- Last Active
If Apple opens up NFC to the banks I will stop using it immediately. I even forced my bank to issue a debit/charge(?) card without NFC because I don't trust them to master this technology.
These passive systems will answer to any sender/receiver that ist strong enough and will shout out your data without any control. I think it was a british university that did a setup (in the size of an A4 paper with easy to buy materials) that could read out the data from up to 0.75 meters! That's also why I wouldn't want a lights out NFC system in my iPhone.
I think DED's argument: Apple discontiues this or that product only because it doesn't sell, simplifies the whole picture too much!
With the MacPro and Mac mini I see it more like the chicken and egg problem:
Does Apple not update these computers because the do not sell or do they not sell because Apple doesn't updeate them?
We will never know because Apple won't show us the numbers for the individual products.
Until Snow Leopard Apple created macOS (then OS X) software that was faster with each iteration on the same hardware. Since then the bloat we knew from the Windows side also set in for the Mac.
Furthermore Apple's demonstration of the commodization of the computer is the wrong sign. I don't know exactly my computer needs in two years from now. But when I buy now from Apple according my current needs I have to trash this computer and buy a new one if my needs change in this two years.
On the one hand Apple stands as the lighthouse for green energy in data center usage and on the other hand they force customers to trash their computers because they cannot be updated and thus have many more years of useful life in them (creating a horrible carbon footprint; unfortunately these effects are never calculated).
Rayz2016 said:Have to disagree with you there. The number of complaints is irrelevant, because they're from people who have not seen or tried the product. What is relevant is the number of sales. If this product is a failure then sales will tank; it's as simple as that.
As Apple is not offering any real alternative people are forced to buy this MPBs if they need MacOS.
Apple is really good at managing sales numbers. First let all availability of State of the Art products dry up by not refreshing the product in a useful way.
Then force decisions on your customers that might not be the best for your customers. Then argue: But it is selling!
Furthermore Apple will not split up the sales numbers between the machines. So you have pent up demand for the new ones and possibly a very stable number of the older machines sold.
Apple will never tell us.
I don't know if that is the plan for MacPro and MacMini also: now innovation for 3-4years, keep the price at very high level -> EOL product, because "It didn't sell"
daekwan said:... when Intel introduces MacBook compatible Kaby Lake CPU's next year. Because thats the RAM limitations of SkyLake are the only reason why Apple maxed out at 16GB. ...
It is not possible under the limitation that Apple set for the MPB - being thinner without losing to much battery life.
Apple is distracting the views from the correct reasons Apple could not implement more than 16GB - "Thinness is King". A classic Function follows Form situation.
I don't know who really needs 32GB but here Apple is forcing Form over Functionality (possibly a functionality very few people need).