I am glad Apple is out of the monitor business, $10,000 for 21.5 in display (exaggeration)? but wtf yeah right. But not only that, with Apple's product line getting broader, this gives them time to focus on the A-series chips, the Watch, AppleTV etc, and Macs themselves hopefully...
I am glad Apple is out of the monitor business, $10,000 for 21.5 in display (exaggeration)? but wtf yeah right. But not only that, with Apple's product line getting broader, this gives them time to focus on the A-series chips, the Watch, AppleTV etc, and Macs themselves hopefully...
I've read comments like this over the years, as if Apple is dedicating what little resources they have focus on making better products. Sorry, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard on a forum. Apple for the most part makes great stuff; I've enjoyed many of their products over the years. But to think that cutting out monitors will help them allocate resources to other programs? Beyond the pale. Apple has 115,000 employees working in Cupertino alone. Obviously not all of them are engineers, but that's still a massive amount of people to work on a very limited number of products that, at the end of the day, use very similar software. To put your comment in perspective: Boeing has 160,000 people in their entire company world wide, and builds a far more diverse portfolio (in both the commercial and defense industries) than Apple. So sorry to say it, but I'm not buying the "cutting this product line gives Apple more time to focus on their core products).
Two other thoughts: more engineers on a project does not equal a better product. There is a point at which "too many cooks spoil the broth". Been there; done that. And second, along the same line of reasoning as your comment seems to infer (that of getting out of the monitor business because it was a slow seller?): why not use the same excuse to start killing off most of Apple's computer lineup? I mean, the only ones worth investing in at this point are the MacBook Pro and the iMac; everything else, most likely, are a small percentage of profits, and computers as a whole is only 12% or so of Apple's profits. Why not kill off the Mini, the Pro, and the MacBook (not sure about the Air)?
I am glad Apple is out of the monitor business, $10,000 for 21.5 in display (exaggeration)? but wtf yeah right. But not only that, with Apple's product line getting broader, this gives them time to focus on the A-series chips, the Watch, AppleTV etc, and Macs themselves hopefully...
I've read comments like this over the years, as if Apple is dedicating what little resources they have focus on making better products. Sorry, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard on a forum. Apple for the most part makes great stuff; I've enjoyed many of their products over the years. But to think that cutting out monitors will help them allocate resources to other programs? Beyond the pale. Apple has 115,000 employees working in Cupertino alone. Obviously not all of them are engineers, but that's still a massive amount of people to work on a very limited number of products that, at the end of the day, use very similar software. To put your comment in perspective: Boeing has 160,000 people in their entire company world wide, and builds a far more diverse portfolio (in both the commercial and defense industries) than Apple. So sorry to say it, but I'm not buying the "cutting this product line gives Apple more time to focus on their core products).
Two other thoughts: more engineers on a project does not equal a better product. There is a point at which "too many cooks spoil the broth". Been there; done that. And second, along the same line of reasoning as your comment seems to infer (that of getting out of the monitor business because it was a slow seller?): why not use the same excuse to start killing off most of Apple's computer lineup? I mean, the only ones worth investing in at this point are the MacBook Pro and the iMac; everything else, most likely, are a small percentage of profits, and computers as a whole is only 12% or so of Apple's profits. Why not kill off the Mini, the Pro, and the MacBook (not sure about the Air)?
The number of units sold is not the point. It's about expense v profit.
Additionally, we don't know if Apple is killing off the external display. They may not have the one they are planning to sell ready to hit the market so they offered up some from a partner that supplies most of their display panels. They didn't update the iMac be I don't honk that means the iMac is dead.
Finally, why does it matter if your external display is from Apple or not?
$1,300 seems super high, considering you can get an 5K iMac with an entire computer inside of it for $1650 (@ B&H) that allows you to use its screen in pass through mode when connected to a laptop.
iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014) and later iMac models can't be used as Target Display Mode displays.
Edit: But I agree that $1,300 is high, considering (as you mentioned), that you can get a whole computer for not too much more.
$1799 for a 5K iMac, I'd expect they'd be able to do whatever the LG displays are doing for input with TB3. iMacs just have TB2 (20Gbps) so don't have enough bandwidth for target display = 5120 x 2880 x 60 x 24 = 22Gbps, wide color is 27Gbps. They could just have the exact same manufacturing line but don't put the computer parts inside. Maybe sales of the standalone displays were so low at these price points that it's not even worth doing that but I'm sure target mode will come to the 5K iMacs with TB3 and that will allow them to act as displays and they can perhaps use the internal GPU so a Mac Pro for example could fully use both its own GPUs and let the iMac handle the display.
I am glad Apple is out of the monitor business, $10,000 for 21.5 in display (exaggeration)? but wtf yeah right. But not only that, with Apple's product line getting broader, this gives them time to focus on the A-series chips, the Watch, AppleTV etc, and Macs themselves hopefully...
I've read comments like this over the years, as if Apple is dedicating what little resources they have focus on making better products. Sorry, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard on a forum. Apple for the most part makes great stuff; I've enjoyed many of their products over the years. But to think that cutting out monitors will help them allocate resources to other programs? Beyond the pale. Apple has 115,000 employees working in Cupertino alone. Obviously not all of them are engineers, but that's still a massive amount of people to work on a very limited number of products that, at the end of the day, use very similar software. To put your comment in perspective: Boeing has 160,000 people in their entire company world wide, and builds a far more diverse portfolio (in both the commercial and defense industries) than Apple. So sorry to say it, but I'm not buying the "cutting this product line gives Apple more time to focus on their core products).
Two other thoughts: more engineers on a project does not equal a better product. There is a point at which "too many cooks spoil the broth". Been there; done that. And second, along the same line of reasoning as your comment seems to infer (that of getting out of the monitor business because it was a slow seller?): why not use the same excuse to start killing off most of Apple's computer lineup? I mean, the only ones worth investing in at this point are the MacBook Pro and the iMac; everything else, most likely, are a small percentage of profits, and computers as a whole is only 12% or so of Apple's profits. Why not kill off the Mini, the Pro, and the MacBook (not sure about the Air)?
Comments
I was hoping for new iMacs, MacPros and 5K Cinema Displays sadly, but the new MacbookPro is an impressive machine.
Two other thoughts: more engineers on a project does not equal a better product. There is a point at which "too many cooks spoil the broth". Been there; done that. And second, along the same line of reasoning as your comment seems to infer (that of getting out of the monitor business because it was a slow seller?): why not use the same excuse to start killing off most of Apple's computer lineup? I mean, the only ones worth investing in at this point are the MacBook Pro and the iMac; everything else, most likely, are a small percentage of profits, and computers as a whole is only 12% or so of Apple's profits. Why not kill off the Mini, the Pro, and the MacBook (not sure about the Air)?
Additionally, we don't know if Apple is killing off the external display. They may not have the one they are planning to sell ready to hit the market so they offered up some from a partner that supplies most of their display panels. They didn't update the iMac be I don't honk that means the iMac is dead.
Finally, why does it matter if your external display is from Apple or not?
https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/r_and_d_expense
Apple is nearing Intel in quarterly R&D spending.
absolute resources are not the issue.