randominternetperson

danvm said:

Quite often it's IT departments whose staff really only know Windows - they don't want to lose their jobs.


The Walmart/IBM reports of per-unit IT cost savings for Macs reinforce that belief.

True. But do they have no desire to learn something new? A new platform? Not even to give anything other than Windows a chance. So closed minded. 

I don't think that all, or event most, IT guys are as you describe.  What it's clear is that MS dominate the enterprise, and their ecosystem and management tools are miles ahead of what Apple, or any other company offers.  It's clear that macOS have some benefits for some customers as IBM (I haven't seen about Walmart).  But not every company have IBM needs, and maybe that's the reason you don't see macOS, macOS Server, FileMaker or the Apple suites of apps in most business / enterprises.  

Jamf and MS are doing their best with their Apple management tools, specially when you consider that Apple haven't done anything with theirs.  But Windows still better integrating in the MS ecosystem that most business / enterprises use.  I think Apple is the reason macOS is behind in business and enterprises, and not necessarily the IT guys.  

I agree with everything you said.  However, MS also has a huge incumbent advantage.  I work at a moderately sized organization (close to 1,000 staff).  The change-management exercise to migrate everyone from Windows to MacOS would be so disruptive, we'd never even consider it.  We in IT have a million things to worry about without taking on something like this.  Personally I've been a Mac guy since college and have never owned a Windows computer, but even I have a hard to seeing how my work life would be much better if I were using a MacBook Pro instead of my crappy company-assigned Dell laptop. As you said, Apple hasn't made is a priority to compete aggressively in this space, and it shows.  Our CIO, our president, and most IT staff all have Macs at home, but the "should the company switch from Windows" question is never raised. 

"As smaller speakers usually have trouble with bass sounds, Apple has also included force-cancelling passive radiators to create a bass extension, assisting to create a fuller sound."

I used to read books about speaker design (as a nerdy high schooler a million years ago), but I have no idea what dual passive radiators are.  Can someone here explain the physics of this?

Never mind, I found it.  "A passive radiator speaker design involves another speaker, but with no motor assembly. The magnet and voice coil are gone, but the cone and everything you cansee from the front are all there. The passive radiator subwoofer design is very similar to the bass reflex design, only instead of the vent or port, you have the passive bass radiator.
 
http://audiojudgement.com/passive-radiator-speaker-design/

My pet peeve about this site: AI never (or rarely) provides a clear, obvious link to the actual, official product page.  For example, the first sentence says "Apple has released the AirPod Max" but neither "Apple" nor "AirPods Max" link to https://www.apple.com/airpods-max/ ;  Annoyingly the only link is to another AI article that also doesn't link to Apple's site.  Even the pricing matrix on that page (which provides links to half a dozen retail sites) doesn't link to the Apple store.

It's 2020, we shouldn't have to manually open a new tab and type in apple.com.

Apple is weird about water.

Modern iPhone are advertised to be very water resistant, being able to survive drops in the bath or whatnot.

So why, when I was going to get a battery replacement on my own dime, did they ask if my phone "ever got wet"?  Whose phone never gets wet? So of course I said no and that was that.

drhamad said:

No, no it shouldn't.  It was an infomercial, plain and simple.  There's always some of that to a Keynote... it's obviously basically an advertisement... but the live keynotes have emotion to them.  This was nothing more than an infomercial.  It was slick, included a lot of information... and I might as well just read a press release.  There was no reason what-so-ever to actually watch it.  The reason you watch is to get sucked in, and this did none of that.

Completely disagree.  I showed my non-techie wife a few minutes of the presentation and then went back to my office to watch the rest.  That evening she told me that she tuned into the rest of the presentation and found it very interesting (even though she didn't understand all the nuances of the Apple Silicon stuff).  So at least one person was "sucked in."

rotateleftbyte said:

Quote

Quizzically, the Epic attorney also likened Apple's App Store to a scenario where if the iPhone was a car, Apple would take 30% of what the driver had to pay for gasoline.

This is a load of baloney. I don't pay Apple a bent penny when I use one of the Apps on my phone to pay for the charging of my car.  The charging company had my card details. They don't take 30% when I use Apple Pay on my iPhone even for Gas/Petrol.

I really hope that the Apple legal team objected to that statement. If they didn't then why not?

I'm pretty sure you can't object to anything in an opening statement (or at least the rules are very different).  The opening statement is just a way for both parties to provide context for the evidence and witnesses they will introduce. You can't object to stupid analogies unless it's used as part of questioning witnesses.

“Much-maligned touchbar”?  I would have used something like innovative, versatile, product-defining, or beloved instead.  I’m really hoping that Apple doesn’t listen to the vocal minority this time around.  Outside this forum are there that many people who long to emulate a VT-100 or otherwise has a need for 20th-century-holdover physical F-keys?  Setting volume and brightness is so my better with a slider rather than buttons. Having clearly labeled context-sensitive virtual buttons is clearly better than cryptic, static keys. Don’t go backwards, Apple. 

Number 3 (lower price) perfectly explains Apple's decision to omit the other options.  Obviously Apple could have included wireless charging (adding components and thickness) and FaceID (adding specialized sensors) and made it more water resistant (with additional gaskets and tighter tolerances), but those all would have resulted in a higher price tag (or lower margins, ha).  Adding $100 to the price of every iPad mini would have been a major impediment to adoption (presumably).

I would argue that this editorial contorts the meaning of “hidden costs” well beyond a reasonable interpretation. 

Dooofus said:

Shareholders want a return on their investment.  Why should Apple pay workers any more than they do now? The stores are fully staffed by people working there of their own free will. That means they are already paying the right amount. Any more would be pissing away profit.

I'm as big a capitalist fanboy as anyone, but this is nonsense.

Without speaking to the Apple Store situation, of which I know nothing, just because an employer has employees doesn't mean they are paying "the right amount."  I'm sure if Google (or Apple) capped it's pay at $100K, they would still have no trouble hiring 10s of thousands of human beings. Would they be world-class engineers, etc.? Probably not. And if they were, would they be as content and productive as if they were making a salary commensurate with their skill set? I doubt it.

It is very possible for an employer to be underpaying people and still have employees. Therefore, it can be in the best interest of a company (and its shareholders) to increase employee pay even if all their positions are currently filled. If nothing else, employee turnover is very expensive (as is churn in most contexts).

Here's an extreme example. Suppose the Golden State Warriors (the NBA team closest to Cupertino) decided to not pay any players more than the league minimum. Would they be able to field a team of 15 players?  Absolutely.  There are thousands of former Division 1 hoopsters who would be happy to be professional basketball players, regardless of the salary. Would the owners profit from this move? Probably not.