Blackberry was the best for corporate use. The BES server made management super easy. Although I think it relied on BB's servers too... which adds a failure point.
Nah you have already spoken with not caring about how certain elements of the walled garden are terrible for the end user, the consumer, via leveraging monopoly like power. It's shitty when Google has and does it in it's purview, and it's shitty when Apple does it, but that's beyond you to accept, because it makes your job easier. It's the easy way out solution , because nobody should expect an IT department to support the myriad of Android hardware from so many manufacturers with unestablished security and OS updates, but, what would be reasonable and what would be best for your employees, would be to pick a few Android models which are regularly supported from Samsung and Google, and support those too. For your end users benefit. Most people dont' want to carry around two phones so you are pushing them into one because you want to keep it only as simple as possible for yourself. Sometimes the easy way out is not the best way out. Pick a pretty easy middle ground - iPhones and these few models of Android we support. Simple. Yes it might be more work but sometimes that works out better.
Have seen reports of upgrades to iOS 17 resulting in a total loss of data.
They should have open sourced the whole BB stack (hardware+software). Not only would it still be alive today, we would have a decent alternative to closed ecosystems. Who owns the IP of Research in Motion? Maybe Canada should buy it and open source it for the benefit of humanity.Blackberry was the best for corporate use. The BES server made management super easy. Although I think it relied on BB's servers too... which adds a failure point.
Fairphone 4 has an incredible 5-year warranty, aims for 6 years of updates
If you want a smartphone with a long life, Fairphone is leading the industry.arstechnica.com
You again? I am still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that I "literally" said things I didn't say on this forum. Which should have been easy for you since its all out there in the open. But you made a claim that you couldn't back up and, when called on it, went completely silent. I considered a longer reply about the externalities of support, IT funding restrictions, cost centers vs revenue generators, company politics etc but you don't even know what the word 'literally' means so I decided it was a futile effort.
I can acknowledge negatives about Apple - there just haven't been any clear ones brought up IMO.
I considered a longer reply about the externalities of support, IT funding restrictions, cost centers vs revenue generators, company politics etc but you don't even know what the word 'literally' means so I decided it was a futile effort.
Thats a whole wall o'text that can't cover up that you don't know what the word 'literally' means. Especially since you doubled down on it by showing a quote of mine that, if anything, proves my point instead of yours.[Rambling]
See for that to actually be true I would have had to say exactly "I can't bring myself to criticize it". Which I didn't. If you need some more help with the definition you can do a quick google search. Otherwise there really isn't much point in an internet debate with someone who doesn't understand what words mean.You literally say you can't bring yourself to criticize it.
Corporations trying to maximize profits. More at 11.Thats a whole wall o'text that can't cover up that you don't know what the word 'literally' means. Especially since you doubled down on it by showing a quote of mine that, if anything, proves my point instead of yours.
See for that to actually be true I would have had to say exactly "I can't bring myself to criticize it". Which I didn't. If you need some more help with the definition you can do a quick google search. Otherwise there really isn't much point in an internet debate with someone who doesn't understand what words mean.
I'll make you a deal: If you can admit that that post of yours was wrong - without any quibbling - I'll go into a more detailed reply.
If we're talking Google and Apple then yeah that is absolutely part of it. If we're talking support of multiple devices by a company then its good to keep in mind that ~47% of all private employees in the US work for a small business which usually don't have much in the way of an IT staff budget. Another 30M or so work in non-profits or higher ed which tend to be very budget constrained. If IT has any extra money its not going towards supporting another phone - its going to modernizing systems or cybersecurity firstCorporations trying to maximize profits. More at 11.
You suck at reality. You can't even deal with your own quoted words at a certain point in the thread. You literally said, you couldn't criticize anything about Apple's walled garden at that point, when it had already been established.Thats a whole wall o'text that can't cover up that you don't know what the word 'literally' means. Especially since you doubled down on it by showing a quote of mine that, if anything, proves my point instead of yours.
See for that to actually be true I would have had to say exactly "I can't bring myself to criticize it". Which I didn't. If you need some more help with the definition you can do a quick google search. Otherwise there really isn't much point in an internet debate with someone who doesn't understand what words mean.
I'll make you a deal: If you can admit that that post of yours was wrong - without any quibbling - I'll go into a more detailed reply.
Ah the ol' "My argument is failing to get the results I want so I'll start throwing a temper tantrum with random insults and swearing." What a truly enlightened way to try and make a point. I am very devastated you don't want to be in my IT department - I thought we were so close to reaching a job offer agreement!You suck at reality. You can't even deal with your own quoted words at a certain point in the thread. You literally said, you couldn't criticize anything about Apple's walled garden at that point, when it had already been established.
I mean you can either double down on it, which it seems you have been doing, or you can say you spoke to soon. Or you just missed something. No shame in that.
I mean literally. Your own words. You can snip my quotes and label them whatever you want. It doesn't change what you've actually said.
I'd hate to be in your IT department at this point. Nothing but gaslighting and bullshit. What utter nonsense.
Good luck bro. Glad I don't work for your delusional motherfucking ass
I can be your fren. 😀Ah the ol' "My argument is failing to get the results I want so I'll start throwing a temper tantrum with random insults and swearing." What a truly enlightened way to try and make a point. I am very devastated you don't want to be in my IT department - I thought we were so close to reaching a job offer agreement!
I'm not sure I can afford the interest rate on that arrangement. And I like my kneesI can be your fren. 😀
Be nice to his wife and the interest rate is lower. For zero interest, ask Boomer how it works.I'm not sure I can afford the interest rate on that arrangement. And I like my knees
Lolol...no. The wife would fall for every sob story.Be nice to his wife and the interest rate is lower. For zero interest, ask Boomer how it works.
There are pages that could be written to take apart the nonsense Apple purports about it’s ”Lossless Audio” campaign, but to lay ther terminology clear: “Lossless” is intended to convince the end user that the uncompressed, original music file has lost nothing after being converted to “lossless Audio.” And yet “lossless audio” files are considerably smaller than the original uncompressed (.wav or aiff) files that they were compressed from. Which means the lossless file musta lost something? (It did). Anyone familiar with Apple won’t be surprised to learn of yet another Apple smoke and mirrors game. An honest name for what Apple is calling “lossless audio” would be “Apple lossy audio.” Apple’s “lossless” way of compressing audio that Apple lovers will pay lots of money for an algorithm to to sample the entire audio track, identify and select a small number of milliseconds long audio particles that are similar enough to other particles that appear in tne original track, and then delete the others and replace with the selected. i don’t know the exact proportions of the size difference between original to compressed but i feel secure in saying a “lossless” (lossy) file is roughly 1/3 smaller than the original. But in the plan terms: “if it’s smaller now than before you did anything to it, that means it‘s lost something.”And all the other ways. Like Apple has their own proprietary wireless audio codec, which while neat (supposedly supports lossless audio and even Apple's spatial audio), but their support for other high quality Bluetooth audio codecs is lacking. LDAC I believe is free to license (or I imagine Sony wouldn't have an issue if Apple wanted to implement it into iOS). I think there's some weirdness where certain devices can only support certain audio formats despite easily being able to offer more (like I think most devices are stuck at max 16 bit 48kHz audio, even when streaming 24/192kHz).
There are legit complaints about Apple willingness to enable support for at least some of iMessages features to others.
And how they used to lock down accessories by their certification program. And sticking with proprietary connections.
I think they lock 3rd party styli from some of the features that Pencil 2 has.
Oh and them mandating that all browsers on iOS have to use the Safari rendering engine, essentially turning them into skins of Safari. (This is rumored to be changing though.) I really don't know how they got away with that considering similar was what got Microsoft hammered.
Which some of this stuff would be fine if Apple's stuff was unimpeachable, but it often isn't. But there are aspects where they do well. Like I think you get lossless audio via Apple Music for no extra cost.
Its all a mixed bag though.
What are you on about. There are lossless audio compression algorithms. ALAC and FLAC are both lossless.There are pages that could be written to take apart the nonsense Apple purports about it’s ”Lossless Audio” campaign, but to lay ther terminology clear: “Lossless” is intended to convince the end user that the uncompressed, original music file has lost nothing after being converted to “lossless Audio.” And yet “lossless audio” files are considerably smaller than the original uncompressed (.wav or aiff) files that they were compressed from. Which means the lossless file musta lost something? (It did). Anyone familiar with Apple won’t be surprised to learn of yet another Apple smoke and mirrors game. An honest name for what Apple is calling “lossless audio” would be “Apple lossy audio.” Apple’s “lossless” way of compressing audio that Apple lovers will pay lots of money for an algorithm to to sample the entire audio track, identify and select a small number of milliseconds long audio particles that are similar enough to other particles that appear in tne original track, and then delete the others and replace with the selected. i don’t know the exact proportions of the size difference between original to compressed but i feel secure in saying a “lossless” (lossy) file is roughly 1/3 smaller than the original. But in the plan terms: “if it’s smaller now than before you did anything to it, that means it‘s lost something.”
Apple says as little as possible about this aspect, instead printing things like “indistinguishable from the original audio file”, to a user base who by and large have little or no experience even hearing an uncompressed audio file, and who by now are accustomed to hearing streaming quality mp3 and mp4 files. An analog for either of those compressed results compared to uncompressed original would be like playing a movie on your iPad, recording the playback with an iPhone, and then expectng the result to be the same as watching the movie the iPad and listening through air buds or headphones. It’s that severe.
But it gets worse: somehow, Apple got Neil Young to announce to the world that listening to Apple Lossless was as good as, no… it was BETTER than listening to original ANALOG mixes on 1” tape at 15 or 30 ips. I know of no more staunch advocate of analog (vs) digital than Neil Young. He refused to even entertain the idea of digital beyond a quick audition/comparison that Sony volunteered to make possible. The Sony rep was quickly cackled and jeered out of the studio by Neil and crew, and I felt bad for the guy. But I too like Analog recording dine well, I and I too hear what’s missing recording original sound sources digitally. I think Neil was in a state of shock as a result of his Spotify tantrum and Apple gave him shelter from the storm, given that he’d state what he did, which is insane.
I’ve seen people who’ve only known compressed audio posting “really?!? A raw .WAV file sounds better than a compressed file?!? I’m reconverting my entire catalog to .WAV!” Don’t do that. All you’ll wind up with is shitty sounding .WAV files that take up a huge amount of memory. DO find the original .WAVs either by ripping them off a CD or maybe finding them for sale on places like band camp. But Apple? Phht. It’s a freakin cult. They’ll say anything. I like an use some of their gear but I’ve nearer ever seen a gaggle of billionaires who are so good at writing fantasy scripts, convincing hundreds of millions of ppl that their scripts are true, and then making huge amounts of money from it. I think of Apple Lossless as a compression formula that, after it’s reduced the file sizes, encodes it with a playback algorithm that includes some very well implemented digital compression, EQ and limiting. IMO compared to mp3 or mp4, it sounds better. I think FLAC sounds more open, but none of these are uncompressed and therefore that raw digital real deal is as many bits at the highest sample rate that you can find. Right now reasonable high end specs are 24 bit 96k, or more likely 24 bits 48k. Ripping 16 bit 44.1k and leaving it there is better than resampling the rip upward either in sample rate or bit depth. It’s still gonna be 16 bit 44.1k.