who on earth is listening to hi-res wireless audio and not a song off of Spotify, YouTube, etc?
The decision not to include hi-res audio support out of the box is more baffling when you learn that Apple Music in its basic package offers high-quality lossless audio for streaming. Why have this, and make your users jump through extra hoops to take advantage of it?
To answer your overall question, I am one of the Apple dislikers and with me it comes down to openness and customizability (I like to tinker with my electronics and computing devices, and I can do that much better with an Android device), and not wanting most of my money that I spend for the product I’m buying to go to marketing.
I understand now why the decision not to include hi-res audio support out of the box is baffling.
However, in your second comment you present customisability as a negative when in reality, it’s more of a trade-off.
The more options you present to a user the more complex the system you have to deal with.
Sure, I respect and agree with your opinion regarding openness, and agree with the fact that Apple’s ecosystem is closed af. However, the point about customisability is a trade-off and imho a preference.
I’ve worked as a back-end developer (C++), so it’s not that I don’t know how to use technology or am afraid of learning or something along those lines. That said, there is a certain amount of elegance to simplicity and consistency, which I value.
And yes, I do currently use an Android device, which does have some custom gestures setup, custom icon packs, some applications which are not available via the Google Play Store. However, I really do believe that the point about customisation is a trade-off, and in my view “more customisation better” does not scale well; allow me to provide you with a simple example.
Suppose we could control every little detail regarding our device’s software (non-malicious), almost as if we had the source code, I believe people would struggle to access generally easily-accessible settings (such as accessibility settings). Furthermore, these settings likely (but not necessarily) would not apply consistently, and the lack of implication from settings (but greater control), might mean that someone might need to reconfigure each application for accessibility features, or have to accept the idea that they cannot fine-tune different applications for their accessibility requirements.
Lastly, to your point about marketing, you have presented a very logical and reasonable point, yet one I consider almost invalid, since we should be observing this through the lens of a consumer. They could choose to sell their phones at a loss despite spending a lot on marketing. I’m not saying it’s viable, but I’m saying it’s possible. However, the point I’m trying to make is that this isn’t relevant. We observe through the lens of a consumer. And so we look at the price we have to pay and judge the device’s “features” or whatever you’d like to call them, objectively or relatively, based on this price.
In summary:
Agreed with hi-res point
Agreed with openness point
Disagreed with customisability point
Disagreed upon the $$$ on marketing, not my job to judge what they’re spending on, I’m judging the end-product as a consumer
By the way, thought I’d clarify my stance on this, since I’m not an Apple fanboy, is that I prefer Apple to other tech giants (Google is an obvious choice for an example).
The decision not to include hi-res audio support out of the box is more baffling when you learn that Apple Music in its basic package offers high-quality lossless audio for streaming. Why have this, and make your users jump through extra hoops to take advantage of it?
To answer your overall question, I am one of the Apple dislikers and with me it comes down to openness and customizability (I like to tinker with my electronics and computing devices, and I can do that much better with an Android device), and not wanting most of my money that I spend for the product I’m buying to go to marketing.
Sorry for the late reply.
I understand now why the decision not to include hi-res audio support out of the box is baffling. However, in your second comment you present customisability as a negative when in reality, it’s more of a trade-off. The more options you present to a user the more complex the system you have to deal with.
Sure, I respect and agree with your opinion regarding openness, and agree with the fact that Apple’s ecosystem is closed af. However, the point about customisability is a trade-off and imho a preference.
I’ve worked as a back-end developer (C++), so it’s not that I don’t know how to use technology or am afraid of learning or something along those lines. That said, there is a certain amount of elegance to simplicity and consistency, which I value.
And yes, I do currently use an Android device, which does have some custom gestures setup, custom icon packs, some applications which are not available via the Google Play Store. However, I really do believe that the point about customisation is a trade-off, and in my view “more customisation better” does not scale well; allow me to provide you with a simple example.
Suppose we could control every little detail regarding our device’s software (non-malicious), almost as if we had the source code, I believe people would struggle to access generally easily-accessible settings (such as accessibility settings). Furthermore, these settings likely (but not necessarily) would not apply consistently, and the lack of implication from settings (but greater control), might mean that someone might need to reconfigure each application for accessibility features, or have to accept the idea that they cannot fine-tune different applications for their accessibility requirements.
Lastly, to your point about marketing, you have presented a very logical and reasonable point, yet one I consider almost invalid, since we should be observing this through the lens of a consumer. They could choose to sell their phones at a loss despite spending a lot on marketing. I’m not saying it’s viable, but I’m saying it’s possible. However, the point I’m trying to make is that this isn’t relevant. We observe through the lens of a consumer. And so we look at the price we have to pay and judge the device’s “features” or whatever you’d like to call them, objectively or relatively, based on this price.
In summary:
By the way, thought I’d clarify my stance on this, since I’m not an Apple fanboy, is that I prefer Apple to other tech giants (Google is an obvious choice for an example).