mac_128

tht said:

mac_128 said:

tht said:

Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.

But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.

I don’t necessarily agree about the displays. One could say the same thing about printers too. They’re both a commodity market for which there are plenty of players developing products which reflect the Apple industrial design style, all with low profit margins. Yes Apple could offer the display, but the vast majority of those needing one, would likely buy something cheaper anyway. Most Apple customers are likely buying a Mac with a built-in screen anyway, and don’t necessarily need a second one. 

Really, until Apple comes up with something truly unique about their displays to justify the higher cost over bottom of the barrel competitors, they’re probably right to get out of the market. Now that Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C are at a point where one cable can handle everything a monitor and Mac needs from each other, including power; and with OLED prices dropping dramatically, Apple may have something to offer besides design.

Apple wouldn’t have been selling displays to desktop users. They would have been selling Thunderbolt displays to their MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air userbase, which constitute 80% of the userbase. They should have made a 4K monitor in 2013, a 5K monitor in 2016, and they should have made multiple monitor sizes. It would have been a force multiplier for sales of the TB3 laptops in 2016 as it would have integrated docks, speakers, webcams, etc, in them.

A display is user facing hardware, and their industrial design is a feature within their userbase, who tend to be preferential to having nice looking hardware. So, I’m diametrically opposed to the thought that design isn’t a big feature in displays.

I don’t think there are many, if any, alumininum backed, glass covered displays on the market that matches the hardware ID of the laptops. Just strange that they thought it was the right idea to abandon it. It’s an essential part of the user experience of a computer on a desktop. So, don’t agree it being a commodity. A conversion rate of 10% of Apple hardware buyers would make an Apple standalone monitor a 1 billion dollar business per year.

It’s kind of like AirPods is the Apple branded audio interface for our ears. Monitors are like the Apple branded visual interface for our eyes.

I never intended my statement to apply solely to desktops. But the number of customers primarily using MacBooks with external monitors isn’t likely that large. Those that are have many excellent and inexpensive options available to them. They may not all look like Apple products, but again, we’re talking about a black rectangle. Would 10% of Apple hardware buyers actually spend well over the market value to buy a matching Apple display that doesn’t offer any significant features over others in the market? I’m not even sure 10% of Apple hardware buyers are using a second display, or even as a primary one. While I agree with you that it would be an excellent branding option, I’m not sure it would really pay off for Apple at present. While such a business might make a billion, the profit would be quite slim, and the costs substantial. Since Apple is all about profit margins, a $1bb business doesn’t look so good unless Apple is pocketing the lionshare of that in profits. I’m not sure they would, even if 10% of their customers bought in.

canukstorm said:

mac_128 said:

tht said:

sirozha said:

The way that Apple can make some serious cash is by making 5K monitors with speakers, microphone, camera, and Thunderbolt 3 ports. Basically, reuse the iMac body or maybe make it slimmer in the back, price the 27” version at $999 and sell millions of them. I can’t believe Apple leaves so much cash on the table but yet raises the pricing on everything else. Apple has all the tech ready for such a monitor already. It’s just about leveraging what’s already out there and creating a new stream of revenue without any significant R&D costs or time. 

Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook. 

Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.

But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.

I don’t necessarily agree about the displays. One could say the same thing about printers too. They’re both a commodity market for which there are plenty of players developing products which reflect the Apple industrial design style, all with low profit margins. Yes Apple could offer the display, but the vast majority of those needing one, would likely buy something cheaper anyway. Most Apple customers are likely buying a Mac with a built-in screen anyway, and don’t necessarily need a second one. 

Really, until Apple comes up with something truly unique about their displays to justify the higher cost over bottom of the barrel competitors, they’re probably right to get out of the market. Now that Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C are at a point where one cable can handle everything a monitor and Mac needs from each other, including power; and with OLED prices dropping dramatically, Apple may have something to offer besides design.

Apple has always been about controlling the key technologies that improve the user experience. As long as one is using a device, a display is an essential part of interacting with it.  The same doesn't apply to a printer.

Printers are a much more significant obstacle for user experience. Displays are about equal. Few have ever plugged in a modern monitor that didn’t just work, but a printer can be a major headache. Moreover, printers tend to sit in prominent spaces in offices for easy access, and their design is critical for fitting into that environment. And monitors all tend to look about the same — black rectangles. While one must always have a display, and therefore it is a much more critical part of a user interface, only a very small percentage of Apple devices need one, as most are built-in. The percentage who need an extra display for the majority of devices sold which have their own display is even smaller.

Does anybody even read these articles before they post?

In all cases, when the orientation is worked out, the relevant audio signal is fed to the appropriate earcups. 

Three posts suggesting an alert to warn or incorrect orientation -- when the article clearly states the more elegant solution of the signal being rerouted regardless of how the user puts them on.

macgui said:

SERIOUSLY? Do you get an alert: You're wearing them wrong!
Yeah, I'd want a lot more benefit than something that could be done with a tasteful, embossed R and L.

I would assume that the headphones automatically route the L/R signal to the appropriate sides based on how the user put them on.

I'd love this feature actually. Since most people tend to put the headphones on from the front, I'd think some kind of accelerometer could be used to detect which way the motion is going and make the determination that way too. 

nht said:

MisterKit said:

Referring to the 3.5mm jack as a headphone jack is a misunderstanding. The 3.5mm jack is a two channel analog audio output. Headphones are just one specific example for how that 3.5mm jack can be used.

There are too many examples to list as to how this elimination will affect users. Here’s one that would affect me regularly. You’re having a music rehearsal. You pull up some Apple Music, You Tube videos, whatever, as a group is working out a song. The audio MUST be fed into a sound system for this to be useful. Okay. So I buy a USB-C to two channel analog audio output adapter and guess what! My iPad is running low on charge! Oops. Better have a dock so I can charge and have a two channel analog audio output at the same time.

Hopefully I am making a point. The 3.5mm two channel analog audio output cannot be worked around like a floppy or optical drive could be.

Bluetooth is the workaround.  http://a.co/d/3aTXZjK

Bluetooth is most definitely NOT a workaround. Apple doesn't support aptX or low latency. Without that, there will be audible lag in audio response time, making synchronizing tracks accurately impossible.

randominternetperson said:

dewme said:

Rollup screen concepts have been floating around for well over a decade. LG demo'd a 65" version at CES 2018 in January. 

It's very silly to assess a company's innovation prowess based on prototypes, proof of concept demos, and even patent disclosures. Innovation is more than invention and ideas. Innovation is all about actually delivering things that are valuable and transformative to people and societies. Inventions and ideas that do not deliver value are not innovative, they are simply nice ideas. Apple is an innovation machine but they are not alone.  One of the unsung heroes of Apple's innovation machine (and there are many others) is their industrial engineering teams. These are the folks that figure out how amazing designs and ideas can actually be built effectively, efficiently, and at scale. Most everything that Apple does seems to require massive scale. When Tim Cook & Co. get up on stage in September to show off the latest and greatest iPhones we simply assume that tens of millions of these new beauties are going to available to purchase within a few days or weeks. Making all that happen requires a tremendous amount of innovation at many levels and across many disciplines, none of which get explicitly mentioned during the keynote, and the industrial engineering teams are among the unmentioned.

Science fiction very often provides stimulation that tickles the imagination of inventors. Who would have imagined the 2018 iPad Pro 12.9" showing up in a 1968 movie, but what do you know, there she be.

Well said.

And now we know why Apple is moving to FaceID from TouchID.  FaceID is spacesuit friendly, fingerprint readers are not.

Exactly!

Except, unlike some strawman arguments being made around here about how transparent screens shown on TV, which look cool but aren't practical; 2001 showed the devices being used in a pragmatic way that demonstrated their effectiveness.  It's the execution of a particular use, in a particular production (which also happens to look cool on screen), that proves the effectiveness of a device in a pragmatic way.