-Turing Thesis from this article. IMO a far more significant contribution to AI thought than the silly Turing Test
Revenues and profits
Some interesting things about Facebook that are missing from the article and confound the vast majority of snide comments here:
1) Facebook has nearly double the profits of Amazon in 2011
2) Facebook revenue and profit are both about 1/10th that of Google
3) Facebook has more profit than Google had revenue when they went public.
Raw data in the S-1 filing. Comparison with Amazon and Google courtesy of MG Siegler (http://parislemon.com/post/16888592105/fathoming-facebook)
Now I can't begin to understand where this money comes from but unless they're lying on their S-1, comes it does. You can speculate all you like about user engagement numbers but cash is cash.
The point is, it makes the WP7 browser look crap
It's supposed to be a showcase for the greatness WP7 but manages to demonstrate that the WP7 browser can't cope with HTML5. That's a silly own goal.
[Facepalm] The website doesn't run on WP7 phones
I love my WP7 but this is the biggest fail ever.
mmmmm ... dribbly
RE: 3 (or more) things it copied...
I agree with everything you say, just one little note. Apple didn't re-think the stylus experience, a company called Fingerworks did. But Apple were sharp enough to see the promise of their technology and buy them before anyone else did.
Confused graphic design style
I'm sure ICS is a leap forward in features and usability but visually it's an incoherent mess. Most of those screenshots show at least two different styles on each: the buttons at the bottom are one-pixel abstract lines; the app icons are 3D pseudo-realistic; the app folder icons are slightly abstract solid blocks with 2.5D depth; the settings screen has flat block icons ... it's like they've all been designed by different people and no-one has checked for consistency before they shipped.
It may be that only graphic designers would care about the specifics but surely to most people the overall impression is just really messy?
A lot of effort for an abattoir
"Estimates of the manpower needed to build Stonehenge put the total effort involved at millions of hours of work." - that's a colossal amount of effort for an abattoir. I'm not saying it was definitely religious but whoever built it cared an awful lot about it.
Speak for yourself
I loathed Windows Mobile and Series 60, had reserved respect for iOS but was firmly an Android man from first launch until earlier this year. Back in April I took a punt on WP7 (a samsung model) and I haven't looked back. It's great, I love it. I want it to get better of course but I like it a lot more in its infancy than I ever liked Android.
I get very tired of people who haven't used WP7 proclaiming with confidence that it's shit. No day-to-day experience of it = no valid opinion.
Much more complex than that
Dopamine doesn't simply "make you happy". It affects a very wide range of behaviours in really complex ways. For example, people who take dopamine supplements (for a variety of disorders) can end up being compulsive shoppers or gamblers. They get into huge amounts of debt because they can't control their spending (effectively, they get a big rush from buying something because the extra dopamine makes them feel great when it's triggered)
I believe Mango enables this so future updates will be done OTA. A bit crap not to have that from the start though.
I'm tedious too
Worked fine for me too, unlike many of the horrendous update experiences I've had with my iPod touch, where backup and restore frequently fails. At least half of the OS updates I've given to the iPod have resulted in having to hard reset and start from scratch (not a quick process with nearly 60GB of music).
I'm not being a fanboi either way, I just think it's a bit odd to have a two-page article describing a failed OS update; I've never seen one before for any of the other phone OS's. It implies that WP7 is unique in its failings, which it isn't.
Another reason the operators will like this: they already have a very good relationship with Nokia from the days when Nokia were the only game in town.
But it might turn a bit sour; Nokia used to be their best friends because they would bend over backwards to provide operator customizations. They won't be able to do that anymore with WP7 being locked down to such a large extent.
This is correct
I'm 34 years old with 3 kids - I'm not supposed to like modern music, I'm supposed to be confused and a little bit scared by it. But I wasn't finding JLS and their ilk confusing or scary, just shit and anodyne. But this dubstep stuff is different; I am very confused and that's as it should be. Carry on.
For me, the most significant aspect of the event was Apple actively comparing the 4S to Android devices to call out where it beats them (e.g. shutterlag in the camera). They've never had to do that before, they've always complacently ignored the competition and let their products speak for themselves. It seems like they're losing a little of their self-confidence.
You can have your own ringtones but the method is like a sick joke. You must:
1. Crop your audio file yourself
2. Add it to your Zune library and put it in a Zune folder
3. Right click > Edit the file to change the genre to 'Ringtone'
4. Sync the device
That's a super crappy UX. Disclosure: I love my WP7 and can't wait for Mango. I just think the development of this particular feature must have bypassed any kind of sanity check. They gave it to a developer who made a proof-of-concept system and someone ticked the 'feature complete' box.
Apotheker needs to find another company to play Brewster's Millions with. Seriously, the WebOS wheeze was better than the vintage stamp one in the original film.
Actually those figures were WP7 only. Some market research group split the figures out into WinMo and WP7. Google for windows phone 7 market share and you'll see articles citing it with a bit more detail.
Also, correction: I just re-read it; the german 7% isn't more than twice the RIM number, RIM's at 3.9%
a strange measure of success
WP7 certainly isn't doing as well as Microsoft hoped and still want us to believe but it's a bit flaky to declare the number of models carried by a single french operator as a measure of the success of a platform. There aren't very many models to choose from for a start. Global market share is what you want. It appears to be in the low single digits (although it's popular in Germany with 7% - over twice the market share that RIM has). Low single digits is pretty dire but I wouldn't call it "not competition".
Oooh, an article mentioning Apple
I'd like to take this opportunity to state how much I dislike Apple and all their products and that I think they're overpriced and while I'm on about that, the iPad is useless and only brainwashed fanbois would ever buy one and how can anyone think Steve Jobs was good he was rubbish and the tech world is better off without him because I just hate him and a phone should just be a phone, none of this internet rubbish and so on and so on
INQ's whole thing is customisation, giving existing platforms (BREW, Android) a major makeover with a kind of urban hipster colour scheme and functional specialisation, like Facebook integration. They will not be able to do that with Windows Phone 7. MS specifically prohibit all but the most trivial of OEM customisations. This INQ boss must surely know that so why is he saying this? Is it just linkbait for INQ which, to be fair, hasn't had a lot of press of late?
Not as good as iOS or Android
There are certainly shortcomings of the Facebook APIs (which are presumably deliberate to make sure users have to go to the website and see the ads). But I've used the Facebook apps on iOS, Android and WP7 and I can say that the WP7 one is the worst. The most troubling part is that it doesn't even use the WP7 UI properly. For example, pressing on something doesn't give any feedback that you've pressed it (the text should press backwards in 3D). And the live tiles and push notifications are exceedingly buggy, working sometimes but mostly not at all.
Facebook on WP7
"as long as the smartphone can play Angry Birds, read Facebook, and keep Twitter up to date then the rest is just fluff."
Redmond does have deep pockets but they don't seem very willing to spend it in the direction of that quote from the article. I got a WP7 and I like it enough to put up with its shortcomings (for now ... Mango needs to be very good). But I was stunned at the poor quality of the Facebook app. Like Bill Ray, I expected that Microsoft would subsidise development of top drawer apps for things that users really care about. But no, the Facebook app is in need of serious work and has been for months and months. I can only assume that it has a very small team working on it.
I find that strategically astonishing from MS. I would have thought it was obvious to anyone that getting FB right was a no-brainer to gain traction for their last-chance-saloon platform. But apparently they don't get it.
The whole purpose of Android
People seem to forget the purpose of Android. Back when Android was first released, the consensus seemed to be that Google were dissatisfied with the low rate of mobile internet adoption. They weren't getting enough ad sales on mobile and attributed it (rightly enough) to the crap browsing UI on most handsets. So they decided to speed it up by making it cheaper to make a phone that people would use to browse. Android was a loss leader for them.
Android are not in competition with other handset manufacturers. They don't care if punters browse the net with an iPhone, an HTC Desire or a webOS phone - as long as they do it via Google search. (Arguably WP7 changes that a bit with Bing baked in but right now it's not exactly competition).
But I think they do care that their Android partners are protected from litigation because they're producing the low end handsets that are allowing the masses to browse nicely.
She must have been hopping mad when she found out
I am ashamed of myself
Microsoft offered to share with Google
Worth noting that Microsoft's general counsel said this: "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no".
Puts a different light on it, doesn't it?
The sceptic tank?
I had no idea that Shropshire was such a hotbed of militant disbelief. What are they so sceptical about that they need mobile weaponry to force the point?
Sort of impressive ...
... but the large square steps everywhere are weird and probably very telling. They wouldn't have made it like that if they didn't have to. Is there some sort of tradeoff being done between large and small scale detail?
I see, thanks
Funny storage amounts
Why aren't the storage options aligned with the storage options for the devices? Seems to me like a 50GB maximum for the cloud doesn't sit right with the 64GB maximum for iPod touches (or more for classics). I for one would need a little bit more than their maximum for my collection. (Not that I will be using the service, I'm just saying)
Yes, the standard is about much more than hardware
What I suggest is needed to break Apple's stranglehold could be realised through USB hardware. That would make a lot of sense. But it needs to be backed up with a set of guaranteed functions that both dock and device can rely on. Then it can be given a consumer friendly name (see "Made for iPod") and a shiny badge for packaging so that consumers can buy a PMP from any given vendor knowing that it will work properly in the great sounding/looking dock they read about.
Note that if any vendor tries to go it alone and make their own proprietary standard for this, they will find that no dock manufacturers will bother implementing it for lack of adoption.
(Ditto the need for a consumer friendly wireless standard).
Apple have completely sewn up the portable music player market and part of the secret is the dock connector. There is an enormous variety of iPod docks that let an iPod owner dock their music player wherein it will be charged and can be controlled to some degree by the remote control of the dock. No other portable music players have docks like this. They have only the jack connector which won't charge batteries or provide control.
The rest of the industry needs to get together to produce a rival, open standard that would stand a fighting chance of adoption by dock manufacturers. That might give their music players a better chance of being noticed. Of course, their players would also have to be halfway decent (which I'm not sure they are right now).
It's about the user experience
Apple are where they are because they focus obsessively on the user experience, above all else. To do that they have to own and control much more of the 'ecosystem' than any other company even tries to do. It makes their products rigid and very expensive but a lot of people really, really like it. I'm not one of them but I understand those who are.
When you allow other companies to own and control parts of the user experience, something has to give. Either they have lower standards than you, looking for a quick buck rather than a long term vision, or things just fall through the cracks between companies. It's very hard to co-ordinate seamless user experiences across the boundaries between different organisations.
Sounds like it's real time
"What it does mean is that the simulated neurons can fire off a pulse to any other simulated neuron in the million-core system in about 1 millisecond, which just so happens to be about as fast as your neurons do it."
It seems to be "real time". Sadly the architecture doesn't sound like they can do 100% of a human brain at 1% speed, which would surely be interesting. The analysis of the system behaviour won't be done real time anyway, just on logs so it doesn't really matter if it goes really slowly.
(Playing Devil's Advocate here)
I doubt that they would say that huge variations would have no impact. I think they probably mean that they don't believe that the amount of variation so far observed in the Sun's activity has any significant effect. Or put another way, that the sun's activity doesn't appear to vary enough to cause significant change.
I made the mistake of buying a Panasonic DVD/HDD box. I rue the day. Apart from the EPG adverts (seriously, how can they deem that acceptable?) and the truly abysmal UI (e.g. to show the list of recordings you have to press the button marked "Direct Navigator". Of course, what else would it be called?) the box seems to be incompatible with my *Panasonic TV, made in the same year. I can't watch freeview on the TV if the box is switched on, it interferes with the picture. Panasonic just shrugged when I asked them.
I will never, never buy Panasonic equipment again.
Depends on your definition of success
Windows Mobile had, at one point, 24% market share of smartphones. Over the course of a decade many, many millions of handsets were sold. In the US in particular, it was hugely more popular than anything Nokia made. Of course, it was a shit platform but it's hard to define 24% market share as not a serious success.
"There's no home, send or receive, or any other buttons on the front of the device. This is something Windows licensees aren't permitted to do by Microsoft, so strict are the standard licensing conditions."
What does Windows licensing have to do with MeeGo? Did I miss something?
Quite right, but needs more emphasis
Back in my uni days I did a little informal experimentation myself and I found that by far the most important variable was the temperature of the water. The quality of tea flavour was exponentially proportional to the temperature of the water. The upshot of that is that you want to transfer water from the kettle to the teabag/leaves as quickly as possible, before it starts cooling down. Mere seconds of waiting makes an appreciable difference. They should be emphasizing that.
It does seem like a better device and therefore better value. I just take issue with the implication that it's *loads* cheaper than an iPad - it isn't.
I'm in the market for a tablet and desperately looking for a reason not to buy an iPad 2 (I dislike Apple quite a lot but I do want to get the best tablet for my money). I just want to be able to compare offerings objectively, without falsehoods and hyperbole.
iPad busting price?
The 16GB eee pad transformer is £379 whereas the equivalent iPad 2 is only £20 more. Now I'm no fanboi but I'd hardly call that "iPad-busting"
I was expecting from the pre-amble that they'd created a full-on biological laser. But it isn't really, all the special lasery stuff is done by regular laser tech. It's just that the original light source is biological (which isn't new). I'm sure it's a huge technical achievement and everything, but it doesn't quite live up to the article title.
- Review Apple iPhone 6: Looking good, slim. How about... oh, your battery died
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- +Comment EMC, HP blockbuster 'merger' shocker comes a cropper
- Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia
- Apple's iPhone 6 first-day sales are MEANINGLESS, mutters analyst