dreyfus2

Besides the obvious (the lawsuit is BS), I certainly think Apple should generate a list of complex backup codes when setting up 2FA, like other solutions do. This way, when your trusted device is not available, or the SMS / push notification does not work (which happens rarely, but it happens), you at least have an alternative. I do not know if supporting alternative TOTP solutions (like fobs) would help. Most people would likely use an app for that and thus be back to square one.

Since the claimant uses an gmail account, security and privacy are obviously not on his list of priorities. He should sue web sites enforcing https next; encryption steals milliseconds of his useless life dozens of times every day.

I am doing this for many years now, and agree with pretty much all of it. But just for completeness... Having to tether the iPad does not really constitute the end of being able to move around. Controlling the iPad using an iPhone, or even the Watch as a remote works very well.

While I am mainly using Apple‘s hardware, I simply have no use for reference books I can‘t open on my work PC. Literature, which remains relevant for much longer, I do prefer in print anyhow. Apple could deliver the first usable ePub reader for Windows (the existing ones are a nightmare), or a browser-based Books app. Then I would buy a lot from them. As is, I see no point to pay Apple‘s book prices (which are almost always way higher than the alternatives) for something I can‘t even read where I want.

I find this a strange comment, and I really do not believe that line of reasoning. My virtualization machine (a Dell XPS 15 with 32 GB of RAM and UHD display and the same CPU as the entry-level Touch Bar model) runs 6-7 hours when virtualizing a complete MS System Center environment (a total of 13 VMs) with a 84 Wh battery. Maybe using more recent RAM modules (the XPS uses DDR4) would have helped? Just to be clear: the Dell is a true piece of shit, keyboard and trackpad are abysmal, the quality is not remotely on the same planet as Apple's, the display calibration ex factory was unusable (DeltaE was north of 6!) and despite weekly driver and Windows 10 updates galore that thing acts up on just every occasion... and let's not even talk about Windows 10, the OS-equivalent of cancer. I want to smash this thing against the wall almost every time I use it, but 32 GB of RAM and battery life are clearly not a problem. But since they got so cheap that they now even charge you extra for the power extension cord that used to be in every PB/MBP box since forever, spending a few cents more for DDR 4 was obviously not in the cards. I did order the new MBP because I like an awful lot about it, but Apple is not earning any sympathy points here.

Once they have Iovine and Ecclestone on the payroll, they just need to revive Dr. Strangelove... Then they could call their first own TV series The Goon Show.

rotateleftbyte said:

Strange that HP sold an Elitebook four years ago capable of taking 32Gb of DDR3. Ok, it did use a desktop CPU but for VM use it was fantastic. Can't get anywhere near that even today with Apple.

Well, that is a different story. Their workstation class machines can even be upgraded with desktop Xeons and up to 64 GB ECC RAM... But these configurations do not compare to the MBP at all. These are heavy machines with almost no battery life, Apple was never in that business.

The only question is why they do not even offer what could be done since almost 12 months. I7 laptop quads and 32 GB DDR4 LV works just fine for everybody, just not for Apple.

sflocal said:

The 16GB limit is a hard limit because of Intel.  Not Apple.  People need to accept that and get over it.  I don't want Apple putting in a desktop CPU in a laptop and then people complain about heat and battery life.  16GB (for now) is plenty and makes a good balance between power and mobility.  If you're running 4 VM's 24x7 and every MacOS app concurrently, it's great that it can but perhaps you should be looking for a desktop machine.

That is just wrong on every level. The i7 quad core CPUs in the MBPs DO support up to 32 GB of DDR4 RAM (Dell and HP laptops using exactly the same CPUs can be bought with 32GB. I know, because I have one. And no, wrong again, there are no desktop CPUs involved anywhere.) Yes, there is a penalty on battery life (less than 10% overall) since it is "regular" DDR4 LV and not LPDDR4, but if I want 9 hours and 32 GB or 10 hours and the 16 GB RAM limit from 2007 should be a choice. Apple does not need to offer dozens of configurations like others, but two configurations should be doable.