Apple stand
-
@dkf said in Apple stand:
@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.
The mob might. Johnny tightlips needs to be... Secured.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
A de facto monopoly? Did I miss some news that Apple was capsized by Google?
I was talking about monopoly Google has on Android, not on the whole phone market.
That's about as idiotic as saying Toyota has a monopoly on Corollas or Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows.
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
Lol, you think I buy twice as many because it's half the price.
You are buying at a lower price presumably to save money... which you will spend on more of the same next day. Buying cheaper things enables you to consume more because you have less buyer's remorse if you make a wrong buying decision.
Okay, the analogy is going into absurdum because you're first assuming I'm using the $5 I saved on more fruit juice the next day, which I'm not necessarily, and second the savings one uses on buying a cheaper phone doesn't ever go into buying more cheaper phones. For instance, I used the savings on my phone into things like tools to perform my own oil changes, which in turn also saves me money.
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
So?
So don't claim that you can? D'oh.
Can what? Save money on a phone that does exactly what I need it to? Because that's exactly what I did.
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
I don't judge others for purchasing Apple.
Haven't you called them zealots? Isn't that judging?
No, I've called some of them, yourself included, zealots. The kind who defends every decision Apple makes, regardless of how absurd it is. Not every person who purchases Apple products are zealots.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
How is that not a monopoly?
It looks more like an oligopoly, given that there's multiple providers of Android core services. That said, the barriers to entry are naturally high; it takes quite a lot of work to create replacements for the equivalents of the Google stack, and most phone makers prefer to not do that (as they probably regard software as something outside their core competencies).
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Honestly I don't see any other providers except maybe Amazon.
Expand your knowledge
Galaxy Store | Apps - The Official Samsung Galaxy Site
Discover your style and passions on Galaxy Store. Whether in gaming, styling your devices or finding useful apps, we've got exclusive offers for Galaxy users.
Aptoide - The alternative Android app store
Find, discover and download the best apps and games for Android in the official Aptoide app store
-
@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.
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.Having 3 too few pixels produces objectively better blakeyrants.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
At least keep it relevant to Apple and to the real world.
Since you've acknowledged that the two are disjoint, can you give us tips on how to address both simultaneously?
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
So is everyone saying "more features is more potential bugs".
Are you really trying to say that's not true? You're not that new here.
-
@boomzilla adding more features leads to more bugs. That's very different from having more features.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla adding more features leads to more bugs. That's very different from having more features.
How do you suppose they came to be?
When a mommy compiler loves a daddy compiler...
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
the savings one uses on buying a cheaper phone doesn't ever go into buying more cheaper phones
TBF, my cheap phones don't tend to last as long as a more expensive one might. I still spend less overall but cheaper phones are more likely to have a component break IME.
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla adding more features leads to more bugs. That's very different from having more features.
How do you suppose they came to be?
Not by copying the entire codebase of a competitor.
Let's say you have two very fancy mugs - one is in the shape of a wolf, the other in the shape a unicorn. They're both empty. Which one is heavier? Now, let's add 2 fl oz. of water to the unicorn. Is it heavier than before? Of course it is. But is it heavier than the wolf? Who the fuck knows. Now, let's rip off unicorn's head. Has the amount of water changed? No, it didn't. And yet the mug got lighter.
Adding water increases weight. But the amount of water doesn't tell you jack shit about the mug's weight. You cannot compare the weight of two mugs just by looking how much water they have. Features are like water. Adding more features, while keeping everything else the same, increases probability of bugs. But depending on how it's done exactly, it increases only a little, or it increases by much. And when you do change other things as well (read: refactoring), the probability of having bugs might go down. Thus, the number of features alone doesn't tell you anything about how buggy the software might be.
Apple products having less features doesn't mean they have less potential bugs. You can't measure potential bugs with number of features. Apple products having less features only tells you that it has less features.
-
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
@admiral_p Oh absolutely. I’ve had a Huawei Psomething Pro and now I have an iPhone. Both have advantages and disadvantages and the overall judgement will depend on what (if anything) you find most important about a smartphone.
And that’s exactly why I get a bit allergic if someone says “X is objectively better in all aspects”.
I eagerly await a description of some field in which an iPhone is better.
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
No, my original point was a counter-point to your claim that Android is free -- I wasn't judging whether that is good or bad, just stating a fact that it's not free as in beer nor it is a free software unless you want to make a phone which has no Google Play Store and thus no software to run.
Android is almost as much of a walled garden as iOS except that Apple is at least not pretending to be fostering competition like Google does while having a de facto monopoly which it abuses to get an advantage over other vendors who have to work with its scraps.That's not what walled garden means. On iPhone you can't install any app that Apple doesn't approve or make any modification to anything. Your customization of your phone extends about to changing the wallpaper and ringtone. It's got nothing to do with the software being free.
I'm noticing a lot of telltale signs about you knowing literally nothing about what you're talking about, like the remark about Android version targeting and the belief that without the Play Store you cannot have any software. I explicitly do not recommend withdrawing from the argument because your zealotry is amazing to watch, but recognize that you are digging yourself deeper.
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
@admiral_p Oh absolutely. I’ve had a Huawei Psomething Pro and now I have an iPhone. Both have advantages and disadvantages and the overall judgement will depend on what (if anything) you find most important about a smartphone.
And that’s exactly why I get a bit allergic if someone says “X is objectively better in all aspects”.
I eagerly await a description of some field in which an iPhone is better.
Better integration with apple's ecosystem
Smaller range of hardware means apps are much more likely to have been tested on your setup, therefore less potential for bugs
Better support for old devices than just about any android manufacturerI prefer Android, but God damnit it's retarded to say it's objectively better in every way
-
@pie_The iPhone had clearly more CPU and GPU power. With iOS you don’t have any problems with background apps secretly draining the battery. Apple cares more about privacy. And an iPhone gives more social status. The headphones also had a better quality. And longer support for major OS upgrades.
The Huawei phone, however, had better camera algorithms, so especially at night it made much better photos. It could easily be used as an USB storage device. And it came with a better quality charging cable.
These are all objective facts.
-
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
These are all objective facts.
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
an iPhone gives more social status.
False. I have an iPhone. Well, had. I did literally nothing for my social status. Actually, the fact that I resurrected it from water damage improved my social status more than the device itself.
-
@Jaloopa said in Apple stand:
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
@admiral_p Oh absolutely. I’ve had a Huawei Psomething Pro and now I have an iPhone. Both have advantages and disadvantages and the overall judgement will depend on what (if anything) you find most important about a smartphone.
And that’s exactly why I get a bit allergic if someone says “X is objectively better in all aspects”.
I eagerly await a description of some field in which an iPhone is better.
Better integration with apple's ecosystem
not_necessarily_better.jpeg
Smaller range of hardware means apps are much more likely to have been tested on your setup, therefore less potential for bugs
And yet bugs abound anyway.
Better support for old devices than just about any android manufacturer
Support how? Feature updates, yes, bugfix updates, no.
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
On iPhone you can't install any app that Apple doesn't approve or make any modification to anything.
A company can definitely bypass the store and if you're a developer you can also install anything you want, as long as you have the source code.
I know that's not what you meant but still...
... also, way less harmful software on the Apple store than on the various Android stores.
-
@Rhywden said in Apple stand:
... also, way less harmful software on the Apple store than on the various Android stores.
That's such an unfair comparison, considering the barriers of entry for those stores. How about we compare only the top 100,000 apps of each store instead? It's rather unlikely someone will have an app outside of those anyway.
-
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
The iPhone had clearly more CPU and GPU power.
The iPhone is so slow that every app needs to have a splash screen by app store policy to hide the initial start lag.
With iOS you don’t have any problems with background apps secretly draining the battery.
How's that? Does it just not have any kind of background services?
Apple cares more about privacy.
Maybe in big public stunts like the FBI thing. What I know is that I can download, and delete, every bit of data that Google holds on me. And they implemented this way before the GDPR.
And an iPhone gives more social status.
No, Apple just wants you to believe that this is the case.
The headphones also had a better quality.
Than, say, Skullcandy? Yes. Than others at that price point? Hell no.
And longer support for major OS upgrades.
Slowing your phone down further and further over time. Whereas with an Android phone virtually every app will still work with it even if you never update the OS, unlike Apple where everything is always on latest.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@Rhywden said in Apple stand:
... also, way less harmful software on the Apple store than on the various Android stores.
That's such an unfair comparison, considering the barriers of entry for those stores. How about we compare only the top 100,000 apps of each store instead? It's rather unlikely someone will have an app outside of those anyway.
I could have sworn that goalpost was right here just a second ago. Now it's over there. Weird.
-
@Rhywden said in Apple stand:
... also, way less harmful software on the Apple store than on the various Android stores.
Only when you include Aptoide which is just a mirror for any APK anyone wants to upload. But the Play Store is tightly curated and F-Droid has a Stallman-level open-source requirement.
-
-
@Rhywden said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@Rhywden said in Apple stand:
... also, way less harmful software on the Apple store than on the various Android stores.
That's such an unfair comparison, considering the barriers of entry for those stores. How about we compare only the top 100,000 apps of each store instead? It's rather unlikely someone will have an app outside of those anyway.
I could have sworn that goalpost was right here just a second ago. Now it's over there. Weird.
When you put the goalpost on another continent, of course I'm going to move it back where it makes sense.
-
@Rhywden said in Apple stand:
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
But the Play Store is tightly curated
Wat.
Wat wat.
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
@Rhywden said in Apple stand:
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
But the Play Store is tightly curated
Wat.
Wat wat.
"Curated". The Play Store is not in any way "curated". Have you actually ever uploaded an App to the Apple and the Play store? I have. There's no such thing as "curation" going on at Google.
-
@Rhywden As in they remove stuff from the store that breaks the rules.
-
@pie_flavor What are you trying to accomplish? I gave you my arguments, they are all true and relevant for me, and no “but but but” can change any of that.
-
@Rhywden said in Apple stand:
The Play Store is not in any way "curated"
Yeah, that's way every Android phone is full of malware
Also
-
-
@Grunnen said in Apple stand:
@pie_flavor What are you trying to accomplish? I gave you my arguments, they are all true and relevant for me, and no “but but but” can change any of that.
They are true for you despite being untrue normally? Alternate universes abound!
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
@Rhywden As in they remove stuff from the store that breaks the rules.
That's not "curation", that's damage control. A curator looks at stuff before he lets it in the shop.
-
@TimeBandit That's not the point. Comparatively speaking it's easier to get malware into the various Android stores than into Apple's.
-
The amusing thing about this conversation is that smartphones have stopped being exciting at least three years ago. I suggest doing McDonald's vs Burger King instead. Even this is more interesting and relevant.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
The amusing thing about this conversation is that smartphones have stopped being exciting at least three years ago. I suggest doing McDonald's vs Burger King instead. Even this is more interesting and relevant.
But I think that's settled. McDonald's has superior fries in every sense of the term, and Burger King has superior burgers. If I have the time, I'd order from each just to optimize my fast food eating.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
The amusing thing about this conversation is that smartphones have stopped being exciting at least three years ago. I suggest doing McDonald's vs Burger King instead. Even this is more interesting and relevant.
But I think that's settled. McDonald's has superior fries in every sense of the term, and Burger King has superior burgers. If I have the time, I'd order from each just to optimize my fast food eating.
Not my local McDonalds. I don't know if they don't fry long enough or at too low temperature, but they come out underdone so often I've stopped ordering them.
The local Burger King left a couple years ago because they weren't profitable. Probably too many other places around with faster service. I've heard they'll be trying again though.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
has superior fries in every sense of the term
Objectively better in every way?
-
@Jaloopa Subjectively better in every way!
-
@dcon said in Apple stand:
@kazitor said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
those who fell from a bike,
BTDT
I've broken several helmets. No broken heads. And only 1 broken bone. (while commuting! never during a race)
I've broken four I think. Not a single one while commuting. Only during practice and racing. And a slow crash on the way home from gooning. First time I actually got hurt
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
On iPhone you can't install any app that Apple doesn't approve or make any modification to anything. Your customization of your phone extends about to changing the wallpaper and ringtone.
Yeah, so? Most people only need the apps in the App Store or to change the wallpaper and ringtone. That's all I need.
Those are subjective measures of better.
-
@loopback0 I'd go further than that and say that many people only need a few social media apps (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram), a messaging app (WhatsApp?) and a browser. Maybe some photo filtering stuff. A calculator, a calendar, a weather app, a notes app. Yeah, many people would be very well served by a capable featurephone.
In China, most people live in WeChat apparently.
-
@PleegWat said in Apple stand:
@The_Quiet_One said in Apple stand:
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
The amusing thing about this conversation is that smartphones have stopped being exciting at least three years ago. I suggest doing McDonald's vs Burger King instead. Even this is more interesting and relevant.
But I think that's settled. McDonald's has superior fries in every sense of the term, and Burger King has superior burgers. If I have the time, I'd order from each just to optimize my fast food eating.
Not my local McDonalds. I don't know if they don't fry long enough or at too low temperature, but they come out underdone so often I've stopped ordering them.
Ah, but they adjust to local taste.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla adding more features leads to more bugs. That's very different from having more features.
How do you suppose they came to be?
Not by copying the entire codebase of a competitor.
Let's say you have two very fancy mugs - one is in the shape of a wolf, the other in the shape a unicorn. They're both empty. Which one is heavier? Now, let's add 2 fl oz. of water to the unicorn. Is it heavier than before? Of course it is. But is it heavier than the wolf? Who the fuck knows. Now, let's rip off unicorn's head. Has the amount of water changed? No, it didn't. And yet the mug got lighter.
Adding water increases weight. But the amount of water doesn't tell you jack shit about the mug's weight. You cannot compare the weight of two mugs just by looking how much water they have. Features are like water. Adding more features, while keeping everything else the same, increases probability of bugs. But depending on how it's done exactly, it increases only a little, or it increases by much. And when you do change other things as well (read: refactoring), the probability of having bugs might go down. Thus, the number of features alone doesn't tell you anything about how buggy the software might be.
Apple products having less features doesn't mean they have less potential bugs. You can't measure potential bugs with number of features. Apple products having less features only tells you that it has less features.
WTF was that?
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla adding more features leads to more bugs. That's very different from having more features.
How do you suppose they came to be?
Not by copying the entire codebase of a competitor.
Let's say you have two very fancy mugs - one is in the shape of a wolf, the other in the shape a unicorn. They're both empty. Which one is heavier? Now, let's add 2 fl oz. of water to the unicorn. Is it heavier than before? Of course it is. But is it heavier than the wolf? Who the fuck knows. Now, let's rip off unicorn's head. Has the amount of water changed? No, it didn't. And yet the mug got lighter.
Adding water increases weight. But the amount of water doesn't tell you jack shit about the mug's weight. You cannot compare the weight of two mugs just by looking how much water they have. Features are like water. Adding more features, while keeping everything else the same, increases probability of bugs. But depending on how it's done exactly, it increases only a little, or it increases by much. And when you do change other things as well (read: refactoring), the probability of having bugs might go down. Thus, the number of features alone doesn't tell you anything about how buggy the software might be.
Apple products having less features doesn't mean they have less potential bugs. You can't measure potential bugs with number of features. Apple products having less features only tells you that it has less features.
WTF was that?
It appears to be equating functionality to physicality. For some reason.
-
@Carnage said in Apple stand:
@dcon said in Apple stand:
@kazitor said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
those who fell from a bike,
BTDT
I've broken several helmets. No broken heads. And only 1 broken bone. (while commuting! never during a race)
I've broken four I think.
Helmets or bones?
-
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@boomzilla adding more features leads to more bugs. That's very different from having more features.
How do you suppose they came to be?
Not by copying the entire codebase of a competitor.
Let's say you have two very fancy mugs - one is in the shape of a wolf, the other in the shape a unicorn. They're both empty. Which one is heavier? Now, let's add 2 fl oz. of water to the unicorn. Is it heavier than before? Of course it is. But is it heavier than the wolf? Who the fuck knows. Now, let's rip off unicorn's head. Has the amount of water changed? No, it didn't. And yet the mug got lighter.
Adding water increases weight. But the amount of water doesn't tell you jack shit about the mug's weight. You cannot compare the weight of two mugs just by looking how much water they have. Features are like water. Adding more features, while keeping everything else the same, increases probability of bugs. But depending on how it's done exactly, it increases only a little, or it increases by much. And when you do change other things as well (read: refactoring), the probability of having bugs might go down. Thus, the number of features alone doesn't tell you anything about how buggy the software might be.
Apple products having less features doesn't mean they have less potential bugs. You can't measure potential bugs with number of features. Apple products having less features only tells you that it has less features.
WTF was that?
A lengthy explanation why you're wrong.
-
@Jaloopa said in Apple stand:
TBF, my cheap phones don't tend to last as long as a more expensive one might. I still spend less overall but cheaper phones are more likely to have a component break IME.
So far, as of my last three or four phones, I've spent less than the cost of one flagship, and I've only replaced the phone for a significant upgrade, not because anything was wrong with it. Except the batteries got old and had reduced capacity, but the same thing happens on any phone. My old Nexus 5 still works, as does my OnePlus X and my current Mi A2 Lite.
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
I eagerly await a description of some field in which an iPhone is better.
It looks like the Windows XP wallpaper, but with an iPhone next to a 2004 flip phone in the grass.
-
-
@loopback0 said in Apple stand:
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
On iPhone you can't install any app that Apple doesn't approve or make any modification to anything. Your customization of your phone extends about to changing the wallpaper and ringtone.
Yeah, so? Most people only need the apps in the App Store or to change the wallpaper and ringtone. That's all I need.
Those are subjective measures of better.No. It is not subjective to say that more features = better.
-
@pie_flavor said in Apple stand:
It is not subjective to say that more features = better.
A smart TV is not better than a non-smart one, even if it's got less features
F-Droid · GitLab
GetJar - Download Free Apps, Games and Themes APK
