riiight. tell me again what a Chrome OS notebook can do that its competitors cant? run windows? no. run office? no. run VMs? no. so...what is its reason for being?
Fast boot times, basically impervious to viruses and malware, simple to use, good battery life, light, great for multiple users...
They have their niche.
EDIT: Not entirely certain if you were saying Chromebooks couldn't run VM's or Microsoft Office apps? You might do a bit of checking if that's your belief.
The Macbook is an ultra portable laptop not the "ultimate laptop" and it serves that market very well (it is a sizeable market). It is not a power laptop, that is the Macbook Pro lineup which is what the Surface Book is suppose to be compared to.
I wasn't comparing the two computers, only commenting that USB 3 is apparently considered fast enough for typical notebook external devices, at least by Apple standards.
I should have added a "C" to USB. But either port, Thunderbolt or USB C is better than none.
USB-C is the connector. When the Macbook was launched it was the 3.1 (actually 3.0 renamed) USB standard datastream on USB-C. With Thunderbolt 3 it builds on that it will use the USB-C connector for Thunderbolt devices, or you can plug USB devices in, or monitors -- all one standard plug type.
I should have added a "C" to USB. But either port, Thunderbolt or USB C is better than none.
USB 3 is still slow because Flash memory sticks are slow. I assumed that is the usage you were suggesting to move the data. I'm not aware of any way to network over USB 3 without ethernet adapters, but there may very well be some way to do it. Let me know.
Apple is apparently not interested in pursuing the "earring" market being content with their earpods and beats headphones. I think it is a smart move they licensed their "beats" technology to Google and Microsoft. Let them go after the hipster market with their beats earrings. Apple will dominate the ear with headphones and earpods.
Year of the Ear! (Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?)
Googles new beats earrings are called "Glugs" (google earplugs). Microsofts are called erings v.1.0 (better than Zune or KIN).
Imagine Apple Insider saying something negative about Microsoft products. Really at the end of the day this is an Apple fan boy site so one would expect anything written about Microsoft to be negative, even if it isn't true. Keep it up Apple fans love this kind of reporting.
Well, frack, go away then buddy, what's stopping you: the itch to bitch?
Either you prove what is said is false or you shut the hell up.
You folks are all missing the point...
They buried the lead. The big news is that after Apple has gone after your wrist with the a-watch, now Google and Microsoft are going after your ears by licensing "beats" technology for incorporation into Google earrings and Microsoft earrings. Forget Glass - the ear is where it's at! Don't believe me? It's right there (buried) in the article. The author has let the cat out of the bag. I quote:
>>
And yet investors were throwing money at both Google and Microsoft this week as both announced earrings that "beat" expectations.
<<
It says both Microsoft AND Google have announced new "earring" products with expectation of "beats" technology in them. This surprise introduction of new beats earrings from Google and Microsoft only proves that wearables are important (Apple was first with the wrist) and that they are going after the hipster market in a big way. It's all about the ear now.
Do you understand the definition of monopoly? Go look it up please. Apple is nowhere close to being a monopoly in anything.
The Surface has a minuscule marketshare. In the past 12 months, going by the sales dollars they posted in their financials, there were no more than about 3 million Surface tablets sold for the entire year. That's nothing.
Like I said you can put up all the figures you like, but the point I'm making is that Apple has serious competition from Microsoft who are finally becoming innovative and beginning to building devices that people actually like. Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked.
As for the Monopoly its more of metaphor since Apple likes to walk that fine line between it.
But I'm not the one trying to convince everyone that comments on an article that they are wrong by trying to defend it.
Daniel, another great article. While some have more tech data and others like this one, point out just how sneaky Microsoft and its fleet of bloggers can be, I enjoy both.
PS, have not seen that many articles lately. Whats up?
Like I said you can put up all the figures you like, but the point I'm making is that Apple has serious competition from Microsoft who are finally becoming innovative and beginning to building devices that people actually like. Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked.
As for the Monopoly its more of metaphor since Apple likes to walk that fine line between it.
But I'm not the one trying to convince everyone that comments on an article that they are wrong by trying to defend it.
I'm sure you will be first to notify us all when MS is "serious" competition in mobile.
Like I said you can put up all the figures you like, but the point I'm making is that Apple has serious competition from Microsoft who are finally becoming innovative and beginning to building devices that people actually like. Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked.
As for the Monopoly its more of metaphor since Apple likes to walk that fine line between it.
But I'm not the one trying to convince everyone that comments on an article that they are wrong by trying to defend it.
"Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked."
That's what they say but I don't believe them. This is a slow transition of the Windows client division becoming a direct competitor to not only Apple but their OEM's. In the long run, there is no money selling OS licenses. That ship has sailed and MS is designing / selling high-margin devices as a way to offset any losses / decline from Windows license revenue. It won't happen over night as this is a long-term play.
Not that I'm taking a dig at their strategy but I don't believe their reasoning behind. The real question is, how will this Apple when it comes to sales of their iPads / Macs?
Like I said you can put up all the figures you like, but the point I'm making is that Apple has serious competition from Microsoft who are finally becoming innovative and beginning to building devices that people actually like. Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked.
As for the Monopoly its more of metaphor since Apple likes to walk that fine line between it.
But I'm not the one trying to convince everyone that comments on an article that they are wrong by trying to defend it.
The excuse that Microsoft is spending lots of money to develop more integrated products "just like Apple" simply to give its licensees better direction on how to make products running its generic platform, and that it therefore doesn't need to actually sell any of them to be "successful" was already used to flatter Google's Nexus program.
The problem is, all that flattery did nothing for Google and won't help Microsoft either.
And the third rate hardware makers who don't know how to integrate (or write their own) software haven't benefited from years of Nexus or Surface models to copy. In fact, they've all been copying Apple themselves (Galaxy, Ultrabook), and at still unsuccessful even at that.
At some point, you have to stop making excuses for companies trying to copy Apple. Also, saying Microsoft isn't copying Apple because it's doing something with arbitrary differences that are very unApple-like was also used to defend Windows and Android for years. But the reality is that the most successful Android and Windows products are ones that directly copy Apple's products the closest. The really experimental stuff doesn't fly at all. At least its all failed for the last decade.
Microsoft could theoretically develop something really incredible, but it still wouldn't matter if the company also lacked:
a) the ability to manufacture at massive scale
b) the ability to sell at massive scale
c) the ability to sell at a sustainable profit
These are all incredibly important to Apple's business model of developing advanced future tech and bringing the price down rapidly through massive volumes of profitable sales. Some boutique-craft project is not going to cut it because it won't be able to pay for itself. That's a core issue for Nexus, Nvidia, Zune, Moto X etc.
?Surface Book is more expensive than a MacBook Pro. It's also several times more expensive than generic PC laptops. Microsoft can't manufacture them at scale because there's no demand for expensive PC laptops. If there were, all the PC makers would be selling them. They can't themselves, and Microsoft is less capable of building PCs at scale than its hardware partners.
Without hardware profits, Surface is nothing more than a vanity brand like Nexus. No amount of tech enthusiast press praise is going to make high end flagships out of commodity-tugboats.
Comments
They have their niche.
EDIT: Not entirely certain if you were saying Chromebooks couldn't run VM's or Microsoft Office apps? You might do a bit of checking if that's your belief.
how bout Apple Canvas?
That is the iPad... I am just upset they did not name the iPad Pro .... MaxiPad.
You shouldn't be. Surface is for memo writing sales people, not heavy duty power users. WiFi is plenty fast for office workers.
You should check out this review of the SP4 by FStoppers, a site dedicated to pro photographers. They don't seem to agree with your position.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/surface-pro-4-review-tablet-professionals-93573
On a side note, and out of interest, you may want to check out this comparison between a $2,700 SB and a $2,500 15" rMBP.
https://fstoppers.com/gear/surface-book-vs-macbook-pro-15-macbook-twice-fast-93596
The Macbook is an ultra portable laptop not the "ultimate laptop" and it serves that market very well (it is a sizeable market). It is not a power laptop, that is the Macbook Pro lineup which is what the Surface Book is suppose to be compared to.
I wasn't comparing the two computers, only commenting that USB 3 is apparently considered fast enough for typical notebook external devices, at least by Apple standards.
That is the iPad... I am just upset they did not name the iPad Pro .... MaxiPad.
The post I was replying to was talking about coming up with a nomenclature for a supposed touch-based "Mac."
I should have added a "C" to USB. But either port, Thunderbolt or USB C is better than none.
USB-C is the connector. When the Macbook was launched it was the 3.1 (actually 3.0 renamed) USB standard datastream on USB-C. With Thunderbolt 3 it builds on that it will use the USB-C connector for Thunderbolt devices, or you can plug USB devices in, or monitors -- all one standard plug type.
The post I was replying to was talking about coming up with a nomenclature for a supposed touch-based "Mac."
How about Your-Dreaming.....
I should have added a "C" to USB. But either port, Thunderbolt or USB C is better than none.
USB 3 is still slow because Flash memory sticks are slow. I assumed that is the usage you were suggesting to move the data. I'm not aware of any way to network over USB 3 without ethernet adapters, but there may very well be some way to do it. Let me know.
There’s Jonathan, but he’s probably not that vain.
Year of the Ear! (Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?)
Googles new beats earrings are called "Glugs" (google earplugs). Microsofts are called erings v.1.0 (better than Zune or KIN).
Imagine Apple Insider saying something negative about Microsoft products. Really at the end of the day this is an Apple fan boy site so one would expect anything written about Microsoft to be negative, even if it isn't true. Keep it up Apple fans love this kind of reporting.
Well, frack, go away then buddy, what's stopping you: the itch to bitch?
Either you prove what is said is false or you shut the hell up.
That's how it's done in the AI....
Year of the Ear!
Year of the Ear!
On drugs I assume.
Like I said you can put up all the figures you like, but the point I'm making is that Apple has serious competition from Microsoft who are finally becoming innovative and beginning to building devices that people actually like. Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked.
As for the Monopoly its more of metaphor since Apple likes to walk that fine line between it.
But I'm not the one trying to convince everyone that comments on an article that they are wrong by trying to defend it.
PS, have not seen that many articles lately. Whats up?
Like I said you can put up all the figures you like, but the point I'm making is that Apple has serious competition from Microsoft who are finally becoming innovative and beginning to building devices that people actually like. Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked.
As for the Monopoly its more of metaphor since Apple likes to walk that fine line between it.
But I'm not the one trying to convince everyone that comments on an article that they are wrong by trying to defend it.
I'm sure you will be first to notify us all when MS is "serious" competition in mobile.
Assume away...
...you Canadian hipster doofus.
Like I said you can put up all the figures you like, but the point I'm making is that Apple has serious competition from Microsoft who are finally becoming innovative and beginning to building devices that people actually like. Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked.
As for the Monopoly its more of metaphor since Apple likes to walk that fine line between it.
But I'm not the one trying to convince everyone that comments on an article that they are wrong by trying to defend it.
"Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked."
That's what they say but I don't believe them. This is a slow transition of the Windows client division becoming a direct competitor to not only Apple but their OEM's. In the long run, there is no money selling OS licenses. That ship has sailed and MS is designing / selling high-margin devices as a way to offset any losses / decline from Windows license revenue. It won't happen over night as this is a long-term play.
Not that I'm taking a dig at their strategy but I don't believe their reasoning behind. The real question is, how will this Apple when it comes to sales of their iPads / Macs?
Like I said you can put up all the figures you like, but the point I'm making is that Apple has serious competition from Microsoft who are finally becoming innovative and beginning to building devices that people actually like. Microsoft isn't trying to selling 20-40 million devices a quarter, they are setting a higher bar for the PC manufacturers to build better quality devices that the PC industry has lacked.
As for the Monopoly its more of metaphor since Apple likes to walk that fine line between it.
But I'm not the one trying to convince everyone that comments on an article that they are wrong by trying to defend it.
The excuse that Microsoft is spending lots of money to develop more integrated products "just like Apple" simply to give its licensees better direction on how to make products running its generic platform, and that it therefore doesn't need to actually sell any of them to be "successful" was already used to flatter Google's Nexus program.
The problem is, all that flattery did nothing for Google and won't help Microsoft either.
And the third rate hardware makers who don't know how to integrate (or write their own) software haven't benefited from years of Nexus or Surface models to copy. In fact, they've all been copying Apple themselves (Galaxy, Ultrabook), and at still unsuccessful even at that.
At some point, you have to stop making excuses for companies trying to copy Apple. Also, saying Microsoft isn't copying Apple because it's doing something with arbitrary differences that are very unApple-like was also used to defend Windows and Android for years. But the reality is that the most successful Android and Windows products are ones that directly copy Apple's products the closest. The really experimental stuff doesn't fly at all. At least its all failed for the last decade.
Microsoft could theoretically develop something really incredible, but it still wouldn't matter if the company also lacked:
a) the ability to manufacture at massive scale
b) the ability to sell at massive scale
c) the ability to sell at a sustainable profit
These are all incredibly important to Apple's business model of developing advanced future tech and bringing the price down rapidly through massive volumes of profitable sales. Some boutique-craft project is not going to cut it because it won't be able to pay for itself. That's a core issue for Nexus, Nvidia, Zune, Moto X etc.
?Surface Book is more expensive than a MacBook Pro. It's also several times more expensive than generic PC laptops. Microsoft can't manufacture them at scale because there's no demand for expensive PC laptops. If there were, all the PC makers would be selling them. They can't themselves, and Microsoft is less capable of building PCs at scale than its hardware partners.
Without hardware profits, Surface is nothing more than a vanity brand like Nexus. No amount of tech enthusiast press praise is going to make high end flagships out of commodity-tugboats.