- Last Active
The big picture issue here is that when it comes to "pro" tablets, Microsoft is offering a product that many people really like and Apple is struggling with the iPad Pro. It's not the iPad Pro that gives Apple the lead in tablet sales, it's the more consumption-oriented non-pro iPads.
I think Apple is conceptually correct in arguing that hybrid devices are compromised. But I think Microsoft has been working very hard to refine their implementation of that hybrid device, while Apple has not made as much progress in refining the implementation of their vision of what tablets should be and how they should fit in with our lives.
Apple's vision is that you do point-and-click stuff on the device that is best optimized for that UI, you do multitouch on the device best optimized for that UI. I tend to agree with that. BUT -- that approach means that those two devices need to work together seamlessly.
To my way of thinking, the iPad Pro is potentially a great companion device to a 27" iMac or a Mac Pro. The iPad is the mobile, multi-touch device; the Mac is the high power precision device. And when they are in the same room together, they should be able to work together to accomplish even more. But that's not really happening, at least not to the extent that it could.
It's less clear to me how an iPad Pro complements a MacBook Pro, unless the MacBook Pro is docked to a big monitor, acting more or less as a desktop.
rogifan_new said:I don't remember Apple fans/customers being so obsessed with how much profit the company was making in the past. Why is that so important now?
Then with the iPod, the expanding profits were a huge relief for fans of the company.
Then with the iPhone fueled profit expansion, the relief turned to euphoria and disbelief.
Rayz2016 said:blastdoor said:Several points:
1. The opportunity cost to investing in the Mac is low. Apple has a ton of cash and most of it sits earning 1%. The Mac is certainly more profitable than that.
2. The PC market might be stagnant, but the Mac market is much bigger than it used to be. Back in 2009 (I pick that year because it's when I bought my Mac Pro), Apple sold fewer Macs than they do today yet they did a better job of keeping a diverse product line up to date.
3. The Mac might represent a smaller share of Apple's revenue and profit, but it creates big positive externalities. For some of Apple's highest income, most engaged and loyal users, the Mac is the center of the Apple ecosystem. If Apple alienates those users and drives them to Windows or Linux, then those users might find that the rest of the Apple ecosystem makes less sense with the Mac. So then it's not just a loss of a Mac sale, it's a loss of several other products. Since those users tend to be Apple evangelists, it also has spill over effects to other users.
4. If Apple made an effort with the Mac Pro, the Mac Pro could utterly dominate the workstation market. It's essentially the most user-friendly Unix workstation ever built, and with Apple's technological capabilities it could also be the most powerful workstation on the market. The Mac Pro could be the realization of what NeXT was trying to do all those years ago, but so much better because it's in the context of a larger ecosystem.
Bottom line for me -- the Mac Pro right now is a big missed opportunity. It's sad.
1. There are a number of reasons why Apple is sitting on a massive pile of cash: stellar sales; superior supply-chain management; tax avoidance measures; wisely deciding where to spend their money. The last one is very important. What Apple knows, and you don't, is what return they will get for the investment. They have the precise figures going back years; all you have is a gut feeling coloured by your own bias and wishes.
2. Apple did a better job of keeping up because there more advancements back then than there are now. Even Intel isn't as focussed on their desktop line as they used to be. Why do you think they're looking for alternative revenue sources such as comm chips?
3. You're living in the past. This notion that loyal professionals have been keeping Apple afloat is no longer true. The Mac doesn't drive people to the iPhone. The iPhone drives people to the Mac. The kind of customers that Apple has today do not sit in forums listening to the old timers going on about how good the Mac is and then decide to go and try an iPhone. That just doesn't happen, sorry. You lot are vocal, but I'm afraid that you're not the majority of Mac customers, and as I've already said, Apple's core market gets its information from elsewhere.
4. Yes, they could utterly dominate the workstation market, but what would be the point? There's so few people that need a workstation these days. The developers I know are happy with the their Mac laptops. If they need server level power then they'll start a remote connection to one. No need to lug a server around with you, or have one cooking your feet under your desk.
Bottom line? The IT world has changed, and lots of people here are pretending it hasn't.
ATV 4 was a missed opportunity.
If they really are pushing services, then they should view the ATV hardware as break-even, and put the best SOC in there they can to support not just 4k video but also better games. The ATV 4 should have had the A9X.
This next one ought to have the A10X.
The games don't have to run at 4k -- fine for them to be mostly 1080p -- but with an A10X (and other more game friendly specs -- more RAM, more local storage) the AppleTV could be a pretty decent game console at a low price, in addition to all the other functions it can serve.