Lately it seems like Apple has downshifted in competence all-around (at least on the Mac). I'll believe evidence to the contrary when I see it — not sooner.
I know that makes me seem like an HN Apple hater. And it pains me to say that. I've been a Mac fan since the mid-90s. I've tried to give them the benefit of the doubt for a few years, but at this point they've blown through that into deep red territory. It makes me sad :(
Give me my damn physical escape key back! the touchbar is the silliest thing ever.
I'm still on Sierra at the moment as I delay upgrading after all the horrible bugs of the new release have been found - in everyone's opinion, is now a good time to leapfrog High Sierra? Time will tell.
I find it very hard to be excited about a yet another "major" release that doesn't even qualify as a minor version bump.
It's a Mach microkernel and a BSD userland taken from FreeBSD, which coincided with them hiring the founder of FreeBSD into a role to do release management. He's left since.
The fact you don't know this suggests you might not be aware of macOS fundamentals, the history of OS X, or MacOS that preceded it, the design decisions that went into all of those, the user groups they targeted at key points (including the adoption of FreeBSD userland), or their overall design intent.
I therefore struggle to agree with your premise that it's "not designed for pros", or that you are qualified to make that assertion.
Note: macOS is not using Linux underneath. It uses the XNU kernel, which is based on Mach and BSD.
When MacOS moved to a BSD-based system, it won over a large portion of software development. Go to almost any IT conference, you'll see people with MacBooks running MacOS (some run *nixes on MacBooks because of hardware).
In the past 4 to 5 years though Apple has let MacOS more or less stagnate.
The problem is, it's difficult to be excited in advance about a stability which is being promised, but can only be verified some months away.
But I don't care really. Give me an OS which works and doesn't get in my way. Something without ridiculous amounts of telemetry, please.
I too would appreciate stability and fixes. I know they are listed in the notes for each release. Still if that really was the focus that needs to be communicated
note I didn't watch the announcements so if they did emphasize that great!
One is, creating a common platform for apps to share data, live data, with one another. By live data, I mean editing a spreadsheet in Excel, and seeing it change a chart in Photoshop, instantaneously. Not after saving the file. Not after hitting a refresh button somewhere.
I know, this has been possible for decades, but there are no apps taking advantage of it, mainly because these things need a common platform with well-defined standards.
This is something that OSes are best positioned to implement, but none do.
PS: i am pretty sure caching, pre-compiling, etc are perfectly reasonable optimization techniques that many of us rely on.
1. people communicate in many different ways and
2. these things aren't valueless just because I don't picture myself using them. And in retrospect, I only struggle to picture myself authoring one; receiving them is completely fine.
But I'm not sure I totally understand what Animoji does for you. Your deafness is irrelevant in the context of messaging apps, isn't it? Hearing people, when using Messages, have just writing/reading, just like you.
Is it that, being deaf, you are more used to puting extra emphasis on non-verbal communication, and thus the transition to Messages from "real life" conversation feels more limiting than for us? How is it any better than sending a short video, or may be recording a gif of your actual face? Doesn't the loss in fidelity make it frustratingly hard to express the nuances we get from facial expression?
I tend to think all of those grandiouse statements about "Opening new ways of communicating" or "Creating new connexions between people" are total bullshit. Most animoji users communicate equally well with or without them, it add's nothing except fun. And that's fine! Fun is good.
But it's really hard to put oneself on anyone else's shoes, and I'd love to know if anyone has found more value in animojis.
Can you help me better understand what ASL language support would look like or what that would mean to you?
If you consider how ingrained and emotionally significant that expressions in your native language are, animojis with hands - which will take that emotional significance and put a cute spin on it - is going to be massive.
I do not know how to sign, but I do imagine that a member of the signing community would not feel truly at home in their digital life in that they cannot type the language that they "speak" and very probably think in, but must rather resort to a second auxiliary language whenever they interact with text.
Like, imagine if Apple (or Google or anyone else--this is an industry-wide issue) made it technically impossible for you communicate in anything except French. In this hypothetical world it is not a show stopping issue because you are fully proficient in French having used it in some way nearly every day of your life, and so are all the people you would want to communicate with. But it's not your mother tongue, and so you wouldn't really feel at home or fully included in the digital world, now would you? Texting your family and close friends in French when in fact all your other interactions with them are using spoken English would just be weird.
(Incidentally I do wonder if Swiss German or Scotts speakers feel similarly, and if they don't to what extent that serves as a counter point.)
I don't know about Swiss German speakers, but Scots speakers tend to be fairly comfortable in code-switching between standard written English and a transliterated form of Scots.
Scottish Twitter is as culturally distinctive as African American Twitter:
Wikipedia has a Scots language version:
I could imagine signing emoji being pretty successful. My son is deaf, but too young to be using chat software, so it's difficult to say without asking about at his school.
EDIT: I meant this as a genuine question, not as a "how could you possibly think this" response.
In the last National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 43% of Americans were assessed as having "basic or below basic" literacy. They can extract basic factual information from short, straightforward texts, but little more than that.
Here are a couple of example questions from that test.
Only 33% of Americans could describe what is expressed in the following poem:
"The pedigree of honey
Does not concern the Bee -
A clover, any time, to him
Either a literal or thematic description of the poem constitutes an acceptable answer.
Read the text at the link below. After reading this text, only 16% of Americans could describe the purpose of the Se Habla Español expo.
Acceptable answers include any statement such as the following: "to enable people to better serve and sell to the Hispanic community", "to improve marketing strategies to the Hispanic community" and "to enable people to establish contacts to serve the Hispanic community".
Did you get the right answer? 84% of Americans didn't. Bear that in mind when you're writing documentation or dialog boxes.
That's intentionally misleading and it's thrown around frequently without clarification of what the basic and below basic levels exactly mean, how they compare to the rest of the world, and who is in the figures (a lot of non-English speaking immigrants), usually to try to prove points.
The US basic literacy level is a high bar compared to what 95% of the planet actually tests at. Over half of China is below basic by the US standard. Over half of Eastern Europe is below the US basic line, including Russia.
In the US ~44% of the below basic population are non-native English speakers, who didn't speak English at all prior to starting school. 39% are Hispanic adults. Ie this group overwhelmingly consists of currently or originally low skill, poor immigrants (people that wouldn't even be allowed into most other developed nations such as Canada).
Demonstrating that effect in action, 43% of hispanic adults test poorly in literacy, compared to about 10% of white adults. Gee, I wonder if immigration into a new culture + language barrier has something to do with these numbers.
Despite a vast immigration flow of low skill, poor, low English literate persons since 1980, the US literacy rate didn't drop meaningfully. That means literacy rates for the base population increased.
Despite all of that, the US is the 7th most literate nation on earth, in front of: Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, France, New Zealand, Belgium, Israel, South Korea, Italy, Ireland, Russia.
Americans are well educated relative to the global population. That isn't what we're discussing. OP is explaining why large swaths of the population might prefer communicating with pictures over words. It isn't that they can't understand words. Just that parsing and constructing language to express complex thoughts isn't a common experience for many, for whatever reason. Emojis fill that gap.
In a globalised world, a great many people are frequently communicating in a language that they have not fully mastered. South Africa has eleven official languages. India has 22. Globally, non-native English speakers outnumber native speakers by two-to-one. Hindi/Urdu has a roughly equal number of first and second language users.
But as for deciding it exists because people aren't smart enough to use words, U+1F914.
(I know this thread isn't about the methodology of literacy assessment, but now I'm really curious to know how they do it. Does publicly available question-level response data exist somewhere out there? from previous years?)
It's also interesting how they work as reactions. If you hit "like" on something, for instance, you don't have to explain why you approve or add your own commentary, you just indicate your approval. And if you write a comment on a thread, there's a certain expectation that it contain an original thought or that it demands a response. So reactions manage to avoid a lot of inane filler.
For a good illustration, watch a thread on Facebook where they say "type AMEN if you agree!" and you get a thousand people tediously writing it out. If there were just a little prayer emoji and a counter, you get closer to their actual intent, since that's literally what "amen" means.
1) The emoji has several possible interpretations/meanings depending on context, such as "I don't know", "I don't care", "indifference" or "shrug". There's this saying, "a picture says a thousand words". It applies here (nobody said the words couldn't be a few words in hundreds of different languages ;)).
2) The emoji generally does not require translation to different languages. It isn't universal, but its more accessible, and some emojis are certainly universal (such as :) which is a facial expression my 3 month old understands).
Really good point. I don't find watching a keynote speeches about emoji at all exciting, either. But I work on a mixed-language engineering team with a lot of (extremely smart, highly literate) people, and we use emoji all the time.
Whether it's cold-sweat-face or thinking-face really helps me understand the nuance of my colleague's Japanese comments (which, btw, as a native English speaker with only fair Japanese ability, gives me a free opportunity to experience 'basic or lower literacy').
I know that adding emoji characters helps them in the same way, so I use them frequently.
That's what acronyms were used for. Back in the day of AIM/ICQ I never felt I had issues expressing myself with just text. It was text supplemented with a healthy dose of emoticons and acronyms, which leads me to believe that emoji are redundant
What’s really interesting about emojis is that they can transcend even hard language barriers. An emoji used by an exclusive Japanese-speaker can be understood by an exclusive English-speaker. The range in expressivity for emojis obviously isn’t as great as a full language, but it’s surprisingly large and can grow without cognitive costs to users (unlike acronyms). Unlike acronyms, the audience size is effectively universal. So I 100% disagree with your claim that emojis are redundant.
Part of what is off-putting about emoji is that they make text look like early first-language reading materials, where pictures of objects are embedded next to the word you are meant to learn. It's kind of off-putting to read, at least for those of us who grew up in that experience.
I also do not share your adoration for things that are super instantly accessible. There is much value in learning, and in struggling along the path to learning, that people think they don't want or need. Linguistic training (like learning to read written words) is a necessary skill for assimilating oneself to a new culture or in-group and language is one of the best methods for practicing that.
Also, are emoji really so universally understood? Are the peach or eggplant really universally understood to stand in for genitalia? Like almost everything the simplest form of emoji are accessible but I do not think everyone in the world is on the same page about the finer points on how to use some symbols
At its core, language is a tool. Its job is to allow people to communicate ideas with other people. You're arguing that there's value in not making a tool easier to use because it promotes learning, but I disagree with that point. Sure, there's value in overcoming challenges to benefit learning, but we shouldn't create artificial challenges (like not using emojis) just for that benefit to learning by doing things in a harder way. It's like saying we should use hammers to put in screws because using a screwdriver makes things too easy. I agree that there's much value in learning, but I think learning can be done in a much more efficient and productive way than by refraining from using emojis.
Also, you have to think of the costs associated with the inefficiencies of human language. One example: look at all the scientific work being done in English. Anyone that doesn't speak English fluently is automatically at a massive disadvantage in the scientific field. These non-English speaking scientists have to spend years simply learning English to contribute their work. That's an opportunity cost. All those years could have been spent on their actual scientific work, and those individuals and society as a whole have to live with that loss. I'm obviously not arguing that emojis fix this problem, but I'm saying that simplifying our language tool in some way could.
> Also, are emoji really so universally understood? Are the peach or eggplant really universally understood to stand in for genitalia? Like almost everything the simplest form of emoji are accessible but I do not think everyone in the world is on the same page about the finer points on how to use some symbols
That's an interesting point. There are differences in how emojis are interpreted, but this is no different from written or spoken language. Since the beginning of human communication, people have developed slang words and altered the rules of language. Some of these changes have spread and persisted while others died out or remained in use within specific groups of people. While the peach and eggplant emoji may not have the same interpretations across age groups, different cultures can likely still infer their meaning. For example, the see/hear/say-no-evil monkey emojis likely transcend many cultural and language barriers. Knife + scream + shower head emojis likely convey the shower scene from Psycho to anyone who's seen the movie regardless of culture or language.
Emojis do as well. As someone who has autism, I don't recognize or understand facial expressions all the time. I remember being 18 years old and finally understand what faceroll/roll eyes meant (thanks to -what it was called then- an emoticon).
AIM/ICQ already had picture-smiley support, converting :) to a smiley. The first smileys on the internet were used in the start of 80's (they're apparently used in written form as well see ). It was used on IRC and e-mail.
Another fun fact of that time (80s) is that domain names and TLDs used to be written in CAPITAL LETTERS. And the first spam was from DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation).
Acronyms are very old (widely used), and useful, but that doesn't mean they're better because they're older or more used in the past. Remember that reading in past centuries wasn't for everyone, same for latin. Acronyms are language specific which emoticons/emoji are not. The acronym LOL, one of the first chat-specific acronyms, stems from IRC and is believed to be coming from Dutch (The Dutch word lol means "fun" or [non-sexual] "pleasure". The Dutch were one of the very first if not the first countries to connect to the USA internet, and same for its IRC presence.) If you're a native English speaker you may not give a rat about acronyms being English-centric, but for the rest of the world they often don't even know what the acronyms stand for or they have their local acronyms which you or me wouldn't grasp.
Emoticons and emojis do not suffer from that problem. Case in point, the red 100 emoji is widely popular in the USA (so I heard). People don't use it here in NL. But we understand what an American would mean with it.
I believe picture language (as I call it) plus on-the-fly translation devices (what Google Glass could've been ages ago but didn't work out due to public outcry) is going to solve communication in the 21st century. The effect of the tower of Babel shall be mitigated. Why are my glasses still dumb? All these brands being sold here, are ultimately owned by the same big fat multinational. There's a huge opportunity here.
How do you express that in ASCII emoticons?
It’s probably not a universal meaning but my point is that emojis can be used to express more than just basic emoticon ‘UNIVERSAL EXPRESSION OF HUMAN HAPPINESS’ style things.
This may or may not be an example of it -- for all I know it's a commonly used one with a well-established metaphoric meaning --, but I think emoji usage is strangely idiosyncratic.
That isn't an isolated instance of emoji confusion for me, either. Apart from the basic facial expression emoji, for me they're a great way of making a sentence more confusing.
We both rely on this one emoji to communicate more effectively: <smiling face with squinting eyes> 
We use others, but that one emoji makes all the difference in the world. Often we send only that single sign to each other.
EDIT: Replace emoji with text description and add citation.
And as a follow-on, do you think the animated and personalized versions of these emojis make it that much more effective?
For me, the text version communicates the same meaning and context, so it’s fascinating to see examples where the representational medium has a significant impact.
Text, and ASCII emoticons, just don't do that.
(and I'm guessing that after I see enough "we can save you money on your car insurance :smiling_face_with_smiling_eyes: manipulative overuse by marketing "humans", emojis won't do it anymore either).
(Although, do you genuinely think a photo of a cat being cute is emotionally the same and just as effective as a description of a cat being cute?)
I never understood people that spent money on digital goods until I found kakaotalk emojis.
for me there is no comparison. I adore their animated emojis and I'm willing to pay for them as do many others.
you can check them out.
I'd also guess that just because they feature it heavily on the keynote that a huge team spent the whole year only working on just Emojis. That doesn't mean that there weren't a lot of other teams doing important ground work and internal improvements that are not that easy to showcase on a keynote for a very diverse audience and press.
After all, even with social networks, we still haven't convinced everyone that the "at" username construct is a useful way to get people's attention online.
What if printed words were really just a transitional state of language until their purest form, emoji!
They augment; they do not replace.
Only slightly related, but this latest migration back to a "sign-like" language (the emojis) reminds me of Giambattista Vico's "Scienza Nuova" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Science), where at some point he says that the language spoken by the first humans ("the giants") was a "mute" one, based on "signs", which was correlated with a poetic sense of mind, so to speak.
> Beginning with the first form of authority intuited by the giganti or early humans and transposed in their first "mute" or "sign" language, Vico concludes that “first, or vulgar, wisdom was poetic in nature.” This observation is not an aesthetic one, but rather points to the capacity inherent in all men to imagine meaning via comparison and to reach a communal "conscience" or "prejudice" about their surroundings.
There's of course nothing scientific about Vico's discourse, but his themes somehow stick and resonate more (at least to people like me) compared to the latest linguistic findings.
Emojis I agree, they are standardized and their meaning is clear by convention. Animojis? That's just salespeak for snapchat-like filters. They're funny but the novelty wears off the same day.
Wow that is an extremely generous characterization. At best they're just prettier versions of :) and :( and I don't see how they allow people to convey ideas they couldn't do just as well via text.
I don't think that solves the problem at all. In fact, I don't think that solves any problems at all.
If anything, it causes way more problems than it solves.
Well, no one actually does, so I'm glad we got out ahead of that problem.
> They're also much higher-resolution so it's easier to pull meaning from an unfamiliar one.
except you don't really need that many. There are a few common emotions that people use... and then there are winky T-Rex emoji's that are completely unnecessary.
Can you seriously not distinguish between the tiny selection and low res quality of text faces, and the wide variety of highly specific and detailed set of reactions now available to us? There's only so much you can do with text before you have to be extremely creative (a level of effort excessive for quick casual conversations) or rely on the other party being familiar with your specific vocabulary of text-faces.
Then give us a single example! So many replies _and not a single example of where words or ascii fail to impart what only an emoji can_. You can say "they're obviously better" until you're blue in the face, but it's all hot air until you prove it.
Obviously words can (almost certainly) impart what an emoji can - but one small image versus maybe 100 words? That's before you start combining them and the expanded meaning you can get from that.
You might as well say "give me an example of where Proper English fails to import what only slang can" - you're missing the point.
I have the choice of either adjusting my writing style to new people, which I’d rather not, or use either text or picture emoji to convey the tone that makes my writing clearer to people who can’t infer it. I find that image-based emoji are much more specific in the mood they convey, and provide more range — and there is a definite difference in how clearly I come across.
More challenging: what’s the text version of a singing, eye-rolling T-Rex?
It’s fine to not care about emoji, but you can’t logically dismiss them as prettier smilies.
> More challenging: what’s the text version of a singing, eye-rolling T-Rex?
Ok, you got me there, because I have no idea what concept is even meant to be communicated by such an absurd thing.
Yeah, figured that would be trotted out at some point. That's a fine sounding argument, but do you really feel emoji's are on the same level as the advent of video? I don't believe you do. At some point you have to take a look at the specific thing you're talking about and get down out of the clouds.
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why emoji's are better. All I see here is "they're different and can be funny." Ok.
"This helps me communicate" is not a falsifiable claim. You're telling lots of people that they have somehow made a mistake in interpreting their own life experiences. You are not even considering the possibility that something is there, and you just can't see it.
There has never been a way to put images in a sentence as easy and expressive as emoji (all there used to be was fonts like Wingdings), and it’s standardized. That is quite revolutionary.
Communication is rife with ambiguities, emotion, shortcuts, and mistakes. And between people who share friendship or more personal relationships, those “flaws” are often features, not bugs.
The concept of emoji, I feel, embraces those flaws.
(And personally speaking on the subject of emoji vs common text shorthand, if I never see “lol” again it’ll be too soon.)
> (And personally speaking on the subject of emoji vs common text shorthand, if I never see “lol” again it’ll be too soon.)
Funny, I feel the same way about emoji. I dunno, maybe I'm too autistic to get it, but when people use emoji it makes me feel like I'm talking to a child who hasn't learned express themselves like an adult yet.
Pet rocks were wildly popular. Unhealthy foods are wildly popular. Cocaine is wildly popular (well maybe that's a stretch).
I think there's a correlation problem here. However, I think you're missing the point again; _what can I convey via an emoji that I cannot convey in ascii_? I have yet to see a single example, and that's what started the entire debate.
And neither of you tried to address the core argument I made in the parent, that emoji reflect the inherent messiness of personal communications and for that matter personal relationships.
The same reason it’s important (but inefficient) to tell someone you love them in nonverbal ways is the reason emoji are popular. We all appreciate communications that extend beyond the written word. Emoji is just another option among many for achieving that.
And exactly zero people, including yourself, have been able to provide a single gle example where text fails to convey what an icon can. And, you, that was the entire subject of this discussion if you haven't noticed.
Depends on context. If we were discussing someone, it might signal criticism or a desire to party. The fact that it cannot compress losslessly into words is the whole point.
I'd like to see examples of both of these. Specifically how the T-Rex plays a role because, if you take the T-Rex out, we're back to something I can easily convey in ascii.
May I ask if you read fiction in more than one language? There are constructions even in those close to English which I find impossible to accurately translate in a way that preserves the delight of the interaction between their phrasing and underlying meaning.
For T-Rex, two examples:
"I drank too much at the Christmas party.
Not as much as Bob. He puked in the restaurant sink before appetizers were served.
[Dancing eye-rolling T-Rex]"
Happy hour pricing until midnight.
[Dancing eyes-rolled-back T-Rex]"
In the former, the emoji communicates derision. In the latter, playfulness. Depending on the style of animation and context, the emoji could further communicate cuteness versus tactile incompetence, letting go versus a loss of control, subject versus object.
The process of decoding an emoji is analogous to a simplified form of interpreting art. Why is that there? Am I supposed to interpret it using the positive or negative connotation? In some cases, less ambiguity is desired. But in others, the ambiguity itself carries information of a sort impossible to parse into words.
>Not as much as Bob. He puked in the restaurant sink before appetizers were served.
>[Dancing eye-rolling T-Rex]"
Ummmm... Points for trying I guess? You lost me at "person who drank too much == T-Rex"
Very likely less than the amount of different native language speakers who understand the vast majority of your emoticons/emojis.
I suppose you don't care cause you just speak your native language with other people who are native speakers. But a universal language on top of that has huge benefits in international circles. And, my 3 month old understands the :) smile. One of the very first abilities a newborn learns is recognizing faces. That's when they cannot even see a meter far!
I find that difficult to believe. On the other hand, given enough time and global interaction in that medium, it could develop a stable enough meaning across a large enough conceptual space to have a situation no worse than exists between any "standard" language and its various dialects. That'd be interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.
Well, not always universal. Some are generally well understood. They're easy to learn (you might wanna also look into where to start if you're interested in learning many languages; I understood its best to start with an Asian language such as Japanese/Korean/Chinese), and on top of that even allow to learn languages easily (see Memrise and Duolingo who use SVG art to teach languages. They use the same SVG art in different languages!). Even on school when children learn their first words (which are in Dutch: boom/roos/vis/vuur, English meaning: tree/rose/fish/fire) this is done via pictures!
Emoticons and emoji are contextual, yes.
If I say:
That's fun ;) :)
That has a different meaning than:
That is fun :)
That is fun ;)
Different context, yet a wink or smile is universal.
And if I'd write:
Dat is leuk :)
You wouldn't understand it because you don't speak Dutch. But you would understand the smiley. Without using any translator. The emoticon & emoji always describes the text around it, like an adjective (though it could also describe other smileys). As such, it is descriptive.
True, sometimes the emoticons (and especially emoji) explanation must be explained. Once it is explained, it can be used in combination with any language. For example, the kappa emoji  which originates from Twitch can be used on an English stream, but also on a Spanish or Japanese one. Its generally understood within the gamer community, but if you'd start using it within your local hockey club they'd first need to understand the meaning.
> That's fun ;) :)
> That has a different meaning than:
> That is fun :)
> That is fun ;)
> Different context, yet a wink or smile is universal.
Really? Because I can't see any real difference between any of those examples. Does the wink mean you're being sarcastic? Or that you're coming on to me? What purpose does the smiley serve? you already said it was fun, one could presume that would leave you in a positive emotional state.
> the kappa emoji  which originates from Twitch can be used on an English stream
I hate those stupid things so much, probably because I have no context for understanding their meaning and, since its already an english stream, you could just use words! And if you're not speaking the same language as the rest of the stream, you can't express anything meaningful enough to be worth saying anyway.
That'd depend on the rest of the text. It could mean I am making a joke ("not serious" / "just kidding"). It could mean I'm sarcastic. It could mean that I'm trying to hit on you. I think that sums it up (though I'm open for different explanations).
Thing is, back in the days, even in native languages between native speakers (but more so with one or more non-native) sarcasm and jokes weren't always easy to detect. The wink smiley specifically filled that niche! If you don't know about the story behind it, you might find it interesting to look it up.
As for the difference between these, "That is fun :)" denotes no sarcasm, but warmth. Possibly still humor, but its a genuine statement. "That is fun ;)" was covered earlier above and "That is fun ;) :)" is a mixed bag which could go either way (possibly clever to "talk your way out of the meaning" e.g. when trying to flirt but its not well received, or to create some -albeit simple- mysticism around your flirt). That's without knowing the context. The context still matters and is, ultimately, decisive for the meaning.
I have autism, btw, so although I find this fascinating it is rather difficult for me to understand. It took me serious effort to learn the meaning of the different emoticons/emoji (as far as one can know them, since there's so many in unicode these days).
> I hate those stupid things so much, probably because I have no context for understanding their meaning and, since its already an english stream, you could just use words! And if you're not speaking the same language as the rest of the stream, you can't express anything meaningful enough to be worth saying anyway.
(I don't like it either but that's because it is overused in these circles, and it reminds me of my age ie. that I'm not youth anymore.)
The ability to understand a language isn't binary. (See e.g. the example of the wink where language is not being understood!)
Another example coming from my own is I understand some Spanish, some French, some and some German, but I do not want to learn any French or Portuguese, and my German is better than my Spanish but I'm very curious to learn more Spanish. My English is pretty good, as is my Dutch, but I'm only interested in learning more English and Spanish; Dutch not so much. YMMV obviously.
No, we can't. There is an inherent visual component to emojis. A picture worth a thousand words, et cetera.
It's not an abstract idea mapping to an arbitrary icon; without prior explanation, many emojis make sense (within a certain cultural context). Kind of like how we can't replace the essence of giving a friend a gift or a lover a flower with words or an arbitrary icon. Apple understands this in a way few technology companies do.
What a coincidence, the exact same thing is true about written words.
>Kind of like how we can't replace the essence of giving a friend a gift or a lover a flower with words or an arbitrary icon. Apple understands this in a way few technology companies do.
I feel like you're one of those people who would have been way into flaming guitar gifs and midi on your geocities page in the 90s. I mean, seriously? You're literally saying that sending a gif conveys so much more meaning meaning it is similar to giving a gift or a flower than sending a text.
Maybe you're right: https://tinyurl.com/y7xeu7dc
Is that a serious question?
Who cares because that's dumb? Can you tell me what deep emotional state is being conveyed by a T-rex rolling its eyes? I think you lost track of the premise we're debating.
Do you really think this?
I don't really 'get' emojis but I think you're woefully underestimating their impact on communication and language. The emoji library on a normal iPhone is enormous.
>you're woefully underestimating their impact on communication and language. The emoji library on a normal iPhone is enormous
What does one have to do with the other? Yes, there are a lot of dumb icons to chose from. How does that directly lead to "[having a] large impact on communication and language"? If that's true, do you think it's a _positive_ impact?
The emojis serve a purpose. Text doesn't serve that purpose. I don't know how to describe the niche they fill with text. They're not a stand-in for emoticons.
You don't get it. It's okay. Not everything is for you.
So you can't explain it, but it's I who "doesn't get it". Ok then. I'll excuse you for a bit as it's going to take some time to untwist your brain from that logical contortion.
Consider the possibility that this is because there isn't one.
The meaning is immediately clear to anyone familiar with the reference. It's basically a pictographic language that leans heavily on a shared culture that's largely internet-based.
You sure do have some text there.
>> "Why was that so difficult to use words to describe?"
The medium is the message.
The debate is not "are emojis widely used". Yes, of course they are. The question is "opened a whole new way to communicate with each other", which is what I responded to.
I say, no, they haven't. I can convey the same emotions with ascii. I can convey the same emotions with written text. If you want to prove me wrong then fine, but don't re-frame the discussion.
> At best they're just prettier versions of :) and :( and I don't see how they allow people to convey ideas they couldn't do just as well via text.
Never did I say "These are dumb get off my lawn!" I said they don't meaningfully impact or improve communication, which is in direct response to the person I replied to who said that they have "opened a whole new way to communicate."
That's a serious claim, I'd like to see a single coherent argument to show it's actually the case. But, no, all I get are mischaracterizations of what I said.
The debate is not "are pretty things nice", it's "have emoji's fundamentally improved communication".
If the debate is not about how something looks then why was your first instinct to dismiss them as “just prettier versions of :) and :(“?
...because I was responding to someone who said emojis were a new and previously unrealized form of communication! Seriously guys...
You know, you're right; I find myself reaching for a "smashes head against brick wall" emoji right about now.
Oh, damn; I just described that emotion with words. I guess I'm still right.
Allowing people to call each other as avatars complete with facial expressions or with flattering filters applied gets rid of one of the last remaining key barriers to mass video calling adoption: people tend to look like hell in low light on front-facing cameras. Teenagers will upgrade to Face ID just to get these features, grandkids will love calling their grandparents as cartoon tigers and grandparents will love responding as cartoon dinosaurs.
Also nice to see the fruits of the Workflow acquisition, this will allow people to do all sorts of customisations including using slang and profanity to trigger commands. "Hey Siri, order my favourite fucking pizza".
At least it’s merely wasteful and not actually toxic. They could be working on more adtech.
Can't remember which version it was now, but I remember when Apple heavily marketed a Mac OS X version dedicated almost exclusively to bug fixes and performance enhancements.
It was very well received. I'm sure the same would happen if they announced they were dedicating an iOS version to bug fixes and performance enhancements.
EDIT: I think the version may have been Snow Leopard. :)
They could get into this during the developer SOTU, so there's hope...
The Chinese authorities in the article didn't "monitor" anything. They retrieved the deleted message from the phone itself. For all we know, it could be as innocuous as running a SQLite DELETE to delete the message and the scheduled vacuum hasn't run yet. I don't see any convincing evidence of either actual monitoring or Tencent conspiring to allow such monitoring.
It's in the spec, maybe developers should make their websites a bit more resilient to the very real errors that can happen? Did they just forget about error handling?
But in any case, your application should be interacting with localStorage through an in-memory facade, otherwise it's still going to break with lots of other edge-cases. All operations should be treated as volatile, and probably silently suppressed on failures.
Using a facade also makes testing easier, and if you avoid global side-effects it becomes easier to parallelize test-cases.
Considering Animoji and Memoji are only in Apple's Messaging app/iMessage, I think Bitmoji will be fine as long as Snapchat is fine (which, well, isn't certain).
Last time I saw a courageous desktop OS change, it was Windows merging their Mobile and desktop OS, and that was a hard fail.
It's a workstation. I prefer reliability and consistency. I think Apple knows they need to keep the general public buying macbooks with stupid superficial features, while maintaining consistent, reliable, functionality for the power users out there before they get annoyed and migrate to Linux machines. Hopefully they address the hardware reliability issues (ie. keyboards) in their next hardware release.
Modern OpenGL? App store with useful apps?
But that's nothing that affects me personally. What bugs me about macOS is how sloppy, buggy and limited it has become. Finder sucks big time. SMB doesn't work all too reliably. Wanna domain join - tough luck. (Even Linux distros are advanced in that area - Gnome 3 on Fedora allowed me to setup Enterprise Login and just entering ID / Password for my AD account during initial setup and it all worked flawlessly!). The OS updates are atrociously slow - at least they are infrequent but just goes to show how much attention they're really paying.
That's just from memory - I haven't used it for last year.
not only is it disappointing and boring but things are starting to go backwards.
When a site requests location permission I only get the option to deny request and make Safari remember that decision for a "day", not "forever" which is what I would like Safari to do, esp. for sites like Google.
Now I have looked at forums and didn't find anything that helped. Contacted Apple support (via call and chat both) and on both the occasions I was told that I need to reinstall the OS which was frustrating but heck I did just that with last major update - backed up my data and did a fresh install. I still face that issue. I called Apple Support I was again asked to do the same - reinstall macOS as Safari alone cannot be reinstalled.
That's a rather silly comparison. I guess the same logic doesn't apply to Electronic Arts/Oracle/Comcast/<insert hated company on HN>. People seem to be giving them money, and yet people also simultaneously hate them. I think we can and should criticize things we don't like, but only if we're honest with our reasons.
This is in addition to last year's announcement that "macOS High Sierra is the last version of macOS to run 32bit apps without compromise"
I wonder if we will soon see a new lineage of Macbooks fitted with Apple-specific arm64 chips.
The most scary thought is if UIKit-on-macOS starts requiring Developer ID entitlements and need to be installed via the app store, with fairplay DRM encryption of binaries and everything.
Edit: Also, r.i.p. my old macbook air 2011 :-/
For example, Metal compute shaders are C++14 and Khronos only adopted C++ in OpenCL after the beating they took from CUDA, which supported it since the beginning.
Well, some people refuse to use non-platform-native lowest-common-denominator libs, so there's that too...
Apple/Google/Microsoft/Mozilla and others are all participating
And maybe the same informal/external support model for OpenCL?
Performance will be diminished but not extinguished.
Doesn't seem cost-effective at scale to run on beefy Apple machines.
This is sort of like saying "people only do web serving workloads on Linux, we don't need web servers to run on Apple machines" to me.
Sadly, most companies won't have any choice but to port their app to Apple's proprietary APIs. It's really a net loss for consumers because most of these devs have better things to spend their time on than Apple breaking compatibility on a whim.
Pixelmator, at least, is based on Core Image, which Apple has probably already moved from OpenCL to Metal.
Almost all of my (and my lab's) time is spent tinkering with small numerical examples before sending it off to one of the lab machines to run overnight, and using the GPU on the MBP through OpenCL is a huge advantage.
I know this isn't what you're really complaining about, though.
You mean Objective-C++.
The only successful variants of it, actually do constrain devs with either Web or Java corporate frameworks, with a very tiny subset of native code allowed to take part into the whole game.
I also wonder what means for WebGL and its future. Right now, WebGL works in browsers on macOS, Linux, Windows, iOS, Android, which is incredible. There is no equivalent.
Sure, Apple has started working on WebGPU, but that’s not yet ready nor is it guaranteed to gain Linux, Windows, Android support.
So that's pretty promising!
It's important to note that NXT isn't necessarily a replacement for ANGLE. It's an experimental replacement for WebGL as a whole, with a different API. There still needs to be a way to run WebGL programs on Mac if this deprecation leads to removal a few versions down the line.
Wow, does this mean Maya, Houdini, and basically every 3D package out there will no longer run on macOS? If so that seriously sucks for 3D pros.
I'm guessing you haven't used apps like Maya, Nuke, or Houdini. They were all written in the mid-90's on IRIX machines and later ported to Linux, Windows, and OSX. Surprisingly, 3d performance isn't always big goal of their's. My guess is the core features don't sell new versions, so even though they have annual releases those things don't get much attention. They'll have drawing issues and transparency sorting problems for years. Same with audio bugs.
Their Mac support was spotty and irregular until the past 5-10 years.
 at least the portion I follow on twitter
Metal and OpenGL two completely different APIs, shading languages and probably a whole host of other things.
I've ported my fair share of things from fixed-function to programmable shader pipelines and you'd be effing naive if you think you can do that in a couple weeks on anything more than a toy demo.
Getting pixels on the screen and shipping something to end users are to very, very different things, 90/10 rule and all that.
Vulkan also has the benefit of multiple platforms supporting it so you're not doing all that work for a minority(which is what OSX is in the graphics space) platform.
I develop an OpenGL-based video engine for a live media playback application, which is very nearly as simple an application of OpenGL as you can expect to find in the real world, and there's no way I could expect to port it to Metal in a week or two singlehandedly. Like others have mentioned, it's a completely different paradigm, not just a matter of changing around some function calls.
That said, I welcome this change with open arms (and secure in the knowledge that legacy code will continue to work for the foreseeable future). OpenGL is a fragmented, brittle, spaghetti-inducing pile of global state. Rewriting in Metal isn't anywhere near as small a project as Apple claims, but I'm perversely looking forward to it -- I'll be very happy to have OpenGL in my rearview mirror.
Make up your fucking minds. Developers aren't hamsters.
I now declare MacOS to be deprecated, if that's how it's going to be.
You could put money on how long this page gets forgotten and left up.
The fact they want to force game developers to use instead Metal is... ridiculous, especially considering the extremely low macos marketshare, particularly outside US.
It's so frustrating to read what the GPU is actually capable of (for example in the intel PRMs) and to know that there is absolutely no way to get the driver's compiler to do the right thing in a reliable way.
I mean imagine if icc was the only x86 compiler.
How ugly would the JAI code to need to be to interface with this?
I wish they had a simple Metal C API, but their new API comes with a bunch of Objective-C baggage.
In Metal the Obj-C abstraction is part of the design and used to eliminate any other abstraction people would want to introduce. The objects you get back from the API are implemented straight in the GPU vendor code, and the debug tools can swap the methods out for extra validation, recording, etc.
If you're worried about refcounting, use ARC (which you have to with Swift anyway). First, the compiler is very smart about optimizing away retain/release/autorelease calls whenever it can. Second, when those calls do have to be made, they're implemented using vtables, and never hit objc_msgSend() in the first place.
The key being that if you've got a technology that works on both server farms for production and workstations for development, you support that so that your OS is a viable candidate for the developer workstation. I don't see a Metal port coming to Linux in any reasonable way any time soon, and I don't see researchers giving up OpenCL or even OpenGL any time soon, so it just means that Apple is going to forego that business.
With the recent github purchase it gives the oddly dissonant experience of having Microsoft being the 'developer friendly' OS company and the MacOS being the 'developer hostile' OS company. Where, and this is important, support for cross platform tools determines hostility or support. I would not argue that Apple is not the best development environment for the Apple platform, or Windows for the Windows platform.
Everything is CUDA. Everything depends on the shitty unstable software designed by a hardware company (Nvidia). This sucks and I hope someone can disrupt it, but Apple has no influence in the field of GPU computing.
And I work in data science and nobody is using their own laptops when you have AWS.
I work in data science too, and who cares about laptops. Desktop computers with GPUs, SSDs, and a lot of RAM are what you need. You can thoroughly bling out the hardware and the entire computer will still cost less than your monthly AWS bill to access a GPU. (This is all getting pretty irrelevant to Apple, though, who doesn't make such computers.)
So I can't imagine this is going to hurt at all.
Edit: and XQuartz (X11) with OpenGL comes in handy once in a while too...
Also, it seems to me that the better option in the long run for legacy game support is to just run a VM for the highest degree of compatibility.
EDIT: As a follower of https://mesamatrix.net/ I don't think it would be unreasonable to say about 3 years to get something that kind of works, five for something semi reasonable, and 8 for something at modern open gl level.
I really hate to see such a focus on a platform lock-in API when viable alternatives(Vulkan) are available.
I can't say I'll be protesting by not buying a new Mac because I'm already devoid of any desire to do so.
A reasonable alternative would be to implement OpenGL on top of Metal for compatibility but this is a lot of work.
edit, ups just read it: Apps built using OpenGL and OpenCL will continue to run in macOS 10.14, but these legacy technologies are deprecated in macOS 10.14. Games and graphics-intensive apps that use OpenGL should now adopt Metal. Similarly, apps that use OpenCL for computational tasks should now adopt Metal and Metal Performance Shaders. 
macOS performance was already getting so poor on 2010/2011 MacBook Airs, so I think this is the right move. I recently downgraded my old 2GB 2010 MacBook Air back to 10.11 El Capitan and it runs much, much better than it did on High Sierra.
If you aren't in Rust, just use Vulkan. There are high-performance wrappers for it in various stages of development, such as MoltenVK for macOS and iOS, and VulkanOnD3D12 for UWP. Non-UWP Windows, Linux, and Android should support Vulkan natively through their GPU drivers.
This was never true for game consoles, regardless of urban myths regarding OpenGL support.
It’s the smaller scale developers and projects that might not have have such ability.
(Not intending to nitpick--just pointing out that Riot is a LOT bigger than many folks realize)
Games made by developers who've gone out of business are probably just going to stop working in a few versions of MacOS.
How does this effect Qt iOS applications?
The low-level graphics APIs like Metal and Vulkan allow for much better performance, but they are much harder to use and require more work from the developer (hence, they’re usually used only by game engine makers). Higher-level graphics APIs like OpenGL are less efficient and have lower peak performance, but are easier to use for individual projects and have the benefit of having existing functional code (no need to rewrite a working project).
Also, OpenGL (and its mobile and web variants OpenGL ES and WebGL) are very portable (macOS, Linux, Windows, iOS, Android, both and native and in browsers), while Metal is macOS/iOS-only.
Maybe I'm biased - every time I looked at OpenGl code I shuddered and ran away to a higher level framework (I'm excluding shader code from this - that's concise enough for me not to mind getting that close to the metal)
Vulkan, you need to know exactly what you are doing. There are little to no handhelding. You are trying to squeeze out every last 10% of performance in exchange for lots more development time. You need to write a hell a lot more code to do something what you previously thought were simple.
OpenGL is higher level that should be compared to Direct3D 10, not 11. As a matter of fact I will go about saying compare to Direct 3D 9. And unless you are a OpenGL zealot, any sane game developers would have told you Direct X 9 already exceed OpenGL in most way.
Metal is offering what most of Vulkan can do and making it even easier then OpenGL.
Honestly I don't get / understand why all the backlash. OpenGL is deprecated, and it simply means Apple won't be updating OpenGL anymore. Stop asking every god damn year. They have been shipping other deprecated library and API for years! OpenGL is developed in such a way that no one really cares. And designed by committees for maximum backward compatibility. And if you want your App on iOS, you will have to use Metal anyway.
That's why I wasn't sure what Metal is offering instead.
A 3D modern API that acknowledges the time of pure C APIs is long gone, with C++14 as shading/compute language, providing math, 3D models, materials, fonts, textures support.
Whereas in OpenGL you are stuck with fishing for libraries, multiple execution paths depending on the extensions and bugs, compiling and linking shaders at runtime without library support, C style APIs and a plethora of deprecated APIs.
When it was introduced, the Core frameworks were updated to use Metal instead, with OpenGL left for backwards compatibility mode.
3.5 mm = 1) there is no way a wireless medium will ever have better throughput than a wired medium over a superb DAC - ever, 2) dongle, 3) extra battery worry now for BT.
OpenGL, I will grant you that one, since both Metal and/or Vulkan are a vast improvement on OpenGL.
I know that some people like to say this, but it's pretty clearly wrong, and it makes you look unobservant when you repeat it. It takes about five seconds and two phones to demonstrate this. The standard top section on every phone, Android and iOS alike, is a dedicated status section with little system icons with wide gaps of unused blank space between them. Every phone, every time. A notched phone just puts the camera directly between those icons instead of putting unused pixels there. It doesn't take a genius to see that un-notched phones have both larger top bezels and more pixels wasted in the status area. The notch doesn't cut into the screen. The screen extends up around the camera and puts the status icons on the horns.
> and is aesthetically displeasing
All of the tens of people I know who have notched phones say they love it and don't notice the notch. So, maybe to you, but it seems like the market is speaking.