[Updated] Far Out Stuff - Apple September 2022 Event Thread, Expectations, Reality and stuff.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

 people like you, i.e., blind haters that are so deep down the anti-Apple hole that they lost all ability to think straight in those regards.

 

And this is why rational discussion is impossible. Enjoy your "apple innovated everything" discussion.  From here on in the posts are going to be pointless ad hominums (as they always become).  Feel free to use this as your "see you have no proof" post if you need the last word. 

[Dracarris]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

And this is why rational discussion is impossible. Enjoy your "apple innovated everything" discussion.  From here on in the posts are going to be pointless ad hominums (as they always become).  Feel free to use this as your "see you have no proof" post if you need the last word. 

Yes, as per usual, you and @Blademaster91 fail to come up with any backup for your wild claims. Literally the same thing every damn time. Not only do you make false claims about existing tech, you also make false claims about what other people allegedly have claimed.

And here you go at it again. Nobody every claimed "Apple innovated everything". You just come up with random claims to suit your agenda.

 

You come into threads like these, piss everyone off, and when it's time to deliver you make an exit like now. 

[Blademaster91]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's always the same story,  Do people really think that apple is the only company that has put any thought or R+D into satellite connected smart phones over the last decade?

I agree its always the same with something Apple copies with a ton of marketing buzzwords, like BT headphones, nothing new but when Apple came out with Airpods people act like they invented BT headphones and claim they are the best when they objectively aren't. I read through the thread on the topic of SpaceX and T-Mobile satellite connected phones, SpaceX has been working on it for a while, so I wonder if Apple took that idea for themselves.

27 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Its very niche. Its not useful in its current form unless you get lost in thew wilderness. But it starts the ball rolling for sat based comm for next few years. Similar to how biometrics is now a thing in literally any phone you get. That's the point. And more and more features will get added later on and I would also presume legislation will make at least essential services like SOS free.

I don't see how satellite based communication would become a common feature, its a niche feature that is only really needed in an emergency.

30 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

"Innovation" != "First to come up with the idea". Innovation also covers improving existing technology and making it accessible and usable.

It isn't innovation when the technology already exists and is already usable and accessible for those that need a satellite based phone.

32 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

No. But are they the first company to basically make it a standard finished product feature on a device that sells in millions every month. Yes. That's the difference.

So people want to champion apple claiming they invented the satellite phone, and now they want to claim how many sells matters, it really doesn't matter for something that is a niche use.

[Dracarris]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

It isn't innovation when the technology already exists and is already usable and accessible for those that need a satellite based phone.

Plain wrong.

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

So people want to champion apple claiming they invented the satellite phone,

Nobody did.

[Blademaster91]

20 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Same question for you: Link to comparable, existing products.

I still don't see how "comparable" products matters, the whole segment of satellite connected phones is a niche, products already exist for people that need one.

20 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Nobody here does.

Everyone in this thread claiming Apple's satellite connected phone is better is.

16 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

The only people that use the word "invent" in regards to Apple is people like you, i.e., blind haters that are so deep down the anti-Apple hole that they lost all ability to think straight in those regards.

Nobody, including Apple, themselves, claims that they invented anything. Inventing and innovating are two very different things that sometimes overlap, but more often do not.

Except the Apple followers keep confusing innovation and inventing something, there is plenty of that in this thread, and it happens every time Apple markets something that already exists as a product, people make absurd claims of Apple doing it first even though it isn't anything new.

[Dracarris]

11 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Except the Apple followers keep confusing innovation and inventing something, there is plenty of that in this thread, and it happens every time Apple markets something that already exists as a product, people make absurd claims of Apple doing it first even though it isn't anything new.

No, no, and no. The only people confusing inventing and innovating is the likes of you, which still are the only people even using the word "inventing" in these contexts. And just like the other guy you over and over and over and over again fail to come up with any backup for your wild claims. 

13 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Everyone in this thread claiming Apple's satellite connected phone is better is.

Better in this sense

34 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

"first to integrate in a mainstream smartphone in a non-obtrusive way with no compromises to the smartphone experience otherwise"

Which is not even remotely the same as claiming "Apple invented the satellite phone". Just plain, hard, rock solid NO. If you think these are even remotely alike, you got some severe comprehension issues.

 

[WolframaticAlpha]

9 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Maybe, but RCS currently in its form is so bad that I can't really fault Apple for not having any interest in the tech. Make a solid, good user experience that focuses on privacy chat standard with spam and malware protections and then push Apple to adopt it. Then I will support the move along with you.

>RCS is bad.

>Continues to use SMS/MMS

 

The event was pretty boring. I seriously didn't expect them to use old chips on their phones, the base models are an extremely minimal upgrade.

 

I didn't understand the plus announcement either. It is not only too large(imo), but has inferior specs than the pros, which are about 200 dollars more, but costs more than the same specced 14 with a slightly larger screen. If the mini was niche, then this is super-niche.

I hate the fact that they killed the mini. Guess I will stick with my 12 mini and then go back to android(something by asus?)

 

I would like to see the teardown and a more in depth view of the satellite capabilities, especially battery drain and how they managed to do it. It might be useful in extreme edge cases, but it still is not something that will be used by most people. I would have preferred a telephoto camera or an even bigger battery over this.

 

The Watch Ultra looks extremely beautiful and the bigger battery life is extremely tantalizing( my aw6 dies every day)

 

Airpods Pro 2 look interesting, but I still can't say whether it is a good upgrade over the originals.

 

The digital island looked meh. It smudges everything and replaces what? A swipe? They should've replaced the current setup for viewing this stuff. Broken up control center+notifications is clearly inferior to the android unified swipe down.

[Paul Thexton]

Never used RCS whilst I was an Android user (I only got an iPhone less than 2 years ago) ... it took so long to turn up in the first place that literally everybody I know was using WhatsApp/Signal/etc anyway.

 

For a forum full of people espousing the greatness of an open software market where users can run whatever apps they like (sideloaded or not), there seems to an enormous number who are determined to use the default messenger app on their phones

 

That said, IMV Apple's refusal to support RCS or otherwise work with Google/Android on providing a suitable solution is petty nonsense.

[Paul Thexton]

11 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Airpods Pro 2 look interesting, but I still can't say whether it is a good upgrade over the originals.

I've got some fake Air Pods (Anker/Soundcore Life P2) which have been fine to use, but the charging case is a bit crap - sometimes I drop the buds in to charge, and it doesn't start charging the bud - meaning I have to remove and re-insert ... or even worse, it starts charging, and then 5 minutes later my phone says they've connected again, and I look back and they've stopped charging - necessitating removing / re-inserting.

 

Genuinely no idea what's going on there.

 

Anker have released some new earbuds recently with ANC on them which I'm tempted by - it's a more reasonable cost to me than the £250+ needed for Air Pods Pro gen 2, which no matter how good they are, is just too expensive IMO.

[WolframaticAlpha]

Just now, Paul Thexton said:

 

Anker have released some new earbuds recently with ANC on them which I'm tempted by - it's a more reasonable cost to me than the £250+ needed for Air Pods Pro gen 2, which no matter how good they are, is just too expensive IMO

I do love the shape of apple's earphones(the half moon fit me perfectly and I love the airpods shape. I don't buy airpods because they don't sound as good as headphones, and if I want something light, I am perfectly content with wired/fake earpods. Though, more casual users would like them. The thought of spending that much money on a pair of earphones that die in 3-4 ears is just too much for me. At least on a wireless headphone, I can use it in headphone jack mode. I have been waiting for a pair of truly wireless earbuds with mmcx like connectors

[Dracarris]

59 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

The event was pretty boring.

Hard agree on that overall. I sometimes had the impression they themselves, including Tim, weren't really excited. The whole show had a bit of a "lets get this over with" attitude. Also, bring back true live events in the Apple theater with physical attendance, not that pre-recorded crap. Covid regulations long allow for such events again.

59 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

I hate the fact that they killed the mini.

Yeah, was waiting for the new mini and then decide whether it is worth to get over the 12 or 13 mini. The mini IMHO is a great product line, bringt it back.

40 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

The thought of spending that much money on a pair of earphones that die in 3-4 ears is just too much for me.

I don't get where all this fear of dying wireless earphones is coming from. I own Bose QC35 ii and AP Pro, the Bose are nearing 5 and the AP Pro  4  3 years of daily usage and both show no sign of dying anytime soon whatsoever. Had to replace the ear cushions on the Bose but that's about it.

 

Edit: AP Pro only released in 2019, so it's only about 3 years.

[Paul Thexton]

36 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Yeah, was waiting for the new mini and then decide whether it is worth to get over the 12 or 13 mini. The mini IMHO is a great product line, bringt it back.

I’m on a 12 mini at the moment. As and when it comes time I want/need to replace it, then I may well end up back on Android if Apple don’t release updated minis every few years. Maybe the SE will eventually become the mini option?. Sensible sized screens are basically a niche now as everybody is obsessed with having a phablet.

[saltycaramel]

The first totally new Apple Watch category in 7 years.

The first H2 based Airpods and probably the most important upgrade to Airpods ever. 

The first Dynamic Island iPhones, a first departure from the 2017 notch design and a new way to interact with iOS. 

The introduction of friggin' emergency satellite connectivity, for the first time in history (gotta rub it to those mentioning niche pre-existing satellite phones) mass-deployed to tens of millions of users. 

 

--> "boring event, 4/10, would not re-watch"

 

Ok. 

 

As for the Mini, people should have bought more of those instead of just fantasizing about how cool would it be to use it. (not referrring to anybody here and to people that actually own a Mini)

My guess is that they will keep the 13 Mini around for a number of years for people with that particular itch to scratch. 

[Lightwreather]

22 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

--> "boring event, 4/10, would not re-watch"

tbf, the pacing on the event was really quite odd, they spent a lot more time droning on about already implemented and barreling through the new, more interesting features

[Dracarris]

38 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

The first totally new Apple Watch category in 7 years.

The first H2 based Airpods and probably the most important upgrade to Airpods ever. 

The first Dynamic Island iPhones, a first departure from the 2017 notch design and a new way to interact with iOS. 

The introduction of friggin' emergency satellite connectivity, for the first time in history (gotta rub it to those mentioning niche pre-existing satellite phones) mass-deployed to tens of millions of users. 

Even though the satcom thing is really cool, all in all that's not a whole lot for the major fall launch event.

As for Airpods Pro, I think it was pretty underwhelming. Finally volume control, cool, new H2, cool, but what actually is the benefit? Better ANC, cool. Still nothing mind blowing IMHO.

[vetali]

Problem with the mini was the first mini was a poor offering. Not enough battery life even factoring it in as a small phone. The 13 helped battery life a lot. Good bet the 13 mini will stick around for a few gens, then become the new SE.

 

I got mine preordered this morning. First time waking up for a damn iPhone launch. Purple 256GB Pro will be here on launch day. After dealing with countless console and GPU drops filled with bots breaking huge retailers sites, it was the most painless launch or drop I've dealt with. Then I read on macrumors, "Apple Store Experiencing Issues With iPhone 14 Pre-Orders". Lol.

[saltycaramel]

3 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

As for Airpods Pro, I think it was pretty underwhelming. Finally volume control, cool, new H2, cool, but what actually is the benefit? Better ANC, cool. Still nothing mind blowing IMHO.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but I think people that have been daily driving the H1 for 3 years will immediately feel the "snappiness" and better audio performances of the H2. 

 

Just to be safe I ordered the Airpods Pro2 the minute the store went up, for science. 

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

And you ignored pretty much threw away the conversation about satellite SOS and switched to RCS, even though I had a dedicated paragraph for it. Speaks volumes when you just ignore valid points.

I quoted the specific bits.  You are the one who literally quoted clipping off a sentence taking away the context with what I was saying.  You then continue to half read what I am saying and make it out as if I am saying something else.  You want to talk about speaking volumes, that speaks volumes more.  It's not my responsiblity to respond to everything you said, and if you used your brain you would realize that I did cover it partially in the sense that Apple itself is part of the reason RCS got off to such a rocky start.

 

If you want to talk about the encryption thing, that is just a stupid argument because the technology that Apple is relying on to communicate with Android is SMS...which you guessed it, doesn't have encryption.  It's stupid arguing bringing up that it doesn't have encryption.

5 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

You talk about RCS like its some feature that grants life essentials to people. The general public largely isn't even aware about it. And it's by all measure a clearly inferior platform compared to literally everything else that has been established in the last 10 years

Again, you are so illiterate to what I was saying.  I am saying it's egregious that they spend millions (maybe billions) on something that won't be used by many, yet claim they don't want to put money into making their phone compatible with the other 50% of the market by implementing RCS because they rule that there wasn't enough demand.

 

  

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I kind of agree that 192kHz distribution is kind of unnecessary, but whenever someone brings up "humans can only hear up to 20kHz anyway" there is bound to be some misunderstandings of why we need higher sampling rates. 

 

I disagree with you on three points though (if I understand your point correctly, feel free to elaborate and correct me if I misinterpret you):

1) That aliasing above 16kHz is not a big deal because people won't hear it. I strongly believe this could be an issue in some cases, because I have heard it myself. Put a cymbal or some string instrument near a capacitor microphone and you will most likely get some aliasing.

2) Building a low-pass filter that takes care of everything above 24kHz but nothing below 20kHz isn't easy. It's damn near impossible at the encoding stage.

3) That downsampling is when mixing will not make any difference, so you should just distribute the audio at 44.1kHz. There is plenty of software out there that doesn't handle sample-rate conversion all that well. Most software does a good enough job with it and won't cut off any audible frequencies, but it is still not a perfect conversion. In the case of for example Foobar, if we downsample from 96kHz to 44.1kHz we should see frequencies up to 22.05kHz, right? In reality, the highest frequency we will see is somewhere around 21.8KHz. FL Studio also cuts off a few hundred Hz when downsampling. r8brain free is probably the worst I could find. When downsampling in that program it will cut off everything above 1800kHz, and that will be audible for sure.

 

These super high fidelity formats isn't really about making things "good enough". It is possible to make something sound 99,9% as good at like 1/3 the file size, but those high sample rate formats are for the people who want 110% quality so that the format is better than what they can hear, just to minimize the risk of noticing that 0,1% that is missing.

Just to give the counter-points to 1/2/3.

1) 2)  Well I mean the highest note that humans can pull off is around 11khz (whistle).  Singing it's like 7 khz, a string/wind/cymbal is sub 10 khz from what I can see.

The thing is, at the time of recording you aren't talking about sampling rates (sort of).  You have analog low-pass filters on there already, the microphones are only set to pick up a certain range of frequencies.  The bandpass/lowpass of course isn't "precise" but that's also why it gets sampled to pick up above 20kHz...as frequencies between 20kHz to 22 kHz might not be filtered out completely; thus that can be removed in post...by the time it hits the 22 kHz or 24 kHz (depending on the recording) the analog lowpass filters should have deadened the frequencies higher than that.  You get the extra leeway as well in that music doesn't really have the 16 kHz and above (realistically), so a lowpass filter can have some of the slop of the filter hitting those higher ranges.  The general point is that frequencies higher than 24kHz should be eliminated prior to them hitting the sampling hardware.

 

A general reasoning behind this is, if you sample at 192 kHz you already have pretty good equipment to do so; which means you should already have a lowpass filter that should already have gotten the 48 kHz and above signals removed prior to the digital encoder.

 

3) Well an issue with downsampling can be that there are different ways of doing it (and not all of them really reserve).  The simplest way, if you have 96 kHz would be converting to 48 kHz standard (multiple of 2).  In that case you could pick ever other sample (if you assume they didn't leave in frequencies over 20kHz).

 

The general idea though is that if they are sending only to two ears they should be able to convert things to 2 channel and 48kHz and still manage to get the same audio fidelity as the original sample.  I think the better way is, they sell those super high bitrate formats because audiophiles bend over believing that more subsamples = better sound.

[Dracarris]

16 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If you want to talk about the encryption thing, that is just a stupid argument because the technology that Apple is relying on to communicate with Android is SMS

No. They are relying on Whatsapp/Signal/Telegram whatever to communicate with Android users, like everyone with a working brain already does.

[wanderingfool2]

19 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

No. They are relying on Whatsapp/Signal/Telegram whatever to communicate with Android users, like everyone with a working brain already does.

There are multiple reports and multiple cases of Android users in schools getting effectively ostracized because they aren't part of text groups (or when they are it doesn't behave correctly).

[Dracarris]

39 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There are multiple reports and multiple cases of Android users in schools getting effectively ostracized because they aren't part of text groups (or when they are it doesn't behave correctly).

I'm seriously lacking words to describe how utterly stupid and unnecessary this is. Text groups. Why, just why. There is a gazillion of better solutions for group messaging.

[vetali]

46 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I'm seriously lacking words to describe how utterly stupid and unnecessary this is. Text groups. Why, just why. There is a gazillion of better solutions for group messaging.

You aren't gonna convince iPhone users to use a different messaging app due to usually a minority being inconvenienced by not having iMessage. I've tried. It was hard enough telling android users that I communicate with to download the google messaging app and enable RCS.

[SansVarnic]

On 9/9/2022 at 7:55 AM, Dracarris said:

That's plain wrong.

Ok and now you explain your position and how I am wrong. I have not been convinced by these 3 words.

Actually, you know what? Your skillfully tactful debating skills have convinced me, I guess I was wrong. /s

 

Sorry you opened door, I had to insert the snarky.

 

(*Edit, since I have the time now)

I stand by what I said, if you believe this to be wrong, please impress upon me as to why I am wrong.

 

An innovator innovates. A good example of this is the mouse, was Microsoft the innovator? or was it Apple? The answer is neither.

Microsoft implemented the use of the mouse in a more widespread way, but it did not make Microsoft the innovator. Apple used the mouse for the first time on the lisa computer, but it didn't make Apple the innovator either.

Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse, and it was Xerox that was the innovator as they were the first to use the technology. Key word here is 'first'.

 

Satellite phones, though a niche thing, have been widespread for some time. Apple implementing satellite tech into their smartphones is not innovative, only proficient use of the tech. The first smart phone for use with satellite is the Thuraya X5-Touch, not Apple. (Fun fact, it also used GSM cell towers, so it was only dependent on satellite when the user chose to or no cell tower of course and the Thuraya is an Android phone). Apple here is like Microsoft expanding the use of the mouse, Apple is only expanding upon an already available technology. Which only strengthens my position.

 

Now granted they [Apple] are doing this now because of Starlink BUT they were already in on the T-Mobile/Starlink partnership because Elon included them in on the deal, can't announce a new advancement to the public without a product to use it with. It only stands for reason to use apple for this push as it would be easier to implement a standard with a company like Apple. Android will follow suit but there are many Android phone companies and only one Apple, kind of simplifies the process a bit. So, if you like I can use this as an example as it was T-mobile and Starlink that would be, in this case, the innovators not Apple but still by all means, but even they are not by the true sense.

 

Thuraya is the innovator here, by originally combining the technologies.

 

So, to sum this up, Apple isn't the innovator for obvious reasons. Thay are again only implementing and cashing in on something to appear the innovator to which they are not. I have other examples to go off if you like but I made my point now. Please do rebuttal, I would like to know what you know that will enlighten me more on this subject.

Edited September 11, 2022 by SansVarnic

[hishnash]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

yet claim they don't want to put money into making their phone compatible with the other 50% of the market by implementing RCS because they rule that there wasn't enough demand.

At it's heart there are 2 reasons apple does not want to implement RCS or put iMessage on Android.

1) For iMessage on android: They do not want to pay the data costs of running a messaging service for people who are not third customers.  

2) For RCS: Privacy (it just does not match the existing privacy terms they have they would be sued into oblivion and loos users left right and centre). 

RCS (including googles custom end to end encrypted version) impclilty means sharing a load of info about your users with a large number of other vendors.  

 

1. so that iOS users can get RCS messages apple would need to let google (and every other RCS vendor) query apple to check if a user is online. The reason is RCS (like iMessage) is suppose to fall back to SMS if the user is not online.
   1. Google/Anyone then can lookup if a given phone number balconies to an iPhone
   2. Google/Anyone can using a phone number check if that iPhone users is online
2. so that iOS suers can send RCS messages apple would need to query google whenever a user attempts to send a message (were the phone number is not an iMessage known number)
   1. while apple could abstract away which user is making this request the fact that a online check happens and then within a few ms a given phone number sends an RCS message to googles servers (remember only the message content is encrypted not the metadata).
3. Properly supporting RCS would also mean even if a users phone numb his part of iMessage it should still ping RCS servers since if you own an iPhone and an android phone or a Mac and an android phone you want the message to be delivered to both? So basically every message sent ends up with a lookup query if that phone number has every been part of RCS.

 
In the end you need to consider why is google happy to pay $$$ for hosting RCS (not just for google hardware but any android phone)... the reason is the meta-data they get from knowing exactly who messaged who, when and how long it took them to replay (RCS includes things like typing notifications...) is supper powerful when it comes to building an add profile on a user.

--
The only way I could see apple implement RCS (without it being re-written to be much more private, they could manage that im sure) would be if it is an explicit opt in per RCS provider. Eg on the iPhone you would opt in to receiving/sending messages to Google RCS or to `China Central Authority` RCS services...  and in a group conversation you really would need everyone in the group to agree to this! 

I am however confident that vendors like apple and google could get together and build a privacy conserving platform were the services (on either end) are not aware of the users personal info. They have large teams of people who are experts at this type of crypto based obscurity (see the covid tracking or how AirTags work).  But while apple might be interested in doing this for thier own customers I just cant see what google would get out of  a system like that even if the impmented it we all know google products that do not produce real revenue/data get killed/replaced within 3 to 4 years.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, hishnash said:

At it's heart there are 2 reasons apple does not want to implement RCS or put iMessage on Android.

For reason (1),  that is understandable...but at the same time when they are about 50% of the market and they are actively using it to try keeping people in the system (by making things like group messages impossible to use if you switch away from it) that to me is using their known monopolistic power (Like it's not acceptable for Tim Cook to say "buy an iPhone" as a response to not being able to send an RCS photo, while intentionally restricting the use of such).

 

Your #2/3, care to site sources?   You make some very bold claims, which aren't really backed up from anything I can see (and is counter to my experience).  Here's a hint though, if you think this was the reason...don't you think that Apple would use that as an excuse instead of their whole "[our customers don't want request RCS support]"

If your phone is lets say turned off, it won't automatically send an SMS until the RCS fails to send to you.  It doesn't mean you automatically get to ping it.  Guess what though, it's pretty much the same premise under iMessage.

 

It's not like the privacy invasion like you are talking about...because guess what, a lot of what you are talking about is still roughly possible through sms/standard phonecalls as well.

 

2 hours ago, hishnash said:

In the end you need to consider why is google happy to pay $$$ for hosting RCS (not just for google hardware but any android phone)... the reason is the meta-data they get from knowing exactly who messaged who, when and how long it took them to replay (RCS includes things like typing notifications...) is supper powerful when it comes to building an add profile on a user.

You are assuming that.  Google already has the majority of that with Google Messages.  They are doing it because they know that it's a needed feature, and with Apple not supporting RCS carriers have been slow to properly deploy RCS servers...so Google is resorting to doing it (out of a bit of necessity)