Apple stand
-
@Captain The title says 1998 but the video says 2000, as does Wikipedia.
-
Not to mention that early USB sticks were much more costly than diskettes, and USB was a pain to get working (Windows didn't include class drivers for USB drives before Windows ME. You had to install a driver for each drive, which meant bringing a diskette or CD if you wanted to use your USB stick on a computer that wasn't yours).
-
@Captain said in Apple stand:
@hungrier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Bu3tPaJCA8MB is still faster and better than 1.44. Why buy a Mac if you want a PC experience?
Hah, I have this exact drive (IBM-branded) somewhere. And while they might have been invented in 1998, they did not come into common use until early 2000's.
I remember lugging my parallel ZIP100 and later ZIP250 drives around.
-
@ender my dad had a Iomega Zip drive. It was sort of fast too, at the time. Certainly faster than a floppy disc.
My first pen drive, I think, I got it around 2003-2004. Up until then documents were floppy discs, the rest was CDs.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
@ender my dad had a Iomega Zip drive. It was sort of fast too, at the time. Certainly faster than a floppy disc.
I booted Windows 95 off a 100 mb zip disk. It was fucking slow...
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
See: faulty chargers and wired earphones, lightning strikes using earphone wires as a grounding point.
I've never heard of that happening. I've heard of this:
Now you've got to worry about exploding headphones, too
During a flight from Beijing, China, to Melbourne, Australia, a passenger was sleeping when suddenly her headphones exploded, burning her face.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
@levicki just because consumers don't "need" what you are offering to them doesn't mean it isn't marketed to them.
Dude, $5,000 starting price without stand, adapter, and nano-texture coating is well out of consumer spending range in any country on this planet including countries with higher standard of living than the USA.
Consumer goods:
Broad category that covers mass-market items divided into consumer durables, consumer non-durables, and soft goods. See also consumer product.Consumer product:
Merchandise or other item of common or daily use, ordinarily bought by individuals or households for private consumption. See also consumer goods.In other words -- mass-market items for personal (as in: non-business) use.
The product price is what decides the product's target market segment, not what users need or don't need.
Except Apple unveiled this at a consumer expo. I agree most consumers are not going to buy it, but that doesn't mean Apple isn't trying.
If you think a company markets to an audience only if they "need" what they are offering, you're ignorant of one of the major reasons Apple is so successful.
That's actually the point I'm making. Apple's good at "telling" people what they need at an inflated price. I give them props for it, too. Their marketing department is fantastic.
I guarantee you Apple will tell its zealots "yes you need this monitor for casual use" because that is what Apple is known to do.
Your blind hate for Apple (which smells like sour grapes to be honest) makes you see things that are not there and also makes you not see the well known and established facts. On top of that, you are insulting millions of people who are buying Apple gear while having no idea what you are talking about.
Grow up, go outside, find a girlfriend. Or don't, most likely you would end up annoyed because she will be using an iPhone. Who could love a woman who is an "Apple zealot" anyway. /s
Actually my wife is indeed an iPhone user, and I smile every time she complains about it. I don't care what other people use. I simply don't like Apple's philosophy of caging people into few models to choose from. Because Android is open, you have different companies competing with their own phones on their device. Want one more robust and shock resistant? There's a good model for that. Want one that maximizes battery life? There's a company offering that. Want a bigger screen? Here's another option for you. Want something that isn't $1,000? There's options there, too.
-
@Tsaukpaetra now do that off a USB1 pen drive.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra now do that off a USB1 pen drive.
BTDT. It's still slow.
It takes about an hour and a half to boot Windows 10 off of USB 1.0, if it's been smart-shutdown'd (i.e. partial hibernated).
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
lightning strikes using earphone wires as a grounding point.
[Citation needed]
Edit: Oh look, a one-off incident where it happened was posted. Now, is this a common thing to happen?
Edit edit: Oh, I get it, it's the same number of people that would buy an Apple Stand! I read the lines and the betweenis!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
It takes about an hour and a half to boot Windows 10 off of USB 1.0, if it's been smart-shutdown'd (i.e. partial hibernated).
You mean, you actually waited an hour and a half to see it boot?
-
@TimeBandit said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
It takes about an hour and a half to boot Windows 10 off of USB 1.0, if it's been smart-shutdown'd (i.e. partial hibernated).
You mean, you actually waited an hour and a half to see it boot?
Not with rapt attention, no. I'm not (usually) that bored. It was just that long for the spinning dots to go away and then disappear and then blue and then picture (the clock appeared a bit after that). Didn't time how long the actual desktop loaded past that because it was time to sleep.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
Except Apple unveiled this at a consumer expo.
Except WWDC is not "consumer expo".
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
Apple's good at "telling" people what they need at an inflated price
Did it perhaps occur to you that their products are actually good and that they are making success because ads are telling the truth instead of fake promises?
I will say Apple makes robust and high quality hardware that rarely breaks. However, I will also say it is overpriced and overhyped, primarily because of its marketing programs.
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
Because Android is open, you have different companies competing with their own phones on their device.
Except that Android is not open, manufacturers pay certifications and licenses to Google
Quality assurance to ensure poor manufacturers don't cheapen the brand. Nothing wrong with this.
Look at one Android phone and you have seen them all.
Patently false. You are looking at just the CPU, GPU, and OS while completely ignoring other big factors phone users consider more important depending on their preferences such as camera, antenna quality, screen size, physical resistance to breaking by dropping, and even things like button placement.
That's the illusion of choice, not real choice.
Still a helluvalot better than the "choices" you get with iPhone.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Did it perhaps occur to you that their products are actually good and that they are making success because ads are telling the truth instead of fake promises?
No, never occurred to me at all.
ads are telling the truth instead of fake promises?
Why on Earth would would you think that might occur to me? That's never been true of any ad for anything.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
overhyped, primarily because of its marketing programs.
Those tend to go hand in hand.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
I will say Apple makes robust and high quality hardware that rarely breaks.
Yeah, except when they botch the design and refuse to acknowledge the problem. Like Macbook keyboards that die if a bread crumb falls on them, internal screen flex cables that break because they're a few millimeters too short, tablets that bend because they don't have enough structural strength, and lots of others hardware issues.
When it comes to reliability, Apple isn't any better than other major brands, and their default behavior is to blame the customer as much as they can.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Lightning strke:
Listening to MP3s in a storm could blow your mind
Wearing personal stereo earphones in a thunderstorm can conduct the lightning into the head, as a Canadian man discovered to his cost
That guy would've been totally okay if he got struck by lightning without headphones
-
-
In more recent news, the organic greengrocer on N. Sobertin St. is now taking Apple to court because he has prior art and trademarks over the concept of an "apple stand".
-
@uschwarz said in Apple stand:
In more recent news, the organic greengrocer on N. Sobertin St. is
now taking Applebeing taken by Apple to court because he has prior art and trademarks over the concept of an "apple stand".
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
I've never heard of that happening. I've heard of this:
Better burned then dead:
Bizarre: Girl Killed In Her Sleep From Wearing Earbuds While iPhone Was Charging - DailyBuzzLive.com
Bizarre: Girl Killed In Her Sleep From Wearing Earbuds While iPhone Was Charging Houston, Texas – Gabrielle Samuels, 19, of Houston, Texas died in her sleep last night while listening to music on her charging iPhone. Samuels was listening to iTunes on her iPhone 6 Plus while attempting to fall...
Putting headphone output into the same connector with charging input continues to be a bad idea. It would be a bad idea even if the Lightning connector's pins weren't re-routable by the processor, which they are. Depending on which way the connector's inserted, earbud output pins will be between [V-in] and [GND].
This could be grounds for a class-action.
...I'll have to remember to tell the missus to never charge and use earbuds at the same time. Limit the failure modes to just plain fire.
Just so you don't need to bother typing:
-
@Zerosquare said in Apple stand:
Yeah, except when they botch the design and refuse to acknowledge the problem. Like Macbook keyboards that die if a bread crumb falls on them, internal screen flex cables that break because they're a few millimeters too short, tablets that bend because they don't have enough structural strength, and lots of others hardware issues.
My favourite is one of their laptops ungluing itself because of poor glue quality, with its own heat because of shit cooling design.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
and they all use same Snapdragon CPUs, same GPUs, same everything
I know some people who would be very happy if that were true.
-
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
and they all use same Snapdragon CPUs, same GPUs, same everything
I know some people who would be very happy if that were true.
Starting with Google themselves. The fact that iOS doesn't have to support a wide range of hardware has always been seen as one of the reasons why its performance tends to be better : you have a strict set of configurations to compile and optimise for.
Also, wow, a link to a TED talk! This automatically turns anything people write into undeniable truth!
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Except that Android is
notopen, manufacturers pay certifications and licenses to Google in order to get Google Play services preinstalled, and shit like Kindle actually doesn't and competing phones all run the same shitty, non-native,unaggressively optimized, byte-interpretedJITedJavaDalvik code thus needing2x largerabout 1.1-ish-x battery capacity and they come withvomit inducing overstuffed and confusing GUI with menus going 20 levels deepa menu structure not identical to Apple's godawful design andthey allthe four or so big flagships use same Snapdragon CPUs, same GPUs, same everything. Look at one big flagship Android phone and you have seen them all. That's the illusion of choice, not real choice.Show us on the doll where the green robot touched you.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Did it perhaps occur to you that their products are actually good and that they are making success because ads are telling the truth instead of fake promises?
It did for a few microseconds. Then I checked the specs page and went right back to laughing. 'Liquid Retina' i.e. 'we finally decided to use OLED instead of LCD. What do you mean OLED has been industry standard for a long ass-time now?'. Vastly inferior camera. Kooky screen resolution (what the fuck is wrong with 16:9?). Missing tons of standard features like homescreen customizability, widgets, half decent notification support, NFC usability outside of Apple Pay, split-screen apps, compatibility with things not blessed by Tim Apple, and so forth. 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 custom browsers (that don't use Safari internally), no 'default' apps, etc. Oh and don't forget that "sapphire" camera glass which is actually a super cheap form of sapphire which scratches just as easily as glass.
An iPhone would be a decent budget phone if it cost as much as a budget phone. It doesn't. It's the most expensive phone out there, more expensive than every single Android offering while being objectively inferior in every capacity to the top Android phones. But it's shiny and so is the UI theme (ignoring the menu layout) and so lots of people buy them.
-
@pie_flavor Apart from the OLED and perhaps the sapphire thing, everything you mention are design choices that are a matter of taste and not a matter of quality or performance.
-
@Grunnen Also, OLED's been used in pretty much all other phones for a while now (and found to work extremely well), so that's not so much quality as stubbornness at sticking with their older technology.
-
@dkf By the way, the iPhone has never had the best specs. AFAIK already the original iPhone was ridiculed for not offering 3G connectivity, not having a compass, not allowing copy-paste and whatsnot. But still it was more of a phone that people actually wanted, than the other "better" smartphones.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
@loopback0 said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
@loopback0 said in Apple stand:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Apple stand:
My quick google search suggests this is not so, but, natch, I don't have a phone to test compatibility with...
They're USB-C to 3.5mm not Lightning to 3.5mm.
... TIL there's a difference.
Lightning:
I may have been thinking of Thunderbolt then? All these chic names for things get aggravating...
Thunderbolt:
-
@Grunnen It's not 'the iPhone is better in some areas and worse in others'. The iPhone is objectively worse in literally every area save for iMessage as a default chat app. 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.
-
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
@pie_flavor Apart from the OLED and perhaps the sapphire thing, everything you mention are design choices that are a matter of taste and not a matter of quality or performance.
In fact nothing at all I mentioned was a matter of taste save for custom browsers and homescreens. Everything else is objectively lower quality, fewer features, or shittier functionality.
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
People prefer the iPhone because there is only one iPhone
Nowadays, it's more that they prefer the way that Apple's phones work to the way that Android phones work.
-
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
objectively worse
Whenever someone says "objectively worse / better" I know I can immediately stop reading and ignore them, because they're full of shit and don't even know what "better", "worse" and "objective" mean.
-
@ixvedeusi feel free to actually explain how I'm wrong instead of simply wharblegarbling.
-
@dkf which is?
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
feel free to actually explain how I'm wrong instead of simply wharblegarbling.
Feel free to explain how the notion of "better" or "worse" can possibly be objective.
-
@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.
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.
-
A balanced view (it's an idiotic endeavour but still).
iPhone, pros:
- better CPUs and memory/storage (as shown by the countless benchmarks)
- good screens (colour, brightness, etc.), if not the highest resolution (it really is diminishing returns after a certain point)
- generally speaking, consistent performance (with some caveats)
- easy to use OS, in part because of its lack of certain features
- much better for certain things (audio apps for instance: latency on Android is pathetic, whereas with an iPad or even an iPhone you could realistically even perform live, with many audio apps which are top quality)
- long update support (longer than all/most Android phones
- good, consistent cameras for casual use (if not the best)
Cons:
- price
- relatively locked-down OS (even though it gets better), with the expectation that the user must accept Apple's way of doing things (on Android practically everything can be customised, to an extent at least)
- battery life (usually mediocre)
- in general the fact that it is its own ecosystem and peripherals and hardware can only target Apple, not to mention the fact that Apple purposely limits their good apps to iOS (iMessage for instance)
- often behind on certain features because of their insistence/obsession with "polish" (even though I believe that it's mostly PR)
- objectively middling cameras (although decent, there are much better smartphone cameras in the Android world)
They're not midrange phones. They still cost more than almost anything else, when fully specced, and I believe that the Apple tax is not worth paying, but I don't look down on people preferring Apple. It's their choice. I look down on people who believe that, in this day and age, Apple hardware is special. It's really not (except for CPUs which are really really good, and I can't comprehend why nobody else really manages to get close to Apple's CPUs on single-core performance).
-
@GÄ…ska 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.
More durable camera is objectively better than less durable camera.
Seems true, but [citation needed].
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.
Not necessarily, either.
And so on.
"literally every area", except those omitted.
-
@GÄ…ska 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.That's not "better", that's "higher numbers". What's better about higher numbers, outside of the subjective context of the people actually using these features? What about non-quantifiable features, such as ease of use, warm fuzzies etc? Higher numbers can in fact be subjectively worse, as the product will be more complex, and thus more failure-prone and more difficult to use, have a shorter battery life, be more expensive to produce than necessary, etc.
For anyone not actually using these features, not having them is better than having them, thus there is no way you could call this "objectively better". This should be obvious because "objectively better" is in itself an oxymoron.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
long update support
Android phones, despite having long update support, don't need long update support. Only on Apple is there this notion that apps only work on latest. On Android the vast majority of apps are compatible with a device running Ice Cream Sandwich from seven years ago.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
@GÄ…ska 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.
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.
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.
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.
-
@ixvedeusi I'd say the idea is that "fewer colours" is a subset of "more colours" – everything that's possible with fewer can be achieved by more, but more colours extends the possibilities.
Similarly with a lot of the others. If
ydoes everythingxdoes without impacting on that in any way, whilst also doing more, one could sayyis "objectively better".
-
@pie_flavor what about security updates?
-
@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.
ETE: and maybe the manufacturer "solved" that problem by throttling your higher-specced CPU down to a crawl whenever the phone is idle for a microsecond and making it take a minute to wake up, thus getting the "battery life" stat also into the "objectively better" realm. You won't see that from the spec, so the device will be "objectively better", but will be unusable crap anyway.
-
-
@pie_flavor This is kinda turning the argument upside-down. 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
-
@ixvedeusi said in Apple stand:
@GÄ…ska 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.That's not "better", that's "higher numbers". What's better about higher numbers, outside of the subjective context of the people actually using these features?
Do you want to live in a world where literally nothing matters, or do you want to have at least some semblance of sanity where you can reliably quantify physical properties of products in one way or another and derive your choices from that? I choose the second. Higher numbers are better by definition. In this one aspect that I'm measuring right now. Note that I'm not saying that one screen is better than the other. I'm saying that the color space of one screen is better than that of another screen. This is one measurable property. Another is e.g. resolution. Higher resolution is objectively better than lower resolution. Combinations are more problematic and then you have no clear answer. Is higher resolution and smaller color space better? Hard to tell, depends on circumstances. But higher resolution and bigger color space combined is objectively better than smaller resolution and smaller color space combined.
What about non-quantifiable features
As you pointed out, they're non-quantifiable. But quantifiable features are still quantifiable.
Higher numbers can in fact be subjectively worse
Everything can be subjectively worse if you try hard enough. Even something that is objectively better that even you agree that is objectively better.
as the product will be more complex, and thus more failure-prone
Can. Not will. Can. And if they end up being more failure-prone, it will become an area that it'll be objectively, measurably worse than competition.
For anyone not actually using these features, not having them is better than having them
Wrong. Having less options is always worse than having more options (if other variables stay the same). You might not use them now, but how do you know what you'll be using in 2 years from now? And then maybe you'll wish you've picked the "subjectively worse phone that's only worse because it has something I didn't need right then, and it was equal in all other ways". The opposite will never happen. All other variables being equal, you'll never be in a situation where you wish your phone didn't have some feature it has. Unless this feature got in the way of getting things done, but that's another matter entirely.
TechFandu - Internet and Technology News Blog
Lightning (connector) - Wikipedia
