nht

CloudTalkin said:

foregoneconclusion said:

I've never understood why the differences in the A series chips is always downplayed with "you won't notice unless they're side by side" etc. when differences in Intel chips in laptops is rarely treated that way. Laptop chips always have the how-many-months-since-the-last-refresh attached to them like it's vitally important to get a next generation chip to run the exact same legacy software people have been running for years and years.

It's incumbent upon the reader to separate the wheat info from the chaff marketing.    AI's axiom about not noticing without a direct comparison is true and can be applied to almost anything.  What you're describing with laptop chips happens with pretty much every product that has a yearly release cycle... including iPhones with A series chips.  Apple was just touting the %-age improvements of the A13 over the A12.  There's no mystery surrounding why the companies do it.  They want to sell their newest products.  Nothing wrong with that.

A review or comparison is typically where you'll see the "you won't notice unless..." and it's entirely appropriate for it to be included there.  By and large, it's mostly true.  If I tell you my new app opens 15% faster than my old app it's not going to mean anything without proper context.  My old app opens in 0.5 sec.  So that would mean my new app opens in 0.425 sec.  Without a side by side comparison there'd be no way for you to gauge 15% faster.  More importantly, laptop reviews typically include benchmarks that show the side by side comparions so the argument really doesn't hold up.  

elijahg said:

Your business is one data point, the business I worked at had about 200 Macs and we would buy the base config. I personally upgraded the RAM in each machine, saving around $150 on Apple's prices. It took about 5 minutes per Mac, and about $400 of my time to do so for all 200 Macs. 

madan said:

nht said:

lorin schultz said:

radarthekat said:

lorin schultz said:

To pick a nit:

Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?

Or maybe the ratio of costs to selling prices have remained steady for cutting edge technologies.  If it were milk or toasters we were talking about then I could understand your implication that input costs should not be increasing and perhaps even be going down.  But Apple is doing the same thing today as it was doing 10, 15, 20 years ago; developing new products with increasing performance and capabilities.  Seems that will always remain the same percentage of total costs.  

I hear you, except that price increases are accelerating compared to the past. Why are costs so much higher lately than they used to be?

It may well be that this is just how much it costs to make fancy-pants computers now. I'm neither qualified nor adequately informed to offer an opinion about what Apple should or could do. All I'm saying is the current approach is moving the income level required to be an Apple user even higher. Our middle-class household can no longer afford the products we used to buy on a three-year cycle. Maybe I need to just accept that and walk away. I hope not, though.

Price increases in the Mac product line represent the move to higher performance in the components for SSD, TB3, screen density, etc while achieving the size and weight desired for that product line.  The cost for software development increases because the OS is more complex than it was.

Thus margins indicate that costs have increased and not profits.

Also, the needs of most middle-class households can now be met by iPads or lower tier Macs rather than 6 core i7 15" MBP.   The downside to the product line is that the direct replacement for a MBP from 3 years ago has a smaller screen but likely also costs less.

Apple still provides the iPhone 7 at $449 when talking about iPhones.  The iPhone 8 is $599.  The three year old iPhone 6s was $649 at launch.  The 8 is a solid upgrade at $50 less than your $649 replacement budget.  The Xr costs $749 but is 6.1"...so it's a worthwhile stretch if you want to go that route and the same price as the 6S Plus.  So if your phone was a 6S Plus in 2015 the Xr is a direct replacement at the same price.

There's just this extra tier above the tier that you purchased in 2015 and there isn't a smaller option anymore.

That you don't like the upgrade path doesn't mean that Apple has priced it out of the range of a middle-class household.  If you could afford a $649 phone every three years in 2015 you can afford a $599 iPhone 8 in $2018.  The Xr should be $649 next year if the pattern holds and be an excellent replacement for a 3 year old iPhone 7.

Call it "gaslighting" but the complaints are simply entitled bullshit.  There's no "acceleration" in price increase.  The replacement for the 6S Plus is the Xr at the same price point.  There wasn't a replacement for the 6S but a viable replacement is $50 less expensive than the 6S was in 2015.  The Xs is a higher tier product than the 6S was.

6S->7->8->Xr

Your entire argument is horseshit.

You can't charge more for more performance otherwise every product in existence is an order of magnitude better than previous products.  Automobiles are much faster, fuel efficient and safer than past vehicles.  By your distorted, stunted argument every Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord should ship for 80,000 "cuz look how much better they are!".  Computers increase in performance over time.  Their prices increase relative to pv calculations and inflation fluctuations.  They might also increase as Wurthele astutely indicated because they have some intrinsic cost (ie support or services).  However products shouldn't cost more just "cuz betta".  That's nonsense because by definitions computers ard phones are *better* than the previous model.  Otherwise, what would be the *point*?

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Fidonet127 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap

For every point, there is a vast majority of people who never upgrade the internals of their computers. You can rally and complain about that all you want, however there are millions of computers including Apple that haven’t been upgrade for years. Our 2014 Air and Mini are some of those. Apple is selling more ASi Macs than Intel Macs and every one of them are all soldered together. Apple knows their market. Rather than scrapping them, Macs do have a high resale value. 

Did you watch the video?   Andrew called bull.... 

He replaced a $6K machines with a $1.2K machine.  And it worked.  Let's see...he can replace his MBA FIVE times for the cost of the Mac Pro.  Video editing with FCP was faster on the MBA than on his Mac Pro.

Nobody gives a shit about upgradeability when your cost is cut 5X.  Especially when you can dock and connect to your RAID array, power, network and other peripherals with one (or two) cables.  The Mac mini becomes a HUGE freaking bang for the buck.  And while eGPUs don't work with enclosures other cards have been updated to with a M1 Mac.  For example BlackMagic released Desktop Video 12.0 adding Mac OS Big Sur and Apple M1 support for DeckLink 4K and 8K models, Intensity Pro 4K and UltraStudio Thunderbolt 3. 

You need to watch the rest of the video where he reported that it didn't work -- because he couldn't upgrade it like he did his MacPro

CiaranF said:

What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 

GeorgeBMac said:

StrangeDays said:

GeorgeBMac said:

For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap

Nah. Expecting to be able to upgrade a laptop is as stupid as expecting to upgrade a tablet. I'm a hardcore tech nerd software dev, and have never upgraded anything other than RAM on a notebook. And now I just get what I need upfront. I have never, ever upgraded the storage or (lol) processor. That may be some DIY hobby thing you're into, but 99.9% of Apple's market doesn't do it. They aren't going to make compromises for the .1%, get real.

It's appliance computing. Don't like it? Get a Dell.

Andrew disagrees.

elijahg said:

nht said:

elijahg said:

Your business is one data point, the business I worked at had about 200 Macs and we would buy the base config. I personally upgraded the RAM in each machine, saving around $150 on Apple's prices. It took about 5 minutes per Mac, and about $400 of my time to do so for all 200 Macs. 

Lol.  You updated 200 Macs in 16 hours.  Right.

And your billable rate is $25 an hour.  Mkay.

How is that so hard to believe? Remember Macs of yore didn't need to be completely disassembled to upgrade the RAM (I know, right?? how novel!). The RAM slot was under the chin, a single 2.5mm Allen key allowed access, out with the old RAM and in with the new. 5 minutes at most. The 27" iMacs are barely more difficult now. If you had a clue you'd know it's a 5 minute job.

Not a "billable rate", I was not a contractor.

waveparticle said:

nht said:

waveparticle said:

Trouble is not from Beijing. Taiwan is the trouble maker. Notice it politicizing the vaccine donation event?

Right.  A vaccine for a virus that may be from a PRC lab leak at worst or at best a virus that was allowed to escape early detection and contact tracing due to suppression of information and arrest of whistleblowers.

The PRC lost any chance of peaceful reunification by their heavy handed and unnecessary power grab in HK that resulted in riots and further heavy handed responses like arresting anyone that disagrees with the party line.  Anyone smart (and rich) in Hong Kong is going to try very hard to move to Canada or the UK.

The one China policy is effectively dead.  The US will pay lip service to it but support for Taiwan is going to be stronger than ever.

One Country Two Systems is dead dead.  

Not even KMT politicos are going to want to rejoin China and risk ending up in Qincheng Prison for saying the wrong thing or simply for being in the wrong power block at the wrong time.

The only good thing about the PRC system is that if you are high enough up then in a purge they DO send you to prison so maybe 20 years later you can be habilitated.  As opposed to being executed by antiaircraft guns like in North Korea.

Taiwan is a tiny little island the size of New Jersey that has little importance other than Winnie the Pooh wants to go down in history as the bear that “reunified” China.

Whatever you want to say about the DPP, they never sent in tanks to crush a student protest in Tiananmen Square.  There are asshats from the PRC that are so brainwashed that they don’t believe that it happened or that the students deserved it.  

For folks that lived through both the cultural revolution and Tiananmen Square the events in Hong Kong were sadly predictable.

Did the western leader US say any virus should not be allowed to escape early detection and contact tracing should be allowed? Let's take a look of history of the example set by US. Is HIV a virus? What kind of leadership US set of AIDS? The patient name is strictly confident to protect privacy. Tens of millions of people have died of AIDS. 

gatorguy said:

nht said:

gatorguy said:

jbdragon said:

Corporations don't pay taxes, YOU DO!!! So you tax them more, they will just raise prices and YOU are the one that's actually paying.

If they raise prices then wouldn't that obligate them to even more taxes since they'll make even more profit?

Besides that how do you raise prices after the sale occurred? Corporate taxes are paid on profits, which can only be determined after a sales period has closed.  How would you know how much to add in advance? I have zero doubt that Apple has already computed the optimal prices for their products, right to the final dollar to maximize its profits. Raising them more because France wants a bit of what they are paying as a corporation to end up in French accounts for French use rather than Irish ones would be counter to that. 

If I'm off-base maybe you can explain.

EDIT: It seems after doing a bit'o reading that the claim companies simply raise prices is more a FUD-ism than fact. I guess it gets repeated so much that some folks just accept that it must be true. 
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/who-pays-the-corporate-income-tax/

"Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.

All economists reject that idea. They point out that prices are set by market forces and the suppliers of goods and services aren’t only C-corporations, which pay taxes on the corporate tax schedule, but also sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-corporations that are taxed under the individual income tax. Other suppliers include foreign corporations and nonprofits."

Explain to me which "sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-corporations" competes with Apple, Google, etc?  None.  There are also no foreign corporation that are in the same league as the targeted US companies.

If French taxes are higher then these companies can and will charge French consumers more than for other consumers for these services.  Since the tax is levied against all providers then unless demand is very elastic there isn't anything to keep that from happening.

This is a tax on "digital services" AFAICT. Depending on the details this might have negligible to zero impact on companies like Samsung and Huawei or force a price increase in their handsets. Apple's ability to simply raise their iPhone prices and pass their French taxes on without also pricing themselves further away from competitors may be limited.

Wait for details to see who this actually affects but the acronym for the tax is pretty telling : GAFA, named after Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon