schlack

mtbnut said:

But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon) 

On a $3000 machine that people may hope to keep for 4-5 yrs, it's not very future proof. Especially if you use a virtual machine, like many professionals do, which effectively can cut your available RAM in half.

"For Apple controlling this would give it a major edge in content" How so? Wouldn't apple be required to license time warner content to everyone else, first in order to keep revenue from collapsing at time warner and second, to avoid any government interference in the deal? Would be so much cheaper and so much less risk to just license the stuff at a tiny fraction of the cost of time warner.

Samsung's EVO drive claims 3GB/sec transfer speeds also. Makes sense, as Samsung is probably the manufacturer of Apple's SSDs anyhow.

Soli said:

schlack said:

...in the days where 16GB only costs $100 and a 512GB SSD only costs $100 (retail!).

I love how you mention these capacities as if there are no other aspects to the technology that need to be considered when talking about cost or performance.

It's like walking into a Bentley dealership and trying to convince the salesman that a Continental GT should cost as much as a Kia Rio because they both have 4 wheels.

I'm not even sure what you mean. 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD are just industry norms for any mid to high end laptop. They can have all the tech they want in these laptops but without a decent amount of RAM and storage it doesn't really matter.

Glad to see others are feeling like me. I was ready to insta-order a ~$2,000 MBP the moment it was announced, but was so disappointed in the specs and price point that I decided not to upgrade. That they're even shipping $1800+ Pro laptops with 8GB RAM or 256GB SSD is so not competitive...in the days where 16GB only costs $100 and a 512GB SSD only costs $100 (retail!).