- Last Active
darkvader said:OutdoorAppDeveloper said:Does anyone else think that paying $400 for 32GB of RAM or $200 for 512GB of SSD space is a bit expensive? Like perhaps four times what the parts should cost? I guess we will just have to upgrade them our... oh snap!No. It's not "a bit expensive". It's highway fucking robbery.Even if it was reasonable NOW (it's not) it'll be absolutely outrageous in 2-3 years after purchase which is the point when most people realize there's not enough RAM or storage and upgrade.The storage is the stupidest part. The VAST majority of people don't know how much storage they'll need in the future when they buy a computer. 512GB is rarely enough. And the only advantage of having the computer be a cute tiny little box is GONE when you've got to have an external box for the storage you'll need, the minuscule speed advantage of soldered storage is GONE when you're booting from that external box because the internal SSD is worn out.
Oh, wait. Someone else here already did that a few comments above yours, except those still aren't quite to the caliber of what Apple offers.
So, in other words, Intel is admitting they're an easy 2 years behind Apple in chip development. Because, you know, Apple's 2023 M-series chips will be... more powerful and efficient than the current crop...
Where was Intel's motivation when Apple was a dedicated customer all of those years? How long ago did the rumors of Apple's plans to make computer SOCs start flying? Why didn't Intel attempt to get into gear then? They had plenty of time to attempt to retain Apple as a customer, but kept dragging their feet. This is starting to sound a little like the Blackberry story, or was it called the Blueberry? Those are such a distant memory anymore.
hammeroftruth said:chadbag said:Not sure that using a firmware falls under copyright.
I hope they (Dymo) get their wee wee slapped really hard and they end up paying a ton of legal fees on a losing battle.
LOL anyone thinking battery life will be better due to capacity STILL doesn't know anything about Android's power-hungry deficiencies versus Apple hardware & software. That's pretty bad coming from an Apple-centric site. Real-world testing has always shown that bigger batteries in Android devices really never mean they come close to being anywhere near as efficient as Apple's devices with smaller batteries. I'm surprised there wasn't any gloating about the S22 Ultra having more RAM, because we know that always means better performance for Android devices... 🤣
MplsP said:verne arase said:Not sure what the point of the article is - would've been a much better comparison if you actually had a MacBook Pro and could run benchmarks.
I did find the power supply comparison amusing and rather apt - the leopard has a 280W supply while the Apple has a 67W (or 96W) supply. That pretty much sums up the problem with intel processors!