'All-screen display'? But surely every display is all-screen... or is a screen not a display? Right. Right. Right. No, left. I said LEFT! Oh for the love of humanity, swipe left now! My eyes! Sorry, no, I mean "My EARS!" Is this what it's like to browse a dating site by voice command? I only ask because I hear that dating apps have been introducing Alexa skills and I am trying to work out why. Let's say you're …
No, no, no, you have it all wrong. In case you don't know or appreciate it, you are in fact in possession of an "all-shoe foot" - or indeed two such disruptive solutions. No wonder you don't work in marketing (and no, neither do I).
I saw criticism of Apple's marketing in the article (Company employs hyperbole is selling product shocker, in other news ursine creatures defecate in wooded areas, consider me stunned*), but no mocking of Apple users... perhaps I share Mr Dabbs daft assumption that people write what they mean!
* Yeah, I write what I mean but may use irony as a rhetorical device. Irony signposted by well-known conventions.
I've heard quite a few bleating on this week about how great wireless charging is. Fairly took the wind out of their sales when I pointed out I have a Lumia 925 from 2013 which supports this, although to be fair I think most of the shock was that there are phone manufacturers other than Apple.
So somebody says wireless charging is great (which it is), and you immediately took this to mean they were saying that it was the first, very first and only implementation since ever and nobody else had ever done it?
Or did you just jump on the first unstated assumption you could find in an attempt to tenderise a post-existential equine?
> Also many iPhones are used in Hifi or speaker docks
They *were* used widely in speaker docks. These days a Chromecast Audio can be had for twenty quid and, like the ubiquitous television IR controller does for TVs, allows you to control the music from anywhere in the room, and from whatever device you have to hand - Android, iOS, Windows, Mac. If someone rings you, you can just nip outside without the faff of unplugging the phone, or interupting the music for others.
More expensive solutions are also available from Sonos and others.
People still have speaker docks of course, but tend to use them with their contemporary device, the iPod.
"> Also many iPhones are used in Hifi or speaker docks
They *were* used widely in speaker docks. These days a Chromecast Audio can be had for twenty quid and, like the ubiquitous television IR controller does for TVs, allows you to control the music from anywhere "
The annoying thing about this is that you need to have the power-hungry TV screen on just to listen to music.
What happened to audio-only streaming players? I love my old Roku Soundbridge but it's getting a bit long in the tooth.
The Chromecast Audio doesn't use a TV screen.
I've had the one for a while and would highly recommend if you're an Android user. It does work with iOS but the music app has to support it. Apple's and Amazon's don't. This matters less in Android because you can use the built-in casting facility.
I just bought a small Bluetooth receiver and hooked that in. It does A2DP and means I have more flexibility with my 70's amp. Bluetooth A2DP is also wildly used and doesn't look too be going anywhere any time soon so is reasonably future proof for the time being and not beholden to any 3rd party.
But then I'm tight, prefer simplicity and control of my own property.
Also many iPhones are used in Hifi or speaker docks, like security radio and DECT phones, the dock is a better charger interface than a wireless pad, which needs correct placement and a wire to a power supply. Obviously only needed for people that can't manage the apple connector (how many kinds since iPhone 4?) or a Micro USB plug. I liked the 3mm approx and smaller coax power jacks. Easy to do in the dark. They should have kept both on phones/tablets so you can plug in a USB device. Also a direct cable works when phone is in your hand.
The so called "wireless" charging are essentially transformers, inductive not radio coupling, so fails when you lift phone. For poseurs and not so good for travelling.
> Obviously only needed for people that can't manage the apple connector (how many kinds since iPhone 4?)
One. Just one. It's called the Lightning connector. Some of its concepts (such as it being agnostic about which way round it is plugged in) were incorporated into USB Type C, which was developed by a forum of which Apple has been a member since 1995. What's your point?
Some of its concepts (such as it being agnostic about which way round it is plugged in)
Wow! So stolen from 1920's (or earlier?) audio and power connectors innovative of Apple!
Hope they patent the idea before someone else points out it's been done thousands of times before steals the idea!
The so called "wireless" charging are essentially transformers, inductive not radio coupling, so fails when you lift phone. For poseurs and not so good for travelling.
The other question I have about wireless charging is efficiency. It strikes me as a rather lossy way to get energy into a device, so in these green aware days I'd love to know just how much power gets lost due to the fancy method of transfer vs simply jacking in a power cable.
"The other question I have about wireless charging is efficiency. "
Yep. Isn't the current green advice to always unplug your phone/tablet charger when not in use? IIRC the primary reason given was that all those unused chargers, TVs on standby etc add up to a significant power draw across the National Grid. A wireless charger in that situation becomes just a geeks talking point since the whole point is that the user is far too busy to spend 0.5 seconds plugging it in.
A wireless charger in that situation becomes just a geeks talking point since the whole point is that the user is far too busy to spend 0.5 seconds plugging it in.
I fitted a new charging socket to my Lenovo tablet due to a notorious problem with failing USB sockets. Very common to have a poor fit and thus not charge on those models.
While most of us aren't affected, I do know one fellow who doesn't always have hands steady enough to fit such a thing, and another with pretty poor close-range eyesight - the standard USB socket that Samsung (and others) use is beyond his ability to get right often.
Thankfully, wireless chargers are so common that they're cheap, and were easily retro-fitted to their devices so that instead of having to struggle to get a small plug into a seemingly smaller socket, they only have to put their device down in the right place. If it wasn't for the great many geeks wasting their money on these unnecessary things, they would cost a lot more or maybe would not even exist. While I do hate wastage I also appreciate the effect it can sometimes have on prices, making the lives of people easier because they can afford helpful tech that would otherwise be out of their reach. Ever tried to buy a specialist wheelchair or even some basic "mobility aids"? A couple of bits of plastic with some string attached can cost $hundreds when the components add up to $0.stuffall.
@David Nash
Yep, the [Chromecast] and [Chromecast Audio] are two different devices, though they are similarly sized and shaped. The latter's output is a 3.5mm analogue port which doubles as a digital optical output. To my mind it has a few advantages over a Bluetooth audio receiver, but it does require the presence of a WiFi network so isn't always suitable for portable speakers.
"I'd love to know just how much power gets lost due to the fancy method of transfer"
90%+ efficiencies are touted for high-current charging (as in some electric cars). Way worse for phones. Did a quick search, it's a surprisingly neglected topic. Lots of noise about saving the planet by unplugging that unused charger, which consumes whopping 0.1W or so, but...wireless charging is still kosher.
About the best overview is this:
http://batteryuniversity.com/index.php/learn/article/charging_without_wires
The so called "wireless" charging are essentially transformers, inductive not radio coupling, so fails when you lift phone. For poseurs and not so good for travelling.
Oh yes, my old XM-643 has true wireless charging via high-power microwaves. Of course, you have to remember to turn it off when you're done otherwise you end up with headaches and these odd burn-like patches on your skin.
"Also a direct cable works when phone is in your hand."
I'm sure we've all been in the situation where plugging into a charger while on a call is the only option. I can just see the contortions required trying that with a wireless charger :-)
"No, I've not passed out or fell asleep at my desk! I'm on the phone!"
Ever know an AppleFan who didn't fully internalize Cupertino marketing?
Yes, I am. I appreciate some of their gear for the ease of use and benefit that they bring to my work, but their hyperbole gets as much on my nerves as people that think I like Apple gear because I'm somehow a slave to their marketing or want to belong to some mythical club that I see with the same opinion as Groucho Marx (if they want me, I'm not interested in joining).
I like Apple gear for simple, factual reasons, in the same way I am not a fan of Android, but I won't use my use of Apple as a reason to berate others who don't, nor is my use of Apple to the exclusion of anything else (which is what happens with the clubby thing) - I mix where it makes sense. Happy to give you my reasons, you'll have yours which may be interesting but may not apply to my motives and so the world keeps on turning.
Just stop the irrational bashing. Give factual reasons, present arguments for a sensible discussion, just stop the infantile name calling as it's exceptionally boring.
If the gym didn't mean that family membership didn't apply to any group of people who could trace a family relationship they shouldn't have used the term. It's not the brothers' fault that the gym's marketing department weren't capable of thinking through the implications of what they advertised. The gym should simply have admitted the consequences of their error, given them the family membership they'd offered - and then rewritten their T&Cs for future members.
I don't see why we should rewrite every single thing merely to stop pisstakers from taking the piss. Family membership is pretty clear in the minds of everyone who isn't trying to take the piss. It means parents and children. Not a pair of adult brothers. Or pisstakers.
"Family membership is pretty clear in the minds of everyone who isn't trying to take the piss. It means parents and children. Not a pair of adult brothers"
Why should that be?
Many people who are close to their siblings, or parents with grown-up children may be keen to get discounts on things like gym membership, online services (eg. Spotify, Amazon Prime) and so on.
Think of it like a discount for bulk, or for recommending to family members. Also allowing sharing of accounts between related people is handy.
Anyway gym membership for children? How many kids do you see in the gym? I bet they make a fortune in fees for children that hardly ever use the facilities.
"Anyway gym membership for children? How many kids do you see in the gym? I bet they make a fortune in fees for children that hardly ever use the facilities."
You're probably right, but to play devils advocate for a moment, sometimes it's the only convenient place to take the kids for swimming lessons and just to play in the pool. (for those gyms which have pools, that is).
"I bet they make a fortune in fees for children that hardly ever use the facilities."
A friend was quite into his local health club - including a personal trainer. He had to schedule his visits to so they avoided the times when the place was seemingly overrun by kids.
"Family membership is pretty clear in the minds of everyone who isn't trying to take the piss."
Amazon says: "Amazon Households enables two adults within a family to collectively manage content and share access to membership benefits"
They happily let my friend create a "household" so that she could borrow my Kindle for her holidays. The only problem was that it seemed to ignore the "pay separately" tick - so all her ebooks were charged to my card.
"Family membership is pretty clear in the minds of everyone who isn't trying to take the piss."
It's not, hence why the downvotes.
It's why at say a themepark, you'll get a "family ticket" for 2 adults plus 2 children. No-one requires that the various parties be related, just that they are a group. That's what is generally understood by "family" in this sense.
Big fail on the part of the gym. Unless things have changed dramatically, 95% of the business of running a gym is getting someone in the door willing to buy a membership. Yeah, you can haggle over price, upfront costs and what promo shit they'll give you, but ultimately you've got a customer in there willing to buy, sell them the damn product*.
Even if you say "we can't do that under our family policy, but how about the same terms under our "Brothers in arms" deal, where you get us new customers without us spending any effort!".
* which, as a gym, shouldn't actually cost much per unit sold.
95% of the business of running a gym is getting someone in the door willing to buy
I'm always amazed by businesses that work so hard to turn away customers. On more than one occasion I have said, literally, "I want this, I have money in my pocket," but have walked out empty handed.
Even more so when your business is selling a subscription to a service which is pretty much a fixed cost. Which many subscribers don't even end up using. I understand that the receptionist may not wnt to deal with it, but surely you just kick this up to manglement.
My usual run in with this is when I want to buy something at retail that I'm going to flog straight on online. It's quite common for a clerk to refuse on the basis that they don't believe it's "fair" to sell to me. So I either talk to the manager/owner (who is often equally confused by the refusal to sell) or go someplace else. Even had the twatty manager of "ye locale gaming store" ask me why I wasn't coming by each week any more to buy 2-3 of the latest GW price gouging set, after refusing to sell said set to me last time I went in.
Family membership is pretty clear in the minds of everyone who isn't trying to take the piss.
Count me as another one who wonders wtf it is you're taking.
My siblings are family. We lost our parents before I was old enough to legally drink, so my older siblings became my guardians when it suited us. We're also a tight-knit family, with lots of family events involving uncles/aunts/cousins/nephews/nieces and so on, not just blood but those married to blood.
We're family. If you want your stuff to apply to a small subset of the term "family" then you need to express what you wish the limits to be. After all, a "family reunion" is very seldom just the parents and their sprogs. Often it involves the descendants of the grandparents and sometimes the descendants of the great-grandparents. "Family" is so much more than what you imagine it to be.
"Not a pair of adult brothers."
I don't have any siblings but I still know that pairs of brothers of any age are family. If you can't be arsed to say what you mean you should be prepared to accept the consequences. After all, govt. contractors rely on that principle for their profits.
Just waiting for the first apple media-cult event to use the phrase "Shock and Awe" un-ironically.
Full disclosure: I have an iPhone, I like it, but it is a 5S I bought in 2014. Really don't see the appeal of any of the "mind-blowing, world-shaking, game-changing" so called upgrades since then. Especially not at these price points! As always, I will consider all available phones on the market when mine gives up the ghost. (Still going strong so far, don't drink the kool-aid kids!)
I do not understand why it is not possible to remove bezels completely ?
I was told it was because of the need for backlighting, but surely that can come from behind the screen ?
Because once we can remove bezels, we can stick screens together and all have enormous TVs for cheap.
"once we can remove bezels, we can stick screens together and all have enormous TVs for cheap"
We can already have enormous TVs cheap. You could get a good quality 48" OLED TV for kess than the cost of the new iPhone.
Even if you could get a bezel-less 5" screen for 10 quid, you would need 100 of them to make a 50" diagonal screen that would cost 1000 plus cost of frame and electronics to tie everything together.... and you'd end up with an unwatchable mess because it will be prectically impossible to line up all those screens completely flat without visible join lines.
Bigger* panels are much cheaper per unit area then smaller ones
*unless you're talking gigantic, like over 60". For thoze sizes yields are lower and prices spike
"because of the need for backlighting"
No. Three reasons:
1) The connections to the panel are dodgy if not past the edge of the panel.
2) LCD needs a seal on all four edges. EL and OLED and true LED can go close to the edge.
3) Protection of the edge of the display / edge of top glass, or fingers from getting cut.
Nothing to do with backlights unless the cheap edge type.
Any display can have a top layer that goes to edge of phone. Then that has to be glued in and have no sharp edges. It's more vulnerable when dropped. Note the Apple active screen/display area is not up to the edge.
A bezel allows for a more robust and safer design, with easier to replace panel.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
