This sucks. This page makes it clear this is the motivation for "Ads on Maps", as they talk about it prominently here - they are now directly selling the attention of their device consumers to their business customers.
I guess they were doing that before in the App Store, which is of course also awful.
It would be useful if the site listed whether these had been standardized outside of Chrome yet.
It’s hard to delineate which of these are Chrome features or actual web standards. And it’s therefore hard to blame either Safari or Firefox for not supporting them if they’re not standardized yet.
This is a huge list of "features from Chromium", which aren't really standard or even a thing outside of its ecosystem (the fact that both Firefox and Safari lack them is the obvious giveaway).
I'm happy that Firefox doesn't expose Bluetooth, NFC or similar stuff to websites: the browser is huge enough without needing to mediate even more access to local hardware.
It's unclear how some of these would even work for other Browser. E.g.: contacts. What data source would you use? I keep my contacts as vcard files in ~/contacts, but other folks might use a remove CalDAV server, a web-based GUI, or data stored in SQL which can be read by some other native client (I think KDE does this).
Here’s what Mozilla has to say about Web NFC, for example:
> We believe Web NFC poses risks to users security and privacy because of the wide range of functionality of the existing NFC devices on which it would be supported, because there is no system for ensuring that private information is not accidentally exposed other than relying on user consent, and because of the difficulty of meaningfully asking the user for permission to share or write data when the browser cannot explain to the user what is being shared or written.
And here’s what they have to say about Web Bluetooth:
> This API provides access to the Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) of Bluetooth, which is not the lowest level of access that the specifications allow, but its generic nature makes it impossible to clearly evaluate. Like WebUSB there is significant uncertainty regarding how well prepared devices are to receive requests from arbitrary sites. The generic nature of the API means that this risk is difficult to manage. The Web Bluetooth CG has opted to only rely on user consent, which we believe is not sufficient protection. This proposal also uses a blocklist, which will require constant and active maintenance so that vulnerable devices aren't exploited. This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.
The fact is that Google wrote these specifications, couldn’t convince any other rendering engine to implement them, and somehow it’s Apple’s fault the rest of the world rejected their idea.
These are not web standards, they are Blink-only APIs that Google decided to build unilaterally. The web is not defined by whatever Google wants. Web standards are supposed to be arrived at through consensus, and the consensus is that these things should not be part of the web.
>and because of the difficulty of meaningfully asking the user for permission to share or write data when the browser cannot explain to the user what is being shared or written
So fucking moronic privacy virtue signalling BS holding technology back.
They're doing the same thing with Web Bluetooth.
"hurr de durr we can't ask permission" Yes you fucking can, you give me a modal to confirm leaving the current page and being redirected to a new one (in some cases, but not all), you give me a pop up when a site asks to send shitty notifications (as they all do).
An app can sit and use nfc/bluetooth in the background all day long...a site can only do it while I actually have it open in the browser and presumably it's foregrounded etc.
It's really, really NOT hard for them to implement this stuff & I feel like it's less "this tech that has been in phones for more than a decade is unsafe!" and more "we need to cry about features that Chrome is pushing for us to support because otherwise we're letting them lead".
>The fact is that Google wrote these specifications, couldn’t convince any other rendering engine to implement them, and somehow it’s Apple’s fault the rest of the world rejected their idea.
Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide which APIs become standards. They are preventing these APIs from becoming standards. They have an interest to forbid Web Bluetooth and NFC from becoming standards, because they profit heavily from native apps on their iOS platform, where they collect a percentage of all sales made through apps, so they want to force developers to create native apps instead of web apps.
I'll also point out that Opera, Edge, Samsung and others did implement the Web Bluetooth API, so you are wrong about your assertion that they "couldn't convince any other rendering engine to implement them".
If you don't think Apple is abusing their power here, then you are either lacking understanding of how Apple operates, or you just love Apple a little too much.
> Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide which APIs become standards. They are preventing these APIs from becoming standards.
They are not. You have this almost entirely backwards. To become a standard, you only need two independent interoperable implementations. This means Apple cannot block something from becoming a standard. The only thing Google needs to do is convince anybody else to implement their proposals. So far they have managed to convince precisely zero other rendering engines to do so.
> I'll also point out that Opera, Edge, Samsung and others did implement the Web Bluetooth API, so you are wrong about your assertion that they "couldn't convince any other rendering engine to implement them".
All of these are Chromium / Blink users, not independent implementations.
If Apple won't allow an API onto Safari because it competes with native apps, then why should Firefox bother to implement it? Just because something moves forward in standards, does not mean Apple will ever implement it in their browser. They may never, and so why should Firefox do so, if Apple just blocks Firefox on their platform anyway? Chrome already has the APIs I want on Android, so Firefox won't spend the money to implement a non-standard before it is a standard.
Apple has a lot more control over this situation than Firefox does, and Firefox has limited resources.
>It’s hard to delineate which of these are Chrome features or actual web standards. And it’s therefore hard to blame either Safari or Firefox for not supporting them if they’re not standardized yet.
Maybe you don't realize that Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide which APIs become standards, so they can squash any API that they think could cut into their app store. Citing Firefox as some kind of evidence doesn't take into account the abusive business tactics that Apple uses to force developers to create native apps on their platform.
I don't care about Firefox does, because they aren't forbidding an entire platform from using any browser engine except their own browser engine, which Apple does with Safari on iOS.
So Apple controls iOS browser engines, and they also control which APIs get to become standards. This is plainly abusive. It's also part of the reason Apple is being sued by the DOJ
I don’t understand the spread of thoughts in your post.
The reason to create image sequences is not because you need to send it to other apps, it’s because you preserve quality and safeguard from crashes.
A crash mid video write out can corrupt a lengthy render. With image sequences you only lose the current frame.
People aren’t going to stop using image sequences even if they stayed in the same app.
And I’m not sure why this applies: “this goes beyond” what Apple has, because they do have hardware support for decoding several compressed codecs (also I’ll note that ProRes is also compressed). Other than streaming, when are you going to need that kind of encode performance? Or what other codecs are you expecting will suddenly pop up by not requiring ASICs?
Also how does this remove degradation when going between apps? Are you envisioning this enables Blender to stream to an NLE without first writing a file to disk?
> A crash mid video write out can corrupt a lengthy render. With image sequences you only lose the current frame.
You wouldn't contain FFv1 in MP4, the only format incompetent enough for such corruption.
Apple has an interest against people using codecs that they get no fees from. And Apple don't have a lossless codec. So they don't offer lossless compressed video acceleration.
The idea is that when working as a part of a team, and you get handed a CG render, you can avoid sending a huge .tar or .zip file full of TIFF which you then decompress, or ProRes which loses quality, particularly when in a linear colorspace like ACEScg.
I’m curious what kind of teams you’re working in that you’re handing compressed archives of image sequences? And using tiff vs EXR (unless you mean purely after compositing)?
Another reason to use image sequences is that it’s easier to re-render just a portion of the sequence easily. Granted this can be done with video too, but has higher overhead.
But even then why does the GPU encoding change the fact that you’d send it to another NLE? I just feel like there are a lots of jump in thought process here.
What do you base that on? Some of the best names in academia are Chinese, and in the computer graphics world, SIGGRAPH Asia has largely eclipsed SIGGRAPH for academic presentations
The AR viewer is using ARKit on iOS which is a default system “app”. I don’t believe Google provides the same kind of built in viewer experience with AR Core being surfaced as an app.
It's well established. Most public websites for museums have galleries of high res scans, and they're mostly all trying to keep you from downloading it. There are lots of tools out there to circumvent them, however.
This is a tautology and one at odds with itself. They simultaneously provide the high res scans but you think there’s a conspiracy to keep you from them. Why provide them in the first place then?
Not at all. They want people to experience what they have, but they don't want a small subset of people selling prints, T-shirts, and little statues. From their perspective, they sell excellent quality prints, etc. in the gift shop and online, and the proceeds benefit the collection. So they lock down downloads if they can.
Almost impossible to stop a determined actor from downloading media that you're serving to a browser. Most organizations don't have the budget or understanding. They outsource their websites, and ask for it to be as secure as possible.
He opens 50+ apps at once while working in Final Cut and Lightroom. Obviously anyone doing those full time would benefit from more resources but I think this is going to be enough for a big chunk of the population, and will be more appealing than the windows alternatives.
I still remember how Apple fans run around singing praises what their 8GB M1 absolutely kicked ass of Intel Macs with 16GB (and even more). Only to quietly replace them with a model with more RAM next year or some even way earlier than that.
I can open even 500 apps on any laptop. This is what swap for. But with only 8GB you are getting into the swap territory very fast because you need almost half of it for the OS and video memory.
More RAM is better. But doesn’t negate that it’s still very usable. Did you even bother to watch the video for responsiveness before commenting? Also it was a couple years after the transition to arm that Apple bumped the minimum RAM they shipped their laptops with.
It’s hard to take you seriously or at face value if you did watch the video and called it a glorified terminal.
What in the video is remotely glorified terminal like? What terminal are you using that gives you local 4K editing capabilities and the ability to run locally run Lightroom for 50MP files?
It's hard to take you seriously when you measure the performance of a computer by performing a very specific single tasks. The thing what dividies a smartphone and a proper computer is an ability to actually multi-task without dropping the context and not waiting ages for the programs to reload.
And yes nowadays your terminal is capable of rendering HTML5 pages and encoding MPEG.
EDIT: to give you an improper analogy:
You are pointing at a sport bike and say "this is very good vehicle because it is very fast".
Is it fast? Sure. Does it allows to move 1 kilogram of cargo very fast? Surely. Does it allows to move 1 tonne of cargo very fast? Hell no. You need a 1 thousand trips to move 1 kilogram each time or you need a cargo truck - totally different vehicle.
This laptop is nowhere near the "moving cargo" territory despite being hyped as such.
Again, in the video (that you clearly didn’t watch) they’re multi tasking without loading times as they switch.
And yes you can encode an mpeg from your console. Don’t be facetious, because that’s NOT what is shown in the video. They show editing the video and photos interactively with live views of the changes taking place. Can you do that in your terminal?
Anyway, enjoy raging about the product with your arbitrary goalpost for what constitutes being usable. It seems like that’s really what you want to do rather than talk seriously about the product.
Terminal is not necessary CLI/TUI only text terminal. And by the way you do have a terminal in your pocket, maybe you even typing your responses on it.
But again you are again comparing a single task in a demo (when was the last time someone bashed pre-release Apple products?), totally ignoring what 5 years ago very similar M1 with 8GB showed where this configuration did work - and where it did not. But you don't need common sense, you need to argue in the favour of your beloved company?
> Again, in the video (that you clearly didn’t watch)
Except I did but you need to claim what I didn't, right?
macOS employs some memory compression which does reduce pressure slightly.
But I think a lot is also down to things like the dispatch library and scheduler being able to work together and being able to make assumptions about the hardware to have a smoother experience under pressure.
True temperament solves for a _different_ issue than what OP's post talks about. From the strandberg true temperament page:
> Let’s begin by describing the issue with standard equal tempered frets; standard fret spacing is calculated from one single piece of information about the guitar, the scale length. This principle ignores that the frequency of a vibrating string is calculated by three factors: the mass of the string, the tension applied and the speaking length. All three of these factors are affected to different degrees each time a string is pressed down on a fret. The only way to correctly compensate for all three of these parameters is to adjust each string-to-fret connection point independently, until each note plays the correct frequency. This issue, which is impossible to solve with standard tempered frets, is what True Temperament solves.
So the true temperament system is compensating for the fact that a thicker string behaves differently when fretted than a thinner string. It still provides a 12 TET system however.
A true temperament isn’t just about compensating for the string mass differences but also for their differing intonation points. A true temperament won’t get to the same level as a movable fret system but it does also compensate to a certain degree for the differing intonation points across strings at different tunings (what it refers to as speaking length which captures both point to point length and mass related deformation length). They’re different but inherently associated issues.
This feels like a really puritanical take on things. Fanned frets and multiscale absolutely help with the playability of an instrument. It’s physics, there’s nothing mystical or gimmicky about it.
Maybe YOU don’t want it, but it prevents strings from going flabby without needing much heavier gauges. Which does help with a wide range of playing styles and genres.
Unless you also believe that all guitars should have a single scale length or something, and a single neck profile and fingerboard radius. Otherwise if you concede that it comes down to feel+preference then there’s no argument to make against multiscale instruments.
Building multiscale means more work to build which means higher prices and more complex repairs. A reasonable jump in work/cost for marginally better playability. Also more things for the builder to fuck up and get wrong. That's kinda normal though, there's a lot of terribly-built instruments on the market and a lot of customers who can't even tell (e.g., people still buying Gibson despite decades of everyone saying their instruments don't QC).
I have all kinds of wild/bizarre/insane instruments for different purposes -- there's nothing puritanical here (I spend most of my time at NAMM in Hall E). I'm just saying that for 99.9% of players though these features aren't doing a damn bit of difference and most people are buying them out of gear-worship.
I think it's wild that we're talking about the "physics" of neck construction/playability and tension when at least 80% of guitar players can't even properly set up their own instrument and their tone sucks. It's in the fingers, man.
If any of you think that cargo-culting among software developers is bad, guitar players are that 10x over. If not 100x.
So you’ve gone from saying it’s a gimmick to saying it’s not worth the cost. Do you even have a cogent argument here other than anything you don’t like doesn’t make sense to you?.
There are tons of poorly made strat or les Paul like guitars too so are they also not worth making? Hell let’s just take off all bells and whistles from guitars by your logic, what’s the point of more than one pickup or floating bridges. Let’s go back to fret less guitars because that’s also one less thing for luthiers to mess up, and then you get rid of fret buzz for all those guitarists you say can’t set up their guitars.
You might as well just say that you personally don’t like them and leave it at that. The rest is just an unfounded world salad or projection.
No I'm assuming that most people on this board don't play exotic varieties of guitar and I'm trying to help people avoid any strange delusions like they might need these things to sound better on their instrument.
That's already enough of a problem on online guitar boards... Also I can speak from experience. I was one of the first maybe half-dozen people to buy a TT neck outside of Sweden. I knew Anders and spoke to him occasionally. I'm saying that if you have a need for it, you already know it and know why. And if you don't, you almost certainly do not need it.
And that goes for _most_ things that aren't really basic common features on your guitar. That's why things like the Babicz bridge or Kubicki Factor headstock drop-tuner aren't uniquitous. Or even the way Strandberg or Parker used to build guitars. There's hundreds of these kind of things and the marketing for all of them tells you they're the greatest thing since sliced bread and will sound as good as _insert guitar god name here_. At least a Parker Fly has resale value...most of these things don't.
And lots of dumb/pointless trends happen! Stupidly pointless neck lamination is still a big one. I remember laughing my first time seeing 11 or 13-piece laminated necks on plain vanilla 6 string Jacksons (particularly coming out of Indonesia) a decade or so ago. It's still stupid and unnecessary. Buyers should be looking for the fewest pieces of wood that still sound good and remain stable in their guitar...but hyper-laminated necks was the trend...
This is just pointless gatekeeping. You have an arbitrary subjective taste and have decided that anything outside of it is stupid without actually understanding what you dislike and why others might want it.
Laminated necks again provide quite a bit of rigidity and stability against warpage. This is again just physics, there’s nothing mystical to it. There’s limits to how much a truss rod can do by itself. Wood moves, any wood worker will tell as much and will tell you how to counter act warping by joining opposing wood grains or having stiffener pieces.
I’m very suspect of whether you actually understand the physicality of instruments, anyone who has built an instrument (as I have) will know what you’re saying is ill informed.
And just because a basic guitar is enough for most people, that doesn’t mean there aren’t a significant number of people here who can’t appreciate higher levels of craftsmanship. For you to think otherwise is basically just elitism.
Anyway it’s apparent that you are at in your ways and can’t articulate an argument as to why you think something isn’t worth it. You still haven’t provided a single shred of principled argument beyond just proclaiming your opinion as truth.
Enjoy playing your slabs and looking down on everyone else. I’m sure you have great taste in instruments but I hope you can understand that your tastes are subjective and there are tons of incredibly talented luthiers out there who would disagree with your portrayal of instruments.
> Laminated necks again provide quite a bit of rigidity and stability against warpage. This is again just physics, there’s nothing mystical to it. There’s limits to how much a truss rod can do by itself. Wood moves, any wood worker will tell as much and will tell you how to counter act warping by joining opposing wood grains or having stiffener pieces.
Omg you daft prick. I didn't say laminated necks are bad. I said 11 or 13 piece laminated necks are excessive and unnecessary. Especially in a basic 6 string Jackson. That _could_ have been one piece of wood at that price point. Three at most. That's just physics.
11 or 13 pieces of glued wood aren't doing anything more than 3 pieces would have in a guitar like that. "It's just physics".
(I wish Firefox on iOS had a "open clean link" option, but I'd wish Mozilla would fix other more important stuff first, like letting me search/open bookmarks from a private tab.)
reply