I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing.
The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
If Intels chips aren't producing significant speed gains then what is the point upgrading the machines? Well, there isn't any, unless you can come up with the tech to work around it.
Not really though. The chips didn't improve, so the suggestion here is that Apple takes the existing chips and pack more cores into a larger case.
Pardon Me?
So what you are telling me is that there is no improvement in these processors. That a 22 core E5v4 would render our scenes at roughly the same speed as a 12 core E5v2. I think you need to do some more investigating on this before you continue spewing out your false assumptions.
The socket and thermal properties are exactly the same. Using the new chips is just a simple swap with no case design change required, you know like Dell and HP are able to do or are you saying Dell and HP have super case designs where they were able to update their workstations twice in this time but Apple can't.
Are you also claiming there were no advancements in GPU's. That the D-700 is equivalent to what HP and Dell offer in their workstations. You know like the Nvidia Quadro line or even the low priced 1080 GTX. Again I think you need to do some more investigating to see how behind Apple is on this.
Actually I was just saying why post #77 wasn't the answer: it's not Apple's style to solve the problem by putting more of the same cores in a larger case. They rarely go bigger unless there's a good reason.
But reading your points it's like you've never read a single thing about the way Apple designs its machines. Yes, I'm sure that chips will work in Dell and HP machines but then I've never had a Dell or HP machine last half as long as an Apple box, and the reason I imagine, is that Apple takes a lot more care of how the put their gear together. The components they use aren't the most powerful, or the most up to date, but they work within the ridiculously close tolerances that they set for the machines they build. Just because an upgraded chip will work in a Dell case, doesn't mean it'll work in Apple's. Now, they could put them in the same cases as HP and Dell (and I can imagine the whining you'd do if they did) but as I said, that isn't their style.
But you are right, this is on Apple. They could easily build a big ugly case with loads of fans and give the whingers here could then bleat on about how ugly it is. They simply chose not to. If you disagree then buy another machine.
His paycheck has been made thinner.
Maybe it's time to start making stuff that people want instead of thinner with less ports that cost more.
What a strange thing to say. I believe you're confusing your wants for those of everyone?
I want thin devices, because theyre lighter and more portable and closer to the imagined devices in scifi -- impossibly thin. I don't need a bunch of legacy ports, and would prefer USBC since it will give it longer useful lifespan. My current older MBP cost more than the lower MBP options do.
Actually, the biggest foulup was missing Christmas for the AirPod launch.
I think the biggest foulup was eliminating the headphone jack, in the first place. My 6 will be the last iPhone I own if they don't bring back the jack. Airpods look incredibly dorky. When I see them dangling, cable-less, from people's ears I think of JarJar Binks. Wireless headphones look better.
"I bought the LG UltraFine 5K display because there simply is no other option from Apple. If there had been, though, I would have bought it in a heartbeat."
It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic. To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.
Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.
" . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.
YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.
We've had this discussion before. Do you have anything to back up your absurd claim that LG told Apple that they don't want to sell them IGZO panels even though Apple puts them in their iMacs? Their are numerous companies selling IGZO displays. This post even refers to an 8K display from Dell. How is Dell able to design and get panels for their monitors, but Apple isn't? You honestly think Apple is not big enough to obtain panels if they wanted to make monitors. Thats proposterous.
You then claim that people are making "Arrogant assumptions" when there is no assumption to make. Apple publicly stated they no longer want to make monitors. You are the one that is arrogantly concocting a baseless story that Big Bad LG forced Apple out of the monitor business. That is a slanderous statement with absolutely no merit. Stop spreading your Fud.
Hilarious. The new disease of using your own unreason to accuse someone of unreason. Guess who has the reason problem.
"Their [sic] are numerous companies selling IGZO displays." — Are there any that could supply Apple with a few million with custom built-in I/O and graphics processing? Is the 8K Dell IGZO? Are other Dell monitors IGZO that will sell in the milions?
" . . . Apple is not big enough . . ." — Got you there, logician. Doesn't matter how big or how much money Apple has, if there aren't the production lines or the yield ratios, there's no surplus for Apple.
I have no hard information, only a regard for cause and effect based on logic. If IGZO is so easy to make in large, dense sizes, where are the Sharp monitors that Apple invested millions, like 100s of millions, in back in 2011 (as I recall).? I have questions. YOU are the one with the assumptions, which I wouldn't care about if you weren't here making an apocalyptic case, along with others, about Apple's competence.
I feel sorry for Tim and his family that he got a pay cut. But I feel more sorry for all of us who got a failed watch, delayed air pods, no more displays or airports, cancelled car, a 4 year old iPhone case design and a MBP with no ports and the wrong battery. I don't know what Tim's issue has been but I have faith he can turn it around this year, last year he made a lot of failed promises, this year I hope his actions speak louder than his words. Learning to type and use a Mac would be a great start, even just touching or holding a Mac at a keynote, that would make us happy.
1) Failed watch? In what parallel universe are you living in? Before the first Apple Watch was announced, the company was being blasted for missing out on the wearables revolution. Then they release it, blow everyone out of the water and it is now being peddled as a failure? Only by comparing Apple watch market-share versus the entire rest of the industry (Fitbit + Garmin + Samsung +...) can its success be minimized. In terms of revenu only Rolex makes more. Failed my a$$
...we're guessing. Apple hasn't ever discussed unit numbers sold or the revenue connected with the Apple Watch AFAIK. Still likely it's been pretty successful despite lack of official comments.
Apple has been the sole company that would regularly discuss CE unit sales and I'm glad they're pulling away from that. All it does it make the stock price more volatile with a pointless metric.
Let's remember Apple made this decision with this iPhone accessory (and now iPhone+Mac accessory), when they announced the product, which was well before it ever went on sale.
It would be foolhardy to make Watch unit sales a constant because the end result would be for pundits to point out that Apple sucks because Rolex's ARP is considerably higher and then say Apple sucks because Fitbit sells more units even though their price points are much lower and aren't smartwatches. None of that benefits Apple and they still have to contend with it even when their revenues (and likely their profits) for that one product category is larger than most CE companies in their entirety.
Oh, I agree with all that you said. I understand Apple's reasoning. I was simply addressing the OP's claim and noting it wasn't backed up by anything official from Apple so it was guessing rather than a fact. Good guessing I'm sure, but still a guess.
Apple desperately needs Forestal back. Someone with passion and vision other than thinner.
Scott Forstall is credited for the original iPhone UI, which great looks and revolutionary smooth springy scrolling. If this is all true then agree he needs to come back and bring us more magical UIs into the world. However It's recently become known that he tended to take credit for other peoples work, so now I'm not sure. The team on the original iPhone and it's revolutiory smooth scrolling UI, bring them all back. And fire every one that made iOS 7 so ugly and full of bloat that 10 runs slower than iOS 6.
Oh dear, somebody doesn't understand how software works. iOS 10 may run slower on a device that originally shipped with iOS 6, but it's not slow by any means. I'm on a 7 and have no complaints about iOS 10 speed.
But yes, in general any OS that's three years newer is going to push the limits of older hardware more than a three-year-old OS will. That's the cost of new features -- they require better hardware.
"I bought the LG UltraFine 5K display because there simply is no other option from Apple. If there had been, though, I would have bought it in a heartbeat."
It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic. To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.
Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.
Wow... That Dell monitor is crazy...
I was at the Seybold conference keynote when Steve announced the first G4 and the cinema display that was equally as crazy at that time. I remember everyone being blown away and the mood in the room was electric. I guess Dell and Microsoft finally understand that being passionate about their products is important. Apple can't be bothered by stuff like monitors anymore. Just too busy with Books and Christmas trees now. I guess we can look forward to the next keynote where Tim tells us about Apple's amazing pipeline in his monotone voice and if we are lucky, we'll get a video of how much work went into a new watch strap.
Since you're picking up the troll trope of "all we get are new watch straps" (courtesy of MR), can you please cite where he's ever done such a thing? Mkthx
" . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.
YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.
Do you have anything to back up your absurd claim that LG told Apple that they don't want to sell them IGZO panels even though Apple puts them in their iMacs?
He never made any claim. You made plenty of unfounded claimed, he stated reasonable scenarios in an attempt to get you to use critical thinking so you'd reevaluate your unsubstanitated claims Clearly, he wasn't successful.
Stating LG will not sell panels to Apple because they want the stand alone monitor business all to them selves is not reasonable, its unsubstantiated, and completely unfounded. If you or him have any proof of this or any other concoction you want to make up, I'll take a look at it. In the mean time, I'll go with what Apple passed on to many news outlets directly.
The third paragraph in this report sums up their position pretty nicely.
Now I would like to understand what are the plenty of unfounded claims I made or do you just like making stuff up? Maybe you should get into fiction writing, it would suit you well.
I feel sorry for Tim and his family that he got a pay cut. But I feel more sorry for all of us who got a failed watch, delayed air pods, no more displays or airports, cancelled car, a 4 year old iPhone case design and a MBP with no ports and the wrong battery. I don't know what Tim's issue has been but I have faith he can turn it around this year, last year he made a lot of failed promises, this year I hope his actions speak louder than his words. Learning to type and use a Mac would be a great start, even just touching or holding a Mac at a keynote, that would make us happy.
This is troll nonsense. What failed Watch? How are you harmed by delayed AirPods? Airports are still for sale. The car is neither confirmed nor denied. The 7's case design is neither four years old nor inferior. What MBP doesn't have ports? What wrong battery? What failed promises?
I wish the stock market somehow didn't exist. None of this crap matters.
Being a public company is a pain the ass.. but then again if there was no such mechanism how would companies raise funds to grow and have the opertunity to become like Apple.
Correct. Companies do not become publicly listed by accident. If/when the negatives outweigh the positives, they could choose to delist, as happened with Dell Computer.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Just like between people, when something bad happens and you explain yourself, it makes whatever bad thing happened easier to deal with, same thing will Apple. Would it kill them to explain why they have not updated their Mac Pro?
Apple has never ruined the surprise or uncovered the mystery around their strategic operations, nor should they. They wouldn't be Apple if they did.
You might get an occasional explanation about something minor like the white iPhone 4, but on the major platform moves it seems Apple lets the handwringers have enough room to make themselves look stupid when the shoe finally drops.
Trouble is, the handwringers never seem to learn that the company knows what it's doing. At least this means that the Maclope still has a job.
I think the problem is they don't. Not long term. They seem to have one strategy track and that's pursuit of ever increasing profit margins. The product is suffering and they aren't responding to this. It's been three years of decline and no turnaround.
The most corrupt argument of all: "pursuit of ever increasing profit margins."
Their gross margin never changes, it hovers around 38% year after year. If you think that's too much for what they have done and are going to do for the world, fine. But they aren't getting greedier or lazier or "sitting on their laurels'" etc. Their product introductions are based on the available technology and probably the limited talent they can squeeze into their crowded and chaotic physical plant. (See, that's why they're building a very expensive new headquarters — not greed.)
I feel sorry for Tim and his family that he got a pay cut. But I feel more sorry for all of us who got a failed watch, delayed air pods, no more displays or airports, cancelled car, a 4 year old iPhone case design and a MBP with no ports and the wrong battery. I don't know what Tim's issue has been but I have faith he can turn it around this year, last year he made a lot of failed promises, this year I hope his actions speak louder than his words. Learning to type and use a Mac would be a great start, even just touching or holding a Mac at a keynote, that would make us happy.
1) Failed watch? In what parallel universe are you living in? Before the first Apple Watch was announced, the company was being blasted for missing out on the wearables revolution. Then they release it, blow everyone out of the water and it is now being peddled as a failure? Only by comparing Apple watch market-share versus the entire rest of the industry (Fitbit + Garmin + Samsung +...) can its success be minimized. In terms of revenu only Rolex makes more. Failed my a$$
...we're guessing. Apple hasn't ever discussed unit numbers sold or the revenue connected with the Apple Watch AFAIK. Still likely it's been pretty successful despite lack of official comments.
Apple wasn't guessing when they made this claim, so it's a fact in my book. This figure is reported as in revenue:
I wonder if you might be among the first to complain that Apple dared to sell half-"refreshed" products within a few months of a major upgrade.
Within the last few days I've already seen (on this site) people complaining that the MBP that they bought could be refreshed again in first half of this year because Intel just started shipping the Kaby Lake processors that would work for these new MBP. This person also complained that the new MBP was crap and that the T1 chip with all that it controls was gimmicky, but they oddly kept the new MBP anyway and then also decided to complain about it not being "the new hotness" and that Kaby Lake won't do anything over Skylake. Apple can't win with some people.
I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing.
The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???
There is more to a machine than the CPU, everything has moved on since the 2015 release.
although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.
It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.
And what should they upgrade them with? The chips are part of a chipset which are part of a board that hasn't changed that much in years.
What about GPUs? Or can they only be upgraded when the CPU is upgraded? As I said in another post if it was as simple as Intel chips suitable for this product being delayed would there be this much complaining? I'm going to assume people like John Siracusa and Marco Arment are up to speed on Intel's roadmap and what chipsets are available.
Yes there would, because all the rags would say its poor upgrade that doesn't bring much to the table, and folk round here (you included) would agree.
That is your opinion. Companies such as ourselves don't care about marketing speak. I don't care about a big NEW MAC PRO announcement party and fancy video. I don't see Dell and HP throwing parties every time they update something for their workstations. They constantly and silently update their configure to order page as new parts become available, most of time offering both new and old parts at the same allowing customer decide what they want. Waiting three plus years to do a single thing is unacceptable and incompetent. period.
Ah yes, Apple's incompetent now. That's it, that's surely the problem! Not one of any number of other technical problems, or component problems, or supplier problems...just good old fashioned incompetence! Must be nice to live in a world where everything is so clear.
"I bought the LG UltraFine 5K display because there simply is no other option from Apple. If there had been, though, I would have bought it in a heartbeat."
It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic. To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.
Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.
" . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.
YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.
We've had this discussion before. Do you have anything to back up your absurd claim that LG told Apple that they don't want to sell them IGZO panels even though Apple puts them in their iMacs? Their are numerous companies selling IGZO displays. This post even refers to an 8K display from Dell. How is Dell able to design and get panels for their monitors, but Apple isn't? You honestly think Apple is not big enough to obtain panels if they wanted to make monitors. Thats proposterous.
You then claim that people are making "Arrogant assumptions" when there is no assumption to make. Apple publicly stated they no longer want to make monitors. You are the one that is arrogantly concocting a baseless story that Big Bad LG forced Apple out of the monitor business. That is a slanderous statement with absolutely no merit. Stop spreading your Fud.
Hilarious. The new disease of using your own unreason to accuse someone of unreason. Guess who has the reason problem.
"Their [sic] are numerous companies selling IGZO displays." — Are there any that could supply Apple with a few million with custom built-in I/O and graphics processing? Is the 8K Dell IGZO? Are other Dell monitors IGZO that will sell in the milions?
" . . . Apple is not big enough . . ." — Got you there, logician. Doesn't matter how big or how much money Apple has, if there aren't the production lines or the yield ratios, there's no surplus for Apple.
I have no hard information, only a regard for cause and effect based on logic. If IGZO is so easy to make in large, dense sizes, where are the Sharp monitors that Apple invested millions, like 100s of millions, in back in 2011 (as I recall).? I have questions. YOU are the one with the assumptions, which I wouldn't care about if you weren't here making an apocalyptic case, along with others, about Apple's competence.
What? You are the one that is hillarious. So you are saying, if Apple made an IGZO monitor, it would instantly sell in the millions and they wouldn't be able to meet supply. So to deal with this problem, they decided to abandon monitors completely and forgo millions of sales. Man... thats comedy gold.
Most companies would just price their product according to the market conditions. In other words increase price of the product until production capacity meets demand. But you're right. its my logic thats flawed. your crazy stories is what really happened.
I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing.
The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???
There is more to a machine than the CPU, everything has moved on since the 2015 release.
although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.
It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.
And what should they upgrade them with? The chips are part of a chipset which are part of a board that hasn't changed that much in years.
What about GPUs? Or can they only be upgraded when the CPU is upgraded? As I said in another post if it was as simple as Intel chips suitable for this product being delayed would there be this much complaining? I'm going to assume people like John Siracusa and Marco Arment are up to speed on Intel's roadmap and what chipsets are available.
Yes there would, because all the rags would say its poor upgrade that doesn't bring much to the table, and folk round here (you included) would agree.
That is your opinion. Companies such as ourselves don't care about marketing speak. I don't care about a big NEW MAC PRO announcement party and fancy video. I don't see Dell and HP throwing parties every time they update something for their workstations. They constantly and silently update their configure to order page as new parts become available, most of time offering both new and old parts at the same allowing customer decide what they want. Waiting three plus years to do a single thing is unacceptable and incompetent. period.
Cook has committed Leadership Malpractice by not keeping the Pro and Mini updated.
While at the same time making more money than any other public corporation in the history of the human race. How odd that Apple continues to earn so much from its customers despite the malcontents telling us how poorly a job Apple is doing. Who is buying these things!? Victims. Victims are buying them. Surely.
I feel sorry for Tim and his family that he got a pay cut. But I feel more sorry for all of us who got a failed watch, delayed air pods, no more displays or airports, cancelled car, a 4 year old iPhone case design and a MBP with no ports and the wrong battery. I don't know what Tim's issue has been but I have faith he can turn it around this year, last year he made a lot of failed promises, this year I hope his actions speak louder than his words. Learning to type and use a Mac would be a great start, even just touching or holding a Mac at a keynote, that would make us happy.
1) Failed watch? In what parallel universe are you living in? Before the first Apple Watch was announced, the company was being blasted for missing out on the wearables revolution. Then they release it, blow everyone out of the water and it is now being peddled as a failure? Only by comparing Apple watch market-share versus the entire rest of the industry (Fitbit + Garmin + Samsung +...) can its success be minimized. In terms of revenu only Rolex makes more. Failed my a$$
...we're guessing. Apple hasn't ever discussed unit numbers sold or the revenue connected with the Apple Watch AFAIK. Still likely it's been pretty successful despite lack of official comments.
Apple has been the sole company that would regularly discuss CE unit sales and I'm glad they're pulling away from that. All it does it make the stock price more volatile with a pointless metric.
Let's remember Apple made this decision with this iPhone accessory (and now iPhone+Mac accessory), when they announced the product, which was well before it ever went on sale.
It would be foolhardy to make Watch unit sales a constant because the end result would be for pundits to point out that Apple sucks because Rolex's ARP is considerably higher and then say Apple sucks because Fitbit sells more units even though their price points are much lower and aren't smartwatches. None of that benefits Apple and they still have to contend with it even when their revenues (and likely their profits) for that one product category is larger than most CE companies in their entirety.
It's still the first thing I put on in the morning and the last thing I take off at night. I'm still using the original but I do plan to buy another—likely with their next HW upgrade.
PS: I wonder if the Mac mini being milled from a single block of aluminum into a hollowed casing was a testing ground before the Watch casing was solidified for production. I wonder if the 2016 iPhone would be waterproof if they hadn't released the Watch in 2015.
And if the miniaturization for the Watch led to the W1 and the AirPods. Or putting an A-D converter into a Lightning plug, what's that kind of finessing going to lead to?
They are so far ahead of the rest of the industry in evolving all this stuff coherently and at scale that people can't even see it.
I feel sorry for Tim and his family that he got a pay cut. But I feel more sorry for all of us who got a failed watch, delayed air pods, no more displays or airports, cancelled car, a 4 year old iPhone case design and a MBP with no ports and the wrong battery. I don't know what Tim's issue has been but I have faith he can turn it around this year, last year he made a lot of failed promises, this year I hope his actions speak louder than his words. Learning to type and use a Mac would be a great start, even just touching or holding a Mac at a keynote, that would make us happy.
1) Failed watch? In what parallel universe are you living in? Before the first Apple Watch was announced, the company was being blasted for missing out on the wearables revolution. Then they release it, blow everyone out of the water and it is now being peddled as a failure? Only by comparing Apple watch market-share versus the entire rest of the industry (Fitbit + Garmin + Samsung +...) can its success be minimized. In terms of revenu only Rolex makes more. Failed my a$$
...we're guessing. Apple hasn't ever discussed unit numbers sold or the revenue connected with the Apple Watch AFAIK. Still likely it's been pretty successful despite lack of official comments.
Apple wasn't guessing when they made this claim, so it's a fact in my book. This figure is reported as in revenue:
I'm looking at that study and missed that it said "Apple Worldwide Watch Study" at the bottom. Must be a foreign spelling huh?
Not at all saying they aren't #2, just as I already stated in my first comment. Absolutely believable that they are, but that chart did not originate with Apple, wasn't based on Apple market research and not likely to have used authentic revenue numbers that Apple gave the company that did. That chart relied on some guessing AFAICT. And yes as I also said earlier probably very good guessing.
There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017. It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
Just like between people, when something bad happens and you explain yourself, it makes whatever bad thing happened easier to deal with, same thing will Apple. Would it kill them to explain why they have not updated their Mac Pro?
Apple has never ruined the surprise or uncovered the mystery around their strategic operations, nor should they. They wouldn't be Apple if they did.
You might get an occasional explanation about something minor like the white iPhone 4, but on the major platform moves it seems Apple lets the handwringers have enough room to make themselves look stupid when the shoe finally drops.
Trouble is, the handwringers never seem to learn that the company knows what it's doing. At least this means that the Maclope still has a job.
I think the problem is they don't. Not long term. They seem to have one strategy track and that's pursuit of ever increasing profit margins. The product is suffering and they aren't responding to this. It's been three years of decline and no turnaround.
Do you realize the absurdity of your claim when confronted w/ the fact that Apple has been building computers for 40 years? 40 frikken years, man. They're the only still-standing PC maker. And you claim they don't think long term!? Also, please cite your data that their profit margin is ever-increasing. As I recall from the last earnings call the margin was going down, not up.
And the product is suffering? Give me a break. Best smartphone, best tablet, best notebook, best headphones, best desktop, best smartwatch I've ever owned.
I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.
With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.
Piss poor management, very unusual.
Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing.
The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
If Intels chips aren't producing significant speed gains then what is the point upgrading the machines? Well, there isn't any, unless you can come up with the tech to work around it.
Not really though. The chips didn't improve, so the suggestion here is that Apple takes the existing chips and pack more cores into a larger case.
Pardon Me?
So what you are telling me is that there is no improvement in these processors. That a 22 core E5v4 would render our scenes at roughly the same speed as a 12 core E5v2. I think you need to do some more investigating on this before you continue spewing out your false assumptions.
The socket and thermal properties are exactly the same. Using the new chips is just a simple swap with no case design change required, you know like Dell and HP are able to do or are you saying Dell and HP have super case designs where they were able to update their workstations twice in this time but Apple can't.
Are you also claiming there were no advancements in GPU's. That the D-700 is equivalent to what HP and Dell offer in their workstations. You know like the Nvidia Quadro line or even the low priced 1080 GTX. Again I think you need to do some more investigating to see how behind Apple is on this.
Actually I was just saying why post #77 wasn't the answer: it's not Apple's style to solve the problem by putting more of the same cores in a larger case. They rarely go bigger unless there's a good reason.
But reading your points it's like you've never read a single thing about the way Apple designs its machines. Yes, I'm sure that chips will work in Dell and HP machines but then I've never had a Dell or HP machine last half as long as an Apple box, and the reason I imagine, is that Apple takes a lot more care of how the put their gear together. The components they use aren't the most powerful, or the most up to date, but they work within the ridiculously close tolerances that they set for the machines they build. Just because an upgraded chip will work in a Dell case, doesn't mean it'll work in Apple's. Now, they could put them in the same cases as HP and Dell (and I can imagine the whining you'd do if they did) but as I said, that isn't their style.
But you are right, this is on Apple. They could easily build a big ugly case with loads of fans and give the whingers here could then bleat on about how ugly it is. They simply chose not to. If you disagree then buy another machine.
I don't thing you are understanding. The newer 22core E5v4 is a direct replacement part for the 12 core E5v2. The case or anything else would not have to be changed what so ever.
I have been using Macs since 1984. I have a clear understanding of how well Apple designs their machines, thats why we use them. At the same time, I'm also not a blind follower and know when they screw up. The 2013 MacPro design is a flawed disaster. People that use these machines such as myself don't care what they look like or how small they are. Removing major functionality by removing a cpu, creating proprietary GPU's which hand cuffs the user and themselves to easily update them, and then ignoring them for years at a time is not something I am happy about.
You can get away with this if your competitors are doing the same. But the competition is so far ahead, its not even funny anymore.
Comments
But reading your points it's like you've never read a single thing about the way Apple designs its machines. Yes, I'm sure that chips will work in Dell and HP machines but then I've never had a Dell or HP machine last half as long as an Apple box, and the reason I imagine, is that Apple takes a lot more care of how the put their gear together. The components they use aren't the most powerful, or the most up to date, but they work within the ridiculously close tolerances that they set for the machines they build. Just because an upgraded chip will work in a Dell case, doesn't mean it'll work in Apple's. Now, they could put them in the same cases as HP and Dell (and I can imagine the whining you'd do if they did) but as I said, that isn't their style.
But you are right, this is on Apple. They could easily build a big ugly case with loads of fans and give the whingers here could then bleat on about how ugly it is. They simply chose not to. If you disagree then buy another machine.
What a strange thing to say. I believe you're confusing your wants for those of everyone?
I want thin devices, because theyre lighter and more portable and closer to the imagined devices in scifi -- impossibly thin. I don't need a bunch of legacy ports, and would prefer USBC since it will give it longer useful lifespan. My current older MBP cost more than the lower MBP options do.
"Their [sic] are numerous companies selling IGZO displays." — Are there any that could supply Apple with a few million with custom built-in I/O and graphics processing? Is the 8K Dell IGZO? Are other Dell monitors IGZO that will sell in the milions?
" . . . Apple is not big enough . . ." — Got you there, logician. Doesn't matter how big or how much money Apple has, if there aren't the production lines or the yield ratios, there's no surplus for Apple.
I have no hard information, only a regard for cause and effect based on logic. If IGZO is so easy to make in large, dense sizes, where are the Sharp monitors that Apple invested millions, like 100s of millions, in back in 2011 (as I recall).? I have questions. YOU are the one with the assumptions, which I wouldn't care about if you weren't here making an apocalyptic case, along with others, about Apple's competence.
Oh dear, somebody doesn't understand how software works. iOS 10 may run slower on a device that originally shipped with iOS 6, but it's not slow by any means. I'm on a 7 and have no complaints about iOS 10 speed.
But yes, in general any OS that's three years newer is going to push the limits of older hardware more than a three-year-old OS will. That's the cost of new features -- they require better hardware.
Since you're picking up the troll trope of "all we get are new watch straps" (courtesy of MR), can you please cite where he's ever done such a thing? Mkthx
directly.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/apple-pushes-external-monitor-development-to-lg-for-new-laptops
The third paragraph in this report sums up their position pretty nicely.
Now I would like to understand what are the plenty of unfounded claims I made or do you just like making stuff up? Maybe you should get into fiction writing, it would suit you well.
Very low value post.
Their gross margin never changes, it hovers around 38% year after year. If you think that's too much for what they have done and are going to do for the world, fine. But they aren't getting greedier or lazier or "sitting on their laurels'" etc. Their product introductions are based on the available technology and probably the limited talent they can squeeze into their crowded and chaotic physical plant. (See, that's why they're building a very expensive new headquarters — not greed.)
I'd hate for the Macalope to run out of material.
Ah yes, Apple's incompetent now. That's it, that's surely the problem! Not one of any number of other technical problems, or component problems, or supplier problems...just good old fashioned incompetence! Must be nice to live in a world where everything is so clear.
smh
Most companies would just price their product according to the market conditions. In other words increase price of the product until production capacity meets demand. But you're right. its my logic thats flawed. your crazy stories is what really happened.
While at the same time making more money than any other public corporation in the history of the human race. How odd that Apple continues to earn so much from its customers despite the malcontents telling us how poorly a job Apple is doing. Who is buying these things!? Victims. Victims are buying them. Surely.
They are so far ahead of the rest of the industry in evolving all this stuff coherently and at scale that people can't even see it.
Not at all saying they aren't #2, just as I already stated in my first comment. Absolutely believable that they are, but that chart did not originate with Apple, wasn't based on Apple market research and not likely to have used authentic revenue numbers that Apple gave the company that did. That chart relied on some guessing AFAICT. And yes as I also said earlier probably very good guessing.
And the product is suffering? Give me a break. Best smartphone, best tablet, best notebook, best headphones, best desktop, best smartwatch I've ever owned.
I have been using Macs since 1984. I have a clear understanding of how well Apple designs their machines, thats why we use them. At the same time, I'm also not a blind follower and know when they screw up. The 2013 MacPro design is a flawed disaster. People that use these machines such as myself don't care what they look like or how small they are. Removing major functionality by removing a cpu, creating proprietary GPU's which hand cuffs the user and themselves to easily update them, and then ignoring them for years at a time is not something I am happy about.
You can get away with this if your competitors are doing the same. But the competition is so far ahead, its not even funny anymore.