flabber

Exactly. I still have 3 years to go before my current MBP is written off financially, and was thinking of buying an iMac and lugigng that around. Less convenient to carry, but at least I'm using all of the machine I'm paying for. With the MBP I'm using it as a closed desktop about 99% of the time, completely ignoring the investment in the monitor, keyboard, touchpad and touchbar. Hence my pondering if the integrated UHD 630 would be sufficient for Illustrator/Photoshop work (packaging design mostly, so no bigger than 500MB) Saves serious money, is very easy to carry around, and I'm using all of what I pay for.

I'm still a little underwhelmed and surprised that Apple keeps naming things "pro" when they're not upgradeable. People have been complaining about the Mac Pro being very much not a Pro device because of all the extra séparate devices one needs to buy to actually get something done. Literally nothing about the thing is upgradeable (SSD, RAM, CPU, GPU). Then they apparently respond to the critics years later (3+ already) by making an iMac "Pro", making the same mistake all over again. I mean, who's going to pay $4999, regardless of wether it's undercutting a similar-specced PC, if you can't upgrade it's so-called "pro hardware" 3 years down the road?

How is thinnes helping heat dispersion? Bigger towers mean more airflow, so wouldn't that work in a similar manner with laptops? Thicker laptop means more room for airflow and bigger/stronger fans right?

Actually, you can definitely start a graphic design business on a laptop. Hence the "pro" in MacBook Pro. A lot of graphic design studios in Holland are actually using MacBook Pros instead of iMacs for their designers because of the mobility it offers. They need to go to clients, to photographers, and so on. If you're an artworker who works with hires files a lot and with a much stricter deadline, an iMac or Mac Pro would be a much better choice. But saying that you can't start a business on a notebook is just plain wrong. 

(and I do have a 4 year old iMac that I intend to keep around till my MacBook Pro arrives ánd is working correctly)

Cook also agreed with comments made by U.S. Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew, who said the tax ruling is a blatant grab at taxes owed to the U.S. government. "I think that's exactly what it is," Cook said. "I think it's a desire to reallocate taxes that should be paid in the U.S. to the EU."

The above part is complete and utter BS. Yes, Apple and Ireland made agreements on the amount of tax that Apple would have to pay if they'd choose to use Ireland as their Eu-base of operations. But in no way is that tax owed to the US government. Technically it's not owed to anyone since there's an agreement. But even íf there's tax owed to anyone, then Ireland and Apple need to specify what amount of profit/income was made based on EU-sales. Because there's no way that áll of the taxes made in Ireland, are owed to the US government.

Having said that: I despise the EU for charging outrageous taxes like that. Ireland made a deal with Apple to improve Ireland's economy. That was done befóre the EU made a vow to stop tax-deals in the EU. If the EU implements these plans after Ireland's deal with Apple, they need to take it up with Ireland. Apple shouldn't be involved or punished for political turbulence (in the EU in this case).

I despise the EU, even more so because of how they try to punish companies for deals made with countries. But I think Apple is completely missing the point here. Just because you paid 400mil in taxes doesn't mean you're paying a proper amount. 0,005% is still 0,005%, and not the norm for most other companies in Ireland. And the US government certainly doesn't have any right to taxes made by products sold to EU citizens.

Thank you all the above posters… that is exactly what's going on. Unfortunately the government(s) are completely ignoring that fact, and all the political parties that dó mention that there's actually a difference between real refugees and the (mostly) economical refugees (we call them golddiggers here), are being boo'd by the rest of 'em.

 

It's astonishing how badly most governments here are ignoring the worries of their own citizens, and would rather have the elderly people who are sitting in retirement-homes sit in their own pee for a few days (yes, that's actually happening at the moment), all for the sake of taking in non-refugees. There are a lot of rapes happening in those camps, and who-knows how many pro-ISIS people there are amongst them. There are actually entire villages being overrun by these refugees: like here in Holland where there are villages of a couple of 1000 inhabitants, with a newly built refugee camp that holds 3000 refugees. Or citizens who have to wait 10+ years to be eligible for a rental house, while refugees are getting rental houses (for free!) within a year.

 

Please do not give money… I'm all for helping the actual refugees. Preferably in their own region, and otherwise for as many as we can handle in camps in our own country/countries. But right now governments are just letting everyone in without any kind of control or checkup to make sure their country stays safe, and not overrun by people simply for the free food/housing we give them. Things are going horribly wrong here at the moment, and everyone sees it except Brussel/EU/national governments.