or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's profit margin on Mac minis slimmer than usual
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's profit margin on Mac minis slimmer than usual - Page 4

post #121 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Fine by me. I'm entitled to my opinion



That's fine, but the technology WAS there 2 years ago, Apple just deliberately missed it out to gauge money later on when it introduced an amazing 3.2mp auto-focus camera. There's a difference between not selling technology because it's not available, and not selling it simply because you want to introduce it as an 'amazing' new feature later on. Apple is supposed to be about making revolutionary products (which the 2G iPhone was, and OS 2.0 was) but Apple have since just tacked on some minor hardware and software changes. It certainly seems as if Apple didn't put much effort into the 3GS, and some of the parts they tossed into it have been available for years anyway.

You have utterly no idea why Apple chose not to use a higher resolution camera earlier on, so why go on about it like you do? Have you ever actually designed a product? Been involved on the manufacture of one? There are all sorts of variables that go into decisions like this. "Can we get the part cheap enough to reach our price point?" "Can we get it small enough to fit into our form factor?" "Can we get it to draw power within our acceptable range?" "Can we get it to pass FCC?" "Does the market demand justify costs, etc." It is all a dance and building this kind of stuff is a heck of a lot more complicated, and involves many more compromises and difficult choices, than anyone who has never done it could possibly know. It bothers me when I see this kind of negative bias however, because it almost always implies an intention: "Apple didn't user a better camera because they intended to introduce the feature later" etc. It may be fair to say that later on Apple engineers intended to up the camera specifications, I do not know. But it is not fair to insinuate that the choice to use something lesser was done purely to disenfranchise the consumer. There are hundreds of factors that inform choices like this.
post #122 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Good try. No -I'm not - I don't have time to directly look for all these quotes just to appease your denial. You know they exist- yet want to conitinually play this game of tit for tat. I have a life. Other's have agreed with me - it is a totally recognizable trait.
Enough said.

That is very funny Tit for tat? Have a life? You are the master of tit for tat. Endless threads where every other comment is yours. You so often come across as a person without a life. Or certainly without a job as you must spend and awful lot of time tit for tatting.
post #123 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

You have utterly no idea why Apple chose not to use a higher resolution camera earlier on, so why go on about it like you do? Have you ever actually designed a product? Been involved on the manufacture of one? There are all sorts of variables that go into decisions like this. "Can we get the part cheap enough to reach our price point?" "Can we get it small enough to fit into our form factor?" "Can we get it to draw power within our acceptable range?" "Can we get it to pass FCC?" "Does the market demand justify costs, etc." It is all a dance and building this kind of stuff is a heck of a lot more complicated, and involves many more compromises and difficult choices, than anyone who has never done it could possibly know. It bothers me when I see this kind of negative bias however, because it almost always implies an intention: "Apple didn't user a better camera because they intended to introduce the feature later" etc. It may be fair to say that later on Apple engineers intended to up the camera specifications, I do not know. But it is not fair to insinuate that the choice to use something lesser was done purely to disenfranchise the consumer. There are hundreds of factors that inform choices like this.

Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.

So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.
post #124 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.

So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.

Show us any evidence that the 2mpx camera components found in the iPhone is the same size and volume as the 5px camera components found in the N95 in 2007. That is the rub; you can’t just compare a phone to a phone, you have to compare equivalent sized components to each other. Even the 3G iPhone offers less volume than the original and tapered more at the edges so the use of a 2mpx camera the 2nd time around may have been all they could squeeze in. We really don’t know.

PS: I don’t you think you would but others may reply with the argument that Apple simply make a larger phones, but that goes against their DNA as a company. I can’t see Apple creating an extra bulky device or having an extended lens simply to add the camera components.


edit:

Nokia N95:
99 mm (h)
53 mm (w)
21 mm (d)
= 110187 mm^3

Original iPhone:
115 mm (h)
61 mm (w)
11.6 mm (d)
= 81374 mm^3

Overall this proves nothing as the Nokia has HW that the iPhone doesn’t and the iPhone has larger components, like display, battery than the N95, but it does show that you simply make your point based on what another device had at the time. Plus, those are cubed so they take in the actual volume for each device which favours the iPhone in this case, nor does it take into consideration the internal volume for components which would favour the N95.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #125 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.

So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.

No, 'we' didn't 'knock them out'. Rather, you dismissed them. The fact that you don't think they were concerns doesn't mean they were not. Neither you nor I were part of those decisions. What I take you to task over is your assumption that these sorts of factors did not come to bear when you cannot possibly know that. You would rather assume that it was done out of some crass effort to gouge the consumer, which puts you into the same camp as Teckstud in my oppinion: just a person who has a negative bias when it comes to assessing other people's motives.

By the way, your statement that "all other manufacturers had found ways to do it" is not only incredibly general, it is also not supportable by facts. Are you seriously insisting that all other cell phone makers had stopped using a 2mp camera at the time? That range is still the most common for cell phones, even today!

As I said, you are ignorant of the reasons the choice was made, as am I. And as a matter of fact, even if the choice was "there is not enough market demand to justify our additional cost for this part", that is a perfectly valid choice. Both you and teckstud need to get it through your heads that Steve Jobs did not get a team of engineers together and tell them "you have got to design this thing so that teckstud and mrochester love it. That is your number one priority! Forget everything else!" There was no board meeting, no secret 1 AM email flurry, no special study group. Just get over it: your own personal desires did not and should not drive Apple's product design process, nor should mine. Factors like market demand should. So, if Apple concluded there wasn't enough market demand for it, bravo. That's how you design products; it's a mix of 'what does the market want' and 'lets build something new and exciting'. Innovative is good, but being too far ahead of the game can kill you.

I understand being disappointed that a given product did not have some feature you wanted, but the way you guys both carry on about it makes it seem like SJ drove past your house and crapped on your lawn. Is it really that bad?
post #126 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I still want to see a $499 Mac mini.

Yeah, I want to see that too. Judging by the BOM, its do-able. If Apple decided to make a larger Mac Mini (thinking the size of an aTV only a little taller) we could have desktop parts inside (3.5 in drives, desktop proc?) and make it even cheaper. Then at 499 they would still have their comfy margins.

But I don't see that happening anytime soon... they like their laptop parts too much.

But really the MacMini is the current xMac we all wish for that we'll never get. I just wish Apple (and heck, the rest of the Western Societies) would get off the whole "Skinnier/Smaller is Better" mentality. It really isn't, and Apple could still make some amazing looking machines with desktop parts! I urge their designers to strike up that challenge! Heck, keep prices (minus the MacMini) where they are and your price margins get bigger... sweet for them! (But I'd take it as a kindness if they lowered prices to be a little more competitive)
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #127 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

VAT ≠ Apple Tax
Import Tax ≠ Apple Tax
Exchange Rate ≠ Apple Tax

I think you will find that "Exchange Rate is an Apple Tax" when you use it to your advantage like Apple does. Apple was very slow to move prices when the Euro and Pound gained dramitically to the US$, but the second it dropped a little, Apple instantly raised their prices.

Most companies that trade products in US$ will try and do the same thing. But Apple also did the same thing with products in the UK, versus the rest of Europe. While people in the UK were complaining that their iTunes purchases were so more expensive than Europe, every other Apple product their was cheaper in the UK
post #128 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I agree. I use "fanboy" very sparingly and less frequently and it is usually preceeded by being called a troll (now that's a real silly term unless we were in Middle Earth). I really now prefer the term Applebot- he/she can really no longer think for themselves- it's all Apple doctrine or nothing.

I miss merry and pippin.
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #129 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

It's an upgrade option.....

That is true, but it is an upgrade option for both the $599 Mini and the $799 mini, neither of which costs $799 with the 2.26GHz processor - thus completely invalidating the sentence.
post #130 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.

So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.

You have no idea how to get a "decent" camera.

1. A camera with fixed focus lens won't benefit from more pixels. iPhone 2G/3G had crappy lens and fixed focus. To get better photos, it is not just about adding more pixels. They have to get auto-focus, which has a lot of other issues (size, battery etc).
2. Limited RAM. A 2MP camera uses 8MB for each photo. A 3.2MP camera uses 13MB. This has HUGE impact on third party developers (which I am one) with we have only about 24MB free RAM to work with. So, to get 3MP, while still give third party developers enough RAM to make interesting photo apps, Apple would have to double the RAM from 128 to 256 (which they did with 3GS).
3. Processor speed. It takes time for the CPU to encode and decoder JPG. Apple is rigid about the responsiveness of the device. They will not simply add more MP and double the loading or saving time.

What you like to see as a customer is completely different from what engineers can deliver at reasonable cost.

Feel free to say that you would like XXXX, but don't pretend that you know how to make a product, because you don't.

I would like 8MP camera with zoom focus, adjustable aperture from f2.8, with built-in filters for different modes. I can dream, but I will never pretend that I could do better than Apple.

And seriously, if you think you can do better than Apple, go ahead and do it. You will be worth billions.
post #131 of 201
Quote:
The high-end $799 Mac Mini features a 2.26GHz version of the microprocessor.

Interesting and useful article (esp. for those of us interested in possible mini purchase... )

The original article data is not accurate re CPU though. (the iSuppli author has missed a non-trivial CPU specification mix-up).

If you visit the Apple Store, the CPU for the base Mac mini ($599 USD) and the high-end Mac mini ($799 USD) is the identical 2.00 GHz C2D.

The only thing that the extra $200 gets you in the high-end mini is an extra 1 GB RAM, and a larger (320 GB) HD.
(yes, their own comparison table shows more shared ram available to the GPU, but that is just because the machine RAM went from 1 GB to 2 GB - and it is shared/stolen from main RAM, not dedicated.)

You have to Build-to-Order and add $150 to either model in order to get the 2.26 GHz CPU upgrade.
(I wish it were true that the high end gave you the upgraded 2.26 GHz CPU -- then it might be worth the extra $200 (a 33% premium) -- but alas, it is not so. )

refs:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...mco=NDE4Mzg4Mw
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...mco=NDE4Mzg5OA

just sayin'
(and just trying to return this lengthy discussion back to a point in the original article... )
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #132 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There are some on both sides that are mostly all or nothing in their comments, usually pushing comments that are worded as absolutes, but I think most people here are more rational about their expectations even though they get pushed into the opposing category by those at the extreme ends who cant see the middle ground.

I think the problem is that many of the moderate, rational forum viewers don't comment, leaving much of the actual conversation to the idiotic fan-boys who the OP is referring to.. He is right in so far as there exist an extremely annoying subset of forum users who have the sheep behavior he describes..

This was demonstrated most recently by the SATA issue on the MB Pros. I saw more than a few forum members making endless excuses and chastising anyone who thought that having your SSD performance cut in half on a new machine that is supposed to be "pro" level is completely acceptable.

Similarly, there were no shortage of people lined up to fight my assertion that removing firewire from the unibody Macbook was a terribly short-sighted move.

And as soon as Apple changes direction, they follow in lock-step like they had never though otherwise. It's not only frustrating to deal with, but almost creepy.
post #133 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

I think the problem is that many of the moderate, rational forum viewers don't comment, leaving much of the actual conversation to the idiotic fan-boys who the OP is referring to.. He is right in so far as there exist an extremely annoying subset of forum users who have the sheep behavior he describes..

This was demonstrated most recently by the SATA issue on the MB Pros. I saw more than a few forum members making endless excuses and chastising anyone who thought that having your SSD performance cut in half on a new machine that is supposed to be "pro" level is completely acceptable.

Similarly, there were no shortage of people lined up to fight my assertion that removing firewire from the unibody Macbook was a terribly short-sighted move.

And as soon as Apple changes direction, they follow in lock-step like they had never though otherwise. It's not only frustrating to deal with, but almost creepy.


You're also doing the "they" thing, for instance implying that the very same people who weren't troubled by the loss of firewire on MacBooks then immediately applauded the return of firewire as (presumably) indispensable. But is that in fact the case?

It seems equally likely to me that there were a lot of people who simply didn't give a shit about firewire because they didn't have firewire peripherals and were for whatever reasons unmoved by arguments involving technological superiority or legacy peripherals or pro-user edge cases-- indeed, found such arguments foolish and wrong because they weren't willing to think much past their own circumstance.

And that when Apple put firewire back such people were perfectly fine with that, and possibly glad that there was one less thing for people to bitch about.

But none of that requires any "creepy" levels of mindless fealty to Apple, just a simple self-interested evaluation of what is valuable to oneself, as opposed to someone else.

And so isn't entirely possible that the people who were unfazed by the SATA thing were people who for whom the issue was unimportant? And that those same people might be quick to complain if Apple did something that directly affected what they wanted to do with their computers? And that that also does not require assuming that such people are sheep?

That's why I object to the causal use of "people" without examples, because its easy to vaguely allude to these malleable sorts that stridently defend Apple's omissions and then immediately switch gears to applaud corrections of those very omissions. Are they really the same people? And even if they occasionally are, are they really that numerous?

What I see are a lot of posters that scream like stuck pigs if Apple does something that they feel hurts them, while of course berating or remaining indifferent to others who are equally horrified by a different issue which only affects that other person. So that if a person doesn't share your particular beef, it must be because they're a fanboy, whereas if someone else has a problem which you don't share it must be because they're an over-excitable idiot.

Which of course has nothing to do with being a fanboy, it's fairly average example of self interested people who perhaps are failing a bit at empathy and imagination and strategic thinking.

Sure, some people are more attuned to the big picture, and are bothered by things Apple does that strike them as sort of generally bad or short sighted or even malicious, even if such things don't impact them directly. But such folk are always going to be in the minority of most internet discussion forums, because most people on the planet don't think much past their personal likes and dislikes and their particular needs and wants.

And that's true of cars and sports franchises and ideologies and music styles, as well as computers, so I don't think it's at all necessary to get hung up on some idea of Apple cultists defending their religion against all comers.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #134 of 201
Quote:
No, 'we' didn't 'knock them out'. Rather, you dismissed them.

I knocked them out because they sounded like the most likely scenarios. Arguments that the technology wasn't there, the demand wasn't there, or the cost was too high, don't sound very convincing to me in 2007. I am making a judement based on what sounds like the most plausible reason.

Quote:
Both you and teckstud need to get it through your heads that Steve Jobs did not get a team of engineers together and tell them "you have got to design this thing so that teckstud and mrochester love it.

Yes he did, because I love my iPhone 3G. That doesn't mean I can't point out exactly where I think Apple are deliberately playing tricks to sell more devices at a later date.

Quote:
Are you seriously insisting that all other cell phone makers had stopped using a 2mp camera at the time?

No but but what high end smartphone of the time had a 2mp fixed-focus camera?

Quote:
Feel free to say that you would like XXXX, but don't pretend that you know how to make a product, because you don't.

I'm not saying I know how to make a product. But I'm using the EVIDENCE to produce an ARGUMENT as to why Apple had a crappy 2mp camera in the original iPhone. Sony Ericsson had done a 2mp auto-focus snapper in a small device 2 years before the iPhone. I think that's more evidence to support the arguement that the technology was definitely already there, and Apple just chose to ignore it. I think Apple were accutely aware that making a device that was too well rounded would mean it would be difficult to get customers to buy another new iPhone later on, so they deliberately held back certain features so as to trickle them into the device at a later date.
post #135 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

The reason I see bias is because there is bias.

Of course there is bias. This is an apple site. If you don't like any bias leave the internet because every site has bias.

By your definition everyone here is a "fanboy" because they don't think Apple sucks.

Quote:
When someone says for 2 years that the iPhone doesn't need or want MMS, video, or cut and paste and then champions it only because Apple then provides it, how else do you make a deduction and what do you call it?

Except that few or no one has done that. Those are all nice to haves and everyone pretty much agree they are nice to haves. What folks have said is that the iPhone is GREAT despite not having those particular "nice to haves".

If a product is great without feature X then feature X wasn't absolutely required. Certainly the iPhone is better for having those features than without but also done as well as Apple has implemented 3.0.

Quote:
When posters defend Apple's ommission of firewire on a MAcBook and it gets added back on and won't admit Apple made a mistake- what do you call that? The same thing for matte screens. Remember - they were supposed to be nevermore according to the fanboys because Apple wasn't giving them. The comes the 17"- and it gets matte.

Again, no one has said that about matte. Folks have only said that glossy is selling so Apple makes glossy screens. I had the matte vs glossy option on the 1st G MBP 17" and as far as I know you've always had that option. It's only on the consumer MB that you never had the option and they just chopped the 15" MBP down a peg (no express card is annoying too).

As for FW, the comment was it wasn't needed for consumers given that the consumer market has moved away from FW to USB2. It has except for tape based camcorders which are less and less popular every year.

Note that the 13" is now a MBP, not a MB and no more separate battery for more space.

Quote:
And watch the others will also get matte(I'd bet) because it is far superior (glare does suck) regardless of fanboys assertion that noobody wants matte. They only say what Apple currently provides is what you need.

Given that 15" MBP lost matte I'd say that Apple is continuing to reduce the availability of matte even for pro users.

Quote:
Meanwhile netbooks sales are through the roof yet fanboys were saying, whenever I mentioned it, that a small formed device between 7-11" was no good - the MBA was all we needed. Then the rumours leaked and they all embrace it. It is a very sad train of thought actually.

7" netbooks suck. Which is why all the new ones are 10" and moving toward 12".

At 12" they're just compact notebooks. Which is what the MBA is. Gee, amazing.

Why do netbooks sell in large number? Because they are cheap and small. Apple doesn't mind small...but cheap not so much. The MBA is a more typical Apple product than the MB and MBPs have been: a niche product designed for the smallest, most elegant footprint at a premium price. Like the iMac.

Apple currently fills the netbook segment with the iPhone/iPod touch and later with a mid-sized tablet. I WISH they would make a tablet netbook but it's really not likely.

As the notebook market becomes more and more commoditized expect Apple to make their notebooks more and more niche to maintain the premium.

Quote:
The term is real and alive.

So is the term "asshat".
post #136 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by imGayForSteveJobs View Post

Here comes the "But I don't want cheap hardware" argument. Apple PC's use the same hardware, intel processors, nvidia graphics.. Now if they could only fix those display problems...

That is nonsense. First, many of the components in Macs are proprietary - the power supply, motherboard, case, for example, as well as (of course) the OS. Second, many of the components are NOT the same ones that cheap PC vendors use. Both may use a 100 mfd capacitor, but the specs and quality on one could be far different.

The proof is in the pudding. EVERY survey I've ever seen done by PC magazines, Mac magazines, general business magazines, and consumer magazines shows the Mac to have lower DOA rates, higher customer satisfaction rates, and lower problem rates than ANY PC brand. That pretty effectively disproves your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eVolut View Post

Me too, I don't believe the iSuppli cost estimates are correct.

A few checks:
- $46 for a 120Gb drive??? Even I, buying only one, would think this is a bad deal. I can buy an external 2.5" 320Gb WD drive for $65! That includes the enclosure and this is a retail price! So, come on, if Apple had to pay $46 for a bare 120Gb drive, while buying 100,000+ units, they would have fired their procurement negotiator a long time ago! I would think Apple pays no more than 1/2 that price.

While you are generally correct (I can buy a Seagate 120 GB drive for $37.50 including shipping (pricewatch.com), I don't think there's any way the figure is 1/2. Consumer prices from discount places aren't that far from high volume prices. In fact, when things are in oversupply, the contract prices are sometimes even higher than the consumer prices (since the consumer is buying overstocks while the OEM has to commit to a certain volume to ensure a supply). This happened with RAM a few years back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

I wonder why Apple chose to use notebook components, especially the hard disk. It's not like Mac mini needs to be that small. Make it a bit larger, like Time Capsule and AEBS are and use cheaper desktop components to bring the price down and/or increase margin.

Because Apple chose to make size a feature. Go start your own computer company and do it your way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

You imply that since Apple uses the same hardware parts in their computers, that some how it should make them equal, in price and performance, to generic PCs. That's pure hogwash. If this was remotely true, there wouldn't be the famous brand loyalty for you trolls to enjoy. Apple makes better computers using generic parts, yes, but with quality in software and hardware design. Apple computers are the envy of the computer market, even if the MS trolls are in denial.

I'm not a fanboy to Apple Inc. I AM a fanboy to their computers. Plain & Simple. They can charge what the market will bear. I'll be buying, still.

Exactly. The entire exercise is irrelevant. As a user, I look at a computer and decide if I want to pay the listed price. If the price is too high, I don't buy it. I don't really care what it costs the vendor to make it. If Apple can figure out a way to grow an orchard of trees and pick their computers off the tree when they're ripe with zero manufacturing cost but the price doesn't change, it's meaningless. Either the price they're asking is OK or it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Yeah this really bugs me too. It's funny the number of people who said that auto-focus cameras and video were so not needed on the iPhone, yet they were all falling over themselves to buy the 3GS when it came out to have an auto-focus camera and video. It cracks me up that whatever product Apple currently sells is the absolute pinnacle of excellence, with all the features that anyone would ever need, at a price that's perfectly justifiable. This view then conveniently changes as soon as Apple announces their next product. I've posted in and observed the AppleInsider forum for a long while now, and it's truely like watching a herd of sheep following each other around. It's sad really, as it's like these people simply don't have a mind of their own.

You're making things up. No one said that video wouldn't be useful or that an autofocus camera wouldn't be useful. Just that it wasn't the end of the world that they weren't included in earlier versions. iPhone sales proved that to be the case.

You are obviously clueless about the design of a product. There are tradeoffs. Apple decided that they were going to make the iPhone 12 mm thick and sell at a certain price. That limits their options. At the time, there were no >2 MP autofocus cameras capable of doing video which fit into that form factor. (feel free to name one. Sure, those features were available in some fat phones, but they wouldn't work with Apple's design because of the thickness). As time goes on, technology improves and Apple is able to add more features within the scope of the compromises they have to make. That doesn't mean a 10 MP autofocus HD camera wouldn't have been nice in the original iPhone - it just wasn't possible.

That's not fanboyism, it's reality. The people you are labeling 'fanboys' are simply those who understand the reality of how design compromises work. You, OTOH, seem to think that "I want it and it's not available from Apple" means that Apple is intentionally crippling something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

Those are direct costs. There are indirect costs, too. Equipment and plant amortizement, overhead, staff salaries, advertising, etc.

What I don't like, and I've bellyached about in other threads is the high cost of memory. Apple pays $10 for a GB, but if you opt for 4 GB's, the charge is $150 (plus that original $10 for the first GB)). That's actually $160. If Apple pays $40 (which I doubt), that's 300% profit.

That's misleading - VERY misleading. For example, people have been complaining about Apple's price for the 8 GB upgrades on MacBook Pros ($1000). Those are very expensive DIMMs. Arguing that RAM should cost $10 per GB is obviously wrong in that case. Similarly, 2 GB DIMMs are more expensive per GB than 1 GB DIMMS (usually).

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmaxwell View Post

You're mistaking the markings on a few of the major VLSI chips as somehow conveying all that makes up a computer. And you are very wrong.

Computer manufacturers can cut corners by using fewer, and lower quality, bypass and filter capacitors. They can use lower-quality analog parts (opamps, power amps, etc.) on their sound systems. They can use low-cost, and less reliable, cheap connectors for everything from the expansion slots to the headphone output jacks.

They can elect to use low-end, poor quality fans or even fans with bushings rather than high-quality bearings. They can use two or three temperature sensors rather than the couple of dozen found in a Mac Pro. They can save money by not having thermal engineers involved, and, instead, by blasting fans at full speed. They can use undersized heatsinks and high-speed fans rather than taking the more expensive route of using large, high-end heatsinks and large, low-RPM, quiet fans. Ever wonder why Apple Mac Pros, Minis, and iMacs are so much quieter than other brands of desktop computers?

They can use a cheap plastic case with poor shielding and limited resistance to flex. They can make motherboards with fewer layers that radiate more EMI and/or are more susceptible to instability from external EMI. They can use non-ECC RAM in their tower systems. They can choose not to have riser boards for RAM, making upgrades harder and cooling less effective.

See, I'm an engineer. I know that Sun, Apple, Acer, and MSI all buy CPUs from Intel. That doesn't mean that all of the systems are of equal quality.

Which is exactly why Apple wins every comparison on DOA rates, computer quality, need for repair, customer satisfaction, and so on. While they might use the same CPU as others (or, maybe they don't - we don't know what their internal specs are for reject rates, for example), they are clearly offering a superior product. The proof is in the pudding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

That's fine, but the technology WAS there 2 years ago, Apple just deliberately missed it out to gauge money later on when it introduced an amazing 3.2mp auto-focus camera. There's a difference between not selling technology because it's not available, and not selling it simply because you want to introduce it as an 'amazing' new feature later on. Apple is supposed to be about making revolutionary products (which the 2G iPhone was, and OS 2.0 was) but Apple have since just tacked on some minor hardware and software changes. It certainly seems as if Apple didn't put much effort into the 3GS, and some of the parts they tossed into it have been available for years anyway.

Fine. Show me a 3.2 mp autofocus camera available 2 years ago which would have fit into the iPhone's format. IT DIDN'T EXIST.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #137 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Fanboys can defend all they want but the reality is Apple is overpriced for what is inside the devices.

I don't buy "what is inside the device". I buy a product that meets my needs, is durable, has superb customer support, looks nice and has a killer os. I didn't bat an eye when I was spending >$2k for a laptop or >$7k for a tower and monitor. At today's price/performance ratio, its a steal.
post #138 of 201
Quote:
Fine. Show me a 3.2 mp autofocus camera available 2 years ago which would have fit into the iPhone's format. IT DIDN'T EXIST.

I suggest you check your facts before you post.

LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007
Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*
Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*

Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.

I think you might want to retract your statement now.
post #139 of 201
Quote:
They would be able to make more profit if they used cheaper parts like these guys do:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/24/g...rm-factor-pcs/

Then we'd get:

Intel® Core(TM) 2 Quad Q8400 (2.66GHz, 4MB L2 cache)
NVIDIA® GeForce® G210 graphics card (512MB video memory)
Intel G43 Express chipset
8GB DDR3 SDRAM
750GB SATA hard drive (1)
18x DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti Drive featuring Labelflash(TM) Technology (2)
Multi-in-one digital media card reader
Windows® Vista Home Premium 64 bit
10/100/1000 (Gigabit) LAN
8 USB 2.0 ports (4 front / 4 rear)
1 1394 (rear / miniport)
1 HDMI port (rear)
1 VGA port (rear)
High-definition audio with 8-channel (7.1) audio support
Gateway FHX2300 bmid 23² HD Widescreen LCD

for $899

They wouldn't sacrifice on footprint as it's just taller, we'd all get a decent speed machine at a reasonable price with great graphics and it comes with a free screen.

If Apple sold that without a screen, I'd buy that spec at that price.

The fact that the Mini seems overpriced and Apple still don't make that much profit means they are building it wrong. No one is telling them to use mobile parts.

'Game. Set. Match.'

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #140 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

Intel's Larabee chips will ship next year. CPU, graphics and chipset all integrated in one CPU. instead of making multi-cores, they are going to make each core do it's own thing instead of making specialized chips for CPU and chipsets.

but going from geforce video to shit intel will make stuff slower and apple needs to have better video cards in there systems with there own ram.

ATI has on board video with it's own ram.
post #141 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

Y

B

But really the MacMini is the current xMac

the mini is the old cube
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #142 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And that's true of cars and sports franchises and ideologies and music styles, as well as computers, so I don't think it's at all necessary to get hung up on some idea of Apple cultists defending their religion against all comers.

Very well said as always. But it was your closing comment that really set me thinking.

It doesn't help that the media buys so completely into the idea of Apple customers being something like a cult. Try googling for "Apple faithful" or "Mac faithful." Then google for "Sony faithful" and compare the hit results, not just for raw numbers but for the source of the quotes. My little experiment in this yielded over 40,000 hits for the first two but only about 1,000 for the latter, and a great many of the top hits for Apple were from established media outlets, which only goes to show something we probably already knew: that this has long been the conventional way of describing Apple customers. In fact in my experience it's difficult to find a media writer who doesn't automatically add the word "faithful" after the word "Apple" in a strikingly large percentage of what they write about the company.

The worst part about this is, if you write to the author complaining of their use of cliches and banalities (I've tried) you only validate their viewpoint that Apple customers are indeed cultists. It also happens that much the same thinking goes on in places like this. You can't criticize the rhetorical approach used by people who naturally seem to think in terms of generalized insults without being branded as one of the people who deserves to be insulted. And round and round it goes.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #143 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

I suggest you check your facts before you post.

LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007
Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*
Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*

Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.

I think you might want to retract your statement now.

Mrochester, these are meaningless comparisons. On a technical point, you need to go by internal volume. Just because they match the thickness means nothing. Then there is feature set. How many of those phones had wifi? What about battery size? RAM? Memory? Every feature backed by hardware requires space and power, possibly shielding. You cannot single out a specific feature and then say 'well Apple could have done it too', because those other manufacturers did NOT do what Apple did. The comparison is invalid from the start, but you don't understand that because you don't understand what goes into developing products.

All of that technical stuff just obscures the real issue, as far as I am concerned.

My point is that you ignore the complexity of building devices with this rich feature set and you choose to believe that the Apple's use of a lower MP camera was done deliberately to gouge the consumer at a later time. That belief is not based on facts, its just a personal opinion based on nothing more than your own predilection. It reflects your personal bias. How do I know it is just a personal bias? I know because you insist that your position is the most logical one, yet it is one for which you have literally no evidence at all. Although you have attempted to claim that your argument is based on evidence, you haven't put forth even a rational argument to support it, much less provided any evidence. The fact that you think something does not make it evidence. And, the fact that 'it makes sense' to you also does not make something evidence.

I get the fact that you wish the iPhone had a better camera early on, I do. I wish the iPhone had a faster processor, I wish it cost half as mch, i wish it had more memory and twice as much battery life, and I wish it had a 7mp HD camera. But guess what? Just because I wish it doesn't make it feasible. When you build stuff like this, there is a balance between the competing demands and constraints of all of the technologies that you are bringing together. The art and science of design for these products is all about the balances that get struck. The fact that the balance wasn't to your liking doesn't mean 'the designers could have done better, but they wanted to take advantage of us as consumers.' That's just 'stinkin thinkin'.
post #144 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

Mrochester, these are meaningless comparisons. On a technical point, you need to go by internal volume. Just because they match the thickness means nothing. Then there is feature set. How many of those phones had wifi? What about battery size? RAM? Memory? Every feature backed by hardware requires space and power, possibly shielding. You cannot single out a specific feature and then say 'well Apple could have done it too', because those other manufacturers did NOT do what Apple did. The comparison is invalid from the start, but you don't understand that because you don't understand what goes into developing products.

My point is that you ignore the complexity of building devices with this rich feature set and you choose to believe that the Apple's use of a lower MP camera was done deliberately to gouge the consumer at a later time. And, despite numerous rational arguments to the contrary, you insist that your position is the most logical, yet it is one for which you have literally no evidence at all. That is just irrational.

Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible, there was demand, and the cost could have easily been swallowed by the price of the device. Your argument to the contrary is that I clearly have no idea about how products are developed, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support what you're saying.

It's the complexity of building such a device that actually makes the whole thing even more inexcusable. Was Apple really, truely incapable of designing a decent camera unit to go in the iPhone? It sounds pretty pathetic if there were!

Quote:
I get the fact that you wish the iPhone had a better camera early on,

As stated above, I have no desire for a better camera in my 3G as I rarely use it. That's not to say I can't point out where Apple obviously shafted their customers.
post #145 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible

You still havent proved anything. I just looked at the original iPhone teardown. There is no extra room in that device, so unless you are claiming that higher resolution camera HW is the exact same size as the 2Mpx HW then i don t see what your argument is. There is no question that Apple couldnt technically put a better camera in, but they couldnt put a better camera in with space constraints that they have. Stating that Apple could have some funky extension off the device or stating that they could have made the iPhone larger to accommodate a better camera is not a valid argument.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #146 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible, there was demand, and the cost could have easily been swallowed by the price of the device. Your argument to the contrary is that I clearly have no idea about how products are developed, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support what you're saying.

It's the complexity of building such a device that actually makes the whole thing even more inexcusable. Was Apple really, truely incapable of designing a decent camera unit to go in the iPhone? It sounds pretty pathetic if there were!



As stated above, I have no desire for a better camera in my 3G as I rarely use it. That's not to say I can't point out where Apple obviously shafted their customers.

The problem I have with your argument is the attribution of intent, first and foremost. The decision not to include a better camera does not imply that there was an intent to gouge the consumer. There is just no logical defense for that, because it isn't a rational argument.

Second, I have a problem with the way that you state things as absolutes without reference to context. Was it possible to put a better camera in a device the size of an iPhone? Perhaps it was. Was it possible to do that along with all of the additional device features, in the desired form factor, with the desired power consumption, the desired manufacturing complexity, the desired physical durability and reliability, and the desired end price point and margin? Possibly not. Unless you know something about what goes into the design and fabrication of such devices, I'm going to say that I don't find your assessment of the technical feasibility very convincing, because feasibility is not an absolute, it is only meaningful in context. Saying 'it was technically feasible' doesn't make it so, and ignoring the context of use for the particular technology also doesn't do much for your argument.

Finally, even if it was possible to do, or even if the decision boiled down to maintaining a specific margin on the devices, so what? That still doesn't equal an intent to take advantage of the consumer. If there were such an intent, you still haven't provided any evidence for it, so why do you choose to believe it?

I wish I knew how to communicate with you on this subject, but I don't. My impression is that you would rather just believe that Apple is trying to gouge you, for whatever reason. If so, I leave you to those thoughts. I can't see how they enhance or enrich your life, but you of course are free to dwell in whatever state of mind you choose.

Blessings!
post #147 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

This was demonstrated most recently by the SATA issue on the MB Pros. I saw more than a few forum members making endless excuses and chastising anyone who thought that having your SSD performance cut in half on a new machine that is supposed to be "pro" level is completely acceptable.

Similarly, there were no shortage of people lined up to fight my assertion that removing firewire from the unibody Macbook was a terribly short-sighted move.

And as soon as Apple changes direction, they follow in lock-step like they had never though otherwise. It's not only frustrating to deal with, but almost creepy.

My problem with the people crying foul for both of those situations is that there were options and they affected for the ones that wanted it and it affected very few people. For starters, the problem was clearly a driver issue that would be resolved (at some point) and SSD was used by only a few people. If there is anything to get upset about its that Apple wouldnt even acknowledge when the problem will likely be resolved and their use of relatively slow SSDs. If that speed difference bothers you and you havent bought a new machine yet then dont buy that machine. I see the same people complaining with every release and I am pretty sure they arent buying the new merchandise each time.

The other complaint was FW400 being dropped from the MacBook. Even though the MBPs and desktop Macs also dropped FW400 while retaining FW800 there was a lot of screaming that Apple is dropping FireWire, when this simply wasnt the case. On top of that, it was a long time coming and well known what Apple was doing. They dropped it from the iPod line as an included cable, then they dropped the ability to sync using it, then the ability to charge from it, and then a case change on the Mac notebooks required the loss of the port and FW400 was the weakest link. Goodbye! It was a poorly designed port interface. They didnt make it future-forward like the USB and FW800 port interface so to expect Apple to keep it for ever is absurd. MBs never had FW800 and they still havent.

People had options for the MBPs or the other MB if they wanted FW. Or, as predicted after the 17 MBP demo, wait until Apple give the 13 a sealed battery, then youll get FW800. Short-sided or not, space constraints or not there are still other options for the consumer, including keep your current Mac with FW, if you dont like the result. It certainly doesnt require page after page about how Apple is doomed.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #148 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You still haven’t proved anything. I just looked at the original iPhone teardown. There is no extra room in that device, so unless you are claiming that higher resolution camera HW is the exact same size as the 2Mpx HW then i don’ t see what your argument is. There is no question that Apple couldn’t technically put a better camera in, but they couldn’t put a better camera in with space constraints that they have. Stating that Apple could have some funky extension off the device or stating that they could have made the iPhone larger to accommodate a better camera is not a valid argument.

Here's the 3.2mp autofocus camera module from the Samsung U600, released before the original iPhone.



As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.

Quote:
Second, I have a problem with the way that you state things as absolutes without reference to context. Was it possible to put a better camera in a device the size of an iPhone? Perhaps it was. Was it possible to do that along with all of the additional device features, in the desired form factor, with the desired power consumption, the desired manufacturing complexity, the desired physical durability and reliability, and the desired end price point and margin? Possibly not. Unless you know something about what goes into the design and fabrication of such devices, I'm going to say that I don't find your assessment of the technical feasibility very convincing, because feasibility is not an absolute, it is only meaningful in context. Saying 'it was technically feasible' doesn't make it so, and ignoring the context of use for the particular technology also doesn't do much for your argument.

If it was technically possible to do it back in 2007 (which seems more likely than not to me), and has now appeared on the 3GS as a much hyped feature, that sounds an awful lot like deliberately holding back a feature to sell more devices later on.

Quote:
I wish I knew how to communicate with you on this subject, but I don't. My impression is that you would rather just believe that Apple is trying to gouge you, for whatever reason. If so, I leave you to those thoughts. I can't see how they enhance or enrich your life, but you of course are free to dwell in whatever state of mind you choose.

I have considered the evidence, and it seems to me that Apple deliberately holding back on the camera was more likely than them simply not being able to fit it into the device somehow. That's what I chose to believe because that's what the evidence I've looked at seems to suggest. Other than being told I have no idea how to make a device, there has been little evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if you showed some evidence as to how Apple couldn't fit a better camera into the iPhone, then you'd have a stronger argument.

EDIT - Having measured both camera modules, they are both about 1cm x 1cm. The U600 is actually a slimmer device than the iPhone too. So it looks like it would have physically fitted.
post #149 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Here's the 3.2mp autofocus camera module from the Samsung U600, released before the original iPhone.

As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.

Using a 2D image of unknown scale?
post #150 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

I suggest you check your facts before you post.

LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007
Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*
Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*

Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.

I think you might want to retract your statement now.

And what is the volume of the phone, what other HW did they have, like 16GB flash or a 3.5 touch-screen, 128MB system RAM? Those things tend to take up more room than a phone with, for example, a 2 display, 32MB flash, 32MB system RAM. Then lets get the sizes of the camera HW, then we need exact dimensions because if its too large in one direction but okay in another that doesnt mean it would still be feasible. There is a lot of engineering that is going on with these devices that blanket statements need to be backed up with some level of support if they are to be believed. I dont deny that its not possible for a better camera to have been used, I just dont see any evidence that supports your unmitigated claims.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #151 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Here's the 3.2mp autofocus camera module from the Samsung U600, released before the original iPhone.

image: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ester/32mp.jpg

As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.

Come on, now you arent even trying to win. You are using a phone that uses a lot smaller and weaker HW than the iPhone does so the volume can be easily be less while allowing more room for a better camera. If that is the case, we cant tell because these two devices are so very different and you havent provided any scale. Then it seems you are showing just the lens component and not the other HW that make up the camera.

Without getting all the data, which seems pretty impossible, we simply cant make a determination. That is the issue at hand. You may be correct in everything youve stated, but it looks like it will have to remain a hypothesis unless you can provide some more conclusive evidence to make a deduction.

Here is your phone on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-u600
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #152 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

If it was technically possible to do it back in 2007 (which seems more likely than not to me), and has now appeared on the 3GS as a much hyped feature, that sounds an awful lot like deliberately holding back a feature to sell more devices later on.

You are showing off a phone from 2007 that as a 3.2Mpx camera yet the 3GS still only has a 3.0Mpx camera. So based on your argument that means Apple still holding back, because I know I've seen 5Mpx+ in cell phones.

If is was about artificially forcing customers to upgrade their iPhones they would have upped the camera capabilities on the second run. Regardless that the volume decreased and the area the camera resides was tapered a bit, your argument dictates that Apple should have increases the resolution to increase sales. It also means that Apple shouldn't have offered the OS update to older phones, especially the original iPhone going into its third year of use.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #153 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

Using a 2D image of unknown scale?

The U600 is 4.9cm wide, so you can work out the scale by measuring the image on screen. From that, you can work out how big the camera is, and they are the same size in the U600 and original iPhone.

Quote:
And what is the volume of the phone, what other HW did they have, like 16GB flash or a 3.5” touch-screen, 128MB system RAM? Those things tend to take up more room than a phone with, for example, a 2” display, 32MB flash, 32MB system RAM. Then lets get the sizes of the camera HW, then we need exact dimensions because if it’s too large in one direction but okay in another that doesn’t mean it would still be feasible. There is a lot of engineering that is going on with these devices that blanket statements need to be backed up with some level of support if they are to be believed. I don’t deny that it’s not possible for a better camera to have been used, I just don’t see any evidence that supports your unmitigated claims.

The original iPhone is 47% larger by volume than the U600. I am backing up my statements by providing measurements and figures. Please backup your statements with some figures and evidence rather than just saying 'you're wrong'. Perhaps you should stop making blanket statements before telling anyone else too...

Quote:
You are showing off a phone from 2007 that as a 3.2Mpx camera yet the 3GS still only has a 3.0Mpx camera. So based on your argument that means Apple still holding back, because I know I've seen 5Mpx+ in cell phones.

If is was about artificially forcing customers to upgrade their iPhones they would have upped the camera capabilities on the second run. Regardless that the volume decreased and the area the camera resides was tapered a bit, your argument dictates that Apple should have increases the resolution to increase sales. It also means that Apple shouldn't have offered the OS update to older phones, especially the original iPhone going into its third year of use.

Apple probably are holding back with the 3mp camera.

We already know that Apple's big move with their second run was 3G and GPS. I'm sure they had calculated that this was more than enough to get people buying again without them having to upgrade the camera unit. I guessed they figured they could milk the 2mp unit for another year before they'd finally have to do something about it.

Whilst Apple are giving the newest software updates to all of their iPhone lineup, they are quietly missing features out of the oldest model. We've seen some rather wooly explanations for this being because of the hardware that was used, but that simply sounds more like an excuse than being the actual explanation for it. Afterall, MMS is simply a photo sent via a data connection, which I know the iPhone is more than capable of. Jailbreaking proves that it is possible. Equally, A2DP is mysteriously missing from the 2G iPhone, even though it features the same bluetooth capabilities as the 3G.
post #154 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

The original iPhone is 47% larger by volume than the U600.

If the total volume contained only the camera components or if the devices contained exactly the same HW then youd have a point but, as stated earlier, you are not considering the whole package.

Are you also under the impression that the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video just as well or better than any of the other phones that came before it?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #155 of 201
Isn't this a Mac Mini thread? Why all the iPhone traffic? Please move it to the iPhone thread.
Thanx.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #156 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If the total volume contained only the camera components or if the devices contained exactly the same HW then youd have a point but, as stated earlier, you are not considering the whole package.

Are you also under the impression that the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video just as well or better than any of the other phones that came before it?

Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for

Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.
post #157 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for

Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.

Do you honestly think you can somehow prove that Apple intended to gouge consumers because you think they could have used a better camera?

If so, I just haven't got anything else to say to you. I am amazed that you think any of what you have said gives any credibility to your argument... and I think any rational person would feel much the same.
post #158 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

The U600 is 4.9cm wide, so you can work out the scale by measuring the image on screen. From that, you can work out how big the camera is, and they are the same size in the U600 and original iPhone.

I am sure I could but I made no claims that rely on any measurements. In fact I made no claims at all. You did. So posting an image and saying "see, I told you" is not exactly rigorous. Nor is: "here is a number, work the rest out for yourself".

Assuming that you will prove the first part (an important aspect of technical feasibility), there remain additional technical aspects on which you have already been challenged (memory and battery requirements). Once done with those, you may want to give some thought to justifying why Apple must necessarily have deliberately held back a feature for the sheer pleasure of screwing its customers.
post #159 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for

Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.

1) I clearly pointed out how the data you provided attests to nothing and that you may very well be correct, but that your absolution that Apple is screwing their consumers requires some proof, which you have yet to provide. I cant provide your proof for you.

2) The first two iPhones were not able to record adequate video while running OS X. There are plenty of YouTube videos to prove that video recording on a jailbroken iPhone was quite poor under OS X. You forget that OS X is desktop Operating System that has been shrunk down to fit in a phone, not a mobile OS that was designed from the ground up to originally run on much slower and older HW.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #160 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

Once done with those, you may want to give some thought to justifying why Apple must necessarily have deliberately held back a feature for the sheer pleasure of screwing its customers.

Well of course, because that's how companies build consumer loyalty, which as we know Apple has so little.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's profit margin on Mac minis slimmer than usual