Apple stand
-
@pie_flavor It depends on OEM.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Apple stand:
@kazitor said in Apple stand:
Similarly with a lot of the others. If y does everything x does without impacting on that in any way, whilst also doing more, one could say y is "objectively better".
Except that's never actually possible. E. g. "more colors" means more RAM needed for the screen buffer thus more power consumption.
Wrong. We're not talking about color space in memory. We're talking about color space of display. All devices nowadays use 32 bits per pixel, regardless of color space of the display.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@ixvedeusi it can when it's about numbers (including yes/no, which are numbers in Boolean algebra).
More colors visible on screen is objectively better than less colors visible on screen.
One out of many metrics for the screen.
I wasn't defending Android phones or iPhone. I was just pointing out that something can indeed be objectively better or worse.
I know, but in a context where it doesn't apply.
Having widgets is objectively better than not having widgets.
Widgets aren't about configuration. Widgets are about embedding arbitrary apps on your home screen that show things that the original developers couldn't even imagine. They're essentially plugins. Plugin support is better than no plugin support, always, no exceptions.
IE without arbitrary plugins would have been better than infecting 80% of computers with bonzi buddy:
Also - shitty configuration is better than no configuration. The problem with Ubuntu there isn't that there's configuration - it's that they've done shitty job providing configuration. A fix would be to make configuration better, not to remove it. Removing it would make Ubuntu even worse than it is now with overly blown configuration options.
You're at the same time arguing that more options are necessarily better and that they aren't, with an arbitrary distinction from a user-perspective.
Having NFC working with any payment provider is objectively better than not having NFC working with any payment provider.
Not necessarily, either.
Yes necessarily. It might be unimportant. But it will never be worse.
Having only one trusted provider instead of infinite options can be of advantage for certain users.
Some people on here will have a use for telnet, too, but having it is "objectively" worse than not having it in a stricter sense of the word than the "objectively worse in literally every area" pie has been spewing.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@ixvedeusi it can when it's about numbers (including yes/no, which are numbers in Boolean algebra).
More colors visible on screen is objectively better than less colors visible on screen.
One out of many metrics for the screen.
I wasn't defending Android phones or iPhone. I was just pointing out that something can indeed be objectively better or worse.
I know, but in a context where it doesn't apply.
You must've read a different topic. I posted in one where this was very relevant.
Having widgets is objectively better than not having widgets.
Widgets aren't about configuration. Widgets are about embedding arbitrary apps on your home screen that show things that the original developers couldn't even imagine. They're essentially plugins. Plugin support is better than no plugin support, always, no exceptions.
IE without arbitrary plugins would have been better than infecting 80% of computers with bonzi buddy
IE without arbitrary plugins would make interactive websites impossible. Imagine the 2000s without Flash, Java, and other ActiveX content - and without any way to fill in this void.
Your problem with IE isn't plugins - your problem with IE is insanely bad security. This is another matter entirely.
Also - shitty configuration is better than no configuration. The problem with Ubuntu there isn't that there's configuration - it's that they've done shitty job providing configuration. A fix would be to make configuration better, not to remove it. Removing it would make Ubuntu even worse than it is now with overly blown configuration options.
You're at the same time arguing that more options are necessarily better and that they aren't, with an arbitrary distinction from a user-perspective.
I'm fine with more options. I'm not fine with shitty UI that makes common tasks insanely complicated for the sake of making configurations that no one will ever use slightly easier to setup. What's wrong with having those two opinions at once?
Having NFC working with any payment provider is objectively better than not having NFC working with any payment provider.
Not necessarily, either.
Yes necessarily. It might be unimportant. But it will never be worse.
Having only one trusted provider instead of infinite options can be of advantage for certain users.
Not in this case. It's about allowing a piece of hardware to be used by 3rd party apps or not. No security concerns here. If it was about a public API for draining money from Apple Wallet or whatever it's called, then you'd have a point. But it's not. It's about allowing apps to use NFC.
Some people on here will have a use for telnet, too, but having it is "objectively" worse than not having it in a stricter sense of the word than the "objectively worse in literally every area" pie has been spewing.
"Having telnet" is such a broad term. Are you here for actual discussion or are you purposely making the worst possible arguments for your case just to make people mad with how stupid you are?
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Your problem with IE isn't plugins - your problem with IE is insanely bad security. This is another matter entirely.
Plugins increase attack surface, news at 11.
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
"Having telnet" is such a broad term. Are you here for actual discussion or are you purposely making the worst possible arguments for your case just to make people mad with how stupid you are?
I see you've arrived at where you'll do anything do defend an absolutist position no matter what, even though you know yourself you're missing the point. Nothing new, either.
So let's just go with: NO U!
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Your problem with IE isn't plugins - your problem with IE is insanely bad security. This is another matter entirely.
Plugins increase attack surface, news at 11.
And security another matter entirely from extensibility. They're kinda sorta related, but they're not the same metric.
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
"Having telnet" is such a broad term. Are you here for actual discussion or are you purposely making the worst possible arguments for your case just to make people mad with how stupid you are?
I see you've arrived at where you'll do anything do defend an absolutist position no matter what, even though you know yourself you're missing the point. Nothing new, either.
So let's just go with: NO U!
I am mixing up supporting outbound Telnet connections with accepting inbound Telnet connections and trying to sell it in one package as a piss poor attempt to argue that there's no objectivity in our world?
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Your problem with IE isn't plugins - your problem with IE is insanely bad security. This is another matter entirely.
Plugins increase attack surface, news at 11.
And security another matter entirely from extensibility. They're kinda sorta related, but they're not the same metric.
They're not independent, which is enough to show that extensibility isn't always necessarily better. Just as with usability and other things the plugin support potentially affects.
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
"Having telnet" is such a broad term. Are you here for actual discussion or are you purposely making the worst possible arguments for your case just to make people mad with how stupid you are?
I see you've arrived at where you'll do anything do defend an absolutist position no matter what, even though you know yourself you're missing the point. Nothing new, either.
So let's just go with: NO U!
I am mixing up supporting outbound Telnet connections with accepting inbound Telnet connections and trying to sell it in one package as a piss poor attempt to argue that there's no objectivity in our world?
You have to go out of your way to miss the point of an analogy and dwell on irrelevant details, don't you?! "Telnet" was used as something commonly known to be insecure. I don't want to write a dissertation about irrelevant aspects for you to dissect for every sentence I write. Even if I had no idea what telnet even is, you already know there are insecure aspects about it, so you also know the point was about that.
Only talk about "accepting inbound Telnet connections" (although what good are outbound connections that nobody accepts?), then, and you still have a scenario where "more" != "better".INB4 opening yet another angle of hair-splitting completely unrelated to the point.
-
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
Android device manufacturers are often mediocre when it comes to upgrades, so many people use old Android versions, so app developers are hesitating to develop apps that target the newest API's, and you turn this into an advantage of Android
No. That is the exact opposite of the truth and the fact that you think that means you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about from the top down. The Android API is incredibly compatibility-oriented and in many cases shoves it down your throat to the detriment of simple app development. You are essentially forced to support Marshmallow and heavily encouraged to support Ice Cream Sandwich. App developers on the other hand always target the newest APIs, because you can target new features but still run on versions that don't have them using annotation-based version checking.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Your problem with IE isn't plugins - your problem with IE is insanely bad security. This is another matter entirely.
Plugins increase attack surface, news at 11.
And security another matter entirely from extensibility. They're kinda sorta related, but they're not the same metric.
They're not independent, which is enough to show that extensibility isn't always necessarily better.
They're not entirely independent, but they're not correlated either. It's useless to think of them both as one feature, and it's useless to think of it as a tradeoff. It's two different metrics. More extensibility is better than less extensibility in terms of extensibility. More security is better than less security in terms of security. You can't measure extensibility with security, and you can't measure security with extensibility. They're tangential concepts.
Just as with usability and other things the plugin support potentially affects.
No. Not "just as". Usability and other things are affected in entirely different way than security. And they're unmeasurable and highly subjective in their nature, which make them even more different from security. In fact, you couldn't have possibly picked a more inappropriate comparison.
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
"Having telnet" is such a broad term. Are you here for actual discussion or are you purposely making the worst possible arguments for your case just to make people mad with how stupid you are?
I see you've arrived at where you'll do anything do defend an absolutist position no matter what, even though you know yourself you're missing the point. Nothing new, either.
So let's just go with: NO U!
I am mixing up supporting outbound Telnet connections with accepting inbound Telnet connections and trying to sell it in one package as a piss poor attempt to argue that there's no objectivity in our world?
You have to go out of your way to miss the point of an analogy and dwell on irrelevant details, don't you?!
Of course I do if the details are relevant!
Only talk about "accepting inbound Telnet connections" (...), then, and you still have a scenario where "more" != "better".
Yes, I admit, this is one scenario where more isn't better. But it's a very special scenario - one where this extra feature allows unknown people to mess with your system or steal data from it. No such risk with OLED display. No such risk with NFC. No such risk with 3.5mm Jack or any other smartphone feature that was mentioned in this topic. It's a very special category of features that is completely different from all other features so arguments you make for this category of features don't apply to any other feature.
although what good are outbound connections that nobody accepts?
Legacy software does. Sometimes, legacy software only accepts Telnet, and so a system that doesn't support outgoing Telnet connections is useless. And there is never a case where allowing outgoing Telnet connections is a bad thing even if you don't need one. It might be useless, but it'll never be bad.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
They're not independent, which is enough to show that extensibility isn't always necessarily better.
Security isn't the only critical goal. I can make a computer incredibly secure by immersing it in a dumpster filled with concrete and dropping the whole lot off in a secret location in the deep ocean, but that doesn't make that a security strategy that people will actually pay me to do.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Imagine the 2000s without Flash, Java, and other ActiveX content
Oh, ecstasy...
-
@dkf said in Apple stand:
but that doesn't make that a security strategy that people will actually pay me to do.
But if instead of a computer, it's certain people, that could pay quite well...
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Your problem with IE isn't plugins - your problem with IE is insanely bad security. This is another matter entirely.
Plugins increase attack surface, news at 11.
And security another matter entirely from extensibility. They're kinda sorta related, but they're not the same metric.
They're not independent, which is enough to show that extensibility isn't always necessarily better.
They're not entirely independent, but they're not correlated either.
Yes, they are. Unless you're assuming perfectly spherical cows and programs which never have any bugs, more extensibility has a potential for security problems. There are no bugs in features that don't exist.
It's useless to think of them both as one feature, and it's useless to think of it as a tradeoff. It's two different metrics. More extensibility is better than less extensibility in terms of extensibility. More security is better than less security in terms of security. You can't measure extensibility with security, and you can't measure security with extensibility. They're tangential concepts.
Just as with usability and other things the plugin support potentially affects.
No. Not "just as". Usability and other things are affected in entirely different way than security. And they're unmeasurable and highly subjective in their nature, which make them even more different from security. In fact, you couldn't have possibly picked a more inappropriate comparison.
And yet different usability can result from something you claimed is absolutely objective. So now not only isn't it absolutely better, it's no longer even comparable.
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
"Having telnet" is such a broad term. Are you here for actual discussion or are you purposely making the worst possible arguments for your case just to make people mad with how stupid you are?
I see you've arrived at where you'll do anything do defend an absolutist position no matter what, even though you know yourself you're missing the point. Nothing new, either.
So let's just go with: NO U!
I am mixing up supporting outbound Telnet connections with accepting inbound Telnet connections and trying to sell it in one package as a piss poor attempt to argue that there's no objectivity in our world?
You have to go out of your way to miss the point of an analogy and dwell on irrelevant details, don't you?!
Of course I do if the details are relevant!
What good did it do to wank over "only incoming telnet connections are insecure", when you knew that beforehand? This did not change the argument at all.
Only talk about "accepting inbound Telnet connections" (...), then, and you still have a scenario where "more" != "better".
Yes, I admit, this is one scenario where more isn't better. But it's a very special scenario - one where this extra feature allows unknown people to mess with your system or steal data from it. No such risk with OLED display. No such risk with NFC. No such risk with 3.5mm Jack or any other smartphone feature that was mentioned in this topic. It's a very special category of features that is completely different from all other features so arguments you make for this category of features don't apply to any other feature.
It applied to "embedding arbitrary apps", not OLED displays or 3.5mm jack.
I didn't say having a 3.5mm jack isn't better, to begin with, so that's irrelevant. Of course, Levicki would tell you they'll kill you, so that would count as a mis-feature, too.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
Only talk about "accepting inbound Telnet connections" (...), then, and you still have a scenario where "more" != "better".
Yes, I admit, this is one scenario where more isn't better. But it's a very special scenario - one where this extra feature allows unknown people to mess with your system or steal data from it. No such risk with OLED display. No such risk with NFC. No such risk with 3.5mm Jack or any other smartphone feature that was mentioned in this topic. It's a very special category of features that is completely different from all other features so arguments you make for this category of features don't apply to any other feature.
It applied to "embedding arbitrary apps", not OLED displays or 3.5mm jack.
Embedding on your home screen arbitrary apps that are already installed in your device is not an additional security risk over just installing those apps. Widgets are jacks, not telnet.
-
@Gąska So there is zero possibility for bugs in the widget system? Sure.
-
@topspin other than the usual 0.1% chance of every CPU instruction being wrong, no, there's nothing special about widgets that would make them especially susceptible to bugs.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin other than the usual 0.1% chance of every CPU instruction being wrong, no, there's nothing special about widgets that would make them especially susceptible to bugs.
There is no obvious reason for the widget system is to be absolutely bug free. It doesn’t need to be especially susceptible to bugs, just as susceptible as every other piece of the system.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin other than the usual 0.1% chance of every CPU instruction being wrong, no, there's nothing special about widgets that would make them especially susceptible to bugs.
There is no obvious reason for the widget system is to be absolutely bug free.
There is no obvious reason why you keep talking about being bug free. In fact, there's no reason at all.
It doesn’t need to be especially susceptible to bugs, just as susceptible as every other piece of the system.
But we have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we descend into pure madness. "Having Wi-Fi is not necessarily good in a smartphone, there might be bugs in the driver!"
-
@topspin Indeed. Widgets are by any means an additional functionality, which cannot only contain bugs, but which can also clutter the UI, can drain the battery, and so on.
It is one of the main things I noticed when I switched from Android to an iPhone: significantly less problems with battery draining caused by apps that behave badly when they keep running in the background.
-
@Grunnen why do you allow apps that behave badly to run in background?
-
@Gąska Why should I have to research which apps behave badly? And why should I need to close them manually?
It just shows that cool features (like real pre-emptive multitasking) come with downsides, so that you can't simply calculate that more features = better.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin other than the usual 0.1% chance of every CPU instruction being wrong, no, there's nothing special about widgets that would make them especially susceptible to bugs.
There is no obvious reason for the widget system is to be absolutely bug free.
There is no obvious reason why you keep talking about being bug free. In fact, there's no reason at all.
You keep pretending that there are no possible negative consequences to apply your bullshit of “objectively better”.
It doesn’t need to be especially susceptible to bugs, just as susceptible as every other piece of the system.
But we have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we descend into pure madness. "Having Wi-Fi is not necessarily good in a smartphone, there might be bugs in the driver!"
For correspondingly high-security scenarios, yes. But you probably shouldn’t have a smartphone at all then.
-
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
It just shows that cool features (like real pre-emptive multitasking) come with downsides, so that you can't simply calculate that more features = better.
This is one of those features that go to "you're allowing unknown people to mess with your device" bucket, which as I admitted earlier, is about the only case where just having the feature at all can be bad.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin other than the usual 0.1% chance of every CPU instruction being wrong, no, there's nothing special about widgets that would make them especially susceptible to bugs.
There is no obvious reason for the widget system is to be absolutely bug free.
There is no obvious reason why you keep talking about being bug free. In fact, there's no reason at all.
You keep pretending that there are no possible negative consequences to apply your bullshit of “objectively better”.
How about this: there are no more negative consequences to adding features than there are to taking one more breath. Because you're essentially arguing that features are bad because it means more code is getting run, and this code can have bugs. This is a natural state of things and has nothing to do with feature itself. Just like there are more chances of getting infection the more air you inhale. This is the level of discussion where it doesn't make sense to have a discussion anymore because literally everything is bad and the only way to get out is to stop breathing.
It doesn’t need to be especially susceptible to bugs, just as susceptible as every other piece of the system.
But we have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we descend into pure madness. "Having Wi-Fi is not necessarily good in a smartphone, there might be bugs in the driver!"
For correspondingly high-security scenarios, yes.
No. Not even in high-security scenarios. A phone without Wi-Fi is next to useless. If you add broken Wi-Fi, the worst that can happen is it's still next to useless.
-
@Gąska stop being an idiot for Christ's sake. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. At least keep it relevant to Apple and to the real world.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
So is everyone saying "more features is more potential bugs".
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin other than the usual 0.1% chance of every CPU instruction being wrong, no, there's nothing special about widgets that would make them especially susceptible to bugs.
There is no obvious reason for the widget system is to be absolutely bug free.
There is no obvious reason why you keep talking about being bug free. In fact, there's no reason at all.
You keep pretending that there are no possible negative consequences to apply your bullshit of “objectively better”.
How about this: there are no more negative consequences to adding features than there are to taking one more breath. Because you're essentially arguing that features are bad because it means more code is getting run, and this code can have bugs. This is a natural state of things and has nothing to do with feature itself. Just like there are more chances of getting infection the more air you inhale. This is the level of discussion where it doesn't make sense to have a discussion anymore because
literally everything is bad and the only way to get out is to stop breathing.you're ignoring everything that's been said just to have the last word.FTFY.
The problem with discussing with you is a trilemma:
- If I pointed you to actual real-world bugs, you'd say "that's been fixed already, so it's not relevant", obviously ignoring that their existence was relevant.
- If I make an analogy, you say "that's not relevant, that's
mobilespecial". - If I made up a hypothetical, you'd say "but that's not what it actually is like, because irrelevant minutia X".
Let's make one anyway:
- You have system A that's locked down pretty hard. You can install apps but they only show fullscreen and can't otherwise control or interact with the phone. When the user clicks this "house" button, the app is closed and has no chance of preventing that.
- There's another system W that comes along with much better features. It allows true multi-tasking and even has a window manager for overlapping windows. There is just no reason not to have it.
Now, cunning developer Clićkjąck releases his new, free app Magic Fucking Kingdom and everybody loves it. They have no idea, however, that when they now click their banking app to do some, uh, banking, they don't actually activate that app anymore. Instead, they've just clicked on a transparent overlay of MFK, and that app still has keyboard focus, stealing all your accounts.
It doesn’t need to be especially susceptible to bugs, just as susceptible as every other piece of the system.
But we have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we descend into pure madness. "Having Wi-Fi is not necessarily good in a smartphone, there might be bugs in the driver!"
For correspondingly high-security scenarios, yes.
No. Not even in high-security scenarios. A phone without Wi-Fi is next to useless.
If you add broken Wi-Fi, the worst that can happen is it's still next to useless.
Try bringing any phone with active radio into a secure facility.
-
@Gąska it is true to an extent. Surface area for bugs is larger, more code to run, it certainly increases the risk of bugs under the former point of view and it might affect the battery life as for the second one. That said, I prefer this to locking down the OS for security and optimisation purposes.
Of course, since Apple is notoriously stingy when it comes to warranty and customer support, one reason why they lock the OS down so much is so that the Genius Bar isn't swamped by people who are too hacky for their own good.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin other than the usual 0.1% chance of every CPU instruction being wrong, no, there's nothing special about widgets that would make them especially susceptible to bugs.
There is no obvious reason for the widget system is to be absolutely bug free.
There is no obvious reason why you keep talking about being bug free. In fact, there's no reason at all.
You keep pretending that there are no possible negative consequences to apply your bullshit of “objectively better”.
How about this: there are no more negative consequences to adding features than there are to taking one more breath. Because you're essentially arguing that features are bad because it means more code is getting run, and this code can have bugs. This is a natural state of things and has nothing to do with feature itself. Just like there are more chances of getting infection the more air you inhale. This is the level of discussion where it doesn't make sense to have a discussion anymore because
literally everything is bad and the only way to get out is to stop breathing.you're ignoring everything that's been said just to have the last word.FTFY.
The problem with discussing with you is a trilemma:
- If I pointed you to actual real-world bugs, you'd say "that's been fixed already, so it's not relevant", obviously ignoring that their existence was relevant.
- If I make an analogy, you say "that's not relevant, that's
mobilespecial". - If I made up a hypothetical, you'd say "but that's not what it actually is like, because irrelevant minutia X".
Let's make one anyway:
- You have system A that's locked down pretty hard. You can install apps but they only show fullscreen and can't otherwise control or interact with the phone. When the user clicks this "house" button, the app is closed and has no chance of preventing that.
- There's another system W that comes along with much better features. It allows true multi-tasking and even has a window manager for overlapping windows. There is just no reason not to have it.
Now, cunning developer Clićkjąck releases his new, free app Magic Fucking Kingdom and everybody loves it. They have no idea, however, that when they now click their banking app to do some, uh, banking, they don't actually activate that app anymore. Instead, they've just clicked on a transparent overlay of MFK, and that app still has keyboard focus, stealing all your accounts.
To be fair, if it's on the Play Store or any legitimate store, it's the stores' fault for letting such an app on them. (Being able to choose stores is good. I have F-Droid as well as the Play Store, there are a few apps on there that are actually fine). Android really warns you with some scary messaging if you try to install APKs from outside the store. (And it requires you to do stuff manually, like, it's not "automatic", tap on an APK, "this comes from an external source, do you want to allow external sources?”, you actually have to go through the menus and stuff).
It doesn’t need to be especially susceptible to bugs, just as susceptible as every other piece of the system.
But we have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we descend into pure madness. "Having Wi-Fi is not necessarily good in a smartphone, there might be bugs in the driver!"
For correspondingly high-security scenarios, yes.
No. Not even in high-security scenarios. A phone without Wi-Fi is next to useless.
If you add broken Wi-Fi, the worst that can happen is it's still next to useless.
Try bringing any phone with active radio into a secure facility.
Yeah but you can't bring any phone at all, so it's irrelevant.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
@Gąska it is true to an extent.
And so is what I'm saying. And just as relevant (ie. not really).
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
The iPhone is objectively worse in literally every area
Bullshit.
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
we finally decided to use OLED instead of LCD
So? Not everyone gives a shit about OLED in a phone.
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
They finally added a user view of the file system, something Android has had since fucking Ice Cream Sandwich. On the app front, you can't install anything not blessed by Apple either (which they're getting sued over!), no custom homescreens, ... , no 'default' apps, etc.
I had Android phones as my primary phones for years. How much did I use any of that? Barely.
How much do most people buying iPhones actually want those things? They don't, or they'd probably not buy an iPhone.
It'd be nice to have proper 3rd party browsers though.@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
People prefer the iPhone because there is only one iPhone and they know what they're getting, so they don't have to make any confusing choices, and because shiiiiiiiiny.
Or because they think it's better.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
More colors visible on screen is objectively better than less colors visible on screen.
More durable camera is objectively better than less durable camera.
Having widgets is objectively better than not having widgets.
Having NFC working with any payment provider is objectively better than not having NFC working with any payment provider.
And so on.The importance of all of these is subjective, so no.
Unless you're using pie_flavor's definition of objectively.
-
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
There is no obvious reason for the widget system is to be absolutely bug free. It doesn’t need to be especially susceptible to bugs, just as susceptible as every other piece of the system.
So? Literally what is your point in this line of argument? Code could have bugs in it? Oh, the huge manatee!
-
@Gąska it is relevant. Android and iOS have differing philosophies, also dictated by the way the OSs developed. Android has always been more feature-rich and open. Apple has always been very "designed", also in how the user must interact with the OS. Some believes that they must provide the one true way (and that's it), that the user experience must be dictated by them and they have responsibility to make it as smooth as possible, at the cost of limiting what you can actually do with the device. Android wanted to be different (or rather, more traditional) and it took the opportunity to address power users' grievances in the meantime. There are pros and cons to both.
-
@dkf said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
There is no obvious reason for the widget system is to be absolutely bug free. It doesn’t need to be especially susceptible to bugs, just as susceptible as every other piece of the system.
So? Literally what is your point in this line of argument? Code could have bugs in it? Oh, the huge manatee!
That one is not oh so obviously “objectively better” when there’s more than one thing to consider.
Just read what I wrote, I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
That one is not oh so obviously “objectively better” when there’s more than one thing to consider.
When someone uses the word “better” you ought to always wonder “by what metric?” Sometimes it's obvious, of course, but not always, and mere assertions of betterness don't cut it if they ignore the wider context. For example, widgets may use more power than icons (though this isn't proven) but they don't necessarily use significantly more than what is required to provide an indicator that there is something to do with the underlying app, and checking a widget might be cheaper than opening a full app to get the same information. (Or it might not. Measurement beats pontificating!)
-
@dkf said in Apple stand:
For example, widgets may use more power than icons (though this isn't proven) but they don't necessarily use significantly more than what is required to provide an indicator that there is something to do with the underlying app, and checking a widget might be cheaper than opening a full app to get the same information. (Or it might not. Measurement beats pontificating!)
Is using more or less power objectively better?
(INB4: Yes)
-
@dkf said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
That one is not oh so obviously “objectively better” when there’s more than one thing to consider.
When someone uses the word “better” you ought to always wonder “by what metric?”
The metric was "in literally every way".
Thus, anything you can think of disproves that absurd statement. Which has lead to a few examples and then bickering about minutiae of one particular example, which didn’t change its validity.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
How many examples do you need to accept the fact that a piece of Y shaped cable dangling from your ears and connected to a large piece of metal in your pocket is behaving like an antenna in the presence of high electrostatic charge?
I mean, you are free to go look for more examples. As for me, I would personally prefer if you went out with wired earphones into a thunderstorm to prove it yourself.BTDT, for years. Never had a problem. Your anecdote next.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Keep testing your luck.
I will. And you can continue fearmongering about lightning strikes and thus never ride bikes ever.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
I mean, you are free to go look for more examples. As for me, I would personally prefer if you went out with wired earphones into a thunderstorm to prove it yourself.
Don't forget your tinfoil hat.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Maybe tell them to spend more on phones? Because all premium Android phones have literally the same specs.
Devs buying more expensive phones won't change the fact that they have to support different systems in their software.
Besides even just the Samsung flagships come in two fundamentally different editions, despite having the same name. The S10, much like all of its predecessors, comes either with an Exynos/Mali or with a Snapdragon/Adreno board, depending on where you buy it and how the stars align. Not to mention that there's two versions with different amounts of RAM (presumably for each board). And, just to repeat, this is just for a single Android product that's called "Samsung S10".
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
And the difrerence for the user is, in terms of performance?
Dunno. Some claim that performance is better on one or the other, possibly depending on what they're measuring. The GPUs have mildly different feature sets too.
On the other hand, I replied to the statement
@levicki said in Apple stand:
and they all use same Snapdragon CPUs, same GPUs, same everything
which clearly isn't true, since exactly those things vary even inside of one "product".
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
I will. And you can continue fearmongering about lightning strikes and thus never ride bikes ever.
So warning people about actual hazard is fearmongering now just because it didn't happen to you? Good to know.
Citation: The State of California and all of its knowledge regarding carcinogens.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
Quality assurance to ensure poor manufacturers don't cheapen the brand. Nothing wrong with this.
And then we still get Android phones who passed those certifications to get access to Google Play Store and then ended up with malware embedded in the firmware? Some quality assurance you have there.
The original point you made was these certifications and licenses Google requires from its manufacturers is a bad thing. Now you say they don't do it enough? Make up your damn mind.
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
... such as camera, antenna quality, screen size, physical resistance to breaking by dropping, and even things like button placement.
Camera? What percentage of users care about camera? What percentage of users are using dirt cheap plastic Android phones where pictures look like this:
sigh Not the people who care about cameras.
If you are claiming that there are differences in quality in Android cameras yes of course there are -- and they are reflected in the price. If you buy premium models you get good cameras and at that price point they all have almost identical camera quality so my point stands.
You missed my point by a mile. My point is if you don't care about camera quality, then you can get the cheap model. Unlike iPhone where you're forced to get a top-of-the-line camera and pay top dollar for it even if you don't necessarily need it. "They are reflected in the price." Well, no shit! So if you don't need a good camera, why the fuck do you insist I spend money on one?
Antenna quality? Are you serious? In what units is that measured? How can users even make an educated guess much less compare two antennas?
Umm, by doing research. You know, the Internet has a lot of info about this stuff. And if you're in remote areas or want to use your Wifi on your patio, then yeah, you're going to do that research. And, if you do most of your stuff in urban areas where that kind of thing isn't as important, you can at least remove it from your checklist and maybe be able to go for a cheaper model.
Buttons? Getting removed, moot point.
Perfect example of asshattery from Apple fanboys like you: "Oh, I can't imagine caring about where the buttons are on the phone, so therefore your point is invalid. Nobody else could care."
Screen size? How is that adding to the choice? It's larger or smaller but it's still showing the same ugly and crowded Android GUI.
I like the Android GUI. I know, it's fun to see Apple fanboys trying to wrap their heads around such a foreign concept as, "Omg, someone's opinion is different from mine!!!!" but it's alright. That aching feeling in your head will pass over time.
Real choice is when you can choose between things which have different functionality or meaningful differences, not different visuals and irrelevant externals. Hell, you can go into your local supermarket and find 20 different brands of exactly the same pineapple juice. How is that a fucking choice? They all suck dick and have diabetes inducing levels of sugar per 100 gr of product.
Because the Apple brand of the pineapple juice costs $10 per bottle, when I get to enjoy the choice of getting the $5 one instead.
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
Still a helluvalot better than the "choices" you get with iPhone.
Not long ago you could only chose the color of your iPhone out of 3 available, and people were still buying them like hot cakes because the product was good. Not everything is about having a lot of choice, and if you bothered to watch the video I posted maybe you would understand why people prefer less choice and why they are happier with that.
I care about choice if I can spend $500 on a new phone that I primarily use for browsing the Internet, texting, and making phone calls with instead of $1,000 for the same.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
I care about choice if I can spend $500 on a new phone
You can spend $449 on a new iPhone that does all the things you listed.
-
@loopback0 But then you have an iPhone.
-
@loopback0 said in Apple stand:
Don't forget your tinfoil hat.
would that increase or decrease the chance of being hit by lighting?
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
those who fell from a bike,
BTDT
and those who will fall from a bike.
GTWDT
