sunman42

macuserosu said:

So it will come with the bare essentials to use the device….got it!

Well, it does come with a polishing cloth. That’s at least a $19 value, right?

Bundles are the devil’s work. They’re why we all dropped cable TV, and for me, at least, bundling Apple TV+ with Paramount+ would add up to less than the sum of its parts. On a related note, Slow Horses started season 3 last night. What a delight.

libertyandfree said:

The M3 iMac is a very nice upgrade but Apples pricing for memory and SSD upgrades is ludicrous.  These upgrade prices should be sliced in half immediately and Apple would still be making huge profit margins on them.  Minimum configuration should be 16GB and 512GB SSD.  The lower options should not exist. 

  Moreover, Apple is always pounding its chest about how green they are but then they create an entry level high volume consumer product that will be out of use and in a landfill within 5 years.   If they doubled the memory and SSD size it would last many more useful years 

I have to ask whether this commenter has used Apple Silicon Macs, because the shared memory (between graphics and CPU cores) architecture simply requires less physical memory than legacy designs for many, if not most, use cases. That said, the customer should always be allowed to scale the amount of memory as the workload and expected life cycle of the hardware indicate.

ATLMacFan1 said:

Am I supposed to know what “intercompany transfer pricing” means or how that adds up to billions of dollars?

Try the more informative article on The Register’s site:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/11/microsoft_irs_tax_bill/

apple4thewin said:

I wonder why 🧐? Maybe because M2 will soon be replaced with M3 and most people won’t get tricked to buy hardware this close to a possible new one.

I'd think it was more likely some other factor, since the folks who purchase machines that aren't designed for the most demanding tasks (video editing &c.) rarely know or care what the processor is called.

My guess, based on a sample size of one (my sister), is that most of the target market doesn't want a machine that weighs 0.6 lb. more and won't fit their existing sleeves, packs, &c., and simply don't need the larger display. Most of the market that needs a larger display needs it for serious photo or video editing, and are willing to spend the extra $ for a MacBook Pro. Net result, if true: Apple produced a very nice product for too small a slice of the potential market.

Any resemblance to the chaotic state of Apple products and markets immediately prior to the return of Mr. Jobs to the firm is purely coincidental (*cough*).