HobeSoundDarryl

netrox said:

isnt iPad Mini also a phone since it supports cellular (if you go for celluar in addition to wifi)? 

Yes, but you need an app for that. Apple doesn't include the iPhone VOIP app, nor is it available as a downloadable app. But there's plenty of VOIP apps available. I've used iPad Minis to also be my "phone" (with buds) since Mini 1. Call over wifi when in wifi zones, use cellular data when not. It all works great. 

Favorite FREE VOIP app available for it: Google Voice. It takes and makes calls (rings iPad when called) and it sends and receives texts from non-Apple people (and also gives me notifications of new texts). With Apple people I text through Messages and video conf through FaceTime, just like anyone does with iPhone.

Other VOIP apps I've used/like: Talkatone and Comcast Voice... the latter when I had their landline service. Anyone anti-Google-everything certainly has plenty of other options. There's also some cheap-but-paid apps with more features. 

Like many people, my pure "phone" usage of these devices is not that heavy, so this is like we use iPhones for everything else... except with a bigger screen. 

Key Negatives: it doesn't fit in a pocket as well as iPhone (suit pocket works, bag/purse, or I just tuck it under an arm when I need it with me but am not in a full suit), if you like Watch or CarPlay full functionality, BOTH of those need to be married to an iPhone, cameras are superior in iPhone, you can't use Messages for texts from non-Apple people, so you basically are texting through 2 apps instead of one (I just park both apps in the iPad dock for quick access), 911 functionality is not there (but I just put in my local emergency contacts as a single button click instead of having to click 3), a few entities like Uber and Ticketmaster, etc don't recognize Google Voice numbers as "cell" numbers (so I also have the Talkatone app which creates a dynamic cell number which will satisfy text-based authentication. Since that's often about what will then be lots of text spam, I'm not giving them my main number so I somewhat see that as a positive). 

Key Positives: ONE device to carry instead of two. Since iPads seem to "keep up" longer, the upgrade cycle can be slower without getting behind on iOS features (so not feeling strong compulsion to buy new ones every year or two saves a lot of money), still full Apple/iOS, cellular data services for iPad can get down to as little as $5/month so the annual cell bill can get down to $60 if one does not need gobs of cellular data (I'm in wifi most of that time, so that applies to me), all the benefits of a screen bigger than iPhone.

Is this for everyone? NO, nothing is for everyone. But I can offer it has worked very well for me since MINI 1. Nobody on the other end notices that I don't have an iPhone and the money savings is sizable over time (vs. buying new phones every year or two and ongoing cellular cost differences). 

BONUS: if you do have or need a landline at home (alarm system, still need to fax sometimes, etc), look up the Obihai device. It will also use Google Voice for landline calls. When someone calls my "phone", my home phones also ring. When I call out from either, I'm using the same phone number. That also "just works" and has for years. Cost of local & long distance this way? $0 if all calls are in North America. 

When I first went this way, I transferred my old landline through a few days of Tmobile to (be able to transfer it to) Google Voice. So that was keeping my main number but getting to use it in more ways. People already using a mobile number can direct transfer if they want... or setup a new (free) number with GV and have it auto-forward to their existing number. 

Impending Mini 6 will also be my new "phone." I look forward to the big upgrade over the existing Mini... then doing it again in about 4-6 years to about MINI 9 or 10 or maybe iPhone Fold 2 or 3.

jeff fields said:

netrox said:

isnt iPad Mini also a phone since it supports cellular (if you go for celluar in addition to wifi)? 

No. Cellular data only. No SIM card, therefore no cell calls. It's not a phone.

This is not true. I laid out the details of how to use one to also cover phone calls and texts in post eight. Works great as a "phone." Been using iPad Minis to also cover phone needs since the first generation model. While possible to hold this up to the ear like a giant iPhone, I have always used  buds with microphone for phone purposes. 

And it DOES have a sim card. See "Buttons & Connectors" at: https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/specs/

But even the wifi-only one can be a "phone" using a VOIP app when using wifi. Macs can be a "phone" that way too. In fact, I use Google Voice (app and website) to make & take calls, send & receive texts whether I'm using iPad Mini (2 until the new 6 arrives) or either of my Macs. 

Want big, cutting edge games? Show the game developers the money. It's as simple as that.

Much like how AppleTV+ (service) has "billions" being thrown at original programming to create quality programming to watch on that service, the same kind of thing that shows big game companies how to make the most money coding something(s) exclusive for Apple Silicon would get big games coded for Apple Silicon. 

But Apple seems to value that about like they value massive libraries of video content that sometimes is up for sale: near nill. Without some kind of artificial monetary incentive to develop for Apple Silicon, any game development motivations must be organic. The most likely path to Apple Silicon games for PRO & MAX are iPhone games being coded with some extra advantages when run on PRO & MAX. iPhone is where the money is for game development in any Apple tech, so it is "least common denominator" for target platform. 

Why are many Mac games just iPhone games scaled up? Because that's where the money is. 

How do brand new consoles launch with big, cutting edge games? Console makers pay up huge to motivate game developers to create them. Does Apple pay up huge to any game developers for exclusives? As far as I know, the biggest news of Apple and big game developers has been Apple vs. Epic... mostly fighting over about 15% profit, mostly for a VERY popular game from a few years ago. When it comes to game profits, it appears Apple wants their cut FIRST and right off the top even at the expense of banning what was the #1 game from the platform.

Some of us celebrate the fight, celebrate the lack of access to the banned game and celebrate the win(?)... like we won something too. But what message does that fight and win (or loss?) send to other big game developers? 

What all businesses want is what Apple wants: more money, more money, more money. Show big game developers how to maximize profits coding for Apple Silicon and the games will roar onto the platform. Expect some kind of magic, organic uptake because programmers want to make much less money than they would building a big game for Windows or consoles... and not many are going to feel much motivation to go that way. 

Apple seems to have the most applicable key to overcoming this issue. Will they ever turn that key?

badmonk said:

I don’t understand the pro usb-c camp as very few people use a cable to off-load data and lightening is a pure male into female connector that is bound to be more resilient than usb-c.  Tony should know this as an engineer.

Apple should delay as long as possible.

Just reframe the thinking. Apple has chosen to use USB-C over Lightning in iPads and Macs. So Apple is in "the usb-c camp" with those products. Is Apple wrong for using USB-C in them instead of lightning? 

Generally, the answer is NO... which then leads to the conclusion that some of our opinions revolve around whatever Apple has decided and will even flip flop or split when Apple is split:

• USB-C is wrong for iPhones because Apple still clings to Lightning there.
• USB-C is right for iPads and Macs because Apple embraces USB-C there. 

Reminds me of how much "we" ridiculed phablet-sized phones while Apple called 3.5" and then 4" screens perfection: one handed use, fragmentation, pants with bigger pockets, et all. Then Apple goes phablet to overwhelming acceptance as "best iPhone ever" followed by "how did we ever get by with those puny screens." All these years later and I'm still not seeing all these pants with bigger pockets... and wow, how our one-handed-use hands magically grew!!!    

Even more reminds me of original iPad mini launch where Apple rolled out one iPad with retina and mini without. Then "we" spun how retina made perfect sense where Apple was using it and how nobody needed retina where Apple wasn't offering it... until the next year when the latter iPad had an upgrade to a retina screen and then retina was the reason "we" spun to urgently upgrade. So apparently nobody needed retina for that one year but then everybody needed retina as soon as Apple offered the next generation version with it. 

Should Apple comply and roll out USB-C in the next iPhone, will Apple be wrong for doing so? Will the "pro-lightning camp" come back in those threads ripping into Apple for making a terrible decision? Based on repeating history of "whatever Apple decides is right" (and thus "my" opinion- even if presented quite passionately at any given time- is actually fluid), NO. Instead, the "pro lightning camp" will very likely and readily flip their opinion as soon as Apple flips their choice of connector: USB-C will be terrific in iPhones as soon as Apple decides to roll out iPhones with USB-C. Until then... apparently... (other than iPads and Macs) USB-C makes little sense because Apple doesn't offer an iPhone with USB-C now.

flydog said:

charlesatlas said:

So when is Apple going to make a curved ultrawide display? I'd love for someone to do it right, with a nice, big 21:9 aspect ratio at 42-45". The only curved ultrawides at that size are 32:9, which are too wide and not tall enough for me.

There are no 4k ultrawide monitors so that is not an option at all for anyone who wants 4k.  

Dell 40" 5K/2K Ultra-wide U4021QW

After my iMac 27" (just) conked, I decided that even if Apple rolled out a new iMac "bigger" at the event, I wouldn't not go "all in one" again unless it came with an TDM-like option to use the monitor after the Mac tech guts became outdated by macOS upgrades or conked. Monitors can easily last 10+ years as those clinging to Apple's previously branded monitors can attest. 

So I went Studio Ultra, that Dell and, to get the new/old version of Bootcamp again, I'm shopping for a mini-size-but-loaded PC (probably one of the little Ryzen-based boxes) which will also plug into another input port on that monitor so I can do what I used to do on that iMac: one monitor for BOTH platforms... only now, I can opt for split-screen mode to have both platforms running side by side when I need that.

There is so much spin that only this Studio Monitor works for Mac- everything else will be blurry, etc. But my 20:20 eyes are not experiencing that with this monitor. Instead, if "looks" like I now have TWO iMac 27" screens in ONE frame and the productivity that extra screen RE has given me makes me regret not doing this years ago. 

There ARE choices!. And Apple just encouraged us iMac 27" people to get whatever size and shape monitor we want. Did you really want the rumored 32" iMac? Now you can have a 32" screen. Did you want "at least a 30"? Now you can choose a 30". Ultra-wide? There's plenty from which to choose. 

If in doubt, take your MB to a retailer with many monitors and do some tests. As long as they are not the dirt-cheapies with very low resolution, you'll likely be quite impressed with what you can get to be the new macOS screen. Certainly the choices are not limited to only 27" or $6K. "Think different." 

Nice article! I like the extrapolations- seemingly logical in every way.

Like others, I'm quite curious to see what happens for the rumored Mac Pro. Is that a QUAD (MAX)? If so, how does it fit together? Or is it some kind of x-serve-like networked ULTRAS that work together but are not directly connected: baseline has 2 ULTRAS, top of the line has 8 or 10 or more?

Also, the rollout of M1 makes it easy to jump to a time extrapolation too: first comes M2, then M2 PRO & MAX in the Fall (yes I'm shaving a year), then M2 ULTRA next spring because that was the order of M1. However, if we do that, where does Mac Pro "jump in"? Does Mac Pro with M1 QUAD come soon? If not pretty soon, you have to assume it is going to get M2 which would seem to flip the natural time extrapolation on its ear. For example, if an M2 QUAD hits for Mac Pro, why isn't PRO, MAX and ULTRA already available- or available at the same time- too? It already seems a little messy to perhaps roll out M2, then M2 QUAD (for Mac Pro), THEN PRO & MAX and finally ULTRA. 

That makes me wonder does Mac Pro get some other chip branding especially/exclusively for Mac Pro? I'm not thinking it is going to wait through M2 PRO, M2 MAX and M2 ULTRA before it releases. So that would imply that M1 doesn't set the timing example for the rest of them... making me think that perhaps PRO to QUAD all hits in the Fall together unless maybe M1 QUAD Mac Pro rolls out pretty soon... or Mac Pro with X100 or some completely-different painted name on a chip hits instead.

I look forward to seeing whatever- and whenever- it is. 

Beats said:

mpantone said:

Beats said:

Making a worse Apple TV isn’t the solution. Make a premium version for once!

Apple has a conundrum with its Apple TV hardware. Displaying video content (TV shows, movies, etc.) doesn't require powerful silicon.

The 1080p Roku stick is $25 at Amazon; last year's 4K version is $34. You can buy one of each for the price of an Apple TV remote. So any recent A-series SoC has enough horsepower; it can even be a heavily binned sample with some CPU and GPU cores disabled. A premium priced Apple TV doesn't provide any benefit to Joe Consumer in terms of watching video. A 16-core M-series SoC isn't going to make that latest Marvel Comics movie look any better.

However Apple is also marketing Apple TV as a casual gaming console. This does require more graphics horsepower but since the Apple Arcade games are relatively lightweight, today's Apple TV doesn't need to compete technology-wise with the Xbox Series X|S or the PlayStation 5.

If you get a $500 Xbox Series X and subscribe to Xbox Game Pass, how appealing would an $800 Apple TV with an Apple Arcade+ subscription look? And what if you can AirPlay your iPhone to your television set and play games on that instead?

If Apple wants to pursue the videogame market, they will likely need separate video streaming hardware and videogame playing hardware.

The biggest issue is original content. Apple doesn't have enough compelling exclusive games for a $300+ console to survive today. Remember that at that price level, they would be competing with Nintendo Switch which has sold over 110 million units between the original and OLED models.

Remember that another competitor is Nvidia Shield ($150, thirty dollars cheaper than the entry-level Apple TV 4K box) which runs GeForce NOW at 120Hz with the 3080 subscription.

Apple will need to double down on original videogame content if they are going to compete in that market. They will also need to consider pricing very carefully because there are compelling alternatives where Apple TV is already priced.

Videogame industry revenue surpassed Hollywood box office revenue back in the Nineties so it's clear to Apple where people's eyeballs are spending.

I agree with this and everything has a solution (which is scary if you think 500 years ahead).

The 4K Apple TV is too expensive. They should drop the price to $99 and keep it to only 32GB. This would be the “base” Apple TV. Then if they decided, the can make a cheaper option that is $49 with no remote or those original AppleTV remotes.

Here’s where it gets fun:
Apple can then develop a high end device for the rest of us. The crappy Arcade dilemma also has a solution.

Speculators have come up with some pretty cool names.

Apple TV Pro
and
Apple Arcade+

The Pro version can have an M1 Pro and 256GB hard drive. With Arcade being partly streamed and iCloud, it in theory could be sufficient space.

Now Apple can hire big studios to create big games for Arcade+. The subscription would be higher like $9.99 and included with Apple One high tiers.

I don’t know where you got that $800 number from. I’d imagine it being closer to $499. 

The problem didn’t seem to be with limitations or pricing but with Apple just not caring enough for gaming. They have more money than MS/Sony/Nintendo but aren’t willing to spend it on high end studios or original titles.

The easy way to give the Pro hungry what they want is to revive Front Row. If you don't recall, Front Row was a pretty good variation of the AppleTV UI app for Macs. People especially loved to hook a Mac mini to the their TV, run Front Row and enjoy the most powerful AppleTV-like device available. 

It should be EASIER to make a Front Row 2 since the code runs on Apple Silicon already... maybe the infamous "just flip a switch in the compiler" easy. 

Then, an app and a M1 Mac Mini or even Studio could be the new "Power AppleTV." 

Conceptually, an M2 Mini will show at some point and there will be a lot of M1 Minis out there that might be looking for something to do in potential early retirement. If so, perhaps it could move to the TV and be the new Power AppleTV? Just a crazy idea to efficiently feed some of this want. 

bloggerblog said:

It’ll be nice if we can get AirTag for other things like a car, bicycle, motorcycle. Something that’s specifically designed for these things. Not sure what the differences would be but I’m sure Apple’s crack design team has a few ideas. 

The 2 AirTags I use now are hidden in a bicycle and a car... with a goal of being able to assist the police in possibly recovering either if stolen. They work great in knowing exactly where either is at all times. I did go to the trouble of removing the speakers so that this intended purpose has its best chance to succeed.

And while I lean pretty positive on Vpro and am typically not short on imagination, I can't think of a single thing that would cater them to Vpro or make them have some special relationship/functionality with it. Marking off open space to allow one to freely move within an empty square in virtual experiences without colliding with walls, furniture or other things... like those artificial boundaries for robot vacuums? That's all my imagination has to try to connect these dots. And I'm doubting they have that much accuracy to actually do that well.