Connect with us

Tech

The worst Apple designs by Jony Ive, according to the AppleInsider staff

Published

on

apple

Malcolm Owen — Mighty Mouse 2

For the most part, the Magic Mouse 2 is a well-designed peripheral. Following on from the original, it retained the same physical appearance while also losing some weight and adding a rechargeable battery, changes that are on the face of it quite useful to end users.

My beef with the Magic Mouse 2 is the lapse of judgement in its design to place the charging point for it on the bottom edge. Rather than sully the outside of the mouse, Apple hid it at the very bottom of the device, where users won’t see it unless they need to recharge the thing.

Granted, the idea of hiding it there isn’t entirely that bad, but it does mean that the mouse isn’t able to be used at times while it’s being recharged, as there’s a cable and connector in the way. It may only be for less than a minute to get a few hours worth of charge, but it still leaves the user sitting there, twiddling their thumbs waiting for the thing to get enough power to do the thing they actually want to do.

I’d also argue that there isn’t anything wrong with placing the charging point at the front point of the Magic Mouse. Some other wireless mouse producers do so, effectively turning it into a “wired” mouse while charging, and it isn’t unsightly.

Add in that the front of the mouse isn’t usually on view to the person wielding it through normal use, and it makes the base-based port seem even more daft.

William Gallagher — The original iMac

It’s heresy to say it when the product is often beloved, and when it unquestionably saved Apple. Yet back in 1998 when it was new and on through today when it’s an antique, I’ve really disliked the design. It looks bulbous and ugly to me, and I understand that this is because there’s a whacking great CRT monitor in there —but that doesn’t change my mind.
And nor did any of the range of colors it came in.

I liked that the iMac came in many colors, and I have since become an absolute fan of the iMac range. Just not that original version.

Mike Wuerthele — The “hockey puck” mouse

Apple has a long and storied history with pointing devices. The company may have ushered in the dawn of the mouse with the Lisa, and then for everybody else with the Mac, but there have been some missteps along the way.

The AppleDesign mouse that shipped after Apple’s original ADB mouse wasn’t great, but it wasn’t terrible. Its successor, the “hockey puck” mouse that shipped with the iMac, was fully terrible.
With it being circular, there was no clear “up” without looking at the protruding cable. It was a wreck ergonomically, too, so it was a good thing that there were USB mice from third parties when it shipped.

A bit later, Apple put a divot on the mouse button for a better orientation, similarly to how it has put a raised circle around the Menu button on Apple TV remote. But that didn’t help that much.

It was replaced by Apple’s optical mouse, which was better, but again, still not great.

Andrew O’Hara — Smart Keyboard Folio

I was a pretty big fan of the original iPad Pro Smart Keyboard. I liked typing on it, liked being able to easily remove it, and liked using it to prop up my iPad when watching TV or movies. There was a fraction of users though who had issues with the presumed complexity of folding the cover around.

With the second-generation Smart Keyboard Folio, Apple seems to have tried to make up for this and overcorrected. The Smart Keyboard Folio forces back protection onto users instead of making it only an option, as with the first generation. It added cost and bulk to the otherwise extremely slim third-generation Pro. With the case attached, the 2018 Pro is actually thicker than its predecessor.

It also can’t be used to prop up a Pro without the keyboard sticking out, taking up a huge footprint on your desk. When not using the keyboard and folding it around the back, there’s an awkward experience when users are holding onto the keys — it feels squishy and just odd.

Here’s hoping that the Ive-less design team comes up with some improvements for the fourth generation of Apple’s pro tablets.

Amber — The third generation iPod shuffle

For the most part, the iPod shuffle wasn’t really on my radar. In fact I didn’t routinely own iPods or really any Apple products until the introduction of the sixth-generation iPod nano. I was aware of the Shuffle however. After all, nearly half of everyone I knew owned a second-gen model at some point.

Who wouldn’t want a tiny, wearable MP3 player? It was certainly a lot more gym-friendly than most.
As before, the third generation was a thumb drive-sized stick that you plugged headphones into. It had one control on the device itself that dictated whether you listened to your music in order or shuffled — leaving additional control to the earbuds’ in-line remote.

The product was a confusing choice for Apple to make. From a design standpoint, it was a big step backward. The second generation was a small, squat rectangle with a clickwheel that clipped onto your pocket, and allowed you to easily change songs and volume without much thought.

Functionally, the third-gen Shuffle was a total miss. If a user had a favorite pair of existing headphones that didn’t feature that inline, three-button remote, they wouldn’t be able to control their music. If they did, they’d still have to learn a series of non-intuitive clicking patterns just to navigate a series of invisible menus.

The third-gen was clearly not the hit that Apple had been expecting, because the fourth-gen Shuffle was released a little over a year later and was a slightly stumpier version of the second-gen. Not only was the clickwheel back, it also included an expanded color range, making it the most iconic in the product line.

Source: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/30/the-worst-apple-designs-by-jony-ive-according-to-the-appleinsider-staff

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

Nintendo is adding paid memberships to Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp

Published

on

By

Animal Crossing

Nintendo plans to launch paid subscription memberships for its smartphone game Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp later this week, according to an in-game news update. The company says one plan lets you “appoint one lucky animal as your camp caretaker and get some extra help around the campsite,” while with another you’ll “receive fortune cookies and store your furniture and clothing items in warehouses.”

Nintendo released its latest mobile game, Mario Kart Tour, last month with a surprising optional subscription: a $4.99-a-month “Gold Pass” that unlocks a faster speed mode and gives users access to more in-game items. The company says it will reveal more information about the Animal Crossing memberships in videos that are due to be released on Wednesday.

Despite the hype surrounding Nintendo’s belated decision to start making smartphone games after years of pleas from investors, mobile remains a small part of the company’s overall business. Nintendo doesn’t break out specific mobile sales figures, but in its most recent earnings report said that first-half revenue for mobile and IP licensing totaled 19.9 billion yen. which is up 6.4 percent year-on-year but represents less than five percent of the company’s overall sales.

“[Mario Kart Tour] earnings are also off to a good start,” president Shuntaro Furakawa told investors at the financial results briefing after commenting on the game’s download figures. “In addition to randomized items, we have created opportunities to generate revenue such as the Gold Pass subscription to meet the various needs of consumers, allowing them to enjoy the game. By including these mechanics and multiplayer functionality, we want to make it an attractive application that will be enjoyed by consumers in the long-term.”

Nintendo’s mobile games have been hit and miss in terms of both their quality and their financial performance, but if subscriptions are a model that turns out to work, you can expect to see more of them in future titles.

Source theverge.com

By Sam Byford

Continue Reading

Business

Web & Domain Protection Software Market SWOT Analysis by Key Players: Leaseweb, Namecheap, SiteLock, Verisign, Sucuri

Published

on

By

namecheap

The Latest research study released by HTF MI “Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market” with 100+ pages of analysis on business Strategy taken up by key and emerging industry players and delivers know how of the current market development, landscape, technologies, drivers, opportunities, market viewpoint and status. The research study provides estimates for Global Web & Domain Protection Software market Forecasted till 2025*. Some of the Major Companies covered in this Research are ZeroFOX, Comodo, Domain.com, GoDaddy, Register.com, Leaseweb, Namecheap, SiteLock, Verisign, Sucuri, Cloudflare, Pointer Brand Protection, Sasahost, WebARX, AppRiver, Rebel.com

Click here for free sample + related graphs of the report @: https://www.htfmarketreport.com/sample-report/1585651-global-web-domain-protection-software-market

Browse market information, tables and figures extent in-depth TOC on “Web & Domain Protection Software Market by Application (Large Enterprises & Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)), by Product Type (, Cloud-Based & On-Premise), Business scope, Manufacturing and Outlook – Estimate to 2025”.

At last, all parts of the Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market are quantitatively also subjectively valued to think about the Global just as regional market equally. This market study presents basic data and true figures about the market giving a general assessable analysis of this market based on market trends, market drivers, constraints and its future prospects. The report supplies the worldwide monetary challenge with the help of Porter’s Five Forces Analysis and SWOT Analysis.

On the basis of report- titled segments and sub-segment of the market are highlighted below:
Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market By Application/End-User (Value and Volume from 2019 to 2025) : Large Enterprises & Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)

Market By Type (Value and Volume from 2019 to 2025) : , Cloud-Based & On-Premise

Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market by Key Players: ZeroFOX, Comodo, Domain.com, GoDaddy, Register.com, Leaseweb, Namecheap, SiteLock, Verisign, Sucuri, Cloudflare, Pointer Brand Protection, Sasahost, WebARX, AppRiver, Rebel.com

Geographically, this report is segmented into some key Regions, with manufacture, depletion, revenue (million USD), and market share and growth rate of Web & Domain Protection Software in these regions, from 2012 to 2022 (forecast), covering China, USA, Europe, Japan, Korea, India, Southeast Asia & South America and its Share (%) and CAGR for the forecasted period 2019 to 2025.

Informational Takeaways from the Market Study: The report Web & Domain Protection Software matches the completely examined and evaluated data of the noticeable companies and their situation in the market by plans for different clear tools. The measured tools including SWOT analysis, Porter’s five powers analysis, and assumption return debt were utilized while separating the improvement of the key players performing in the market.

Key Development’s in the Market: This segment of the Web & Domain Protection Software report fuses the major developments of the market that contains confirmations, composed endeavors, R&D, new thing dispatch, joint endeavours, and relationship of driving members working in the market.

To get this report buy full copy @: https://www.htfmarketreport.com/buy-now?format=1&report=1585651

Some of the important question for stakeholders and business professional for expanding their position in the Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market :
Q 1. Which Region offers the most rewarding open doors for the market in 2019?
Q 2. What are the business threats and variable scenario concerning the market?
Q 3. What are probably the most encouraging, high-development scenarios for Web & Domain Protection Software movement showcase by applications, types and regions?
Q 4.What segments grab most noteworthy attention in Web & Domain Protection Software Market in 2019 and beyond?
Q 5. Who are the significant players confronting and developing in Web & Domain Protection Software Market?

For More Information Read Table of Content @: https://www.htfmarketreport.com/reports/1585651-global-web-domain-protection-software-market

Key poles of the TOC:
Chapter 1 Global Web & Domain Protection Software Market Business Overview
Chapter 2 Major Breakdown by Type [, Cloud-Based & On-Premise]
Chapter 3 Major Application Wise Breakdown (Revenue & Volume)
Chapter 4 Manufacture Market Breakdown
Chapter 5 Sales & Estimates Market Study
Chapter 6 Key Manufacturers Production and Sales Market Comparison Breakdown
…………………..
Chapter 8 Manufacturers, Deals and Closings Market Evaluation & Aggressiveness
Chapter 9 Key Companies Breakdown by Overall Market Size & Revenue by Type
………………..
Chapter 11 Business / Industry Chain (Value & Supply Chain Analysis)
Chapter 12 Conclusions & Appendix

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report version like North America, Europe or Asia.

BY SYLVIA SANCHEZ

Continue Reading

Politics

Social networks have been weaponized for the impeachment hearings

Published

on

By

facebook, instagram whatsapp also affected

Impeachment hearings got underway in the House of Representatives this week, as you likely noticed from the wall-to-wall coverage. The process involves the sort of high-stakes, highly partisan events that naturally dominate social feeds. What television was to impeachment in the 1970s and 1990s, Facebook and Twitter — and YouTube and maybe TikTok — will be to impeachment in 2019.

The hearings on President Donald Trump’s apparent attempted bribery of Ukraine won’t be the first time a president has had to contend with, or benefit from, a hyper-partisan media. Conservative talk radio and Fox News were in full swing when Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, even if their rhetoric looks quaint by today’s standard. But the World Wide Web was in its infancy, and the world was then still innocent of algorithmically sorted news feeds, partisan bot armies, and state-sponsored meme warfare.

Not anymore. If the first day of hearings is any indication, social networks promise to play a powerful role in shaping the way that impeachment hearings are understood by Americans. They are also playing a powerful role in shaping the hearings themselves.

As Ryan Broderick documented at BuzzFeed, Republican lawmakers used their time during Wednesday’s hearing to promote discredited conspiracy theories that are popular on right-wing message boards:

There is one America that believes what was in former FBI director Robert Mueller’s report, that there was coordinated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which helped the Trump campaign. But there is a second America that believes that in the summer of 2016, the Democratic National Committee colluded with Ukrainian nationals to frame the Trump campaign for collusion with Russia, implicating a Ukrainian American DNC contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, in the collusion and the California-based cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike in the subsequent cover-up.

This unfounded theory has been propped up by a 2017 Politico story; reporting from right-wing political commentator John Solomon published earlier this year in the Hill; Attorney General Bill Barr’s summer travels; the yearlong personal investigation into Ukraine conducted by Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer working for Trump; and coverage from Fox News and conservative news sites. All of that came into play during Wednesday’s hearing, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly.

After Republican members of Congress promoted these various smokescreens, right-wing media universally dismissed the hearing — either as an absurd exercise led by clowns, or as an outrageous abuse of power. Brian Stelter described the atmosphere on cable news:

Here’s what else I heard: Wednesday’s hearing was a bust. It was all just hearsay. It was a “disaster” for the Democrats and a “great day” for the Republicans. Impeachment is “stupid.” Impeachment is “fake.” There’s nothing impeachable here. There’s no reason to hold hearings. This inquiry needs to stop right now.

The message was one-sided and overwhelming. Every host and practically every guest said the Republican tribe is winning and the Democrat tribe is losing. I’m sure the president loved watching every minute of it. That’s one of the reasons why this right-wing rhetoric matters so much — because it is reassuring and emboldening Trump.

Meanwhile, if you’re reading the New York Times or watching CNN, you’re getting the sense that the case against Trump is a slam dunk, with multiple people having heard the president directly pressure his ambassador to the European Union to pursue a bribery plot. As Ezra Klein wrote recently, this impeachment is “the easiest possible test case for can our system hold a president accountable.” And yet with something like 40 percent of the country living in an alternate media universe, the basic, actual facts of the case may never penetrate into their reality.

Of course, that fear was one of the best reasons for Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings in the first place: Show people real witnesses answering important questions over a long enough period of time — train everyone’s eyes on the same set of facts — and maybe a greater consensus will emerge.

Time will tell if they succeed. In the meantime, impeachment has proven to be big business on Facebook — where politicians are taking out highly partisan ads consistent with their respective worldviews. Emily Stewart and Rani Molla have a thorough walkthrough of how impeachment is playing out on Facebook, with Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren using ads to fire up their base and build their donor rolls; Tom Steyer using impeachment as a signature issue to promote his presidential candidacy; and a spice company buying tens of thousands of dollars worth of pro-impeachment advertising because they spread farther on Facebook than non-impeachment ads, resulting in a better return on investment.

Much of the debate about whether Facebook should allow political advertising noted that it represents a small fraction of the company’s business. But as the Vox writers note, that doesn’t mean it’s an insignificant business:

Facebook itself has grown into a formidable political platform in recent years, with campaigns and outside groups spending $284 million on the platform during the midterm elections, according to a report by Tech for Campaigns, a nonprofit that helps political campaigns with digital tools. While that’s just a small share of Facebook’s overall ad revenue, it’s a growing chunk of what campaigns are spending to reach constituents.

As impeachment hearings intensify, it seems likely politicians’ spending on Facebook ads will increase. And a good number of those ads, like so much about impeachment in 2019, will seem to have been created in a parallel world. In many ways, they were.

 

 

read more theverge.com

By Casey Newton

Continue Reading

Trending

TransportationVoice