<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for brendan09</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/brendan09/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/brendan09/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2016 00:17:45 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: iOS 10: Hands-on with the new Lock screen [Video]</title><link>http://9to5mac.com/2016/06/24/ios-10-hands-on-new-lock-screen-video/#comment-2749540176</link><description>&lt;p&gt;For those of us using a 6S Plus and *not* using Touch ID....it royally sucks. I usually click the lock button on the side to turn on the screen and then swipe near the middle of the screen (where I can reach) to unlock it. It changes the way I have to hold the phone, and not in a good way.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2016 00:17:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The iOS 7 Design Cheat Sheet - Ivo Mynttinen / User Interface Designer</title><link>https://ivomynttinen.com/blog/the-ios-7-design-cheat-sheet#comment-1012343259</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Great cheat sheet!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One thing I would like to see added: &lt;br&gt;Developers pretty much never use the Retina resolutions in code / Interface Builder. iOS automatically translates the 1x sizes and coordinates to work properly on the current device (Retina or not). It would be great to have a non-Retina 1x column on some of these.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Example: Although status bar is technically 40px on Retina, in code its still only 20pt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This was especially confusing at first when iPhone 5 came out. In Xcode / code, the screen height is referred to as '568pt', although its really 1136 pixels.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adding that would make this cheat sheet perfect for developers, too!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:46:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why I Don&amp;#8217;t Use Interface Builder</title><link>http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/why-i-dont-use-interface-builder#comment-899659155</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If you're only using one solution or the other, then you have the opportunity to be more productive.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Interface builder isn't made for dynamic, complex operations....so don't use it for that. Use it for general layout, flow, and static items. Everything dynamic can/should be done in code. If you spend time with 'perfecting' static elements in code (especially with a designer), you're wasting time....especially if you have a designer that can understand Interface Builder enough to get the basic view elements correct on their own. Most of the problems with Interface Builder come from trying to force it into doing complex things (like reusing views in different places). I've seen some really twisted Interface Builder setups where someone tried to do everything in IB. It failed miserably, and was glitchy. On the flipside, I've seen UI code written that is so dense and unreadable that spending 30 seconds to do it in Interface Builder would have solved a lot of issues.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Its best to use each tool for what its best suited for...and Interface Builder is best suited to handle static elements, layouts, and navigation flows, while doing the UI legwork in code.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 16:20:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Verizon iPhone 5 is GSM unlocked, tested with AT&amp;#038;T</title><link>https://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/09/21/verizon-iphone-5-unlocked-att/#comment-817034950</link><description>&lt;p&gt;iPhones aren't sold with their branding. At all.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's the phones, the hardware is different with regards to LTE and CDMA radios. Verizon/Sprint have CDMA radios and the LTE bands supported are different. Because of antenna tuning, you can't put certain LTE bands on the same antenna (the antenna extends to inside the chip, so it's not as easy as 'run another antenna'. To solve this, you make 2 different phones. Notice how the Verizon iPhone will work with all AT&amp;amp;T networks, except LTE. We've had 'global' phones that support AT&amp;amp;T and Verizon 3G for a few years. In fact, that chip was used in the 4S. The 4 didn't have that chip because the AT&amp;amp;T version was announced 7-8 months before Verizon got the iPhone. It's more expensive to include the chip, so they didn't in the initial version. It has everything to do with hardware. Apple dictates the terms to carriers on how and when they can carry the iPhone. There is no where that sells an iPhone in anything but stock packaging from Apple. No stickers, labels, custom boxes, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's up to the carriers if the ones they sell are locked to their network. Verizon can't (for legal reasons) lock the SIM card slot on devices that support the bands of LTE that they do. Therefore, Verizon iPhones work on AT&amp;amp;T, just not LTE. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:19:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: BlackBerry PlayBook OS 2.0 review</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/23/dnp-blackberry-playbook-os-2-0-review/#comment-449489560</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You clearly have never used developer tools. RIM's are FAR from the best.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also: The Playbook is not 'running Android on top of QNX'. It is simply running the virtual machine from Android, the exact same as installing Java on your home PC.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;At this point I'm sincerely hoping you're just a troll.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:15:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: BlackBerry PlayBook OS 2.0 review</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/23/dnp-blackberry-playbook-os-2-0-review/#comment-449487950</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You are aware that iOS has that same '30 years development' right?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;iOS comes from OS X which comes From NeXT. NeXT began the OS in the early to mid 80's.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also... "Being a real time OS it is designed to process in real time instantly 100% of the time." is complete jibberish. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Any modern OS supports all of those things you mentioned, and even QNX isn't the height of some of those technologies.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:13:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mozilla offers Gaia UI first look, will reveal Boot to Gecko partners at MWC</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/dnp-mozilla-to-reveal-boot-to-gecko-partners-at-mwc-gaia-ui-spo/#comment-441517161</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Go do some real research, kiddo:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Huffington Post, a journalistic source reporting on Apple's 2012 earnings report: $97.6 billion cash on hand.&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/01/24/apples-cash-on-hand_n_1229529.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/01/24/apples-cash-on-hand_n_1229529.html"&gt;http://www.huffingtonpost.c...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:53:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mozilla offers Gaia UI first look, will reveal Boot to Gecko partners at MWC</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/dnp-mozilla-to-reveal-boot-to-gecko-partners-at-mwc-gaia-ui-spo/#comment-441379044</link><description>&lt;p&gt;No, but they certainly have more than enough cash to adequately defend themselves. &lt;br&gt;Also: Not even Apple would spend their full $90 billion on a single lawsuit. Google and Apple are more or less peers when it comes to the ability to work with lawsuits.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:27:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mozilla offers Gaia UI first look, will reveal Boot to Gecko partners at MWC</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/dnp-mozilla-to-reveal-boot-to-gecko-partners-at-mwc-gaia-ui-spo/#comment-441319140</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Actually that's incorrect. You CAN sue open source software vendors, it happens all the time. Even to Android: &lt;a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20013546-265.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20013546-265.html"&gt;http://news.cnet.com/8301-3...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The reason Apple doesn't sue Google directly is because Google has FAR greater access to money/lawyers to defend themselves. If you take down the smaller hardware manufacturers it will make the rest too scared to use Android.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Research before making claims please.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:14:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Apple drops the 'Mac' from OS X Lion, Mountain Lion (update: began at WWDC)</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-drops-the-mac-from-os-x-lion-mountain-lion/#comment-441271685</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Please don't make me pull out the picture of Android before iOS was introduced.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:22:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Apple drops the 'Mac' from OS X Lion, Mountain Lion (update: began at WWDC)</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-drops-the-mac-from-os-x-lion-mountain-lion/#comment-441051731</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Not sure if you noticed...but that was entirely sarcastic. It would be naïve to think that Apple doesn't innovate.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:51:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Apple drops the 'Mac' from OS X Lion, Mountain Lion (update: began at WWDC)</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-drops-the-mac-from-os-x-lion-mountain-lion/#comment-441045507</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, because Apple isn't responsible for the current generation of smartphones in any way at all....&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:45:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: OS X Mountain Lion 10.8 in-depth preview</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-os-x-mount-lion-10-8-in-depth-preview/#comment-441007607</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Although I filly understand your point, I disagree that these updates should be considered 'service packs'. We still get service packs, and these types of updates are certainly not them.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:54:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: OS X Mountain Lion 10.8 in-depth preview</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/apple-os-x-mount-lion-10-8-in-depth-preview/#comment-441006578</link><description>&lt;p&gt;.1 updates on OS X are NOT service packs like they are in Windows. Please go do some research before posting.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:52:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: iTunes Match goes live: sync up your entire music collection for $24.99 a year</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/14/itunes-match-goes-live-sync-up-your-entire-music-collection-for/#comment-362945067</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Google music doesn't do the same thing. Nor is it licensed with the record companies (which means safe from the eventual lawsuit).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Besides, google music doesn't have an iOS app and the web app is just pathetic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please read about the services before you post.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:09:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: iTunes Match goes live: sync up your entire music collection for $24.99 a year</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/14/itunes-match-goes-live-sync-up-your-entire-music-collection-for/#comment-362943264</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You didn't read his post, did you?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The ripped audio files from CDs are quieter and lower quality than the songs purchased from iTunes. Nothing to do with EQ or line inputs. They are being played through the same device.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, his mastery of ripping settings in iTunes may be in question.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:07:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: iTunes Match goes live: sync up your entire music collection for $24.99 a year</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/14/itunes-match-goes-live-sync-up-your-entire-music-collection-for/#comment-362940056</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The difference being that Apple Licensed all of the music and rights to do this. The second the records companies decide to sue Google, the party is over.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also, I believe Google Music is free for now but they do intend on charging if you go over a storage limit. (I may be mistaken here)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:04:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How would you change Apple's OS X 10.7 (Lion)?</title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/23/how-would-you-change-apples-os-x-10-7-lion/#comment-342232196</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'd prefer having the option for the old version of exposé.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:43:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Apple pushes OS X Lion GM out to developers</title><link>http://bgr.com/2011/07/01/apple-pushes-os-x-lion-gm-out-to-developers/#comment-240171718</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Throw in the cost of 2 Windows upgrades (about $150 for the basic, feature limited version) and you've raised the price of your computer to be on par with a Mac. The cost of the OS and future upgrades is built-in/subsidized in the hardware purchase price. When you combine that with ease of use, the extra cost feels slightly more justified.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Still expensive, but there is more value built-in to the price than you might think.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:30:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: First look: 'Stargate Universe' trailer</title><link>http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/first-look-stargate-universe-trailer.html#comment-13305745</link><description>&lt;p&gt;They should have stopped after SG-1 got canceled... or just kept SG-1 going, it's the only one that ever made any sense. It was the one quality scifi show on the air.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brendan09</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:13:17 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>