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?

When I embraced silicon, I went 5120 X 2160 40" ultra wide in the Dell version... coming from well over a decade of iMac 27" usage. I could never go back to the more squarish aspect ratio. All of that expanded horizontal space is just too useful. And to my 20:20s, resolution looks the same as the old iMac... just more of it as workspace. 

Cost is comparable to ASD with stand option but it comes with the variety of stand options, FOUR very useful inputs (to one of which I've attached a Mac Mini-like PC for "old fashioned bootcamp"), a substantial hub of both present and "the future" ports, etc. If it conked today, I'd immediately buy another: best monitor I've ever had. 

hidpi on it is 3840X1620 but the full 5120X2160 doesn't look "too small" (but yes smaller) on this bigger screen. That's a macOS problem instead of a monitor problem as Windows scales to any resolution and always looks right. Most of the time, I work in 3840X1620 for Mac but will up it to max for stuff like FCPX editing when I want maximum screen R.E. If you haven't tried one, you should. ASD is far from the only fish in this sea. 

Beware the blanket assumption that future election risk will police current choices. I find myself doubting there will be mid-term or subsequent elections… which would make the problems of having to please all but the 1% no longer an issue. 

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. 

These were launched on "liberation day" spun as our "liberation." So if they are now paused, is our liberation also paused? 

The underlying drive for tariffs is to get us the "billions and billions" of dollars which- behind the scenes- is apparently crucial to helping move those in our own government against taking on more huge debt opt to pass the big tax cut bill. If "billions and billions" are paused and won't now materialize, is the tax cut legislation also paused? Won't the rich friends upset about the markets be rich friends upset about the delayed tax cut? 

If the tax cut is now paused and there are no liberation billions, does the tax cut get funded by adding huge debt? And if so, who's generally the biggest buyer of huge U.S. debt? If our biggest "banker" is now the lone tariff "villain," would they keep buying more T-Bills from their economic "enemy" putting an ever escalating pinch on them with now 125% tariffs? Imagine if in a simple move, that biggest banker opts to CEASE buying more of our debt? Any bank can opt to cease loaning new money at any time. All they have to do with T-Bills is simply CHOOSE to not buy more. Worse: make it illegal for anyone within their reach to buy new T-Bills. 

And we all realize they could start dumping their vast U.S. debt holdings at ANY time which- while shooting themselves in the foot too- would certainly crash the economy and leave a GOV thoroughly dependent on selling debt with no debt funding. What if they offered the world willing to buy U.S. debt, their holdings for X% LESS than offered at our new debt auctions (basically buy the very same thing for less)? I think that would be an economic nuclear bomb. If this understanding is correct, how much do we want to keep poking our biggest banker (bear)? 

Speaking of which, do we believe that China will now cave... or reciprocally match again? So does it escalate to 150% in a few days and 200% a few more days after that? Several economists implied there was a tariff level around 100% where it would- in effect- suspend trade entirely. Maybe that's true or false at about the current level or some level above this one, but it's obvious there IS a level where doing business with China no longer financially works at all. Else, if iPhone has to be priced at $4K-$5K due to XXX% tariffs by the time Apple needs to import lots of them, does many/any buy that iPhone or cling to the one they already own? Again, China could sell U.S. debt holdings to try to persevere through ever-rising tariffs. Our main bargaining chip is relatively cheap access to a market that buys more than any other market. We're not their banker... only a lucrative pool of consumers... in a world with far more consumers by volume.  

Lastly, now that we've shown even our allies that we'll shock them with unexpected actions instead of working things out behind the scenes in advance, commit very solidly to such actions ("tariffs are permanent") then flip flop when enough resistance makes the stock market go down, why does anyone trust anything we may say or do next? What happens if our friends & enemies proceed with the scrambling responses they were working up before this pause... AND IMPLEMENT ANYWAY, effectively turning the tables without waiting for the 90 days to expire and- presumably- facing who knows what with us again? They've been playing defense since our "liberation." What if they opt to switch to "offense" now, which seems like exactly what the U.S. would do if the tables were turned?

Relative to AAPL stock: it's WAY up today against the backdrop of the costs of doing business with China going even higher. Does the market assume that Trump will cave on China too, give exceptions for Apple after strongly conveying "no exceptions" or was this only a foolish relief rally to come back to reality soon? Relative to one day ago, all of Apple's China transactions are more expensive today than they were yesterday. The "pause" did absolutely nothing for most of Apple's sources of hardware. 

All food for thought. And I'll hope for the best with everyone.   

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.  

doggone said:

Now Apple releasing a low cost Mac will push the competition into an even lower margin market than it already is.  The cheapest MacBook Air is 999 so Apple releasing a cheaper offering at 799 would be typical of them.  I would like them to be more aggressive maybe 599 but it is not very Apple.  This would hit windows laptop hard and compete in the same price range.  There is no point trying to compete with Chromebooks yet.

You do realize- and if not, perhaps a few searches are in order- that there is SUBSTANTIAL competition already well below $799 and even $599 in laptops. Try doing some searches for "best laptops under $800" and under $600... and under $400 and $250 too. They won't have to cut their margins to compete with a new cheaper Mac(?) if they are already substantially BELOW either price. If you assume this is ONLY Chromebook territory, slug Windows into the search words.

Where your margin worries apply is that those competitors can pack more computer into those lower prices... because they are not chasing towards 50% margin on each unit sold. On the other hand, Apple seems to be a margin-foremost company, so a hypothetical $600-$800 A-series MB can't have total costs out the door of more than $300-$400 for the actual computer. 

What this could do- if true and it actually pans out- is provide a little lower entry price to a Mac laptop. Since cheaper Air is already the most popular Mac laptop, if price drives computer popularity among the masses, perhaps this becomes the NEW, most-popular-Mac laptop? I don't know if that's a good or bad thing though. More adoption can bring some benefits to all Apple people. However, cutting baseline specs for 'most popular' can result in app choices that cater towards low specs. 

If me, I'd probably keyboard case an iPad and scratch this apparent internal itch with further evolved iPad OS. But where's the $300-$400 margin per keyboard case sold? So bring on the A-Series MB MIN... presumably with standard (Apple) upgrade pricing for core tech so that a favorably-specced one runs right up into Air and low PRO territory like Mac Mini vs. Studio or Air vs. PRO considerations now.