Last Active
  • Intel delays 10nm Cannon Lake processor production to late 2019

    linkman said:
    Intel is running up against the fact that wavelengths of light can get only so short (10 nm is pretty stinking short) and physics is going to win at attempts to get much smaller. A transistor can't get smaller than an atom. Progress on ICs is getting slower and will need some sort of breakthrough (like power reduction, using neural-type processing, memristors, light instead of electricity, etc.) before we can see performance improvement rates that we've experienced over the last 40 years.
    Actually, there are working 5nm transistors that should be going into production in 2020. It's just amazing. I'd heard if we could go to some other materials from silicon, transistor gates could be made much smaller without having an electron tunneling problem.
  • Apple grabs 86% of global smartphone profits, iPhone X alone seizes 35%

    That's fairly decent profits but yet the iPhone X is considered a "failed" product. I suppose anything can be considered a failure if it doesn't meet a particular person's standards. Apparently, the only measure for Wall Street is when a product exceeds a certain amount of market share percentage whether or not the product is profitable or not. If market share percentage is the only measure of success for a product, then no Apple product will ever be considered "successful." Generally speaking, Apple's entire business is not considered a successful business as far as Wall Street is concerned because of such low growth potential and Apple doesn't seem to dominate any particular market. However, Apple's cash flow is good and profits are relatively high but is still considered a doomed business due to certain set standards of what is considered a successful business.
    red oakRonnnieOtmayviclauyyc
  • Huawei HiSilicon Kirin 980 more than a year behind Apple's A12 Bionic in performance

    High benchmarks are nice but I believe most consumers are more concerned with what the total package brings them.  Most people I know have no interest in benchmarks and certainly they don't choose their smartphones based on benchmarks.  Most of their choices seem to be based on some sort of price/feature selection.  Many are happy with products that are just 'good enough' for their needs.

    No matter how fast the A12 Bionic is, very few consumers in India will never get their hands on one.  Same goes for Brazil or Russia.  The smartphone that's going to win in those countries is the one most consumers can afford to purchase.

    Although the A12 Bionic is a monster SoC, when flagship smartphones are tested next to one another, they're usually within milliseconds of each other when performing routine app launch tests.  Seriously, most consumers are not going to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for a gain or loss in milliseconds.  Apple's OS animations are very fluid but many times some Android smartphone can launch an app slightly quicker.  Apple just needs to keep making the whole iOS platform and ecosystem better and that will make the biggest difference in what smartphone consumers will purchase.  I'll always prefer an overall balanced package but that's just me.  As long as Apple doesn't keep pricing the iPhone much higher, Apple will do quite well selling a nicely balanced iPhone product.
  • Apple's cheaper iPhones are not the volume sellers pundits predicted: iPhone 8, X are

    wizard69 said:
    It is pretty delusional to believe that pricing isn't an issue.   It is pretty easy to argue that Apple could have sold a lot more iphones if they didn't price the things so high.
    One could say that much about any product. Porsches could be as numerous as Toyotas if they were cheaper in price.
    backstabbaconstangfastasleepstanthemanradarthekatracerhomie3[Deleted User]netmageAlex1Njony0
  • Appaloosa Management bailed on AAPL in Q1, sold 4.5 million shares

    All the big hedge funds are piling into Facebook because they know the company can't be touched by the Feds. Despite all the moaning and groaning about loss of personal privacy and data breaches, the big investors are more interested in making money than all that consumer privacy nonsense. Almost no one is concerned with loss of personal privacy and the companies that harvest personal data are the most profitable ones around. Even after the data-breach scandal, Facebook stock is up for the year. Zuckerberg walked away untouched by the Capitol Hill watchdogs.
  • Apple's first million HomePods now shipping from Inventec - report

    The way I see it, HomePod sales are going to be compared to sales of Amazon Echo Dots and Google's Home Mini and therefore no matter how many Apple HomePods are sold sales are going to look pathetic in comparison. This is another case of Amazon's market share percentage beating out Apple's profits. I'm sure it's already been declared by the industry how Apple's HomePod is too little and too late. Apple has just that one expensive voice assistant so every other company's voice assistant sales are going to seem immense when compared with the HomePod. Apple is already starting out with Siri being acknowledged as the most stupid AI. Alexa has completely captured the home market and with Amazon's marketing prowess, there's simply no way the HomePod can compete.

     I can already see the headlines. "Amazon's Echo outselling the HomePod by 10 to 1 so Apple has a failing product on its hands." Amazon will be reiterated to reach the $1T market cap mark before Apple because Jeff Bezos is seen as a better CEO than Tim Cook. As an individual, I have no interest in either Echos or HomePods because I don't wish to have listening devices in my house. I'm almost 70 years of age, so I suppose I'm just old-fashioned and don't see voice assistants as some wonderful, game-changing products. My house isn't all that complicated where I need devices to talk to in order to carry out simple commands.  I already have a media center with 7.1 surround sound and a few BT headphones to listen to music if I want to.  Voice assistants may be great for most consumers but I don't fall into that category as of yet.
  • Samsung profits driven by iPhone XS components, smartphone earnings plummeting

    All the smartphone reviewers say Samsung flagship smartphones are much better than Apple's iPhones. Samsung smartphones are said to have far more features at a much cheaper cost. Also, Samsung has a better selection of smartphones to choose from. At least that's what 99% of Youtubers have to say about Samsung smartphones. This year, the iPhone is suffering from Beautygate, Chargegate and Connectivitygate. Not even one Android flagship smartphone seems to have any problems at all or they're not being reported on the internet as such. There's the omnipresent complaint about iPhones not coming with fast chargers in the box despite their exorbitant price. No freaking headphone jack and the ugly display notch just about completes the reasons why iPhones are said to be inferior to all the Samsung offerings.

    This year the iPhone is said to be TOO expensive for the consumer masses and supposedly no one is going to buy iPhones because they all believe Apple is just ripping-off consumers. So, with all that being said, I'm surprised Samsung smartphone sales are falling off. It just runs counter to what all the reviewers are saying. Apple's iPhone should clearly be losing the battle. Heck, Samsung is beating the pants off of Apple in terms total smartphone shipments. Apple appears to be doomed this year. Smartphone reviewers are never wrong.


    Same old, same old.  Only iPhones seem to have problems and that's just downright unlikely.
  • The new Mac mini is a great machine, but a $499 model could serve a larger audience

    tht said:
    Disagree with this. A consumer Mac for budget seekers is something like a $600 to $700 laptop. The market for desktops is pretty small, and is basically nonexistent in education now? How Apple would get to a $700 laptop is a very good question, and for a lot of people what will be in it will be unacceptable. 

    It would be nice if there was a $500 Mac mini, but there just aren’t that many buyers for something like this anymore. Just don’t see it if most of the market is buying laptops and tablets. Look at the Surface Go. Any takers if that hardware was inside a $500 box? An Apple TV with macOS/ARM on it for $400? Is the lack of near term compatible software going to kill it? And would buy it?

    For education, I think iPad + Pencil + Services is Apple’s best option for students, and the most benefit for students. Apple really needs to shore up its educational services and iPad + Pencil software, but the triad of iPad + Pencil + Services is the way to go. They need to develop an attractive package for schools. Whether they want to do it, who knows.

    A lot of the computer or web based homework I see for my junior high schooler has a real good chance of making students dumber, not smarter. I mean I’m near steaming mad about it. What a waste of time.
    Apple doesn't seem hungry enough to compete with other companies going after educational sales.  Apple is always going to set the highest price point and believes schools are going to choose them for quality or ecosystem.  Apple needs to create some loss leader product to crush the competition.  I think that's the only way Apple can get some momentum going when it comes to selling products to schools.  Whether it's worth it for Apple to do something like that, I wouldn't know.  Apple is all about revenues and profits and little else.  Schools have limited budgets and are probably always going for the least expensive offering.  Apple isn't about to work out some special pricing deal.  It's either Apple's way or the highway.  The Chromebooks are always going to win and Apple is always going to lose when fighting for school contracts.
  • iPhone Face ID not fooled in fake head test as Android rivals fail

    Unfortunately, Apple loses again. Most consumers in the world are willing to settle for a $200 cheaper Android smartphone which has less security than an iPhone. Nothing is going to change that. Apple will continue to sell fewer iPhones while increasing prices each and every year. Fewer people will ever get to try the more secure Face ID, especially while the sensors are housed in the infamous (hated) display notch because they don't want to pay the high cost of an iPhone. Apple keeps going down the least favored path by consumers. Apparently, Apple isn't able to sell enough iPhones to satisfy anyone and everyone says iPhones are too expensive. This is a lose-lose situation even if iPhones are more secure using Face ID. Apple put a lot of work and effort into Face ID and yet people hate it. That's just human nature, I suppose.

    High Android smartphone sales combined with their overall market share percentage are absolutely crushing Apple into a poorly valued mess of a company. Why? Because consumers aren't buying enough iPhones for various reasons. Face ID (or any security feature) is so low on consumers' minds it simply doesn't even matter. This facial recognition test being won by Apple isn't going to boost iPhone sales. A cheaper Android smartphone with weaker security will easily win in unit sales. Lower cost always beats higher security when it comes to selling to consumers. I can only hope Apple realizes this before the company value drops to half the value it was a couple of months ago.
  • Actor Orlando Bloom stops play because of audience member just holding an iPad

    But he's a professional, so the show must go on! What a diva. Or maybe he's just anti-Apple.
    maltzsupremedesigneranton zuykov[Deleted User]