Why don't the new Time Capsules/Airport Extremes have Airplay

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
This is getting quite ridiculous. Why hasn't Apple updated the new Time Capsules and Airport Extreme with Airplay? I was really hoping for this feature. Aarrgh.
 

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
Do they really not? The current gen Express does.
I know. That's what's frustrating. The Express has Airplay, but, looking at the connections on the new Time Capsule/Airport Extreme it doesn't have this functionality. Aarrggh!!!

Current gen express

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370922120.826500.jpg

New gen Extreme/Time Capsule

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370922194.611044.jpg

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370922213.355542.jpg
 

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
I think you're confusing "Airplay" with the audio jack.
Actually, no; Apple actually calls this function of the Express "Airplay." By "AirPlay," I mean the ability to receive music from iTunes and play it on your speakers. Many Bluetooth speakers are sold as AirPlay speakers.

From Apple: "AirPlay takes the music from the iTunes library on your computer, iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch and sends it wirelessly to any stereo or speakers in your home."

http://www.apple.com/airport-express/
 

nylon

macrumors 65816
Oct 26, 2004
1,095
438
None of the Airport Extreme models have ever had an audio jack. That has always been relegated to the cheaper Airport Express model.
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,329
44
Colorado
This is getting quite ridiculous. Why hasn't Apple updated the new Time Capsules and Airport Extreme with Airplay? I was really hoping for this feature. Aarrgh.
Because they have never had it and never were intended to have it. The Airport routers have been around since 1999, and the Airport Express with [now called] Airplay has been around since 2004. If Apple intended to incorporate it into the larger routers they would've done so many years ago.

The AE was designed as a infrastructure add on for those specifically desiring Airplay on their exisiting network.

----------

Actually, no; Apple actually calls this function of the Express "Airplay." By "AirPlay," I mean the ability to receive music from iTunes and play it on your speakers. Many Bluetooth speakers are sold as AirPlay speakers.
Actually, no. Airplay ONLY refers to Apple's licensed audio and video streaming technology that works only over wireless networks. Airplay is a registered trademark, a manufacturer can not sell a Bluetooth speaker claiming it to be Airplay UNLESS it also has the wireless network technology built in that was licensed from Apple.
 

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
Because they have never had it and never were intended to have it. The Airport routers have been around since 1999, and the Airport Express with [now called] Airplay has been around since 2004. If Apple intended to incorporate it into the larger routers they would've done so many years ago.

The AE was designed as a infrastructure add on for those specifically desiring Airplay on their exisiting network.
"Because they have never had it" is an inadequate response and "they were never intended to have it" is an overreach unless you have some kind of access to Apple that the rest of us don't.

Actually, no. Airplay ONLY refers to Apple's licensed audio and video streaming technology that works only over wireless networks. Airplay is a registered trademark, a manufacturer can not sell a Bluetooth speaker claiming it to be Airplay UNLESS it also has the wireless network technology built in that was licensed from Apple.
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, everyone knows that Airplay is a proprietary Apple protocol. That doesn't mean that there aren't any Bluetooth speakers that are also Airplay speakers; there are, in fact, many.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-STR-DA1800ES-Channel-Receiver-Bluetooth/dp/B00965J7HM/

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Docking-Speaker-Airplay-Bluetooth/dp/B0096U8TLW/

http://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-X-SMC4-K-AirPlay-Bluetooth-System/dp/B005SIELN6/

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-DA-E750-Channel-100-Watt-Audio/dp/B0083BCCXG/

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-SC-HC58-Stylish-Compact-System/dp/B00B1M98N6/
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,329
44
Colorado
"Because they have never had it" is an inadequate response and "they were never intended to have it" is an overreach unless you have some kind of access to Apple that the rest of us don't.
Over ten years of history of consistent demonstrated product capability is hardly an overreach. Your critical opinion as to the contrary does not make it any more an over sight on Apple's part, as you inferred in your original posting, than I lambasting them for not building a sheet scanner to their iMac computers.

Those are Airplay capable systems that also just happen to provide the additional capability of Bluetooth. Where you incorrectly stated, and I am quoting you, "Many Bluetooth speakers are sold as AirPlay speakers." An obvious misstatement.
 

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
Over ten years of history of consistent demonstrated product capability is hardly an overreach. Your critical opinion as to the contrary does not make it any more an over sight on Apple's part, as you inferred in your original posting, than I lambasting them for not building a sheet scanner to their iMac computers.
"They were never intended to have it" is an overreach because it is an unequivocal statement. It is impossible to absolutely deduce intention unless it's yours.

Those are Airplay capable systems that also just happen to provide the additional capability of Bluetooth. Where you incorrectly stated, and I am quoting you, "Many Bluetooth speakers are sold as AirPlay speakers." An obvious misstatement.
You must have failed to comprehend my statement. Many Bluetooth speakers have Airplay and are sold as AirPlay speakers.

...and "I was really hoping for it" is an adequate reason for them to include it? :confused:
?… I didn't argue that my hoping for AirPlay capability in Airport Extremes is a reason for Apple to include it. I asked why the Airport Extremes don't have it and separately expressed that I had hoped that Apple would include it. There is no logical connection between the two.
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,329
44
Colorado
"They were never intended to have it" is an overreach because it is an unequivocal statement. It is impossible to absolutely deduce intention unless it's yours.
Predicting intent based on extensive past history is NOT overreach. I can prove, unequivocally, based on ACTUAL historical evidence that the Extreme and Time Capsule have never had Airplay. I also understand the low technical challenge presented to Apple in incorporating Airplay technology into said devices. Therefore, I am able to surmise with confidence the intent without ever actually speaking to anyone at Apple.

You must have failed to comprehend my statement. Many Bluetooth speakers have Airplay and are sold as AirPlay speakers.
No, you must have failed to clearly express your thoughts, because your words clearly state otherwise. Bluetooth speakers are NOT and can NOT be "sold as" (again, quoting you exactly) Airplay speakers. That is wrong. The fact that they have Bluetooth has nothing to do with the Airplay designation. You started the thread specifically addressing the Airplay feature and you later injected an association of Bluetooth into the discussion as if it was relevant to Airplay, which it is not.

?… I didn't argue that my hoping for AirPlay capability in Airport Extremes is a reason for Apple to include it. I asked why the Airport Extremes don't have it and separately expressed that I had hoped that Apple would include it. There is no logical connection between the two.
Could maybe agree, if you hadn't clearly set the tone of your post with the derogatory declaration of, "This is getting quite ridiculous." There's nothing ridiculous in a product that does only and exactly what it was designed to do. So no, there's no basis for trying to spin logical-anything out of your emotionally opinionated post.
 

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
Predicting intent based on extensive past history is NOT overreach. I can prove, unequivocally, based on ACTUAL historical evidence that the Extreme and Time Capsule have never had Airplay. I also understand the low technical challenge presented to Apple in incorporating Airplay technology into said devices. Therefore, I am able to surmise with confidence the intent without ever actually speaking to anyone at Apple.
Of course the Extreme and Time Capsule have never had Airplay. Everyone knows that. But that (past *actions*, i.e. Apple not including Airplay in past Airport Extremes) is the limit of behavioral knowledge insofar as Apple and Airplay in Airport Extremes is concerned. It is impossible to absolutely ascribe past or future intentions when studying human behavior.

No, you must have failed to clearly express your thoughts, because your words clearly state otherwise. Bluetooth speakers are NOT and can NOT be "sold as" (again, quoting you exactly) Airplay speakers. That is wrong. The fact that they have Bluetooth has nothing to do with the Airplay designation. You started the thread specifically addressing the Airplay feature and you later injected an association of Bluetooth into the discussion as if it was relevant to Airplay, which it is not.
We must have different understandings of how logic works in writing. To explain it to you in simple terms:

This is a Bluetooth speaker:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-STR-DA180...dp/B00965J7HM/

It is also an Airplay speaker.

I hope you can understand that.

Could maybe agree, if you hadn't clearly set the tone of your post with the derogatory declaration of, "This is getting quite ridiculous." There's nothing ridiculous in a product that does only and exactly what it was designed to do. So no, there's no basis for trying to spin logical-anything out of your emotionally opinionated post.
Why is it difficult to understand that my aspirations do not induce actions or outcomes? Just because I hope Apple introduces Airplay in its Airport Extremes does not mean that what I hope for should happen (or even that I believe that what I hope for should happen). How is this even a point of debate?
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,329
44
Colorado
Of course the Extreme and Time Capsule have never had Airplay. Everyone knows that. But that (past *actions*, i.e. Apple not including Airplay in past Airport Extremes) is the limit of behavioral knowledge insofar as Apple and Airplay in Airport Extremes is concerned. It is impossible to absolutely ascribe past or future intentions when studying human behavior.
Actually no. The fact that it doesn't exist IS a valid basis for assuming past intent, to quote myself: "never were intended to have it." Not inferring the present future, but past future, which has been realized to date.


We must have different understandings of how logic works in writing. To explain it to you in simple terms:

This is a Bluetooth speaker:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-STR-DA180...dp/B00965J7HM/

It is also an Airplay speaker.

I hope you can understand that.
I understand that is what YOU understand NOW that this discussion has taken place to this point. But that is not what you expressed in your previous posts. If you understood logic, you would know it is very sensitive to the literal meaning of the written form. You in no way inferred a logical association of "also has." You clearly stated the direct association of Bluetooth capability to Airplay, "Many Bluetooth speakers are sold as AirPlay speakers." That a direct association - logic! :D

Either way, you bringing up Bluetooth was in no way "logical" to the course of discussion you started. It has nothing to do with Airplay, it in no way reinforces your attempt to argue the legitimacy of its presence in the Extreme or Time Capsule. No logical purpose in this (your) thread whatsoever. So it you, my friend, who do not comprehend "logic works in writing."

Why is it difficult to understand that my aspirations do not induce actions or outcomes? Just because I hope Apple introduces Airplay in its Airport Extremes does not mean that what I hope for should happen (or even that I believe that what I hope for should happen). How is this even a point of debate?
Because, as I pointed out, you are attempting to change the perceived intent (there's that word again) of your initial posting. So no, it will be confusing to anyone who understands "logic works in writing." Where one is not simply at liberty to change the intent of their initial argument later on when they are proven incorrect.
 

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
Actually no. The fact that it doesn't exist IS a valid basis for assuming past intent, to quote myself: "never were intended to have it." Not inferring the present future, but past future, which has been realized to date.
Past intentions are inscrutable, unless you have significant access (usually through interviews, statements, etc.) of the person/group you are studying. Unless you have/had *reliable* access to Apple's core staff, you cannot make an statement that Airport Extremes were never intended to have Airplay. Even then, you would have to find a way to rule out deceit in those statements before you can make an *absolute* or unequivocal statement as to intent.

I understand that is what YOU understand NOW that this discussion has taken place to this point. But that is not what you expressed in your previous posts. If you understood logic, you would know it is very sensitive to the literal meaning of the written form. You in no way inferred a logical association of "also has." You clearly stated the direct association of Bluetooth capability to Airplay, "Many Bluetooth speakers are sold as AirPlay speakers." That a direct association - logic! :D

Either way, you bringing up Bluetooth was in no way "logical" to the course of discussion you started. It has nothing to do with Airplay, it in no way reinforces your attempt to argue the legitimacy of its presence in the Extreme or Time Capsule. No logical purpose in this (your) thread whatsoever. So it you, my friend, who do not comprehend "logic works in writing."
OK, one last time:

Many Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers

IS NOT

All Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers

Because, as I pointed out, you are attempting to change the perceived intent (there's that word again) of your initial posting. So no, it will be confusing to anyone who understands "logic works in writing." Where one is not simply at liberty to change the intent of their initial argument later on when they are proven incorrect.
Here you go again ascribing intent. It is impossible for you to know why I started this thread. Furthermore, it may even be impossible for *me* to declare with absolute certainty what my intentions were when I started this thread (study up on that if you wish).
 

Jesla

macrumors 6502a
Jan 7, 2013
537
159
Tennessee USA
….maybe because Apple expects you to put the AE in a location near the equipment that you are plugging into. And they expect you to locate the AA or TC in a location for better coverage and/or accessibility.

It's just common sense.
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,329
44
Colorado
Past intentions are inscrutable, unless you have significant access (usually through interviews, statements, etc.) of the person/group you are studying. Unless you have/had *reliable* access to Apple's core staff, you cannot make an statement that Airport Extremes were never intended to have Airplay. Even then, you would have to find a way to rule out deceit in those statements before you can make an *absolute* or unequivocal statement as to intent.
Oh my, you may want to look that word up, "inscrutable." This one is quite the opposite, quite an easy prediction for anyone who's used the products from generation to generation.

I'm not saying everyone has such grasp of hypothesis from observation, but many do. Observing the actual outcome of the actions of the Apple product teams is the most concrete evidence in surmising their past intentions. And, I did, in the course of this discussion do just that. I don't need access to the staff, I have incredibly reliable first-hand access to the fruits of their labor, for over ten years. Very confident in predicting what the findings would be from any face-to-face interviewing :rolleyes:


OK, one last time:

Many Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers

IS NOT

All Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers
Ok, one last time. In your post, you assumed even a Bluetooth link constituted Airplay. Otherwise, it'd make no sense for you to even bring it up in that context. As I explained, it does not. So it would seem you now understand this, we both agree on this one. Good.

Here you go again ascribing intent. It is impossible for you to know why I started this thread. Furthermore, it may even be impossible for *me* to declare with absolute certainty what my intentions were when I started this thread (study up on that if you wish).
No. You made it quite clear. These are your own words, "This is getting quite ridiculous." Its obvious what the intent of your post is from those words alone, otherwise they are without purpose in a purely objective discussion.
 

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
Oh my, you may want to look that word up, "inscrutable." This one is quite the opposite, quite an easy prediction for anyone who's used the products from generation to generation.

I'm not saying everyone has such grasp of hypothesis from observation, but many do. Observing the actual outcome of the actions of the Apple product teams is the most concrete evidence in surmising their past intentions. And, I did, in the course of this discussion do just that. I don't need access to the staff, I have incredibly reliable first-hand access to the fruits of their labor, for over ten years. Very confident in predicting what the findings would be from any face-to-face interviewing :rolleyes:
Actions are not intentions and vice versa. Someone may smoke cigarettes, but that does not mean that that was (or is) their intention. You'd need to do a much deeper analysis than just actions to establish intent. Intentions are inscrutable, unless you do a deep analysis of the (metaphorical/literal) text(s), which you, by only having access to past actions without adequate context, cannot do.

Ok, one last time. In your post, you assumed even a Bluetooth link constituted Airplay. Otherwise, it'd make no sense for you to even bring it up in that context. As I explained, it does not. So it would seem you now understand this, we both agree on this one. Good.
Just because something doesn't make sense to you does not make it illogical. To be *logical* an argument has to be valid.

Again:

1. Many Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

IS NOT

All Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.


2. IF

Many Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

THEN

Some Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

See how that works? 2 is a valid logical argument. The *inverse* of 1 is fallacious. I did not argue the inverse of 1.

No. You made it quite clear. These are your own words, "This is getting quite ridiculous." Its obvious what the intent of your post is from those words alone, otherwise they are without purpose in a purely objective discussion.
Again, it is impossible to ascribe intent.
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,329
44
Colorado
Actions are not intentions and vice versa. Someone may smoke cigarettes, but that does not mean that that was (or is) their intention. You'd need to do a much deeper analysis than just actions to establish intent. Intentions are inscrutable, unless you do a deep analysis of the (metaphorical/literal) text(s), which you, by only having access to past actions without adequate context, cannot do.
If you don't intend to smoke cigarettes, but do so for TEN YEARS or more, obviously your intentions were not what you thought they were. :D Besides, these are product lines not quite the delusion mind of a single human being living a life of denial. The intentions are inherent to the long term business plans and outcome of those plans.

Just because something doesn't make sense to you does not make it illogical. To be *logical* an argument has to be valid.

Again:

1. Many Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

IS NOT

All Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.


2. IF

Many Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

THEN

Some Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

See how that works? 2 is a valid logical argument. The *inverse* of 1 is fallacious. I did not argue the inverse of 1.
Just because you attempt to rationalize a misstatement in hindsight does not make it correct now. And it surely makes no basis for any sort of a rational/logical argument. Besides, no reason to rehash this one, I already clarified your misunderstanding of the more specific meaning of the label Airplay.

Again, it is impossible to ascribe intent.
Absolutely not. It is futile to attempt to argue another's spoken intent. It is very possible to ascribe intent through reasoning. Through observation and analysis, to make predictions of both past and present intent.
 
Last edited:

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
If you don't intend to smoke cigarettes, but do so for TEN YEARS or more, obviously your intentions were not what you thought they were. :D Besides, these are product lines not quite the delusion mind of a single human being living a life of denial. The intentions are inherent to the long term business plans and outcome of those plans.
You seem to believe that human behavior is rational and follows set patterns when that has been proven time and again to not be the case. Even at an organizational level, businesses have been proven time and again to not be rational decision makers. You can educate yourself on this by reading any intro to organizational behavior textbook.

Just because you attempt to rationalize a misstatement in hindsight does not make it correct now. And it surely makes no basis for any sort of a rational/logical argument. Besides, no reason to rehash this one, I already clarified your misunderstanding of the more specific meaning of the label Airplay.
If you cannot recognize a logical argument, I would not expect you to know what a misstatement is, and you clearly do not.

Absolutely not. It is futile to attempt to argue another's spoken intent. It is very possible to ascribe intent through reasoning. Through observation and analysis, to make predictions of both past and present intent.
No, you cannot establish intent by only analyzing actions without a deeper analysis of the underlying subject or text. You only have access to Apple's past actions, nothing more, so you cannot make guesses, let alone absolute statements, about its past, present or future intentions. Just because Apple has been making Airport Extremes without Airplay doesn't mean that Apple never had the intention to make an Airport Extreme with Airplay.
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,329
44
Colorado
You seem to believe that human behavior is rational and follows set patterns when that has been proven time and again to not be the case. Even at an organizational level, businesses have been proven time and again to not be rational decision makers. You can educate yourself on this by reading any intro to organizational behavior textbook.
Not at all. Quite contrary. I question the disassociation of such long term action with supposed intention. Quite the opposite of rational. Rational would dictate one's intention to never smoke would lead to one not smoking. Irrational is convincing yourself it was never your intention when it was all along.

Intention is a perception and is only can only even be contemplated valid should action equal "said" intention. Intention that never sees fruition through action is intangible and therefore arguable, without validation. Open to interpretation, prediction, assumption, etc.

If you cannot recognize a logical argument, I would not expect you to know what a misstatement is, and you clearly do not.
I recognize that your declaration as to the legitimacy of this discussion as a logical argument has no basis through the declaration alone. You provide no substance in the way of your argument other than your attempt to rationalize your original illogical insertion of an irrelevant reference of Bluetooth in a discussion regarding Airplay.


No, you cannot establish intent by only analyzing actions without a deeper analysis of the underlying subject or text. You only have access to Apple's past actions, nothing more, so you cannot make guesses, let alone absolute statements, about its past, present or future intentions. Just because Apple has been making Airport Extremes without Airplay doesn't mean that Apple never had the intention to make an Airport Extreme with Airplay.
Again you contradict the discussion. There was no assertion as to establishing anything "only by." In lacking an explicitly declared intention by Apple, it is completely reasonable to rationalize that through the course of the years their product line demonstrated their intention of what that product line was to be.

This happens all the time in science, hypothesizing and attributing based solely on tangential effects or end results of unobserved processes. In this case, not only did I come to a reasonable prediction of their past intention but I also believe it based on my direct experience. To provide Airplay through a complimentary accessory to the already existing and well establish router product line. Is it arguable, yes, impossible to make such an assertion, no, I just did based on reasonable evidence and observation.
 

Brandon263

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2009
396
19
Beaumont, CA
Not at all. Quite contrary. I question the disassociation of such long term action with supposed intention. Quite the opposite of rational. Rational would dictate one's intention to never smoke would lead to one not smoking. Irrational is convincing yourself it was never your intention when it was all along.

Intention is a perception and is only can only even be contemplated valid should action equal "said" intention. Intention that never sees fruition through action is intangible and therefore arguable, without validation. Open to interpretation, prediction, assumption, etc.
Action is not intent. Intent is an attitude and is not "validated" through anything. Arguing that intent (an attitude) needs to be validated through action is nonsensical.

I recognize that your declaration as to the legitimacy of this discussion as a logical argument has no basis through the declaration alone. You provide no substance in the way of your argument other than your attempt to rationalize your original illogical insertion of an irrelevant reference of Bluetooth in a discussion regarding Airplay.
Many Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

IS NOT

All Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

Again you contradict the discussion. There was no assertion as to establishing anything "only by." In lacking an explicitly declared intention by Apple, it is completely reasonable to rationalize that through the course of the years their product line demonstrated their intention of what that product line was to be.

This happens all the time in science, hypothesizing and attributing based solely on tangential effects or end results of unobserved processes. In this case, not only did I come to a reasonable prediction of their past intention but I also believe it based on my direct experience. To provide Airplay through a complimentary accessory to the already existing and well establish router product line. Is it arguable, yes, impossible to make such an assertion, no, I just did based on reasonable evidence and observation.
Rationalizations are not necessarily accurate. You have attempted to rationalize your unequivocal and unqualified statement that Apple never intended to have Airplay in its Airport Extremes by looking at Apple's past actions. This is a false rationalization. You cannot make absolute deductions of Apple's past intentions by looking at its past actions. Actions are not intent; this is a given in behavioral science.
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,329
44
Colorado
Action is not intent. Intent is an attitude and is not "validated" through anything. Arguing that intent (an attitude) needs to be validated through action is nonsensical.
Once again, another misstatement. There was no mention a of needing validation. Merely presumable through tangible results. In fact my word exactly was intangible. Even imaginary (attitude, a feeling, by your own words) and therefore arguable. In fact, I'd go so far as to say an undeclared intention only exists in contemplation. Completely reasonable to speculate or even propose the intentions of others when they themselves have not declared it.


Many Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.

IS NOT

All Bluetooth speakers are AirPlay speakers.
You stated neither of the above in your original post. Simply parroting a irrelevant point to the original argument. Just as you injected the irrelevant point of Bluetooth into the discussion.

Rationalizations are not necessarily accurate. You have attempted to rationalize your unequivocal and unqualified statement that Apple never intended to have Airplay in its Airport Extremes by looking at Apple's past actions. This is a false rationalization. You cannot make absolute deductions of Apple's past intentions by looking at its past actions. Actions are not intent; this is a given in behavioral science.
The true state of something may not be known or understood, so it is surmised through reasoning or analysis. Whether it is absolute is in the conviction of the believer of the conclusion, or plausibility of the conclusion. But yes, making deductions based on past behavior is a very reasonable element of analysis and conclusion. In this case its quite simple, a long term demonstration of capability therefore I can come to the reasonable conclusion that was their intent all along. Until proven otherwise, my conclusion is indisputable.