I remember the first time I watched, er, played Myst at a Media Play.

Wait IOS 7 is just like the old Palm Pre OS. my wife just upgrade her 4S, and I was shocked when I played with it and its just like the old Palm OS on how it handles Apps.

 

And she hates it, it's slowed her phone down and you can't downgrade. I will not be upgrading my iphone 4, I've heard it's even worse on the 4's.

 

One thing I've noticed is that iOS7 is a battery hog, especially on the 5 (because ,you know, that's who I am. I'm the guy who buys the 5 at full price one month before the 5s comes out). There are a lot of items that are turned on by default (like AirDrop, indexing, location services, and that whole fake 3d background thing) that suck the battery life. I was getting to the point where I was down to 20% by 4pm, and I hadn't even made a call on the phone.

 

For those with similar problems, I found this article to be very helpful. Still sucks my battery life down, but at least I can get through a day of work.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/ios-7-battery-life_n_4016255.html

 

Edit: I've had a few days to try the phone out with some of the changes the article suggested, and I'm still burning halfway through my battery by 3pm each day. That's just freaking unacceptable. I never had that problem with my blackberry. Yes, a blackberry. Stop laughing. It's a perfectly functional phone. 

Wait IOS 7 is just like the old Palm Pre OS. my wife just upgrade her 4S, and I was shocked when I played with it and its just like the old Palm OS on how it handles Apps.

 

And she hates it, it's slowed her phone down and you can't downgrade. I will not be upgrading my iphone 4, I've heard it's even worse on the 4's.

Half the new features in ios7 aren't compatable with the 4 so it doesn't slow it down much. My iphone 4 runs just fine after upgrading. A couple games run slowly and glitchy but they did that on ios6 right after upgrading too.

^hows the battery life?

^About the same, but I have played with some of the options to help it out.

The desktop operating system is dead as a major profit center, and Apple just delivered the obituary.

 

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/apple-ends-paid-oses?mbid=nl_wired_10302013

or Apple is coming to grips that you can't keep squeezing blood out of the same stone over and over.

Or Apple is trying to make their hardware more valuable by telling consumers that it'll be supported a bit longer. They've long done the same with ios devices, so it's interesting to see them treat desktops that way.

For the love of god. Apple, innovate again. Please.

For the love of god. Apple, innovate again. Please.

 

Seriously.  And why is everyone acting like this is a big deal and they're the first to do it?  Just because they put a big Free sign on a keynote speech and made a big deal of it themselves?

 

Microsoft announced that Windows 8.1, a pretty big OS update as well, would be free months ago.

 

http://lifehacker.com/windows-8-1-to-be-released-on-october-17th-as-a-free-up-1134484445

a .1 update that got recalled?

I'd hope it's free.

a .1 update that got recalled?

I'd hope it's free.

 

Windows 8.1 did not get recalled, Windows RT 8.1 did.  Windows RT is akin to iOS.  Windows 8.1 is a desktop OS.  Sure, they called it .1, but I think it's at least as big (if not bigger) of an OS update as Maverick, which essentially just adds a few more built-in apps to OSX.

Linux has been free for decades.

M$oft fanbois crack me up

People that use the word "fanbois" annoy me.

Quimbob, I posted facts about Windows 8.1 (as well as the fact that it was announced months before Maverick).  There's nothing "fanboyish" (or would it be "fanboiish"?) about that.  If you have facts to refute my claim (other than lies about it being recalled, which it was not), then state them.  Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere.

 

I used to have a Mac by the way.  I like OSX, but I have been less and less impressed with each new "update".

Just posting here to vent about iTunes 11 and how it finds new ways to suck each time I use it. I know that this a bit late but we have been forced into using it since I got a new phone and my kids got an iPad mini.

 

I haven't seen anybody blow up a perfectly good interface (ok, a tolerable interface) like this for the sake of blowing it up since Winamp 3. Huge step back in usability, everything is hidden and now requires 2-3 clicks to do....

 

I also discovered today it handles compilation albums horribly, although that may just be a settings issue.

 

I did finally breakdown and get a 5s, iOS 7 is fine, besides crappy battery life.

Seems like they were trying to make it more like Amarok (for no good reason...)

It's not intuitive at all.

Nope, not intuitive at all. It took me awhile how to set up 6 different devices on iMessage and share an Apple ID for apps. I haven't attempted iCloud yet.

Ugh, itunes cannot handle multiple users on the same ID well. It took me forever to figure out how to set up different databases (I now have 5 of them). I don't even use iTunes for music anymore. My ipod is a static database of my old music.

 

I just shut off iMessage on my iPad, because I was getting all of my wife's messages, and her friends were seeing my name pop up when she sent them messages. I had to create a separate apple ID for my phone so I could use it.

 

So complicated. So very complicated. All this so I don't have to buy Angry Birds twice.

 

And yes, the iphone 5 has the worst battery life of any phone i've ever owned. I have shut off most of the features, and it's still at half mast by noon with little to no usage.

 

Ok, enough ranting.

Ugh, itunes cannot handle multiple users on the same ID well. It took me forever to figure out how to set up different databases (I now have 5 of them). I don't even use iTunes for music anymore. My ipod is a static database of my old music.

 

I just shut off iMessage on my iPad, because I was getting all of my wife's messages, and her friends were seeing my name pop up when she sent them messages. I had to create a separate apple ID for my phone so I could use it.

 

So complicated. So very complicated. All this so I don't have to buy Angry Birds twice.

 

And yes, the iphone 5 has the worst battery life of any phone i've ever owned. I have shut off most of the features, and it's still at half mast by noon with little to no usage.

 

Ok, enough ranting.

Join team Andoid!

shattering winter news:

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/passantino/apples-iconic-new-york-city-cube-store-shattered-during-snow?s=mobile

 

 

some of the shattering is pretty cool

Mac is 30 years old today.

"The company announced Monday that car makers will begin offering a new technology called CarPlay, which allows consumers to use their iPhones in their cars to make calls, use Maps, listen to music and access messages with their voice or a touch."

 

http://nbr.com/2014/03/03/a-new-way-to-use-an-iphone-in-the-car/

^You think Google might take offense to the use of the word "Play" in that? Yeah... I think so.

^You think Google might take offense to the use of the word "Play" in that? Yeah... I think so.

 

iOS already has a feature named AirPlay which is where the name CarPlay came from.

Any rumors on a new Mac Mini? I love that form factor, and it's long overdue for a processor and graphics upgrade...

Apple making an attempt to cater to urban workers that don't want to commute to the burbs of Silicon Valley every day:

 

Apple Inc. reached an agreement to rent about 76,000 square feet of office space in the South of Market neighborhood’s 235 Second St., several real estate sources in San Francisco and Silicon Valley said.

 

The potential sublease is a modest amount of space for a company with the world’s largest market capitalization ($705 billion) that is constructing a 2.8 million-square-foot “Spaceship” campus in Cupertino. But this would signify Apple’s first push into San Francisco — piling onto the herd of Silicon Valley companies that have wanted a taste of the city.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2015/07/apple-dives-into-soma-for-first-big-s-f-aapl.html?page=all

^Good Lord, I don't even want know how much the lease is in that location. I used to work in SOMA right down the street from there on New Montgomery, and I remember companies having their rents double and triple over the last few years. Even a company as rich as Apple could be making a financial mistake there. Though from a recruitment standpoint, it's needed. A SOMA location is a major selling point for San Francisco and Oakland tech residents. It's very easy to get there on BART. Montgomery Street Station is about a ten-minute walk away from that building. I think the Silicon Valley spaceship campus is a big mistake and will hurt recruitment given Gen Y's preference for urban living, not to mention the hellacious commute on 101. 101 between San Francisco and San Jose along with 880 between Oakland and San Jose have become the worst stretches of freeway in the United States. The traffic is beyond mind-boggling now. The Bay dropped the ball big time by not building enough housing while approving massive office complexes in Silicon Valley far removed from mass transit.

 

A smarter move for Apple would be to outright buy a vacant office building in Downtown Oakland or build a new one there near the 12th Street or 19th Street BART stations. Oakland's housing is approaching SF prices now, but its office space is still a steal compared to San Francisco and Silicon Valley. I think the only reason more tech companies aren't investing in Oakland is due to the extreme levels of crime and frequent rioting. But they're running busses there already, so why not just build offices in Oakland? The tech workers are moving to Oakland anyway since they don't have a choice. San Francisco has considered itself full and is waving both middle fingers in the air at new residents. Population growth is shifting to Oakland, but it will take a big tech relocation to get the long-delayed housing projects in Oakland started again (lots of high-rise projects stalled during the recession). It is needed so bad given the record housing shortage all over the entire Bay. Demand is there, and tech workers are moving to Oakland in droves. It's already the next Silicon Valley without even a single major tech HQ (excluding Pandora and Ask). Apple could be a leader and build a secondary headquarters in Downtown Oakland. All sorts of retail and other businesses would follow. Employment would skyrocket for Oakland residents who are sick of commuting on overcrowded BART trains to San Francisco.

 

Downtown Oakland is where all the tech investment should be happening now, not SOMA. It could solve all sorts of problems in the East Bay and alleviate pressure on San Francisco. Unlike San Francisco, there is an argument that Oakland could use more gentrification (as long as new housing is built to accommodate all the population growth instead of just kicking everyone out which is what has been happening so far due to Oakland's extreme NIMBY anti-growth politics). San Francisco is on its third wave of gentrification and even the upper class are being priced out now. I met a Wharton grad the other night paying $4300 for a crappy 1-bedroom apartment. That dude is screwed no matter how rich he is since he doesn't have rent control, and it's nearly impossible for newcomers to get rent control since no one ever voluntarily gives it up. It's long past time for Oakland to be absorbing all the population growth, office space, and new housing. It's half the density of San Francisco and has thousands of empty lots. Its BART stations outside of downtown are also very underutilized by heavy rail standards. People get on the train to go to SF, which hurts Oakland's economy. It's losing billions in revenue to its surrounding cities and suburbs.

 

Is Apple right to invest in urban office space? Absolutely. But they could get a lot more space for a lot less money across the bridge...that would mean more Gen Y and Gen Z applicants for jobs and more space for them in an urban location with heavy rail transit.

 

*Oakland's mayor, Libby Schaaf, who is America's first mayor to ride around in a Burning Man car (thus making her popular in tech), has been pushing tech companies on this:

 

“The cool, smart people are already here,” she said. “We have the arts, great restaurants, transit, good rents — what are you waiting for? Hey, Google: You wouldn’t need all those buses if you’d open an office over here.”

 

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Libby-Schaaf-sworn-in-as-Oakland-s-50th-mayor-5995564.php#photo-7351414

Apple and several of the tech companies should simply move completely out of the SF area.  What is going on there is unsustainable and it's eventually going to be part of their undoing.  The startup culture is no doubt being stunted because renting just 5,000 sq feet is becoming unaffordable.  Any of these companies could buy up large chunks of DT Detroit or Cleveland for a fraction of what they're paying to build complexes in suburban areas of SF Bay. 

C-Dawg, you will see some good sized tenants make the move to Oakland from SF or Silicon Valley. If enough employees move that way because

it in affordable, employers will follow. Apple is probably paying $60-70 RSF for the space. 1 article said 15% of their employees live in SF.

Here is Apple's 10-K SEC filing for 2015...interesting to see how much they buried their discussion of the Apple Watch.  Also, Page 18 Item 2 describes Apple's real estate holdings, including 1,700 acres of land.  What kind of land?  Where is it?  Do they have any apple trees?

 

Also, it's interesting to see the repeated use of the term "Greater China", which apparently means mainland China + Hong Kong + Taiwan.  Incredibly, iPhone sales in Greater China appear to have just equaled and are no doubt poised to pass by Europe. 

 

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1049846332x0x861262/2601797E-6590-4CAA-86C9-962348440FFC/2015_Form_10-K_As-filed_.pdf

A few years ago the big tech companies started buying up assets so that they could say they've zeroed out their environmental impact footprint. The land could be in regard to that.

Various state governments, and now the federal government, have been trying to force Apple to build a "back door" into its software to allow government officials to access encrypted data on iPhones. The problem is that once a back door exists, it can be exploited by hackers.

 

It's kind of like building a universal key that can open any lock in the country. Maybe you're OK with such a key if only the police have it and they promise to only use it to prevent terrorism, investigate murders, etc. But you can bet that the top locksmiths in the world are working day and night to replicate this key. That's the same thing that will happen if Apple build a back door into iOS.

 

I'm glad that Apple is taking a hard stance on this and fighting back against the FBI. You can read their letter about it here:

 

https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

^ who's to say there isn't a proprietary back door already? people say that too. i wouldn't trust apple's word about it. in that case this issue would be moot.

Apple's approach is largely to keep secure data on the device itself (such as fingerprint data for Touch ID which does not leave the "secure enclave" on the device). And when transmitting data between devices (such as with iMessage), they have done so in a way that does not allow Apple to see the contents of the message. Apple has implemented it this way for a few reasons, but perhaps the biggest is that Apple does not want to be responsible for having unencrypted user data. If the FBI goes to Apple and says "show us this user's data", they can throw up their hands and say, "we literally have no way to access the user's data, we only have an encrypted blob of data and we don't have the key." That makes it much easier for them as opposed to dealing with requests they would get if the FBI knew they could access the user data.