jopt

Elaborate.

Streaming helps, but "consumption content" was never a big issue for me, even when I had to store it locally. Menwhile, "production content"---audio samples for music production, high res textures, effect plugins etc. have always taken up an order of magnitude more, and I can never have enough with me.

What if the new chicken is hard-coded with a set of natural behaviors that are more conducive to food factory use?

You have a point. Fuzzier dates are often better. Perhaps it's a space constraint.

So they hadn't heard of it, and chose iFone based on what?

That's crazy. Of course they did. Products haven't been named iAnything forever, it started with the iMac and iPod. Legal or not, it's piggybacking.

I love seeing smaller companies take on Adobe, but branding this as a replacement for Photoshop is a mistake.

Photoshop is such a large and complex beast that nothing small and focused could ever replace it. That's Photoshop's true strength. It manages to be the industry standard across a whole slew of slightly different industries.

Nobody uses the whole thing. Few people use even half of Photoshop's features. Competing against it on a specific feature may be possible, and that's precisely what this app does.

But even matching what Photoshop does for one segment of users won't be enough. To beat Photoshop, you have o be 10x better at that one feature---otherwise users will stick with the industry standard.

Great analogy, helped me understand why I felt this whole six times lighter thing was strange.

Isn't it too early to count iPad mini as a Vista-level failure?

…why are you adding stuff to the situation?

Ceteris paribus: without Blender or a mop, and without knowing anything about new hires, the assumption is that the new girl is a designer.

It's prejudice precisely because you don't have any other information.

> Apple has built Facebook and advertising into iOS

That simplifies things in a very reductive way.

If you click that, it opens a demo with a link that's ostensibly to google, but actually goes somewhere else.

Right on. Perhaps the company we deride for not letting us remove the battery could be excused for not optimising for devices with no battery.

Thanks, that's a good point. I haven't seen the Microsoft Surface in person, but this is throwing some doubt on Marco's testimony.

> strawman arguments

This is a blog post, not a research paper. That's not a strawman argument, it's a joke.

> if you don't adore the iPad you're in denial

That's not what he said, that's out of context. You're extending it to some ridiculous extreme.

Can't you summarize? I don't have 120 minutes. If you spend one minute making your point, and I spend one minute reading it, this conversation will be more efficient.

Sources are great when they support or expand on points you're making, but they're no replacement for dialogue. The comments become really spammy if it's all just links to videos and research papers.

That's an important point. When Samsung or Microsoft take hints from what Apple do, many decry this as though Apple were never themselves inspired, and that's misinformed.

(others) -> Bang Olufsen, fashion boutiques -> Apple Stores -> Microsoft Stores -> (future)

This chain of inspiration is precisely what makes intellectual property very vague to reason about.

Meanwhile, it's probably also misinformed to say Microsoft or Samsung were not inspired by Apple. I don't think Microsoft were primarily influenced by Bang Olufsen stores. I don't think this is the direction they would have taken without Apple doing it before them.

I don't know if Macro is not seeing the picture clearly or if he's just miscommunicating. If he's saying that Apple was the original source of this store layout, that's silly. If he's trying to point out that Microsoft's decisions were largely a reaction to Apple's, he's not wrong.

This is bot a privilege issue. Nobody appointed Gruber. Just do a better job and you'll be fine without his permission.

Gruber has a long-standing money-back policy

> If you publish something on the Internet and it turns out to be wrong or defective, you have a moral obligation to point that out

No you don't, that's insane.

Do you believe his points are invalid? If he were making valid points, would they count regardless of his vested interest?

This attitude is very interesting. In my reading, you take offence that Kim Dotcom supports free speech only because it is in his personal interest. Similarly (I find), many shy away from defending The Pirate Bay as soon as their advertising revenue is mentioned.

Is free speech only good insofar as it can be used as a tool to create an ethically prudent world? Does free speech lose its appeal if it's invoked by Kim Dotcom and not only by rms?

I speculate: As this is an election year, playing the Obama angle will generate interest.

> Apple have shot themselves in the foot with this launch.

Everybody is going to buy this.[1]

[1]iPod mini

Thank you for the timely announcement. I'll put you down for "meh."

If UX was determined by specs, why would we have a different name for it?

Okay, lots of changes. One example? Can you show me a paradigm shift where the rules actually needed to be updated, and explain what is different from this case?

If you really want a new word, that's a discussion we can have. New words are indeed needed in a digital world. "Google", the verb, is a good example. Perhaps we should repurpose "burglar?"

How do you feel about choosing a word which does not refer to anything very similar, and which does not carry legal and moral weight? I think that would be easy and intellectually honest.

> you're ignoring history by thinking that technology has changed anything

With your line of argument, what changes can happen? What is new?