[Eugene]

I agree with RowdyScot and kscherer. The iPod nano might continue to be available like the iPod classic was, but it will also be neglected in the same way until it fades away completely. The Apple Watch will inherit standalone music playback and you'll be expected to use wireless earphones with them. Running is a niche. When I go out running in my neighborhood I pass by 1-2 runners on a 5 mile course. There's more dog walkers and regular walkers. Fact is most of them are not listening to music while doing it.

I just don't like the feeling of a car being able to sneak up on me because I'm wearing earphones. I also don't like how hot my ear canals feel in the middle of a 1-hour run with earphones inserted.

Most runners' expenses don't matter in this discussion. Whether a serious runner buys $110 running shoes twice a year or spends $45 on four pairs of running socks is irrelevant. That's money Apple can't touch unless it makes a competing product. Running is stupidly inexpensive compared to most other hobbies/pasttimes.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Nearly everyone runs,

Not here. I live in a metropolitan area with 500,000 people. On any given day, I might see 10 people running. Maybe. And it's almost always the same ten people. Granted, some may be running at different times or indoors, but there is absolutely no "nearly everyone runs" in Boise. If they did, our roads would be positively flooded with runners. There wouldn't be room on the sidewalks and the runners would be spilling into the streets. I see 50x the number of cyclists as I do runners. In Boise, runners are a niche iPod market, and a tiny one at that.

I will concede, however, that almost all of the iPods we sell, now, go to runners. All 2 per month. Yeah, that's a niche market.

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses or claims to run.

This I agree with.

[addabox]

I dunno, man. I don't run, none of my friends run-- obviously not a significant sampling, but I literally don't even know anyone who runs, so it can't be "nearly everyone." What I and everyone I know do do is bike. Biking is becoming ubiquitous, not just for touring or off-road or exercise, but for day to day commuting and just general transportation (at least in cities). I would imagine there are a lot of people who bike, a lot, and feel like they get their exercise that way. And on a bike, the bulkiness of a phone isn't a problem.

[PB PM]

Yes, runners do seem to be a niche. I don't know more than a few people that run. Now swimming, and cycling that's another story.

[Eugene]

Biking is popular because it's literally easier. Anyone can bike ~15 miles in an hour and get some decent cardio work done. In an hour, most out of shape people are going to run/walk ~4 miles or less. It feels like less of an achievement and you end up with all the same sore muscles in addition to plantar fasciitis and shin splints.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by kscherer Not here. I live in a metropolitan area with 500,000 people. On any given day, I might see 10 people running. Maybe. And it's almost always the same ten people. Granted, some may be running at different times or indoors, but there is absolutely no "nearly everyone runs" in Boise. If they did, our roads would be positively flooded with runners. There wouldn't be room on the sidewalks and the runners would be spilling into the streets. I see 50x the number of cyclists as I do runners. In Boise, runners are a niche iPod market, and a tiny one at that. I will concede, however, that almost all of the iPods we sell, now, go to runners. All 2 per month. Yeah, that's a niche market. This I agree with.

Sorry, you're wrong. And I'm familiar with Boise as well. More people run there than bike. You just don't notice it. And also have lived in LA, SD, SF, DC, NYC, SLC and PDX. Running is by far the most popular form of exercise.


For what it's worth, Nike+ has over 18,000,000 active members.

The number of people in the US who went for a run sometime in the last 12 months? 65 Million in the spring of 2014. a 20 million increase over 6 years prior.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/2...d-runners-usa/

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by addabox I dunno, man. I don't run, none of my friends run-- obviously not a significant sampling, but I literally don't even know anyone who runs, so it can't be "nearly everyone." What I and everyone I know do do is bike. Biking is becoming ubiquitous, not just for touring or off-road or exercise, but for day to day commuting and just general transportation (at least in cities). I would imagine there are a lot of people who bike, a lot, and feel like they get their exercise that way. And on a bike, the bulkiness of a phone isn't a problem.

I live in Portland... the bike capital of the US. Despite that, more people run than bike.

There simply are not a whole lot of women and 30+ year olds that bike more often than they run.

None the less..... this is a really stupid argument. A gps iPod could appeal to cyclists just as much.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by PB PM Yes, runners do seem to be a niche. I don't know more than a few people that run. Now swimming, and cycling that's another story.

Yes..... I know a TON of swimmers. Everyday I have coworkers leave to go for a swim instead of a run or bike ride

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene Biking is popular because it's literally easier. Anyone can bike ~15 miles in an hour and get some decent cardio work done. In an hour, most out of shape people are going to run/walk ~4 miles or less. It feels like less of an achievement and you end up with all the same sore muscles in addition to plantar fasciitis and shin splints.

That run for 4 miles was a better workout and a higher caloric burn.



For what it's worth... I have no preference... i bike just as much as I run.... and I ski and row more than both. But you all are just pulling a bunch of incorrect shit out of your asses. It's kind of weird.

[Eugene]

You can't call us all wrong when you are off by a factor of 2 when it comes to cardio workouts. I burn double the calories cycling at 15mph as I do briskly walking at 4mph. ~700 vs 350.

I made no claims about there being more cyclists than runners. It's a more expensive activity. Period. It's more time consuming. Period. After several rides I have to clean/relube my chains, add air to my tires. Eventually brake pads, tires, cogs, cleats, bar tape, etc. will need to be replaced. If I just want to train, I need to switch to my old rear wheel with trainer specific tires.

When you go to the gym, how many stationary bikes are there vs treadmills? How many spinning classes are offered vs any other cardio classes?

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses But you all are just pulling a bunch of incorrect shit out of your asses. It's kind of weird.

Your view that, "everybody runs" is no less anecdotal than what any of us have said. Unless you can provide some facts to back up your statement, get off your high horse.

Cycling, I happen to see more people who cycle than run. That's just my experience. Swimmers? I happen to know more people who swim than run? Shit dude, it's just people I know, I'm not saying nobody runs. It's just less common to see people running where I am and when I'm out and about.

[Eugene]

Forget the last .7mi, 17min and 35-40 calories. I forgot to end my workout so that bit is basically me doing a little bit of yard cleanup. I want to say my 5mi mark was at 58min and 390-395 calories. Instead of walking 4mph and heel-striking, I ran as slowly as I could while still able to comfortably midfoot strike. That inflates the total calories burned a little bit. If I did my normal 8m pace it would have been 570 calories or so in 40 minutes, but that's way faster than your average couch potato.

I can do a 15mph ride tomorrow if you want. It should confirm the estimates I made earlier this morning.

Defining runners as people who ran at least once in the last 12 months...that's a joke, right? That's like saying you drink socially, but you really had one glass of sangria at a brazilian steakhouse in the last year.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Eugene Defining runners as people who ran at least once in the last 12 months...that's a joke, right?

By "went for a run" they mean "I had to pee so bad I ran from the car to the port-a-potty."

[Kickaha]

Total random out of the blue WWDC rumor: iPhone 'lite'. Smaller and 'dumber'.

Yeah, I don't buy it either, but the source is remarkably well positioned. I am intrigued.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene You can't call us all wrong when you are off by a factor of 2 when it comes to cardio workouts. I burn double the calories cycling at 15mph as I do briskly walking at 4mph. ~700 vs 350. I made no claims about there being more cyclists than runners. It's a more expensive activity. Period. It's more time consuming. Period. After several rides I have to clean/relube my chains, add air to my tires. Eventually brake pads, tires, cogs, cleats, bar tape, etc. will need to be replaced. If I just want to train, I need to switch to my old rear wheel with trainer specific tires. When you go to the gym, how many stationary bikes are there vs treadmills? How many spinning classes are offered vs any other cardio classes?

I'm fairly confident I know a hell of a lot more about cardio training than you do across many more disciplines than you can even think of, never mind actually do.

You are wrong, yet again. You are very good at being incredibly overconfident with your claims, but embarrassingly wrong.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene Forget the last .7mi, 17min and 35-40 calories. I forgot to end my workout so that bit is basically me doing a little bit of yard cleanup. I want to say my 5mi mark was at 58min and 390-395 calories. Instead of walking 4mph and heel-striking, I ran as slowly as I could while still able to comfortably midfoot strike. That inflates the total calories burned a little bit. If I did my normal 8m pace it would have been 570 calories or so in 40 minutes, but that's way faster than your average couch potato. I can do a 15mph ride tomorrow if you want. It should confirm the estimates I made earlier this morning. Defining runners as people who ran at least once in the last 12 months...that's a joke, right? That's like saying you drink socially, but you really had one glass of sangria at a brazilian steakhouse in the last year.

This is ridiculous and you know it. Your calorie burn per hour is related to your heart rate during that hour. If you walk at 3 MPH you aren't going to burn many calories at all, especially compared to me running at 8.5MPH at an average heart rate of 150. If I biked for an hour at 15MPH it would be less than my run.

You don't understand this topic and clearly know nothing about fitness training. Try again.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene When you go to the gym, how many stationary bikes are there vs treadmills? How many spinning classes are offered vs any other cardio classes?

Stationary bikes vs treadmills? I've been to gyms in Portland, SF, LA, UT, NYC, DC, Philadelphia, and Orange County.... consistently at least 3X as many treadmills as stationary bikes, if not more so. In some gyms, it was probably more like 5X more. I've never been to a major gym with more stationary bikes than treadmills. Ever.

[Eugene]

You are so mad about the other thread that you spam replied to a year old post. Take a deep breath, BU.

And nope, after a year you are still wrong. Calorie burn while running is pretty much equivalent to biking at 2x the speed. All the while I'm not getting shin splints, bad knees or drenched in sweat thanks to relative air velocity.





And before you cry about those numbers being inaccurate, here's a real ride I logged on Strava.



Sprinters, marathoners, ultra-runners, etc. are very impressive athletes. Just don't try to argue that running is magically "better cardio" than swimming, biking, rowing, elliptical, etc. All of those activities circumvent the efficiency loss / discomfort associated with footstrikes.

[Chinney]

And here I was getting all excited about the prospect of WWDC rumours.

[addison]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Total random out of the blue WWDC rumor: iPhone 'lite'. Smaller and 'dumber'. Yeah, I don't buy it either, but the source is remarkably well positioned. I am intrigued.

I don't buy it either but it does sound interesting. Phones are kind of boring now with regards to what we do with them. And they've become pretty complicated for a lot of people who only use the basic functions.

[turtle]

I would love an Apple Watch compatible flip phone personally.

I'd get a cellar iPad Pro (9.7") for my mobile internet needs and use the flip phone. That would be magical in my eyes. I could interact with the phone via my Watch for messages and such while using the phone itself as a ... phone!

[psmith2.0]

I still don't know why Apple insists on putting the stupid watch app on iPhones, by default, when a) most of us don't own/use one, and b) it's a wretched little icon.

Which leads me to something I bring up every year around WWDC...since they're not paying much attention/addressing things on the QC/functionality front (don't get me started), does anyone think this will be the year (with iOS 10 and MacOS Whatever...Castro? San Quentin?) that Apple cleans up/unifies/straightens out their horrible, shitty icon and interface mishmash?

Probably not, but I can't believe some of these easy, no-brainers haven't been addressed/resolved in 2-3 years.

Dear Apple, Please consider taking a year off from further lousing up iTunes, Podcasts and whatever else is next on your agenda of "apps to pointlessly screw with" and maybe turn your artists loose on making your iOS icons (and their counterparts on MacOS) kinda look like they're from the same company/time period? Why this wasn't done upon the release of iOS 7 and Mavericks, I'll never know. But, three years on, it's getting a little ridiculous. The overall "designed by five Bay Area middle school contest winners" approach to it all looks a little slapdash and half-assed at this point. This from a company legendary for its (alleged) "attention to detail" and "sweating the small stuff", no less. Or did those traits and characteristics also cease to exist in October 2011? Just curious. Your pal, Paul

[Frank777]

I used to get really excited in the lead to an Apple Keynote. To be really honest, as the day approaches I feel more a sense of dread.

Jobs liked to (over)simplify and streamline things, but he also knew how to inspire and showcase the life out of the features in a new product.

It seems like the last several product launches have left a deep focus of what was left out, hardwired in or still on the way.

The MacBook is great, but needs another port and another larger model. The Air is great but lacks Retina. The 5K iMac is stunning but lacks USB-C/TB3. Apple Music and the iWatch are getting most of the marketing and exciting very few people. The Mac generally seems like an afterthought for Apple now, but the iPhone/iPad lines are starting to see sales slowdowns. The Mini has been overshadowed by the latest Intel NUC. The new high-end port interface has being marketed by PC makers six months before we have it on our machines.

I'm sure the new MacBook Pro will be a solid upgrade (even though the RAM and HD may be untouchable) but I keep focusing on the negative stuff in a way I don't remember happening before. We'll likely get a report on the Watch - maybe an upgrade or price cut, a return to MacOS with an upgrade (please finally fix the filesystem), some solid help for developers (Swift, mapping etc.), a new stab at AppleTV and a One More Thing: The MacBook Pro. All good stuff, but is it enough to be excited about the future of the platform?

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just being cranky. Maybe Apple has a cool secret new product intro that will blow us away.

But then, we're a weekend away from WWDC, and we haven't even bothered to start a new thread for it...

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by Frank777 But then, we're a weekend away from WWDC, and we haven't even bothered to start a new thread for it...

Because there isn't a single thing any of us believe that today's Apple is working on that will be exciting to us.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene You are so mad about the other thread that you spam replied to a year old post. Take a deep breath, BU. And nope, after a year you are still wrong. Calorie burn while running is pretty much equivalent to biking at 2x the speed. All the while I'm not getting shin splints, bad knees or drenched in sweat thanks to relative air velocity. And before you cry about those numbers being inaccurate, here's a real ride I logged on Strava. Sprinters, marathoners, ultra-runners, etc. are very impressive athletes. Just don't try to argue that running is magically "better cardio" than swimming, biking, rowing, elliptical, etc. All of those activities circumvent the efficiency loss / discomfort associated with footstrikes.

This is all irrelevant. Caloric burn has nothing to do with the metrics you are posting and you are using broad based calculators that have no correlation to reality. Ask 90% of the world's population to run 10MPH for an hour on flat ground and they couldn't do, and would burn a lot more calories trying, then biking at 15MPH on flat ground. There is no grounds for you to say that 10MPH of running is equivalent to 20MPH biking. Far too many variables in there. A bike has "free" speed, your legs while running do not.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Eugene Sprinters, marathoners, ultra-runners, etc. are very impressive athletes. Just don't try to argue that running is magically "better cardio" than swimming, biking, rowing, elliptical, etc. All of those activities circumvent the efficiency loss / discomfort associated with footstrikes.

Elliptical is a waste of time and far less efficient of a cardio burn then the other disciplines you mentioned.

Swimming, cross country skiing, rowing, running, cycling is the order of average caloric burn per hour from high to low for an average sized person at similar effort thresholds.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Because there isn't a single thing any of us believe that today's Apple is working on that will be exciting to us.

Great, so it's not just me.

[Eugene]

Sorry for shitting on the thread everyone, but BU is dredging up an old argument and spewing really bad info because he needs to get back at me for the Thunderbolt Display discussion.

The metric that matters is running's (or walking's) lack of mechanical efficiency and the fatigue associated with it. The big point I am making is that the average human's short-duration cardio output on a bike and while running (or any of the other mentioned activities) is roughly the same. However running wastes so much energy fighting gravity vs working with it, the impact leads to real-world endurance differences.

Free speed. lol. Also look up the Elliptigo. Those guys fly up hills.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Great, so it's not just me.

Nope, me too. Today I finally added the keynote to my calendar. I normally have it in there as "busy" the day it's announced. I used to take off work so I could watch/read it live. Now I'm not as enthusiastic as I once was. I'll still watch the keynote, just not expecting much.

Maybe that's the whole deal, Apple really did close the leaks and we will all be shocked and our stocks will fly through the roof and angels will be heard by all around the globe...



I'm not holding my breath.

[Eugene]

The leaks are still there, the tech is just boring. Case in point, the GPU industry was stuck on 28nm for 5-6 years until Nvidia announced the GTX 1080. The fastest single Intel cores are only 30% faster than they were 5 years ago. Apple has introduced a phone, a tablet, a wearable, AI assistant, home automation, etc. They don't headline announcements for I/O improvements like 802.11ax, Thunderbolt 3, USB 3.1, etc.

Rumors that excite me pertain to the Apple car and any move they make to disrupt the cable industry.

E: Alsp potential large acquisition targets. It's completely irresponsible for Apple to hoard as much cash as they have been. They need to either spend that money on growth, buy back shares or pay out to shareholders.