Shouldn't the biggest, richest, whatever, computer company build computers for everybody ?
I don't understand comments in favor of ignoring those who want a decent GPU.
At least give the option so that people have a CHOICE !
What's the use of making razor-thin iMacs ? Should i look at my screen from the side ? Thats just a useless, insane objective.
Apple has been selling 3rd grade, which are also two or three year old components, while charging a premium. All is fair right ? Remember the Mac Mini ? Why is it intentionally crippled on the GPU side ?
Why am i not ALOWED to buy me a Mac Mini which is AT LEAST an iMac without a screen ?
And why is Apple not selling computers in a tier between the Mac Pro and the Mini (without a screen) ? Is that because Apple won't sell as many units of it as the iPhone ?
I am a lifetime Apple-user but this intentionally crippling Macs with a silly cheap a$$ GPU makes me mad, seriously mad. If i want to enjoy a few ours a week of WOW or any other stupid game, let me be stupid for an hour a week. Give me the freakin choice to do so !
Because the vast majority of people using Macs don't want to rip open their computer to fiddle with it. That's the point. If you want to fiddle, don't buy a Mac.This philosophy is used across the entire Mac product line and started a long time ago, in an Apple universe far far away.
As much as I love Macs, Palmer Luckey is (mostly) right on this one. OS X is optimized for OpenCL rendering, and OpenGL support (required for Mac gaming) is severely outdated. Not even a Mac Pro with a top of the line, upgraded graphics card will bring good performance in OS X. On top of this, Windows users benefit from DirectX, which completely destroys OpenGL. However, Palmer Luckey is wrong when he says Apple doesn't build good systems. The same Mac running Windows makes it just as good as any PC with equivalent specs. In other words it is not a hardware problem, it's a software problem. Apple knows this, and it's the reason why they developed Metal in the first place. Now if they could only put it to good use...
I agree. The general view is that Macs are amazing as Windows boxes, and are generally better than an equivalently spec'd PC from another Vendor. That and the industrial design is without peer.
Always funny to watch brand loyalists drop $3000-$5000 on Apple junk when they can buy a god-like computer with Windows for $1500.00..
Proves Apple fans generally lack technical knowledge and consumer savvy, and are mostly brand loyalists.
And your comments on an Apple related website proves how much of a moronic troll you are.
His/her first two posts at that. He maybe right/correct though; I come across a *good amount* of 'fans' who don't have the technical knowledge, but then again, isn't that why Apple's products have been successfully? Because we live in a world, currently anyway, where a good amount of people aren't technical. What I disagree with though, is as you become technical, and if (IMO) you're truly objective and don't have a (currently) niche requirement, you see the 'value' of what Apple offers. That's why after 12+ years of building my own PC's with friends, I bought a retina MBP in 2012 and I'm on schedule to not replace it for probably another 2/3 years, at least. That's also why, I read and enjoy the details of what apple as done in their iOS security guides. To each their own - some like the color green, some like the color blue. We can (and should) all learn to get along with out the hate/vitriol...
Still, after 2 comments, @handen2015, it seems pretty clear where you're coming from.
Shouldn't the biggest, richest, whatever, computer company build computers for everybody ?
I don't understand comments in favor of ignoring those who want a decent GPU.
At least give the option so that people have a CHOICE !
What's the use of making razor-thin iMacs ? Should i look at my screen from the side ? Thats just a useless, insane objective.
Apple has been selling 3rd grade, which are also two or three year old components, while charging a premium. All is fair right ? Remember the Mac Mini ? Why is it intentionally crippled on the GPU side ?
Why am i not ALOWED to buy me a Mac Mini which is AT LEAST an iMac without a screen ?
And why is Apple not selling computers in a tier between the Mac Pro and the Mini (without a screen) ? Is that because Apple won't sell as many units of it as the iPhone ?
I am a lifetime Apple-user but this intentionally crippling Macs with a silly cheap a$$ GPU makes me mad, seriously mad. If i want to enjoy a few ours a week of WOW or any other stupid game, let me be stupid for an hour a week. Give me the freakin choice to do so !
You do have a choice - just don't buy Apple? And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Buy Alienware, or build your own (as I used to). Apple (apparently) couldn't care less, currently, anyway about that market. If/when things change, you'll see Apples stance change, no? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Real reason: They're keeping the development cost down because there are already loads of better VR solutions. They're behind schedule with the controllers and competitors have beaten them to market with arguably better solutions at better price points. Oculus missed their own maiden voyage.
Fake reason: OMG ZE PROCESSING POWER... The minimum hardware didn't even exist during the prototyping and the publicly available development kits.
Look if they released this 2 years ago it would be something to get excited about, but there is a growing list of competitors that seem to have no issue offering more on relatively basic computing hardware. The reality is that Oculus are providing too little, too late - excitement for this product has moved on to more pragmatic ideas like HTC's Vive which went a long way to solve the "what are your hands doing" problem. Even the reddit forums for the Rift announcement were filled with people talking about different headsets they'd be more interested in.
Unless Oculus has another product coming out this year that usurps the better-featured competition then they are through. The product benefits of the Rift are small, while the compromises to reach those are large (such as the absurdly long development cycle.)
Need we reference Apple's dominance in nearly every consumer satisfaction metric for well over a decade? Or the fact that Macs actually outpace the PC market in growth regularly (even during economic downturns)? Or that Apple actually makes a healthy profit from their Mac business? Or that nothing in the space compares to the build quality and fit and finish of Macs? Or that OS X is an OS that is actually done right, designed with the USER in mind?
"It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't prioritize high-end GPUs," he explained. "You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top of the line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn't match our recommended specs. So if they prioritize higher-end GPUs like they used to for a while back in the day, we'd love to support Mac. But right now, there's just not a single machine out there that supports it."
I'm not really interested in Oculus or VR, but I do use a Mac to make a living in the graphics business. I'm certainly ready for the Mac to offer up a better GPU option in the MacPro. For the time being, I'm happily using a 2015 MacBook Pro with the discreet AMD video card upgrade. Even though this is the top-spec MBP Apple offers, it's BARELY capable of running my Eizo DCI 4k display (4096x2160 pixels). And the MBP won't run the display in 10 bit/channel mode, a discovery I made late last year when Apple finally addressed another graphical software issue by enabling 10 bit/channel video output capability in Mac OS.
Adobe has been using GPU processing for many of the new features in Creative Cloud, so the better GPU, the better performance I'll get.
Once Apple offers up an upgraded MacPro, I'm ready to open up my wallet!
Apple builds their computers to serve a particular purpose. Most people don't need all of that power, and the few that do, Apple isn't going to waste money on. Besides, rumors are Apple is working on their own VR, so I could care less what that douche bag thinks.
Apple builds their computers to serve a particular purpose. Most people don't need all of that power, and the few that do, Apple isn't going to waste money on. Besides, rumors are Apple is working on their own VR, so I could care less what that douche bag thinks.
He's a douchebag for pointing out the obvious? He was asked by the interviewer why he doesn't support Macs and he replied that Apple doesn't place an emphasis on powerful GPUs that the Rift obviously needs.
What exactly did he say that is inaccurate? Granted, I watched the entire 7-minute interview.
Why are you guys forgetting Mac Pro The computer that shi** on that other slow bug-ridden OS?
Suddenly Macs are crap because some random iHater said he won't bring a nerd visor to OS X??
I do not own a Mac Pro and I don't see myself buying any VR headsets in the near future, but I do agree that the Mac Pro should be able to accommodate the highest end and most powerful GPUs that are available.
Actually without content VR is just another vaporware. If you can render a 3D world you'd prefer rather making a game or movie, instead of a static "VR multimedia". If Pixar produces something for VR then I may buy that headset, otherwise sorry, no more African safari with roaring VR lions... I don't want a holographic lion in my living room, either...
Need we reference Apple's dominance in nearly every consumer satisfaction metric for well over a decade? Or the fact that Macs actually outpace the PC market in growth regularly (even during economic downturns)? Or that Apple actually makes a healthy profit from their Mac business? Or that nothing in the space compares to the build quality and fit and finish of Macs? Or that OS X is an OS that is actually done right, designed with the USER in mind?
Truth.
Well. No actually. We don't. Because it's nothing to do with topic.
Shouldn't the biggest, richest, whatever, computer company build computers for everybody ?
I don't understand comments in favor of ignoring those who want a decent GPU.
At least give the option so that people have a CHOICE !
What's the use of making razor-thin iMacs ? Should i look at my screen from the side ? Thats just a useless, insane objective.
Apple has been selling 3rd grade, which are also two or three year old components, while charging a premium. All is fair right ? Remember the Mac Mini ? Why is it intentionally crippled on the GPU side ?
Why am i not ALOWED to buy me a Mac Mini which is AT LEAST an iMac without a screen ?
And why is Apple not selling computers in a tier between the Mac Pro and the Mini (without a screen) ? Is that because Apple won't sell as many units of it as the iPhone ?
I am a lifetime Apple-user but this intentionally crippling Macs with a silly cheap a$$ GPU makes me mad, seriously mad. If i want to enjoy a few ours a week of WOW or any other stupid game, let me be stupid for an hour a week. Give me the freakin choice to do so !
No they should design and produce computers for their market. Usually those that they can create an excellent product and has enough users willing to pay a good profit which is the purpose for being in business. So you do have a choice if you are interested in gaming or some other niche market, buy a PC or use a device that is designed to use Apple's products. Oculus will likely be far less popular in 3 years than 3D TV's and computer screens are now.
Not sure why Oculus needs such high end graphics cards to work. Sony has VR that will utilize the PS4.
There are two reasons I can think of you need high end graphics. One, if you are pushing the envelope and doing a lot of "stuff", and two if you are inefficient about how you do things. I don't know if either fit Oculus, but just relying on the hardware specs is not necessarily telling. It's been a while since I developed software for the Windows (Vista) world, but the OS was so inefficient, you needed as much horsepower as you could get to accommodate the OS design. Don't know anything about Oculus designers, but wouldn't be totally surprised if the problem resided with Oculus. But, to be fair, ... it could be they are pushing the envelope.
Apple builds their computers to serve a particular purpose. Most people don't need all of that power, and the few that do, Apple isn't going to waste money on. Besides, rumors are Apple is working on their own VR, so I could care less what that douche bag thinks.
How much more less could you care ? Sounds like there's a lot of room still.. Please tell us all, dying to know.
Always funny to watch brand loyalists drop $3000-$5000 on Apple junk when they can buy a god-like computer with Windows for $1500.00..
Proves Apple fans generally lack technical knowledge and consumer savvy, and are mostly brand loyalists.
6 years ago I used a crappy Windows notebook that's half the price of my MBA now. The experience was so painful I coughed up the dough and converted to Mac and never looks back. 4 years on and my Macbook Air's still running great. My productivity is going through the roof. The consumer savvy will always prefer Mac. They will becomes a brand loyalists. It's the same thing actually.
AAPL has a history of waiting until a market matures before entering. The company also has a track record of making energy-efficient computing devices. Where others just toss in the hottest CPUs/GPUs (and I mean hottest also in the thermal sense) and crank up the clock speed to get the performance they want, Apple carefully weighs the costs of energy use. That results in more efficient computing, meaning the world needs fewer power plants (burning coal or whatever) to deliver the same amount of compute performance versus its competition.
And likely part of that thinking is to delay building VR-ready systems in a world where VR hasn't yet taken hold or reached critical mass. Meanwhile, die sizes shrink and more efficient chips that will be capable of supporting VR will come. The trick is to skirt the razor's edge to get to that point; where more compute-intensive applications and activities are supported without stepping off the path of delivering ever more power-efficient computers with each new model year. Get it? Good. Because that's how Apple thinks.
Comments
Still, after 2 comments, @handen2015, it seems pretty clear where you're coming from.
macmichiel said: You do have a choice - just don't buy Apple? And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Buy Alienware, or build your own (as I used to). Apple (apparently) couldn't care less, currently, anyway about that market. If/when things change, you'll see Apples stance change, no? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Even as much as I think Macs are meh, their value proposition is light years beyond that of Oculus.
FFS, Even the VIVE, which is $200 more expensive provides a better value than you do Oculus.
Fake reason: OMG ZE PROCESSING POWER... The minimum hardware didn't even exist during the prototyping and the publicly available development kits.
Look if they released this 2 years ago it would be something to get excited about, but there is a growing list of competitors that seem to have no issue offering more on relatively basic computing hardware. The reality is that Oculus are providing too little, too late - excitement for this product has moved on to more pragmatic ideas like HTC's Vive which went a long way to solve the "what are your hands doing" problem. Even the reddit forums for the Rift announcement were filled with people talking about different headsets they'd be more interested in.
Unless Oculus has another product coming out this year that usurps the better-featured competition then they are through. The product benefits of the Rift are small, while the compromises to reach those are large (such as the absurdly long development cycle.)
Truth.
I'm not really interested in Oculus or VR, but I do use a Mac to make a living in the graphics business. I'm certainly ready for the Mac to offer up a better GPU option in the MacPro. For the time being, I'm happily using a 2015 MacBook Pro with the discreet AMD video card upgrade. Even though this is the top-spec MBP Apple offers, it's BARELY capable of running my Eizo DCI 4k display (4096x2160 pixels). And the MBP won't run the display in 10 bit/channel mode, a discovery I made late last year when Apple finally addressed another graphical software issue by enabling 10 bit/channel video output capability in Mac OS.
Adobe has been using GPU processing for many of the new features in Creative Cloud, so the better GPU, the better performance I'll get.
Once Apple offers up an upgraded MacPro, I'm ready to open up my wallet!
Suddenly Macs are crap because some random iHater said he won't bring a nerd visor to OS X??
LOL. Something tells me that this has Google Glass 2 written all over it.
http://www.slashgear.com/google-glass-2-enterprise-edition-revealed-in-photos-28420045/
How much more less could you care ? Sounds like there's a lot of room still.. Please tell us all, dying to know.
The consumer savvy will always prefer Mac. They will becomes a brand loyalists. It's the same thing actually.
And likely part of that thinking is to delay building VR-ready systems in a world where VR hasn't yet taken hold or reached critical mass. Meanwhile, die sizes shrink and more efficient chips that will be capable of supporting VR will come. The trick is to skirt the razor's edge to get to that point; where more compute-intensive applications and activities are supported without stepping off the path of delivering ever more power-efficient computers with each new model year. Get it? Good. Because that's how Apple thinks.