MacQuadra840av

Someone should tell AppleInsider that the iPhone 5C was obsolete in 2017, not 2020.  The iPhone 5C was cut off in 2017 with the release of iOS 11.  AppleInsider is confusing software support with hardware parts repair support.  Once the software isn't supported, the product is pretty much useless.  Sure Apple could provide repair parts in 2020, but developers and Apple stopped supporting iOS 10 three years earlier.

The HomePod uses the outdated A8.  Apple hasn't used this chip since 2015, 6 long years ago.  The mini uses the Watch CPU and has hardware not present in the HomePod.  Apple does not support discontinued products for long.  Look how they killed off the original iPad with iOS 5.1.1, making that model quickly obsolete.

I get that the very small group of people that bought HomePod are upset, but it was abundantly clear that it was always half-baked, Siri is awful, and it was a heavily restricted product designed to sell Apple Music subscriptions.  $349 was a joke, and they could not unload them at $199.  But Apple won't be supporting it for long, and it will be an overpriced AirPlay speaker.  My 25 year old JBL floor-standing speakers sound incredible, and they cost less than two obsolete HomePods.  Apple is famous for burning a few customers here and there.  Remember the term, IIvx'd?  (Even on day one, the HomePod never sold out because enough people knew it was a turd of a product).

It will be funny when people claim they hear a difference in sound quality through their mediocre AirPod/AirPod Max products.  Bluetooth is compressed audio through a specific protocol.  You are not going to get high quality music through Bluetooth.  Never have.  A wired connection with a good DAC is required.

Second, the HomePod is not an example of high quality audio.  Why?  Apple prohibits the user from any tone control.  Not even simple bass or treble is allowed.  Still can't figure out why Apple does not allow this when iTunes 2.0 had a user-adjustable EQ.  The HomePod is a boomy mess.  It never sold well and it was never sold out, which is why Apple killed the product.

Maybe AppleTV through HDMI to a Dolby Atmos receiver might be the only solution available to actually listen to Apple Lossless and the small amount of Dolby Atmos files.

Meanwhile, Amazon Music just upgraded all their users to Amazon Music HD at no extra cost, available today.  What is Apple waiting for?

Finally, iTunes Match does not apply (it would be awesome if it did!).  The lossless files are only available from Apple Music.  You'll have to continue to rip your own lossless files from CD.

The M1 does have a faster single-core score (by only 450 points), but that's it.  As Marvin (the board moderator) pointed out, Apple still sells the higher end and more powerful Intel models.  I can't figure out why people are excited about a 16GB memory cap, when not long ago they were complaining about Apple having MacBooks with only 16GB.  Less ports, less storage, less memory, less features.  That is what the M1 gives you.  But somehow people are all hung up on the single-core score.  What good is the speed when all the features are gone?  My 2012 MacBook Pro can drive two external 4K monitors.  The M1 MacBooks can't even do that.  And somehow people are all excited about it.  So the next Apple Silicon might offer up to 64GB of RAM?  That is half of what the current iMac 27" model supports.  And be ready to pay Apple's high price for that non-upgradable RAM.  Apple charges $1,000 for 64GB (third party is about $325).

Here is what people conveniently ignore.  The multi-core scores of the Intel processors are significantly faster than the M1.  The iMac 2020 with the 10-core i9 and 64GB RAM is over 2,000 more points on multi-core than the M1 (even more with 128GB).  Even the base model iMac 27" 2020 with the i7 CPU is faster than the M1's multi-core.  But here is where the M1 really falls short.  Graphics.  The iMac 27" 2020 with the AMD Radeon Pro 5700XT scores over 60,000 on Metal.  The M1 barely breaks 20,000 on Metal.  And people are all excited about this.  The M1 is faster than integrated graphics, but can't compare to dedicated graphics.  Even the 21.5" iMac with the Radeon Vega 20 scores 6,000 more points on Metal than the M1.  But the reviews conveniently left out the fact that the prior model iMacs with dedicated graphics had better graphics performance.  Only one article here at AppleInsider mentioned it, when they compared all the iMac models.  Even Apple cleverly states that the 24" iMac is faster than the 'standard' iMac, the one without dedicated graphics.

The Intel Macs, especially the iMac 2020 with the 10-core i9 and Radeon Pro 5700XT is a blazing fast Mac.  It is faster than the 8 and 10-core discontinued iMac Pro and 8-core Mac Pro, and faster than the M1 in most operations.  Most people ignore the first generation product, especially with a processor transition.  They have a lot of software invested and can wait 5+ years for that transition to be well over and all the bugs ironed out before switching.  That is why Apple is still selling Intel models.

"AirPort routers are no longer sold by Apple, but still receive regular updates."

What are you talking about?  The last update to the AirPort products, the late generation ones, was TWO years ago.  You call that 'regular updates'?  Stop trying to make people think Apple supports discontinued products, especially ones that did not sell well at all.

bluefire1 said:

So Apple is sacrificing quality of sound for a smaller size and a lower price. For me, when it comes to music, quality trumps all else.

Now that is funny.  Here is a guy that claims quality trumps all else, yet he buys a HomePod with no tone controls and listens to heavily compressed Apple Music at 256Kbps.  Sorry, you have no idea what good sound quality is.  I bet you think Bluetooth music sounds good too.  Apple killed it because it was overpriced, heavily restricted, and no one bought it.  It never sold out, ever, even on day one.  One great thing about Steve Jobs is that he admitted their mistakes, and killed off products quickly that consumers didn't want.  Tim Cook leaves them around for years hoping someone might buy one or two.

Remember when HomePod first came out and Apple said, "You are placing it wrong" and suggested not to place it on wood furniture because it will damage the surface and leave a ring.  Even Apple's support document said if you don't want HomePod to leave a ring, don't put it on wood surfaces.  

I bet if Apple used a standard 3.5mm audio in for the AirPod Max they would play lossless files.  But no, Apple had to use Lightning and cripple a pair of $550 headphones.  And the people that think AirPod Max can do AirPlay 2...nope, the headphones do not have Wi-Fi hardware.  Read the article next time.

Still hilarious that Apple announces lossless music and they have no hardware to play it on.  They sure are changing the face of music.

The AppleTV became significantly more popular when the 2nd and 3rd generation were reduced to $99.  That is the number one request people wanted after being surveyed about the first generation model.  Doubling the price by offering the same video sources but in app format does not warrant the price increase.  Siri is stupid on AppleTV.  The remote has been a joke.  Thankfully the Harmony has no problem controlling it.  The new version comes with a 3-year old outdated processor that adds no value because you can watch the same 4K content.  They add a new calibration feature in tvOS for people with basic TVs.  When you have a TV that supports Dolby Vision, the feature is not applicable.  Makes sense since you are already watching a calibrated picture.  Apple should have reduced the price of the AppleTV because it provides no additional value over the 2017 model, especially when they bump the processor by two generations when they could have easily used an A14.  If people want games, they have a PS4 or Xbox.  So their incremental update from A10X to A12 (not even the A12X or A12Z which smoke the A12 in graphics), isn't even worth it.  I guess that's why the separate remote is more popular than the box itself.

rcomeau said:

(on top of the rumour that Kia will be making them?). Not getting me excited at least.

Apple would only be using their manufacturing plant to build the cars.  They are not Kias with an Apple logo on it.  You do realize that Apple does not manufacture ANY of their products, don't you?  Apple designs the products and they have other companies build them.  They don't make the displays, components, housings, or assemble them.  You seem to be okay with Foxconn manufacturing the iPhones.

Second, the Apple Car will be so expensive, if it ever becomes reality, that only the super-rich will be able to afford them.  Consumers begged Apple to make a tower Mac Pro, so Apple delivered with a $6,000 product that no one could afford.  Apple would be better off licensing their software technology to existing auto manufacturers, rather than build a car no one would buy, or afford to buy.