mjtomlin

Didn’t see this coming. /s

This is Apple's answer to professionals who need that much power. This amount of power was unavailable in a Mac... Anyone who needed what Apple didn't offer, moved to another system. The whining and complaining is par for the course as far as a new Apple computer being introduced. Is it for everyone? Of course not. Even a 27" iMac is more power than most people will need.

The most expensive part in this system is of course going to be the Intel Xeon processor. Not sure what 28-core model is used in this system, but Amazon is currently selling an Intel Xeon Platinum 28-core CPU for $15k !!!

tokyojimu said:

“highly remote possibility of data loss or other issues.”

I think it’s much more likely than a highly remote possibility. 

Hmmm, I've never had data loss due to installing a beta. Sure, it CAN happen, but I've yet to see it.

folk fountain said:

mjtomlin said:

Pretty silly that Apple is included here. Especially since this about the practices of handling user data. It's understandable that they want to know how Apple handles the data, but Apple's been pretty vocal about security and privacy, and have taken many measures to combat misuse of it.

This is about being a monopoly, not privacy. This is where it is fortunate that Apple is not the biggest player in any market. Android is bigger than iOS, Windows is bigger than MacOS, Spotify is bigger than Apple Music, a half dozen players will be bigger than AppleTV+, CDs sell better than songs from the iTunes store, Amazon sells more eBooks, there is no competitor for the App store. The question will be if they leverage their position in an anticompetitive way. It will also be a question of whether or not keeping the Apple ecosystem closed is anticompetitive.

How can having a closed, proprietary platform be anti-competitive when it does not hold a monopoly or even a majority share in its respective market? Being anti-competitive means you have some way of keeping others from competing in an open market. As an example, in the 90's Microsoft disallowed OEMs from shipping systems with an alternative OS, if they wanted to license Windows. And because Windows was basically a monopoly, OEMs couldn't survive without offering Windows. That pushed out all other competitors (other than Apple).

Sure there are some who are starting to complain about the App Store, but it's not an open, free market. It's a closed market that developers have to be allowed to enter. And Apple has the right to say, "No.", if they want. Those developers have a much larger alternative platform they can go to. If Apple were to tell iOS developers they weren't allowed to write for other platforms, then that's one way they could be considered anti-competitive, but they haven't done that.

There are special rules for monopolies for a reason - to make sure the open/free market remains active, allowing new companies with new ideas to enter. That's how any market thrives. It is not illegal to be a monopoly, but it's a much finer line to cross to do something that could be considered anti-competitive.

thefatwookie said:

Cool idea, but all those apps that use Sign in with Facebook/Google WANT that user data so most will most likely NOT offer the sign in with Apple on their apps, sadly

You've got it backwards. The service gets to see what sites you log into - that's how they track you. The upside to using them, is that your site can possibly be plastered all over those services via that users account. The incentive to using something like Apple badge is that you may attract more security/privacy conscious users to your site.

I, myself, do not have an account for either Google or Facebook. So the apple badge will be a welcomed addition.