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.
Yes but the fact that Apple took Vontobel's report findings and re-reported it during a worldwide keynote means they feel very confident about it as well. So far, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that it's true. Certainly none provided in this thread.
" . . . 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.
Like Soli said, I'm giving out a possible, reasonable scenario that would make your unsupported assumption look ridiculous if my scenario were true, but ridiculous mostly because you attach such corrosive energy toward your tool supplier for not giving what you say you need so desperately.
Young Gurman's third paragraph has three unwarrented assumptions in it. He has no evidence for any of the three. By the way, the only evidence anyone ever cites for Apple's public pronouncements on their monitor plans came from Nilay Patel, who I wouldn't rely on like you seem to do.
His compensation was not cut, he did not earn his end-of-year performance bonus, just like the rest of the execs. Such poorly written headlines all over the Internet.
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.
God, that's it! That's why they're so unhappy here. Maybe I should start feeling sorry for myself . . .
" . . . 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.
Like Soli said, I'm giving out a possible, reasonable scenario that would make your unsupported assumption look ridiculous if my scenario were true, but ridiculous mostly because you attach such corrosive energy toward your tool supplier for not giving what you say you need so desperately.
Young Gurman's third paragraph has three unwarrented assumptions in it. He has no evidence for any of the three. By the way, the only evidence anyone ever cites for Apple's public pronouncements on their monitor plans came from Nilay Patel, who I wouldn't rely on like you seem to do.
Yeah I don't get this concern troll's vitriol here -- it was very clear that you were not "claiming" this is what happened, but rather were putting forth one scenario.
Because the truth is, we don't know and will likely never know. Just like nearly any of Apple's product decisions. (It's very rare that Apple goes on record about them, the only one I can think of is canning Xserve where Jobs said they weren't selling well, but even that was only a reported email and not a press release). Anyone who claims otherwise, or claims Apple is doing it because they're dumb, incompetent, mean, etc, is being foolish.
"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.
Still missing the point. You lost it at "millions." Over the course of the LG 4&5k's life, they will sell in the millions, just like Apple would.
Until LG can expand production, they can say to Apple, sorry, the best we can do is help you out with some custom internals. So goes my reasoning. You have no idea if this is true or not. You therefore can't assume that Apple has dropped the ball on monitors.
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.
Yes but the fact that Apple took Vontobel's report findings and re-reported it during a worldwide keynote means they feel very confident about it as well. So far, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that it's true. Certainly none provided in this thread.
I agree. I've no reason to doubt it's true either. And as much as you and I and many many others agree that still doesn't make it a verifiable fact and thus becomes a well-researched guess, correct? No big deal really. My original post was simply pointing that out, not suggesting that it wasn't true. It probably is.
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.
Now here you're on more solid ground, speculatively, in my opinion, meaning I don't know anything either. It may very well be that the new Pro has a limitation in the design that has to be corrected in the second generation, and that is causing a delay in revising the platform.
In other words, they may be working on a total revision and they have no rationale for a partial. I can easily see that the architecture of their passive heat management got them in trouble when it comes to minor revisions. But I can also see that Intel's schedule has tripped them up timing-wise. A new processor just this last March may be too close to the present, for example, when new graphics options are imminent.
Again, the point is we don't know, so it's wiser not to shriek about injustice to the pros.
While CEO's need to help their companies perform, it should be for the long run. This type of thinking makes them focus on next year's earning instead of the next 10 year's products.
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.
Hilarious.
The machine's a disaster. Apple is screwing up. And instead of changing to another platform, you're still here whining about it. And you call other people blind followers?
Well, let me open your eyes a little. The Mac isn't going anywhere. It is simply evolving as Apple's user base evolves. The machines get lighter because that's what Apple's evolving user base wants. The next version won't have ten free slots and it won't have ten free drive bays. It will small, fast and quiet, because it will be designed for use in a small open plan office, not a garage.
It will not be the machine for you. Apple will not build a machine for you ever again because you are unable to adapt to the evolving market. You are the previous generation of professionals. Apple is chasing the next generation who they will eventually dump and focus on the generation after that. The market is the same: the affluent professional, the only thing that changes is the people in it and the type of devices they prefer to use. To Apple, you are old news.
It's clear that Apple doesn't make the kit for you, so I can only assume that your insistence on sticking with it is some sort of fashion thing. I suggest you move on. There are Windows and Linux boxes that are much more suited to your needs and many of them are very good. Apple isn't obliged to build their future around people who are not going to be around much longer, relatively speaking.
But that's okay, because the competition you were speaking about? The ones who are so far ahead that it isn't even funny? They're building the machines for you.
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.
You make a fair and astute point. Unless Apple gave Vontobel Apple's revenue figures for Watch tucked away in their "Other Products" data summary, they'd have to guess. Depending on how Cook(?) worded his statements when this slide was presented it could mean that Apple was actually lower than Fossil, but Cook has been a straight shooter so I doubt that he'd use weasel words, but we can't be 100% certain.
All we can know is that Apple wouldn't have placed themselves as #2 if they looked at Rolex's annual revenue reports and knew that they were ahead. If and when that occurs I would expect Apple to boost about their success.
The Catch-22 is that if it did say "Apple Worldwide Watch Study" that would cause even more problems for Apple since it wouldn't be an independent report. It would be like Samsung saying their phones are the least likely to explode and the fine print saying the report was done by the "Samsung Safety Counsel."
Maybe this year they will focuse more on innovation, and making better products, and stay out of politics.
You need to be involved in politics. There were plenty of successful companies that went down with the ship in WWII. Unfortunately the government does not make wise decisions, especially involving technology but evidently in human rights either. Apple is leading in this area.
"Human rights" involvement (whatever that means) is not Apple's purpose. Their purpose is to design and make "insanely great" things. That's it.
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 doesn't comment on products. You know this. Also, I don't think Apple wants to start a pissing match between them and Intel blaming them for the reason why they cannot update the Mac Pro among other Mac models. Apple never comments on much of anything until they have something to introduce. Since Intel is basically holding Apple back they have nothing to release at this point. Same was true for the iMac until just recently.
Exactly. Hopefully will just fuel Apple's drive to get its own chips into Macs and no longer be beholden to Intel.
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.
It's way more fun for these hysterical types to clutch their pearls and get the vapours though. Fun for them that is.
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.
Yes but the fact that Apple took Vontobel's report findings and re-reported it during a worldwide keynote means they feel very confident about it as well. So far, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that it's true. Certainly none provided in this thread.
I agree. I've no reason to doubt it's true either. And as much as you and I and many many others agree that still doesn't make it a verifiable fact and thus becomes a well-researched guess, correct? No big deal really. My original post was simply pointing that out, not suggesting that it wasn't true. It probably is.
Well, it's probably true because the Apple Watch is a damn sight cheaper than a Rolex and does a damn sight more.
"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.
No I don't know that but if LG wasn't willing to put in the effort to give the monitor Apple design aesthetics Apple should have said no thanks. When a fanboy like Rene Ritchie says he would choose a different option if one existed you know you have a problem.
According to the Mac Rumors buyers guide the Mac Pro was last updated 1,115 days ago. It's absolutely absurd that people here are defending that. The Mac mini was last updated 813 days ago. Is that Intel's fault too?
According to the Mac Rumors buyers guide the Mac Pro was last updated 1,115 days ago. It's absolutely absurd that people here are defending that. The Mac mini was last updated 813 days ago. Is that Intel's fault too?
Not a single person has defended a 1000+ day update cycle. What reasonable people have done is tell you to use a little critical thinking about its sales volume. Clearly Apple tried to invigorate the market for the Mac Pro with their long demonstration and new design, and clearly it wasn't effective enough that it made it a viable option to update yearly like the iPhone. The only people that get upset that Apple updates Macs are other whiny ass bitches that just bought Macs and then hear about Intel updating their processors. Everyone else would be happy if Apple updated their Macs with new features and better performance more frequently, but everyone else doesn't get upset when a corporation does bend to their singular will.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?
While CEO's need to help their companies perform, it should be for the long run. This type of thinking makes them focus on next year's earning instead of the next 10 year's products.
It shouldn't. Not a single one of them needs the money, nor could ever in their entire lifetimes spend the money they have already been paid in past years.
IMHO Apple's executive team should be doing the jobs because of the challenge, personal pride, or maybe even the love of the company and not more personal monetary compensation. And those things may be their motivation, but at this point in their executive careers they don't benefit from any more money. If a drop in bonus pay that they wouldn't ever need anyway is enough to make a couple of them lose focus on the long-term picture perhaps they aren't the best leads for Apple anyway. Just my.02
Comments
Young Gurman's third paragraph has three unwarrented assumptions in it. He has no evidence for any of the three. By the way, the only evidence anyone ever cites for Apple's public pronouncements on their monitor plans came from Nilay Patel, who I wouldn't rely on like you seem to do.
Because the truth is, we don't know and will likely never know. Just like nearly any of Apple's product decisions. (It's very rare that Apple goes on record about them, the only one I can think of is canning Xserve where Jobs said they weren't selling well, but even that was only a reported email and not a press release). Anyone who claims otherwise, or claims Apple is doing it because they're dumb, incompetent, mean, etc, is being foolish.
Still missing the point. You lost it at "millions." Over the course of the LG 4&5k's life, they will sell in the millions, just like Apple would.
Until LG can expand production, they can say to Apple, sorry, the best we can do is help you out with some custom internals. So goes my reasoning. You have no idea if this is true or not. You therefore can't assume that Apple has dropped the ball on monitors.
In other words, they may be working on a total revision and they have no rationale for a partial. I can easily see that the architecture of their passive heat management got them in trouble when it comes to minor revisions. But I can also see that Intel's schedule has tripped them up timing-wise. A new processor just this last March may be too close to the present, for example, when new graphics options are imminent.
Again, the point is we don't know, so it's wiser not to shriek about injustice to the pros.
The machine's a disaster.
Apple is screwing up.
And instead of changing to another platform, you're still here whining about it.
And you call other people blind followers?
Well, let me open your eyes a little. The Mac isn't going anywhere. It is simply evolving as Apple's user base evolves. The machines get lighter because that's what Apple's evolving user base wants. The next version won't have ten free slots and it won't have ten free drive bays. It will small, fast and quiet, because it will be designed for use in a small open plan office, not a garage.
It will not be the machine for you. Apple will not build a machine for you ever again because you are unable to adapt to the evolving market. You are the previous generation of professionals. Apple is chasing the next generation who they will eventually dump and focus on the generation after that. The market is the same: the affluent professional, the only thing that changes is the people in it and the type of devices they prefer to use. To Apple, you are old news.
It's clear that Apple doesn't make the kit for you, so I can only assume that your insistence on sticking with it is some sort of fashion thing. I suggest you move on. There are Windows and Linux boxes that are much more suited to your needs and many of them are very good. Apple isn't obliged to build their future around people who are not going to be around much longer, relatively speaking.
But that's okay, because the competition you were speaking about? The ones who are so far ahead that it isn't even funny? They're building the machines for you.
All we can know is that Apple wouldn't have placed themselves as #2 if they looked at Rolex's annual revenue reports and knew that they were ahead. If and when that occurs I would expect Apple to boost about their success.
The Catch-22 is that if it did say "Apple Worldwide Watch Study" that would cause even more problems for Apple since it wouldn't be an independent report. It would be like Samsung saying their phones are the least likely to explode and the fine print saying the report was done by the "Samsung Safety Counsel."
That's not it at all; it's to "sell" them.
Well, it's probably true because the Apple Watch is a damn sight cheaper than a Rolex and does a damn sight more.
PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?