melgross
About
- Username
- melgross
- Joined
- Visits
- 122
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 10,934
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 33,690
Reactions
-
M4 24-inch iMac vs M1 24-inch iMac compared -- A muted upgrade for first-adopters
Exactly! Besides, I think that 32” is really too big for most people. That’s a really big display. It may not sound much bigger, but looking at one shows just how gigantic it it. Not only will it take up more space, but=ut you have to sit further away and the height means more neck bending. Since the top of the screen is supposed to be at eye height, something few people with bigger displays can manage, a 32 would make for a bad situation. 27” is plenty for almost everyone not in higher end production.tht said:
Yeah. I did the math back in the M1 days. A 32" iMac would be on order 3k to 4k, and LCD only. 220 PPI displays are not common and a 32" 220 PPI is probably 2x the cost of the ASD display. If it was miniLED or OLED? Don't even ask.thedba said:
Let’s see, if an iMac 32 inch ever sees the light of day, be prepared to pay through your nose.maclin3 said:Yawn. Show me the 32” and I’ll show you my money. Still running a 27” iMac with 4 i7 processors and I prefer it over my wife's 24” M1 iMac.That display will have to be 6K and guess what that will do the starting price.
Apple can make a 27" iMac for $1800 to $2000 though. That's just an ASD with a M4 computer inside. And if Apple keeps their prices for the M4 Mac mini, it should be around $1800 to $2000 for the base 16/512 SKU. Not going to happen.
The iMac, which is basically the original Macintosh form factor, has had a 40 year run. Today, Mac sales are 90% laptops. That's not changing. It's a miracle that they sell a Mac Pro, an iMac and a Mac mini. If there is something they could possibly do, it's probably to increase the display size of the iMac from 24" to 26", something size and display quality that keeps it a $1300 base SKU.
-
Apple acquires the team behind Pixelmator Pro
Apple has done an excellent job with software it’s purchased over the decades. If some people aren’t happy, it’s because you can’t satisfy everyone.tiredskills said:Awful news. More software stagnation incoming.
-
Apple acquires the team behind Pixelmator Pro
I agree about the formats and such. But I don’t think Apple will be going after Adobe directly. This is more like iWork than Office. It’s an alternative for those who aren’t interested in the much more sophisticated software Adobe offers at higher prices.abriden said:Pixelmator Pro is one of my favourite editing apps, but it's proprietary file-format and unmanaged sidecar files, together with no adequate file manager independent of Photos means it still cannot complete with Adobe. If Apple were to acquire GraphicConverter for its Browser features then they would have the basis for a industry-leading solution.
Unfortunately, based on Photos and the push for Apple Intelligence, Apple will likely focus on the wrong features and it will be their way or the highway. They'll decide as always, they know better than the user. There is no point in all the AI stuff that Photos incorporates when its automated Collections chop the heads and feet off in portrait format images.
Pixelmator Pro and Photomator have had solid updates at regular periods, Apple updates its apps at a glacial pace. Sadly, I can see another great app getting destroyed. -
Apple acquires the team behind Pixelmator Pro
We don’t know, Apple might honor them. They may also lower the prices. Apple is better than most with software pricing. They’ve shaken up several industries with their low prices.ApplePoor said:So much for the lifetime licenses. -
Apple beats Wall Street predictions with record-breaking iPhone sales revenue
I’ve been following that for a long time as well. I’ve seen a lot of things over my time, but Apple is pulled down by a few of the same people every year.mpantone said:
This is like any other judgment from a panel, you toss the high and low scores out and average out the rest. This isn't specific to financial analysts, they do this during figure skating at the Olympics, surfing contests, etc.melgross said:I keep telling people to not listen to the negative analysts. Three predicted disappointing iPhone sales this quarter, while two reported very good iPhone sales.
No one analyst is always right all the time so it's best to take the middle chunk. It's okay to lean one direction or another if you see a particularly reliable analyst on one side of the fence.
For a while, amateur analysts (bloggers) were beating the pros on a regular basis.
Many analysts are rated by Starmine which tracks their accuracy over time. Any longtime follower of Apple's business will remember some horrifically inaccurate analysts that many Apple media sites LOVED to quote (*cough* Munster *cough*). Some were so consistently wrong that it was easier to best on the opposite of their take. Some were longtime bears who always came up short (Katy Huberty at Morgan Stanley was like this for years before she finally came around and saw the light).
Since the start of the pandemic Apple stopped providing their own guidance so it has forced analysts to actually use their brains instead of just picking up the Magic 8-Ball.
The era of Apple routinely smashing expectations is over. Apple is more of a value stock rather than a growth stock here in 2024. It's not 2009 anymore.
As I've said for a very long time, AppleInsider (and other tech media sites) really need to track the accuracy of the analysts they quote. Market researchers like CIPR are mostly pulling their numbers out of a body orifice (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).
