- Last Active
sog35 said:It baffles me why millions of people buy Samdung phones that cost just as much an iPhone.
I understand those who buy cheap phones and can't afford an iPhone.
This is like spending $100k on a Hyundai instead of a BMW. Makes zero sense.
In addition to these quality/reliability issues, the difference in speed is pretty noticeable. I had to spend some time in a Verizon store recently and while waiting for assistance I went from phone to phone to see how long it took to do a simple thing like load the CNN website. All the phones were on the same wifi network and I repeated the test a few times. I was really amazed to see that the widely reported differences in web browsing benchmarks corresponds to noticeable differences in real world use. On the iPhone 7 the page seemed to load instantaneously relative to the Android devices (all using Chrome). Among Android devices there was noticeably variation, and the Galaxy S8 was at the top of the pack, but it was still noticeably lagging the iPhone 7. I don't see how somebody could be happy about paying the same price as an iPhone and then experience such a noticeable performance deficit.
tmay said:melgross said:It's actually amazing that Apple has been able to maintain pretty much 100% secrecy involving its chip IP over these years.
i believe that one thing Apple wants to do is more chip integration. So two problems with Qualcomm. The first is the license fight, and two is that Qualcomm won't allow Apple to license its chip designs for integration into Apple's SoC. That costs power, that Apple wants back, as well as space on the circuit board, which Apple can either use for other things, or that they can make a bit smaller.
the other suppliers that are mentioned in this article likely also suffer from the same problems, but not so much in improper licensing. But performance can be enhanced, I suppose Apple thinks, as well as better power management and costs. Neither are ever bad things.
of course, Apple can also better direct development.
wigby said:ireland said:Some, I would say a good % of pros choosing iMac 5K may be a of reflection not how well it suits them, but how much Apple botched things on Mac Pro. For me iMac 5K suits me as a desktop machine perfectly, but I'm not a real pro. Actual honest to goodness pros with real professional needs aren't being met by Apple currently. Apple refocused and this is why they called their favourable press in line to "announce" what they did.
I hope my vision for the future of Apple's desktop prossional workstation where you have something akin perhaps to a series of interlocking cubes with varied features which can be bought, customised and put together in virtually any order to build the perfect Mac Pro for each customer is the direction Apple is thinking. Not just a modular box, but a truly modular design. Killing away Mac mini in the process and shipping one functional 'beginner' cube as its replacement. Allowing those users the option to build upon this professional starter setup, later, at any time as their needs become more and more professional. What upon reading my idea Spam Sandwich coined.... I think 'smart desktop computing'... correct me if I'm wrong Spam?
A future where each Mac Pro setup tells a story totally specific to that pro Mac desktop user. And iMac covers everything else desktop concerning Apple. I also think, whatever iMac ends of shipping later this year and next and so on, that Apple's 2018 professional display should be beyond 27" and 8K and that Apple should reserve the term iMac Pro for a model that has a similar screen larger than 27", 8K and with real Pro guts through and through—whenever this becomes possible.
Other than that, though, I think you're generally on target in your assessment of how Apple has looked at the situation up until very recently.
I also wonder if maybe some in Apple management learned the wrong lesson from the 2x2 Mac product grid that Jobs introduced in the 90s. The problem that Jobs was trying to solve was a proliferation of trivial product differentiation -- that is, products that differed from each other purely for marketing purposes, not for any substantive reason that meant anything to any customer. And of course he was also doing that at a time when Apple faced severe resource constraints -- not only did the Performa mess not make sense substantively, Apple also couldn't afford it.
The situation with pro Macs today is quite different. First, Apple can afford to maintain more models, so that's not an issue at all anymore. Second, there are Mac users (or wanna-be Mac users) with substantively different needs from the needs addressed by the current lineup. It's not a huge market, but it's an important market and it absolutely can be served profitably.
For Apple to realize its full potential and make the maximum "dent in the universe", it needs to learn (actually, re-learn) to serve small, high-end markets. One (or two or three) models to rule them all just doesn't work for a company the size of Apple, if that company wants to grow.
2. The Pro series have been either "weird technology and extreme pricing" - IIfx, 840AV, G5, Mac Pro or "cool but affordable" like the first PowerMac generation, IIcx, and Beige G3. I do hope Apple will understand that desktop Macs are tools. They have to look great – but not like the 20th anniversary Mac, Cube or the current Mac Pro. Better introduce something soon than wait 2 more years.
The 2008-2010 Mac Pro falls under "cool but affordable". I thought the Mac Pro introduced in 2009 was a bargain -- I'm still using mine.
Overall, i agree with most of your post, though.