Go to summer camp. A traditional, out in nature, canoes, archery, and tie dye, sleep-away summer camp. At least three weeks. Preferably, they would have started going much younger than high school, but it's never too late.
They will meet lifelong friends, have real, in-person experiences, and unplug from technology. They will come back energized, de-stressed, more confident, and with memories that will last a lifetime.
This is the Department of Homeland Security, a United States federal government department, publicly advocating for deporting nearly a third of the entire population of the country. Only around 7% of the population are non-citizens. That means they would need to deport around 75 million American citizens. Let that sink in.
Apple TV+ needed to be renamed but they went with the absolute worst option.
There's already an Apple TV device and an Apple TV app. Neither of which are required for using Apple TV+ and both of which have functionality other than using Apple TV+.
Some people think that Apple TV+ requires an Apple device to use it and just dismiss it as an option. Apple should have come up with a new brand without Apple in the name. That would broaden their potential market and get their foot in the door with people who don't own any Apple products.
> There's already an Apple TV device and an Apple TV app.
This telegraphs that (1) Apple's priority is the service above all else, and (2) that they're about to rebrand their flagship device which supports the service. We'll know very soon, since the updated device is imminent.
Yeah, this all makes sense if the intention is to change the name of the device.
Netflix (the service) has an app named Netflix. You access Netflix via Netflix on... XYZ. Same goes for basically every other streaming service.
So Apple TV the service on Apple TV the app makes perfect sense if you are thinking about accessing their streaming service via other set tops where Apple TV the app is available.
My guess is that the Apple TV set top will be renamed to something else, perhaps "Apple Home".
Then it would be "Access Apple TV via the app on your Apple Home device" and the merging/conflation of "Apple TV subscription via the Apple TV app" will make perfect sense the same way you would say "Access Netflix via the app on your Apple Home device".
My guess is that "tvOS" will be renamed "homeOS" to go with it.
Apple Home is already the name of their app for smart home stuff.
The Netflix comparison doesn’t quite work with Apple TV. I have an Apple TV (the device) and I don’t just use Apple TV (the app) to access Apple TV (the service). Apple TV (the app) is also where I need to go to buy/rent movies from the iTunes Store, watch Apple keynotes, and it can also be a place to aggregate content in a single UI from a bunch of different streaming services (notably not Netflix, they opted out). Apple TV (the service) is just one feature of Apple TV (the app), at least when it’s running on Apple TV (the device).
These distinctions do matter, due to Apple trying to consolidate everything into that single app. They sunset multiple other apps with its release. I actually find the app pretty hard to use as a result.
It's been a PITA enough searching for Apple TV to only have hits about Apple TV come up for years now. I really hope it's all part of some master plan now coming together, as you say, but I feel like it's just as likely they want to keep the naming "simple" as they have in the past on this regard and that's just the way things are going to stay.
or perhaps it means that they plan to expand their TV offering so as to merit being something more than just a "plus"
i don't know if i like the rebranding or not – it's such a minor thing that idk if it even warrants an opinion. But they should now be obliged to next rebrand Apple Carplay to Apple Car.
> or perhaps it means that they plan to expand their TV offering so as to merit being something more than just a "plus"
That's an interesting point. One potential reason to simplify the service's base name is to allow for segmentation, e.g. Apple TV Ultra.
I think there's a reasonable possibility that they'll introduce a <$100 device in an effort to 10X their living room user base, in which case we might see something like an Apple Theater Pro and an Apple Theater mini.
The article itself even shows just how confusing it is:
> Apple TV is available on the Apple TV app in over 100 countries and regions, on over 1 billion screens, including iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Vision Pro ...
How did anyone think "this is fine" in a proofread here when coming up with this rebranding?
Netflix is available on Netflix App. HBO is available on HBO app. Normal people don't care.
It's perfectly normal for Netflix the company to run Netflix the service on Netflix the app on Netflix device if they release one. It's not confusing at all. What would be confusing is if they all had different names.
Not sure if you’re cutting my quote in bad faith to fit your rebuttal, or just didn’t read it fully. How is this not confusing?
> Apple TV is available on the Apple TV app … on … Apple TV …
Watch Apple TV in Apple TV on Apple TV.
Why choose Netflix as your example as well when both Google and Amazon already have streaming services that don’t have an identically named hardware device. Do you honestly think if Netflix put out a device they would name it Netflix.
The only time I can see this being confusing is when referring to the Apple TV box by the same name, and even that can usually be figured out by context.
I think Swatch Internet Time is more practical in day-to-day use. Swatch Internet Time divides the day into 1,000 units instead of 100,000 so is much more succinct. People rarely need <1 sec precision when communicating with each other, and when they do, they can just use decimals.
I’d argue GPTS has some unique strengths that make it stand out and way better than Swatch, not just for everyday stuff but also for where timekeeping is headed. Here’s why:
Precision Without the Hassle: Sure, most people don’t need sub-second precision when chatting about meetups. But GPTS’s 100,000 pulses per day—each about 0.864 seconds—give you that granularity baked in. No need to mess with decimals like you would with Swatch’s 86.4-second beats. For example, in GPTS, you can say “P042K” (short for P042000) for a rough time, but if you’re syncing an AI process or timestamping a transaction, the full precision’s right there. Swatch feels like it’s asking for extra steps when accuracy matters.
A Human Rhythm: This is where GPTS gets interesting. Each pulse is roughly 0.864 seconds, pretty close to the average human heartbeat (around 0.83 seconds). It’s not just a random division—it’s a rhythm that vibes with us biologically. Swatch’s beats, at 86.4 seconds each, don’t have that kind of intuitive hook. GPTS feels less like a clock and more like a pulse we already know.
Global Sync Made Simple: GPTS resets every day at midnight UTC, giving everyone a universal reference point. That’s huge for coordinating across time zones or logging events globally—think distributed systems or even just planning a worldwide launch. Swatch Internet Time is universal too, but without that daily anchor, it’s trickier to tie it to real-world moments.
Swatch had its moment in the ‘90s, but it didn’t stick—maybe because it’s too detached from how we live and work now. GPTS, with its precision, human connection, and global reset, feels like it’s built for today’s challenges, from casual use to tech-heavy applications IMO.
If you really want to onshore production, you don't increase taxes on the import of raw materials, parts, and components, you only do so for finished goods. That isn't what this administration has done though. They say they want to increase domestic manufacturing, but their actions clearly prove that that is not their goal.
Both of your examples are cloud services, not software run locally on users' own hardware. If they intend the license to be limited to cloud services like Firefox Sync, then they should say so.
Aviation still uses AM radio which is more susceptible to noise than FM or digital modes but it does so for two very important reasons.
The first is that, with AM, if two or more people are transmitting on the same frequency at the same time, they can all still be heard. With FM, the strongest signal will suppress any weaker signals and only one signal will be heard.
The second is that even very weak AM signals have the chance to be received and understood. The human ear is very good at picking out human voices from noise. Weak FM signals just drop out completely.
They will meet lifelong friends, have real, in-person experiences, and unplug from technology. They will come back energized, de-stressed, more confident, and with memories that will last a lifetime.
reply