linustech is willing to pay 100% of the costs and apple refuses to even send a apple tech a screen ..he isnt asking for a free item or anything special
On the contrary, two idiots on YouTube took a computer apart while it was plugged in. They also showed no care in regard to disassembly of the unit so it should serve as a good lesson for these young Youtubers. Apple should be applauded in my opinion.
+1. Despite their unsafe disassembly practices, if someone were to emulate them, they could get electrocuted. Darwinism in real time.
I am really shocked no one has pointed out the clarification on FTC guidelines on repair. Basically, you don't have to take it to an authorized repair shop...
A "void if removed" sticker isn't the issue. As the article imparts, it's in part a parts issue which even authorized partners can't yet participate as there's no parts to partake.
You clearly didn't read the article. The FTC has given 6 large name companies a warning to change these policies in the next 30 days or face lawsuit. I will reference the quote directly:
In other words, a company may not say that its warranty will only be honored if the consumer uses a specific product or service. Or put another way, Apple may not tell you (or threaten) that you’ll void the warranty on your iPhone if you replace a broken screen with non-Apple glass.
You clearly missed the point, as cars don't have "stickers" that claim a warranty is void if you open the hood an play around. I suggest reading the article and the recent note from the FTC that came this month!
You’re confused. This isn’t about whether the warranty is valid, it’s about the fact that they are free to refuse a repair if the user inflicted the damage (as opposed to it breaking down due to defect).
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
Also they did admitted to wrong doing and are willing to pay. The point of the video was to show what a joke their policy is on top of apple's stance on third party repairs and the hoops they will go through to stop third party repairs. They are trying to make a situation where they are the only people who can repair your device which a 5 year old can see is a bad idea for the consumers.
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
First party are Apple corporate shops. There are third party authorized and non-authorized. Apple explicitly allows and trains the first, and doesn't care one whit about the latter in any way.
Regarding "right to repair" legislation -- Apple has said on more than one occasion that they would withdraw opposition to legislation if the iPhone (and iPhone alone) weren't included. They are very specific in language about this kind of thing, and if they wanted the Mac excluded, they would have added that too, I'm certain.
How is it possible all the parts listed are actually damaged?
Did it get hit by lightning? It sounds like Apple didn’t have the parts or experience to make the repairs.
Is the damage Apple’s fault? Obviously not. But the Apple Store should be able to send it somewhere to get fixed, and not for $5000+.
This story is embarrassing for Apple...
They say in the video that it required a power supply, a motherboard, and the display. They really damaged it when putting it back together. They aren't at all disagreeing with what needs repaired, and are in fact the ones who confirm what parts were damaged.
So two things. The third-party repair shop lied to get out of doing the repair because the repair certification has been available since before they asked, and the parts that were needed were available about a month or two after they went in to inquire about it. It sometimes takes a bit after launch for parts to make their way through the system and made available to stores and third-party repair shops.
If they went in with the Pro today, chances are it would be able to be repaired. But remember, at this point, the only thing that is left without needing repair is basically a shell, some ram, and the SSD. The rest is shot and needing to be replaced. It would have been cheaper to buy a new one.
The video is really just clickbait and hammed up for the camera.
I think the moral of the story is don’t buy an “all in one” iMac Pro from Apple. Those parts shouldn’t have been more than $1500, unless they did something stupid and soldered the processor to the motherboard.
If you buy a Pro machine, everything should be able to be swapped out: the CPU, GPU, drive, ram, etc. (no the CPU probably isn’t upgradable for a reasonable amount).
The “can’t be upgraded” bit them in the ass. This is a poor design for a Pro machine.
How is it possible all the parts listed are actually damaged?
Did it get hit by lightning? It sounds like Apple didn’t have the parts or experience to make the repairs.
Is the damage Apple’s fault? Obviously not. But the Apple Store should be able to send it somewhere to get fixed, and not for $5000+.
This story is embarrassing for Apple...
They say in the video that it required a power supply, a motherboard, and the display. They really damaged it when putting it back together. They aren't at all disagreeing with what needs repaired, and are in fact the ones who confirm what parts were damaged.
So two things. The third-party repair shop lied to get out of doing the repair because the repair certification has been available since before they asked, and the parts that were needed were available about a month or two after they went in to inquire about it. It sometimes takes a bit after launch for parts to make their way through the system and made available to stores and third-party repair shops.
If they went in with the Pro today, chances are it would be able to be repaired. But remember, at this point, the only thing that is left without needing repair is basically a shell, some ram, and the SSD. The rest is shot and needing to be replaced. It would have been cheaper to buy a new one.
The video is really just clickbait and hammed up for the camera.
I think the moral of the story is don’t buy an “all in one” iMac Pro from Apple. Those parts shouldn’t have been more than $1500, unless they did something stupid and soldered the processor to the motherboard.
If you buy a Pro machine, everything should be able to be swapped out: the CPU, GPU, drive, ram, etc. (no the CPU probably isn’t upgradable for a reasonable amount).
The “can’t be upgraded” bit them in the ass. This is a poor design for a Pro machine.
HP, Lenovo, Dell, Acer, et al all do the same thing so don’t think this is an Apple issue. HP charges $1500(NZ) for what is literally a $200(NZ) off the shelf system board. Apple on the other hand design custom system boards and so do actually warrant the higher price tag and lower stock volumes.
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
Also they did admitted to wrong doing and are willing to pay. The point of the video was to show what a joke their policy is on top of apple's stance on third party repairs and the hoops they will go through to stop third party repairs. They are trying to make a situation where they are the only people who can repair your device which a 5 year old can see is a bad idea for the consumers.
It doesn’t matter who fixes it. The iMac Pro is completely totaled. Any repair to working order would cost more than just buying a new iMac Pro. Linus presents it as just a simple screen replacement but the whole machine is actually fragged.
Also, a thing about some of those third party repair shops (I’m assuming you’re talking about shops that aren’t authorized or certified by Apple). Let’s say you buy an iPhone that’s water resistant and take it to a third party repair shop. Do you think the repair shop will repair it so that it meets ip67 rating? They might, but they might not. It really depends on the shop. However, Apple will always try to restore it to factory quality. Most consumers don’t know or care about water resistant railings, they just want their phone to work. next time their device breaks down because it was exposed to water, do they blame the third party repair shop or Apple? Chances are, it’ll be Apple.
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
Also they did admitted to wrong doing and are willing to pay. The point of the video was to show what a joke their policy is on top of apple's stance on third party repairs and the hoops they will go through to stop third party repairs. They are trying to make a situation where they are the only people who can repair your device which a 5 year old can see is a bad idea for the consumers.
Nope. It doesn't matter whether you're willing to or not, breaking the devices yourself void their warranty. They might still take it and repair it though, but whether it's worth it or not it's another question.
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
First party are Apple corporate shops. There are third party authorized and non-authorized. Apple explicitly allows and trains the first, and doesn't care one whit about the latter in any way.
Regarding "right to repair" legislation -- Apple has said on more than one occasion that they would withdraw opposition to legislation if the iPhone (and iPhone alone) weren't included. They are very specific in language about this kind of thing, and if they wanted the Mac excluded, they would have added that too, I'm certain.
They still can get their parts from the authorized third party, right?
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
First party are Apple corporate shops. There are third party authorized and non-authorized. Apple explicitly allows and trains the first, and doesn't care one whit about the latter in any way.
Regarding "right to repair" legislation -- Apple has said on more than one occasion that they would withdraw opposition to legislation if the iPhone (and iPhone alone) weren't included. They are very specific in language about this kind of thing, and if they wanted the Mac excluded, they would have added that too, I'm certain.
They still can get their parts from the authorized third party, right?
The unauthorized? It happens, but if Apple finds out, the certifications are generally revoked. Non-cert shops source parts elsewhere.
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
First party are Apple corporate shops. There are third party authorized and non-authorized. Apple explicitly allows and trains the first, and doesn't care one whit about the latter in any way.
Regarding "right to repair" legislation -- Apple has said on more than one occasion that they would withdraw opposition to legislation if the iPhone (and iPhone alone) weren't included. They are very specific in language about this kind of thing, and if they wanted the Mac excluded, they would have added that too, I'm certain.
They still can get their parts from the authorized third party, right?
The unauthorized? It happens, but if Apple finds out, the certifications are generally revoked. Non-cert shops source parts elsewhere.
So the authorized one can not provide parts for them because they damaged the machine themselves.
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
First party are Apple corporate shops. There are third party authorized and non-authorized. Apple explicitly allows and trains the first, and doesn't care one whit about the latter in any way.
Regarding "right to repair" legislation -- Apple has said on more than one occasion that they would withdraw opposition to legislation if the iPhone (and iPhone alone) weren't included. They are very specific in language about this kind of thing, and if they wanted the Mac excluded, they would have added that too, I'm certain.
They still can get their parts from the authorized third party, right?
The unauthorized? It happens, but if Apple finds out, the certifications are generally revoked. Non-cert shops source parts elsewhere.
So the authorized one can not provide parts for them because they damaged the machine themselves.
What, in LTT's case? There's some shenanigans from the authorized shop they spoke to regarding training, and etc, but no, they probably wouldn't.
Anyway, after briefly read the first and last two pages of this post, here's my conclusion:
Linus Team basically disassembled their machine, and broke it themselves, which in this case -- it's their own fault. Not only that's not guaranteed in the warranty, but also not against any laws in both the U.S. and Canada. Even if they admitted and willing to pay, it still won't change their policy.
Then Linus sent the iMac Pro to the local Apple store, and somehow did manage to swap the power supply, as it's not broken by Linus Team. For both the motherboard and the screen, they have to purchased themselves via authorized third party. But for some reason, it's not available -- at least that's what their video is claiming, and actually, it was wrong, as the parts now are available for the third party, and they can easily get them.
Basically, the video biased a little too much, and they didn't understand how repairing services work. Apple does not done this for pissing the customers off or evil business, just simply won't fixing anything that's damaged by the user.
Third party or first party authorized repair shops? As far as i know apple is very against third party repairs and will almost do anything to get them to stop which is a problem of its own.
First party are Apple corporate shops. There are third party authorized and non-authorized. Apple explicitly allows and trains the first, and doesn't care one whit about the latter in any way.
Regarding "right to repair" legislation -- Apple has said on more than one occasion that they would withdraw opposition to legislation if the iPhone (and iPhone alone) weren't included. They are very specific in language about this kind of thing, and if they wanted the Mac excluded, they would have added that too, I'm certain.
They still can get their parts from the authorized third party, right?
The unauthorized? It happens, but if Apple finds out, the certifications are generally revoked. Non-cert shops source parts elsewhere.
So the authorized one can not provide parts for them because they damaged the machine themselves.
What, in LTT's case? There's some shenanigans from the authorized shop they spoke to regarding training, and etc, but no, they probably wouldn't.
Hmmm.
I just googled "iMac Pro logic board" and found not one of them, so I assume there's probably no way other than the authorized one. How're they gonna fix it?
Well, they throw rocks on their feet, so I don't feel so sorry for them. (They should know better not to operate the internal when it still have power, and if they do, there aren't such things happen).
What i found rather funny is that shortly before i'd seen Linus post this video i had been having my morning coffee with a co-worker and for whatever reason i had been telling him about Linus' original video reviewing the IMac Pro (Which obviously lead to it's damage).
1 of the points he made, was that there is no video in. So down the line when you want to upgrade you can't even get extra use out of the machine by using is as a 2nd monitor. This is a rather deliberate choice by Apple to create Forced Obsolescence. It's rather shady and definitely Anti-Consumer.
This issue he's now having has the same smell of even more Forced Obsolescence.
Another load of BS, go back to PC land, you never owned a Mac in your own damn life and just spouting to hear yourself talk.
Just because you don't like what i said, doesn't make it BS. It was the truth and a very good point that Linus originally made about the product.
Attacking someones credentials as opposed to the content of what was said is a terribly weak way to try and put forth an argument. I assume you have never made a single comment about any product on earth that you have never owned, that seems just a little unlikely.
You are correct. It's not BS because he didn't like you said, it's BS because you're claiming that including a display in a product is "shady and definitely Anti-Consumer." Not liking what you said is a result of you writing a bunch of BS.
You tried to compare an extremely pricey desktop PC to an apple watch, apples to oranges, to try and make a point that fits your own narrative. Sooooo who's talking BS? haha
Oh, so this is now an issue about price? So you think the $10k gold Apple Watch (which far exceeds the base price of the iMac) should have a removable display but not he $350 Apple Watch Sport? Is that the narrative you now want to press about which CE products should be required to have certain components removable so they can be placed onto other products in the future they're above some price ceiling that you decide on a whim? Where would a MacBook Pro fall since they start and stop within the range of an iMac?
You keep saying 'removable'. Please re-read my comment before making inaccurate assertions. And the apple watch stuff is just sillyness and you know it.
Linus' critique was that a display input would allow you to use it as a standalone monitor once you've moved from from the current internals. You could use it as a 2nd monitor to go with your new IMac for example.
Oh, I think I got it now. You think it's "shady and definitely Anti-Consumer" that Apple isn't building inputs on all their devices. So, I should be able to say, plug in an otherwise defunct PowerBook from 1995 into my MacBook Pro and use it as an external display? Well that sure seems useful and easy to engineer¡ What could go wrong? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You do realise that people can have differing opinions right? I get that you disagree and that's fine. But trying to make false analogies and misquotations to try and discredit someone else's opinion is really silly. Linus' original video was actually pretty fair and in general he doesn't play favourites, he's ripped a number of manufacturers on all sides of the fence. No one is without sin, fair critiques is how things get better for everyone.
My comments have nothing to do with Linus. My comments are about your ridiculous claims.
As for your "do realise that people can have differing opinions" comment, I'll let Patton Oswalt explain that to you…
You didn't even read what i originally said properly since you went off on a wild goose chase about removable displays. So perhaps try and have an adult conversation with someone before calling them ridiculous
Oh, I read it, and I've addressed it. I tried to give you an out on your ridiculous statements about it being "shady and definitely anti-consumer" that Apple doesn't have display inout ports on all their devices that have embedded displays, but you just keep knocking on that door. Of course, you'll want to say you're only talking about the iMac, but that misses the point of your odd declaration that Apple is shady for building devices that do specific things.
Standard iMacs can be used in Target Display Mode which is nice when you want an extra monitor or a larger one for a MacBook/MacBook Pro or when the iMac becomes performance obsolete and you get a newer faster one. The iMac Pro does not support this, I think this is a valid complaint about the iMac Pro.
More BS. Even your link gives you away as it shows that TDM hasn't been supportable on any 5K iMac. That's 4 years and yet you've framed as being specific to the iMac Pro and without mentioning the display interconnect issue for TDM. Shameful. And that's not even considering the purpose of TDM.
I know it's also not supported on the 5K iMacs and newer non 5K, it's a legitimate complaint about those too. This however is a discussion about an iMac Pro. And yes that is a purpose of TDM, that is a very common usage of it. I even understand why it couldn't be supported by the 5K iMacs when they came out but for newer ones with faster Thunderbolt standard there is no technical reason to not allow it again. Having it supported on one screen model but not another is confusing for customers so not allowing it on both while that is on a technical level not possible is fine I agree with that.
And if you must attack my credibility on the matter I have worked in the IT industry for many years, also as a support contractor, and administered networks with hundreds of iMacs and MacBook Pros and had to repair them and diagnose issues with the devices. TDM is useful for this for this process, as I hope you know.
Most of the Mac users at my current work place have iMacs and MacBook Pros and use the iMac as a secondary screen all the time.
It's a feature I have used a lot as well, this is a legitimate complaint as people have used it and now they cannot. I'd appreciate if you'd tone it down a bit.
What i found rather funny is that shortly before i'd seen Linus post this video i had been having my morning coffee with a co-worker and for whatever reason i had been telling him about Linus' original video reviewing the IMac Pro (Which obviously lead to it's damage).
1 of the points he made, was that there is no video in. So down the line when you want to upgrade you can't even get extra use out of the machine by using is as a 2nd monitor. This is a rather deliberate choice by Apple to create Forced Obsolescence. It's rather shady and definitely Anti-Consumer.
This issue he's now having has the same smell of even more Forced Obsolescence.
Another load of BS, go back to PC land, you never owned a Mac in your own damn life and just spouting to hear yourself talk.
Just because you don't like what i said, doesn't make it BS. It was the truth and a very good point that Linus originally made about the product.
Attacking someones credentials as opposed to the content of what was said is a terribly weak way to try and put forth an argument. I assume you have never made a single comment about any product on earth that you have never owned, that seems just a little unlikely.
You are correct. It's not BS because he didn't like you said, it's BS because you're claiming that including a display in a product is "shady and definitely Anti-Consumer." Not liking what you said is a result of you writing a bunch of BS.
You tried to compare an extremely pricey desktop PC to an apple watch, apples to oranges, to try and make a point that fits your own narrative. Sooooo who's talking BS? haha
Oh, so this is now an issue about price? So you think the $10k gold Apple Watch (which far exceeds the base price of the iMac) should have a removable display but not he $350 Apple Watch Sport? Is that the narrative you now want to press about which CE products should be required to have certain components removable so they can be placed onto other products in the future they're above some price ceiling that you decide on a whim? Where would a MacBook Pro fall since they start and stop within the range of an iMac?
You keep saying 'removable'. Please re-read my comment before making inaccurate assertions. And the apple watch stuff is just sillyness and you know it.
Linus' critique was that a display input would allow you to use it as a standalone monitor once you've moved from from the current internals. You could use it as a 2nd monitor to go with your new IMac for example.
Oh, I think I got it now. You think it's "shady and definitely Anti-Consumer" that Apple isn't building inputs on all their devices. So, I should be able to say, plug in an otherwise defunct PowerBook from 1995 into my MacBook Pro and use it as an external display? Well that sure seems useful and easy to engineer¡ What could go wrong? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You do realise that people can have differing opinions right? I get that you disagree and that's fine. But trying to make false analogies and misquotations to try and discredit someone else's opinion is really silly. Linus' original video was actually pretty fair and in general he doesn't play favourites, he's ripped a number of manufacturers on all sides of the fence. No one is without sin, fair critiques is how things get better for everyone.
My comments have nothing to do with Linus. My comments are about your ridiculous claims.
As for your "do realise that people can have differing opinions" comment, I'll let Patton Oswalt explain that to you…
You didn't even read what i originally said properly since you went off on a wild goose chase about removable displays. So perhaps try and have an adult conversation with someone before calling them ridiculous
Oh, I read it, and I've addressed it. I tried to give you an out on your ridiculous statements about it being "shady and definitely anti-consumer" that Apple doesn't have display inout ports on all their devices that have embedded displays, but you just keep knocking on that door. Of course, you'll want to say you're only talking about the iMac, but that misses the point of your odd declaration that Apple is shady for building devices that do specific things.
Standard iMacs can be used in Target Display Mode which is nice when you want an extra monitor or a larger one for a MacBook/MacBook Pro or when the iMac becomes performance obsolete and you get a newer faster one. The iMac Pro does not support this, I think this is a valid complaint about the iMac Pro.
More BS. Even your link gives you away as it shows that TDM hasn't been supportable on any 5K iMac. That's 4 years and yet you've framed as being specific to the iMac Pro and without mentioning the display interconnect issue for TDM. Shameful. And that's not even considering the purpose of TDM.
I know it's also not supported on the 5K iMacs and newer non 5K, it's a legitimate complaint about those too. This however is a discussion about an iMac Pro. And yes that is a purpose of TDM, that is a very common usage of it. I even understand why it couldn't be supported by the 5K iMacs when they came out but for newer ones with faster Thunderbolt standard there is no technical reason to not allow it again. Having it supported on one screen model but not another is confusing for customers so not allowing it on both while that is on a technical level not possible is fine I agree with that.
And if you must attack my credibility on the matter I have worked in the IT industry for many years, also as a support contractor, and administered networks with hundreds of iMacs and MacBook Pros and had to repair them and diagnose issues with the devices. TDM is useful for this for this process, as I hope you know.
Most of the Mac users at my current work place have iMacs and MacBook Pros and use the iMac as a secondary screen all the time.
It's a feature I have used a lot as well, this is a legitimate complaint as people have used it and now they cannot. I'd appreciate if you'd tone it down a bit.
The ability to do it has been stripped from the Alpine Ridge chipset by Intel for Thunderbolt 3. So, even if Apple was inclined, it's not coming back.
What i found rather funny is that shortly before i'd seen Linus post this video i had been having my morning coffee with a co-worker and for whatever reason i had been telling him about Linus' original video reviewing the IMac Pro (Which obviously lead to it's damage).
1 of the points he made, was that there is no video in. So down the line when you want to upgrade you can't even get extra use out of the machine by using is as a 2nd monitor. This is a rather deliberate choice by Apple to create Forced Obsolescence. It's rather shady and definitely Anti-Consumer.
This issue he's now having has the same smell of even more Forced Obsolescence.
Another load of BS, go back to PC land, you never owned a Mac in your own damn life and just spouting to hear yourself talk.
Just because you don't like what i said, doesn't make it BS. It was the truth and a very good point that Linus originally made about the product.
Attacking someones credentials as opposed to the content of what was said is a terribly weak way to try and put forth an argument. I assume you have never made a single comment about any product on earth that you have never owned, that seems just a little unlikely.
You are correct. It's not BS because he didn't like you said, it's BS because you're claiming that including a display in a product is "shady and definitely Anti-Consumer." Not liking what you said is a result of you writing a bunch of BS.
You tried to compare an extremely pricey desktop PC to an apple watch, apples to oranges, to try and make a point that fits your own narrative. Sooooo who's talking BS? haha
Oh, so this is now an issue about price? So you think the $10k gold Apple Watch (which far exceeds the base price of the iMac) should have a removable display but not he $350 Apple Watch Sport? Is that the narrative you now want to press about which CE products should be required to have certain components removable so they can be placed onto other products in the future they're above some price ceiling that you decide on a whim? Where would a MacBook Pro fall since they start and stop within the range of an iMac?
You keep saying 'removable'. Please re-read my comment before making inaccurate assertions. And the apple watch stuff is just sillyness and you know it.
Linus' critique was that a display input would allow you to use it as a standalone monitor once you've moved from from the current internals. You could use it as a 2nd monitor to go with your new IMac for example.
Oh, I think I got it now. You think it's "shady and definitely Anti-Consumer" that Apple isn't building inputs on all their devices. So, I should be able to say, plug in an otherwise defunct PowerBook from 1995 into my MacBook Pro and use it as an external display? Well that sure seems useful and easy to engineer¡ What could go wrong? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You do realise that people can have differing opinions right? I get that you disagree and that's fine. But trying to make false analogies and misquotations to try and discredit someone else's opinion is really silly. Linus' original video was actually pretty fair and in general he doesn't play favourites, he's ripped a number of manufacturers on all sides of the fence. No one is without sin, fair critiques is how things get better for everyone.
My comments have nothing to do with Linus. My comments are about your ridiculous claims.
As for your "do realise that people can have differing opinions" comment, I'll let Patton Oswalt explain that to you…
You didn't even read what i originally said properly since you went off on a wild goose chase about removable displays. So perhaps try and have an adult conversation with someone before calling them ridiculous
Oh, I read it, and I've addressed it. I tried to give you an out on your ridiculous statements about it being "shady and definitely anti-consumer" that Apple doesn't have display inout ports on all their devices that have embedded displays, but you just keep knocking on that door. Of course, you'll want to say you're only talking about the iMac, but that misses the point of your odd declaration that Apple is shady for building devices that do specific things.
Standard iMacs can be used in Target Display Mode which is nice when you want an extra monitor or a larger one for a MacBook/MacBook Pro or when the iMac becomes performance obsolete and you get a newer faster one. The iMac Pro does not support this, I think this is a valid complaint about the iMac Pro.
More BS. Even your link gives you away as it shows that TDM hasn't been supportable on any 5K iMac. That's 4 years and yet you've framed as being specific to the iMac Pro and without mentioning the display interconnect issue for TDM. Shameful. And that's not even considering the purpose of TDM.
I know it's also not supported on the 5K iMacs and newer non 5K, it's a legitimate complaint about those too. This however is a discussion about an iMac Pro. And yes that is a purpose of TDM, that is a very common usage of it. I even understand why it couldn't be supported by the 5K iMacs when they came out but for newer ones with faster Thunderbolt standard there is no technical reason to not allow it again. Having it supported on one screen model but not another is confusing for customers so not allowing it on both while that is on a technical level not possible is fine I agree with that.
And if you must attack my credibility on the matter I have worked in the IT industry for many years, also as a support contractor, and administered networks with hundreds of iMacs and MacBook Pros and had to repair them and diagnose issues with the devices. TDM is useful for this for this process, as I hope you know.
Most of the Mac users at my current work place have iMacs and MacBook Pros and use the iMac as a secondary screen all the time.
It's a feature I have used a lot as well, this is a legitimate complaint as people have used it and now they cannot. I'd appreciate if you'd tone it down a bit.
The ability to do it has been stripped from the Alpine Ridge chipset by Intel for Thunderbolt 3. So, even if Apple was inclined, it's not coming back.
Well that's a shame, was a nice feature. Thought it had more to do with the required bandwidth to drive the display, not up to play with the newer Mac hardware anymore, not been in a support role for them since it was a thing. It did a annoy a few people here, being that our replacement cycle is every 4 years so they had an iMac that could do it then got given one that couldn't.
What i found rather funny is that shortly before i'd seen Linus post this video i had been having my morning coffee with a co-worker and for whatever reason i had been telling him about Linus' original video reviewing the IMac Pro (Which obviously lead to it's damage).
1 of the points he made, was that there is no video in. So down the line when you want to upgrade you can't even get extra use out of the machine by using is as a 2nd monitor. This is a rather deliberate choice by Apple to create Forced Obsolescence. It's rather shady and definitely Anti-Consumer.
This issue he's now having has the same smell of even more Forced Obsolescence.
Another load of BS, go back to PC land, you never owned a Mac in your own damn life and just spouting to hear yourself talk.
Just because you don't like what i said, doesn't make it BS. It was the truth and a very good point that Linus originally made about the product.
Attacking someones credentials as opposed to the content of what was said is a terribly weak way to try and put forth an argument. I assume you have never made a single comment about any product on earth that you have never owned, that seems just a little unlikely.
You are correct. It's not BS because he didn't like you said, it's BS because you're claiming that including a display in a product is "shady and definitely Anti-Consumer." Not liking what you said is a result of you writing a bunch of BS.
You tried to compare an extremely pricey desktop PC to an apple watch, apples to oranges, to try and make a point that fits your own narrative. Sooooo who's talking BS? haha
Oh, so this is now an issue about price? So you think the $10k gold Apple Watch (which far exceeds the base price of the iMac) should have a removable display but not he $350 Apple Watch Sport? Is that the narrative you now want to press about which CE products should be required to have certain components removable so they can be placed onto other products in the future they're above some price ceiling that you decide on a whim? Where would a MacBook Pro fall since they start and stop within the range of an iMac?
You keep saying 'removable'. Please re-read my comment before making inaccurate assertions. And the apple watch stuff is just sillyness and you know it.
Linus' critique was that a display input would allow you to use it as a standalone monitor once you've moved from from the current internals. You could use it as a 2nd monitor to go with your new IMac for example.
Oh, I think I got it now. You think it's "shady and definitely Anti-Consumer" that Apple isn't building inputs on all their devices. So, I should be able to say, plug in an otherwise defunct PowerBook from 1995 into my MacBook Pro and use it as an external display? Well that sure seems useful and easy to engineer¡ What could go wrong? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You do realise that people can have differing opinions right? I get that you disagree and that's fine. But trying to make false analogies and misquotations to try and discredit someone else's opinion is really silly. Linus' original video was actually pretty fair and in general he doesn't play favourites, he's ripped a number of manufacturers on all sides of the fence. No one is without sin, fair critiques is how things get better for everyone.
My comments have nothing to do with Linus. My comments are about your ridiculous claims.
As for your "do realise that people can have differing opinions" comment, I'll let Patton Oswalt explain that to you…
You didn't even read what i originally said properly since you went off on a wild goose chase about removable displays. So perhaps try and have an adult conversation with someone before calling them ridiculous
Oh, I read it, and I've addressed it. I tried to give you an out on your ridiculous statements about it being "shady and definitely anti-consumer" that Apple doesn't have display inout ports on all their devices that have embedded displays, but you just keep knocking on that door. Of course, you'll want to say you're only talking about the iMac, but that misses the point of your odd declaration that Apple is shady for building devices that do specific things.
Standard iMacs can be used in Target Display Mode which is nice when you want an extra monitor or a larger one for a MacBook/MacBook Pro or when the iMac becomes performance obsolete and you get a newer faster one. The iMac Pro does not support this, I think this is a valid complaint about the iMac Pro.
More BS. Even your link gives you away as it shows that TDM hasn't been supportable on any 5K iMac. That's 4 years and yet you've framed as being specific to the iMac Pro and without mentioning the display interconnect issue for TDM. Shameful. And that's not even considering the purpose of TDM.
I know it's also not supported on the 5K iMacs and newer non 5K, it's a legitimate complaint about those too. This however is a discussion about an iMac Pro. And yes that is a purpose of TDM, that is a very common usage of it. I even understand why it couldn't be supported by the 5K iMacs when they came out but for newer ones with faster Thunderbolt standard there is no technical reason to not allow it again. Having it supported on one screen model but not another is confusing for customers so not allowing it on both while that is on a technical level not possible is fine I agree with that.
And if you must attack my credibility on the matter I have worked in the IT industry for many years, also as a support contractor, and administered networks with hundreds of iMacs and MacBook Pros and had to repair them and diagnose issues with the devices. TDM is useful for this for this process, as I hope you know.
Most of the Mac users at my current work place have iMacs and MacBook Pros and use the iMac as a secondary screen all the time.
It's a feature I have used a lot as well, this is a legitimate complaint as people have used it and now they cannot. I'd appreciate if you'd tone it down a bit.
The ability to do it has been stripped from the Alpine Ridge chipset by Intel for Thunderbolt 3. So, even if Apple was inclined, it's not coming back.
Well that's a shame, was a nice feature. Thought it had more to do with the required bandwidth to drive the display, not up to play with the newer Mac hardware anymore, not been in a support role for them since it was a thing. It did a annoy a few people here, being that our replacement cycle is every 4 years so they had an iMac that could do it then got given one that couldn't.
It was stated to be a bandwidth concern originally. Possible that Apple knew what the plan for the TB3 spec was at the time, though.
New and old users alike, take a minute to read the commenting guidelines conveniently linked at the bottom of the page. They exist for a reason and are being enforced.
Before posting, it would also behoove you to actually read the article itself, and the comments already posted. There may be an answer to your question, or more details about your concerns inside!
here's an example:
"I disagree. Here's why..." with elaboration is welcome, and stays.
"YOU KNOB, YOU SUCKLOL!!111" contributes nothing, and will be deleted.
That’s really Linus’ problem to figure out. If he’s in the mood, I might be willing to take that broken iMac Pro off his hands for $500. He won’t have to look at his shame anymore and he’ll have $500. You can buy a lot of Kleenex with $500
That’s really Linus’ problem to figure out. If he’s in the mood, I might be willing to take that broken iMac Pro off his hands for $500. He won’t have to look at his shame anymore and he’ll have $500. You can buy a lot of Kleenex with $500
Or maybe he should told his employee that fixing any craps with power, should be disconnected first. Then there won't be any problem.
Comments
Also they did admitted to wrong doing and are willing to pay. The point of the video was to show what a joke their policy is on top of apple's stance on third party repairs and the hoops they will go through to stop third party repairs. They are trying to make a situation where they are the only people who can repair your device which a 5 year old can see is a bad idea for the consumers.
Also, a thing about some of those third party repair shops (I’m assuming you’re talking about shops that aren’t authorized or certified by Apple). Let’s say you buy an iPhone that’s water resistant and take it to a third party repair shop. Do you think the repair shop will repair it so that it meets ip67 rating? They might, but they might not. It really depends on the shop. However, Apple will always try to restore it to factory quality. Most consumers don’t know or care about water resistant railings, they just want their phone to work. next time their device breaks down because it was exposed to water, do they blame the third party repair shop or Apple? Chances are, it’ll be Apple.
They might still take it and repair it though, but whether it's worth it or not it's another question.
I just googled "iMac Pro logic board" and found not one of them, so I assume there's probably no way other than the authorized one. How're they gonna fix it?
Well, they throw rocks on their feet, so I don't feel so sorry for them. (They should know better not to operate the internal when it still have power, and if they do, there aren't such things happen).
And if you must attack my credibility on the matter I have worked in the IT industry for many years, also as a support contractor, and administered networks with hundreds of iMacs and MacBook Pros and had to repair them and diagnose issues with the devices. TDM is useful for this for this process, as I hope you know.
Most of the Mac users at my current work place have iMacs and MacBook Pros and use the iMac as a secondary screen all the time.
It's a feature I have used a lot as well, this is a legitimate complaint as people have used it and now they cannot. I'd appreciate if you'd tone it down a bit.
New and old users alike, take a minute to read the commenting guidelines conveniently linked at the bottom of the page. They exist for a reason and are being enforced.
Before posting, it would also behoove you to actually read the article itself, and the comments already posted. There may be an answer to your question, or more details about your concerns inside!
here's an example:
"I disagree. Here's why..." with elaboration is welcome, and stays.
Then there won't be any problem.
Ten years of IT, pfft.