kharvel

About

Username
kharvel
Joined
Visits
11
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
32
Badges
0
Posts
80

Reactions

17Like0Dislike3Informative

  • Frequently asked questions about the 2018 Mac mini RAM, storage, and more [u]

    kharvelkharvel
    About the internal SSD:

    I'm debating getting either the 512GB or the 1TB which is an astounding $400 more.  I looked into external Thunderbolt 3 SSD drives and found out that they are at least $700 for a 1TB version (https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Portable-SSD-Thunderbolt-MU-PB1T0B/dp/B07GBWZJFG?th=1).  

    So if I were to get the lowest spec'ed Mac Mini with the max CPU upgrade (6-core i7), 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, and 10-GB Ethernet, my cost comes to $1,200.  Add in $700 for the external Thunderbolt 3 SSD and it comes to $1,900.  Throw in another $300 for 32GB RAM kit upgrade from outside of Apple, it goes to $2,200.  

    Now, suppose that I opt for the internal 1TB SSD with all the specs remaining the same (i7, 8GB RAM with the $300 32GB kit, 10-GB Ethernet) and excluding the external Thunderbolt 3 SSD.  My cost would then be $2,300.

    So the difference is really only +$100 more for an internal 1TB vs. 128GB, assuming that you buy an external 1TB Thunderbolt 3 SSD to compensate for the latter.  

    Thoughts?  Is the internal 1TB SSD option better than an external 1TB if the total cost is more or less the same?
    caladanianchia

  • Mac mini 2018 Review: Apple's mightiest mini yet

    kharvelkharvel
    macplusplus said:
    That particular config, the box is included, and it is not cheap. The drive as pictured is $1300, with the enclosure if you want it separately for $199.
    Twice the price of basic Mac Mini, (almost, @ $1300). Apple’s 1 TB internal SSD upgrade is $800...
    Twice the price NOW.  6 months down the road, it will probably drop to $800.  1 year down the road, probably gonna cost you $400.  2 years?  Do the math.  Meanwhile, the Apple internal NVME remains. . . .wait for it .. . . THE SAME!
    williamlondon

  • Mac mini: What we want to see in an update to Apple's low-cost desktop

    kharvelkharvel
    This is the best mental masturbation I have had on AppleInsider after a long time.  
    watto_cobraargonautraoulduke42

  • Epic Games vs Apple -- The continuing App Store saga

    kharvelkharvel
    ITGUYINSD said:
    flydog said:
    I for one support Epic's stance on this. I went down to my local Apple Store and asked to sell used Android tablets in a little used part of the store, and manager kicked me out. I think it's absurd that Apple is exerting its monopoly over its own retail space to exclude other sellers from offering competing products. 





    I also side with Epic.  I do not buy the "Poor Apple has spent so much to develop it's ecosystem and now Epic wants to play for free" defense.  
    First, the iPhone would fail if not for apps.  The iPhone does not exist for developers, the developers exist to keep the hardware fresh, new, and usable.  All the amazing things the iPhone can do is because of the developers.  Without them, would you buy a $1000 device to make calls?

    Second, I think it's absolutely highway robbery to charge 30% for in-app purchases...purchases that actually have nothing to do with Apple except them processing the payment.  Thank God that when you walk into a store and whip out your CC, the store doesn't add 30% onto your purchase just for using their payment processing system.  As it is, most stores eat 3% of the purchase right there by their CC payment system.

    Third, if Apple has spent so much on R&D and their ecosystem, then why do developers who offer FREE apps get a pass?  Are they not using the same marketing and distribution network as those that are charging for their apps?  (minus the payment processing system, which comes back to Apple charging 30% to process a payment vs industry standard 3%).  Is Apple losing BILLIONS in revenue by allowing free apps or are they overcharging paid app developers to make up for the free ones?

    In the end, to make things fair, I think Apple needs to change the base developer rules.  Instead of charging everyone $99 to be a developer, raise the initial fee to developers who are developing an apps that they charge for.  And charge even more if your app has in-app purchases.  Then, either charge the industry-standard fee to process purchases for and IN the app, or allow the app developers to process their own IN APP payments.  


    Umm. . . I think the comment you were responding to was made with sarcasm.   Perhaps the author of the comment forgot to put "/s" at the end.  
    williamlondonradarthekat

  • European Commission says Apple is in breach of EU competition law

    kharvelkharvel
    xyzzy01 said:
    That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. What I'm saying is that using a dominant position in one market (phone platforms) to gain a competitive advantage elsewhere is bad. A better comparison would be a broadband provider launching their own music streaming service and increasing the price for broadband access to streaming competitors.

    The shop scenario isn't comparable as a customer can just go visit a different store.
    30% is not a dominant position in any market by any stretch of imagination.  The broadband provider analogy is flawed and not relevant to this case as the broadband providers are granted monopoly by municipalities over the franchises in their local service areas. 

    I am asking you a serious question: at what % of DEVICE market should a vertically integrated DEVICE company like Apple be considered a monopoly?  5%?  10%?  30%?   Should Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and ANY other vertically integrated device makers be subject to the same rules as Apple?  Why or why not?  
    watto_cobra