Last Active
  • Google's Android Wear 2.0 plays catch-up with Apple's watchOS 3, offers some unique touche...

    @amarkap: absolutely right, I fully agree.

    Apple Watch is not only a personnel computer and fitness device, but also a watch. And a watch is similar to fashion. 

    This is exactly what Google and the other competitors did not figured out, yet. They offer technical gimmicks. Apple offers fashion. And this is the reason why Apple Watch is a success story, and these Android Wear gimmicks are something else, but definitely not (!) a success story.

    It is easy to love your Apple Watch because you easily can arrange to fit to your outfit. From time to time a new band is really nice - for both, Apple Watch owner and Apple.

    PS: Right now I have five bands, and it's amazing how easily they can be switched within seconds. 
  • Apple smashes expectations: record setting $78.4B in revenue on sales of 78.3M iPhones

    karmadave said:
    Impressive quarter. The only downside is that iPhone sales make up an even larger percentage of Apple's revenue. This poses significant downside risks, should sales flatten or not meet/exceed expectations in the future. So while this is good news for Apple shareholders, they need to double their efforts to increase Mac, iPad, and Watch sales while developing products in new categories. 
    Does Google need to develop new product categories, for the day people no longer want ads? What about auto makers and cars?
    Yes, good point. Google earns >85% with its revenue ad business. No analyst ever realized any problem.
  • Apple's Mac mini now inexcusably getting trounced by cheap Intel hardware

    Well, what are we talking about?

     „From a benchmark perspective, the NUC6i7KYK delivers a score of 4580 single-core and 13838 in multi-core. The 2.3GHz late 2012 i7 quad-core Mac mini cranks out a 3458 in single-core, and a 11868 in multi-core —but it is long-gone at retail.“

     This means about 30% improvement with 3-4 Intel CPU generations, Hey, Intel, what are you trying to tell us? Is it really necessary to get 3-4 CPU generations for a lousy 30% performance improvement? What a complete waste of ressources.

    Anyway: the Mac Mini was always a comprimise, a consumer Mac, and therefore the typical case how to use thie Mac Mini would be consuming of Media, of Internet services and normal office usage. Any other cases were covered by iMac and Mac Pro.

    I bet a lot that a typical user will not realize any signifficant performance difference, should he be asked to compare a 2014 Mac Mini to a 2018 NUC. Thus, sure it would be great to get a new Mac Mini, but if you are only office, internet and media consumer, the 2014 Mac Mini will still fit to your requirements.

     One point that many people forget: due to the lack of a successor of the the 2014 Mac Mini, the macOS support for the 2014 Mini should last some more years.

     PS: From my point of view this ‚upgrade‘ philosophy is caused by the Windows PC world.

    This is: buy a new PC every three years, to get more performance, because Windows requires additional CPU and RAM, or, instead, upgrade your CPU/Board/RAM every two years to get the performance.

    In April 2010 I bought an iMac because I got crazy by this philosophy. I did not wanted to upgrade any longer, nor did I wanted to lose hours and hours for configuring and supporting any Windows PC any longer.

     Guess what: the iMac still serves me well, and without any upgrades, new CPUs, any additional RAM, etc. I think I am not the only whon who made these kind of experiences.

    And from my point of view this is exactly what an 2014 Mac Mini should do, if I ordered one Mini today. E.g. serve me as a macOS machine for several years. A machine to work with, and not to lose lots of time to support the machine.

    Thus, yes, I would appreciate a new Mac Mini, four years are far too long. But from the typical usage perspective the 2014 Mac Mini would also serve well a typical user. Should anybody need more performance, he should feel free to buy an iMac, iMac Pro oder Mac Pro instead.

     Just my 51 Cents.

  • Apple's Mac mini now inexcusably getting trounced by cheap Intel hardware

    Tim Cook stands at the risk of throwing out the very core base that was willing to pay a premium price exactly for that integrated environment where all worked.  They came to Apple either because they did not have the time to tinker around or they simply had no interest in the technical issues as they were focused on other, to them more important things, where the Mac became their tool for expression, creativity and business development. 
    This is exactly the point, and this is the reason why I bought my iMac in April 2010.

    It saved me a lot of time compared to a the time a Windows PC user needs to keep his machine up and running. And I did not even had to think for a minute about how to upgrade the PC hardware for keeping a well-performant machine.

    My iMac just worked from the beginning until now. And this is, why I payed some more money compared to a Windows machine.

    My best invested money ever.
  • Apple stock taking a beating on analyst note predicting soft summer iPhone X demand

    Sounds as less analysis, but lots of criminal activity? SEC should check why every single quarter analysts play the same lame game. No, I do not think this is ‚normal‘. 

    @Kuyangkoh: manipulations? Take a look at the Nasdaq Option Chain, and maybe you will get confirmed. I think it is a manipulation, yes. Not the first time, that they push down Apple stock.