danvm

About

Username
danvm
Joined
Visits
67
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
789
Badges
0
Posts
692
  • The Apple versus Microsoft hardware double-standard rears up again with the latest Surface...


    Microsoft has priced the Surface Studio 2 at a very high tier -- it starts at $3,500, with nothing underneath it in the Surface lineup apart from its three mobile products. That's $200 more than Apple's 27 inch iMac upgraded to a Core i7, 16GB of DDR4 RAM and 1TB of SDD storage at Apple's premium prices.

    Apple is known -- and often reviled by PC fans -- for its premium pricing. Yet in this case, an iMac is not just cheaper when similarly configured, but offers a wide range of significantly lower priced options starting at $1,800 for the 5K iMac, or $1,100 for the smaller 4K model where Microsoft does not.

    T
    The additional $200 in the Surface Studio gives you a 28" touchscreen and a GTX1060 w/6GB in the entry model, which is far better than what Apple offers in the iMac 5K and even the iMac Pro.

    Microsoft has never sold so many Surface PCs in a year, and its sales haven't really grown since it launched the Surface idea, so it's not really clear what he's trying to say in calling Apple's vastly larger Mac business "mediocre at best." But the words he uses are that "Apple is in a position where it can let the Mac line go old and stale because Apple isn't a computer company anymore. It's now a company that sells the iPhone."

    In reality, the fact is that Apple's Mac operations have generated $25.2 billion in revenues over the last four quarters. Microsoft's total Surface revenues over the same period were $4.7 billion. Of course, most of that was from sales of its hybrid tablets, more comparable to Apple's iPad business which itself generated another $19.5 billion.
    Maybe the reason for the low Surface sales is that there are options from other vendors that sell similar devices with Windows at a lower cost.  Compare that to Apple, that is the only vendor of iOS and macOS devices.  Still, I find impressive how MS is doing after only six years in a saturated PC market. 
    gatorguyberndoglkruppatomic101Ari_Ugwuwilliamlondonhammeroftruthmuthuk_vanalingambigpicsbenage
  • Apple modular Mac Pro launch coming in 2019, new engineering group formed to guarantee fut...

    macxpress said:
    larrya said:
    Should this really take 2 years??
    You realize that most Apple products that are totally brand new take many years to design, engineer, and fine tune before its announcement? This isn't just slapping parts together like a DIY PC and call it good. Apple is not Dell, HP, etc. If all you want is a bunch of parts slapped together then by all means, go get that or create your own.

    If you need a professional Mac in the meantime, the iMac Pro is actually a great Pro Mac to get. It will still have significant value, even next year should you want to sell it for a new Mac Pro.
    I suppose you have no idea the engineering and design involve in HP workstations.  I suggest you check the HP Z8, which is miles ahead off what Apple offers today.  This model is capable of 3TB of RAM (yes, Terabytes), two CPU's with a max of 56 cores, a three NVidia Quadro P6000.  Do you really think that a device like this is a "bunch of parts slapped together"? 

    http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations-z8/index.html?jumpid=cp_r11260_us/en/psg/hp_desktop_workstations/z8-mdplink

    In addition, these models have been updates in a frequent basis, so high end customers have the latest specs always.  There is no excuse for what Apple has done to the Mac Pro line.


    muthuk_vanalingamSam123williamlondonrepressthisentropys
  • The Apple versus Microsoft hardware double-standard rears up again with the latest Surface...

    sflocal said:
    My friend is a Surface Book fan and when we went on a diving trip a couple years back, bringing our respective mobile devices (I brought my MacBook Pro), his Suface Book was so unreliable, would randomly freeze that at one point, he literally slammed his mouse on the display in frustration that I thought he was going to break it.  

    Just pieces of junk.  People must really hate Apple to its core to defend their Microsoft purchases.  
    I suppose that iMac Pro users had the same reaction as your friend when they had random kernel panics. 


    Considering the issues those users had, do you think the iMac Pro is a piece of junk too?
    Ari_Ugwugatorguywilliamlondon
  • New 'pro' iMac said to have discrete GPU and Xeon E3 processor, ship at end of 2017

    macxpress said:
    lkrupp said:
    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    Hopefully Apple will consult with real pros (not the ones here) to get their input. Alex Lindsey (Lucasfilm, Pixel Corps) pretty much spelled out his desires on last week’s MacBreak Weekly show. He wants a 2U configuration with the ability to swap out HDDs/SSDs and GPUs. Yes, he wants a rack mountable Mac Pro, not a cheese grater.
    Thats an interesting concept...I'm to sure that will meet most users needs, but perhaps they could offer this as a BTO. Not everyone has a rack sitting next to them. I could see that option working as a Mac server again should one need it. I'd love to see a rack mountable Mac just for that use alone. 

    I can maybe see where Alex is going with that. You could create a small rendering farm with a couple (few?) rack mounted Mac Pro's. Whether or not this meets the needs of the average true pro I'm not sure. I'm not a pro so I can't honestly say. 

    Neil Cybart from Above Avalon put up a post saying the Mac is Apple's achilles' heel. Basically arguing that the Mac is a barrier which prevents Apple for giving enough attention to what comes next. John Gruber disagrees. Ben Thompson says Apple just needs to ship a damm tower and not be precious about it. I don't agree with Cybart about the Mac being a "major vulnerability" for Apple. But I also don't agree that Apple isn't shipping a new Mac Pro this year because they're being too precious about it's hardware design. I think the fact Apple didn't exist the Pro market means they're working on something bigger here. Otherwise they could've just brought back the cheese grater and been done with it. Apple doesn't put resources on something for nothing.
    I'd rather Apple make it right and not just slap a bunch of parts together with an Apple logo on the side of it. If you want that, then go get an HP or a Dell. There's a reason why Apple takes as long as it does to engineer a Mac, or any product for that matter.  People like Neil will be the first to bitch too if someone Apple released has a major issue simply because Apple rushed a product out the door just to say we upgraded the Mac Pro. You're better off to do it right the first time, not the second or third. 
    If you think that HP "just slap a bunch of parts together", I suppose you have no idea what Z workstations are.  They have the Z2 Mini, a workstation similar in size to the Mac Mini, all the way to the Z840, with two CPU / 44 Cores and 1TB of RAM.  They even have an All-In-One workstation, the Z1 G3.  Slapping a bunch of parts together doesn't gives you a system like the Z840,

    Best of all?  HP don't wait 3 years to update their systems and have no issues with thermal design.  Compare that to what Apple does with their Pro desktops, and you'll see which one is doing the right thing. 
    xzuargonautlundywelshdogwilliamlondon
  • Apple's MacBook sales growth may outpace both iPhone and iPad this year

    jcs2305 said:
    That's quite a bold statement given it's going to take something major for the 2015 MBP and even more for the 2012 Air users to upgrade given how bad the problems with the keyboards are, and waste of money touch bar, and dongle hell, and and and...
    You do realize they sell the MBP without the touchbar right? 

    Yes, there are MBP 13" without touchbar, but the MBP 15" has no option without touchbar. 
    avon b7irelandcanukstormwilliamlondon
  • Apple's iPhone XS Max smashes Google's Pixel 3 in benchmark testing

    danvm said:

    "My post didn't had the purpose to defend to PC..."
    Are you kidding?! Having installed yourself as the resident Microsoft/PC apologist, *that's all you ever do*. It's really fucking annoying, btw, and you've been told this numerous times by numerous people, we're not stupid and neither are you, so you can stop the innocent act.
    First of all, I consider myself a MS customer, not apologist.  And it's the same for Apple, I'm just a customer (btw, I'm posting this comment from my MBP 2017).  Since I have devices from both companies, and use them for extended periods of time, I can see the benefits and where they can do better.  I don't consider other posts or people in this forums stupid, as you said.  And while sometimes I disagree with some comments, I never respond in a disrespectful way.  

    Second, if you read my post, I mentioned that I consider the Mac a PC.  My comment was comparing PC's (Windows / Mac) with smartphones as devices.
    gatorguywilliamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Microsoft and MasterCard working on universal online identification standard

    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    JWSCwilliamlondon
  • How HomePod leverages Apple's silicon expertise to deliver advanced audio performance

    danvm said:
    It would be impossible to cobble a similar platform out of the terrible speakers built into existing Echo and Dot appliances, and neither Amazon, Google, Samsung, Spotify or other speaker makers really have to clout to produce such a sophisticated, premium speaker and sell it to a critical mass of users globally.

    Based in many reviews, the HomePod sound quality is very similar to the Google Home Max, and I wouldn't consider neither of them premium speakers.  And to say that Samsung is not capable of doing sophisticated premium speaker is non sense.  They own Harman Audio, which includes companies like Harman-Kardon, AKG, Infinity and Revel, among others.  Those companies have years of experience in the audio market.  We'll have to see the results of the final product, but I wouldn't count them out.  

    The kicker on that sentence is "and sell it to a critical mass of users globally."

    Samsung developed a Gear watch platform, Tizen, Galaxy Player, all manner of tablets, and no doubt it can make a speaker. But to create an audio platform that matters, it would need to learn how to sell those products to people who would pay any money for them.

    Google hardware is a bullshit exercise in Verge fapping and nobody buys any of it in commercially relevant volumes. It doesn't matter that some bloggers can't tell the difference between a basic speaker and HomePod. If those reviews mattered Google would be a significant hardware seller rather than a source of billowing hot bullshit.
    What about the other terms that are in the sentence, "sophisticated, premium speaker"?  Isn't that more important than "sell it to a critical mass of users globally"?  For a customer, it should be, and for me, it is.  Apple didn't make a premium speaker.  They made a smart speaker that sound as good as the competition, and even below them when you consider how far is Siri from Alexa and Google Assistance.  Even in the AppleInsider comparison of the HomePod with Google Home Max the reviewer conclude "Fortunately, there isn't enough of a difference between the two to justify buying one or the other for sound quality reasons alone."  But it seems like you are focused in sales numbers, while I'm more in the line of sound quality.  


    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Microsoft surpasses Apple, retakes crown of world's most valuable company

    bb-15 said:
    lkrupp said:

    viclauyyc said:


    Can Apple buy itself and go private?

    apple sure don’t need outside investors to fund ny project like many company. 
    Absolutely not, no way. Apple is way too expensive to buy itself out and go private.
    For many, Apple's biggest attraction has been its horde of cash...   They do have a nice operating profit.  But that's at far more risk from competition or a manufacturing/design error than a Microsoft.  (MS screws up all the time but all they have to do publish another update -- but Apple has a "--Gate" with every new release and nobody knows if or when one of them is going to stick.)

    Product wise Apple has always had all over Microsoft.  But Microsoft has always had a better business model.
    I’ll clarify what the MS business model is; it is to get a monopoly in a major segment of personal computing and exploit that monopoly. 
    Bill Gates spoke about a natural PC OS monopoly in the 80s and MS has it on the desktop with Windows. That led to the MS Office monopoly and now that supports subscriptions to Office.
    The financial analysts understand this. They know that MS has desktop monopolies in big companies (including the ones they work for) and in government.
    I would agree that in the 80's and 90's MS business practices make Office very popular.  But I don't think that 20 years later it's the reason still popular.  You just have to see the alternatives, including iWorks, and you'll see why still the best suite of business applications in the market.  Even Apple have made something as good as MS Office.

    Here is a list from Apple,

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/23/18016512/apple-icloud-find-my-iphone-service-disruption-outage

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/macos-bug-lets-you-log-in-as-admin-with-no-password-required/

    And there are many others, same as MS and every other company.

    * But very important; many companies and governments are locked into MS products no matter how bad the products can be. For the enterprise, overall, Mac OS or Linux are not replacements for Windows and the MS ecosystem. 
    - MS may sometimes release junk but companies/government are dependent on MS products. 
    That = monopoly and that = a steady stream of $.


    Companies and goverment are "locked" with MS products because at many times it's the best option.  Neither Apple, Google or other company have an ecosystem as strong as MS.  If MS releases junk as you said, Google or Apple could took advantage of it.  For example, looks how iPhone and iPad did.  But a part from that, neither desktops or server solutions for Apple have been able to enter the enterprise.  Maybe MS is doing something right, don't you think?

    ** The appeal of Apple’s products is not understood by most financial analysts. Add to that the horde of uninformed Apple haters who don’t have a clue of the preferences of Apple product buyers which keeps the theme of much of tech journalism; spreading ignorance about Apple and its customers. 
    - A US financial network, CNBC, will often have talking heads who claim that Apple is doomed because everyone is going to switch to cheap Android phones and watches. This has a 10 year old level of understanding of Apple tech and its customers but it doesn’t matter.
    Ignorance makes money with views of tech journalist articles/videos and with the shorting of Apple stock. 

    There are articles for about MS, Google, FB and many other tech companies about how they are doomed for different reasons.  It's not only for Apple. 





    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Microsoft and MasterCard working on universal online identification standard

    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

    Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
    Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.
    There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

    Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  
    Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

    Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.
    I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.
    That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.
    If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.


    Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 
    Improved security does not mean good security.
    Microsoft has single handedly created an entirly new industry:  Virus protection.
    From what I know MS applications and cloud services are one of the most popular in enterprises and business.  Do you really think that they would as popular if they were bad at security?  Are they perfect?  No, neither Apple, Google, IBM or other company.  But I don't think MS is bad as security as you think.

    And yes, antivirus started as applications to protect Windows.  But now they expanded to included macOS, which by the way, includes an AV, XProtect.  Does it means that macOS is not good at security as you think of Windows?
    The're popular because they're cheap -- which brings us back to my original point:
    "Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual."

    Every business makes the determination on whether the cost of security is more than the cost of being hacked.
    First of all, it's the first time I heard someone saying that MS enterprise / business software and services are cheap.  And, no they aren't cheap.

    Second, have you consider that when a business security is breached, they have to "spend a few dollars" to fix what they broke?  Then they have to spend more to make changes, so it doesn't happen again.  That's how everything works, learn from your mistakes.  I don't think a business will survive if it's breached frequently, since they will lose customer trust.  That's the reason cloud services providers take security very seriously.
    williamlondon