altivec88

Soli said:

rogifan_new said:

According to the Mac Rumors buyers guide the Mac Pro was last updated 1,115 days ago. It's absolutely absurd that people here are defending that. The Mac mini was last updated 813 days ago. Is that Intel's fault too?

Not a single person has defended a 1000+ day update cycle. What reasonable people have done is tell you to use a little critical thinking about its sales volume and stop being a whiny ass bitch. Clearly Apple tried to invigorate the market for the Mac Pro with their long demonstration and new design, and clearly it wasn't effective enough that it made it a viable option to update yearly like the iPhone. The only people that get upset that Apple updates Macs are other whiny ass bitches that just bought Macs and then hear about Intel updating their processors. Everyone else would be happy if Apple updated their Macs with new features and better performance more frequently, but everyone else doesn't get upset when a corporation does bend to their singular will. Grow the fuck up.

PS: Have you ever bought a Mac Pro before? I don't ever recall you talking about owning one. What work do you do that is causing you to lose money because Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro with faster HW?

 Sounds like you are defending 1000+ updates to me.  Pulled out of your personal attacking drivel, it appears your excuse is that sales volume justifies 1000+ updates.   So which is it?  Are you saying there is no excuse for 1000+ updates or there is?

I know Apple has lost several hundred thousand in sales from our company alone the past 6 years (I know that's piddly but we are just one tiny company. I'm sure there are many other companies just like us).  They did not lose these sales because there was no market for us to get new MacPro's, not because of its size or looks, not because we are whiny ass bitches as you imply.   The one and only reason they lost these sales is that the current MacPro offers very little performance improvement over our 6 year old 12 core MacPro's.   If they would have updated them just once with even the 16 core E5v3 available 2 years ago, we would have bought a boat load of them and would be ready to update them again this year.  You can take that as you like but that is the 100% truth.

When I see the likes of Dell, HP, and numerous other companies updating their systems several times in that time span and offer 44 core systems with updated graphic cards.   Yah... I am going to call them out on it because I am a true Apple fan that is trying to help the company out by saying this is not good enough.   You, on the other hand would like to solve the problem by closing your eyes and pretending its not happening.  Thats a recipe for failure and your disregard for Apple's future well being is evident.

Rayz2016 said:

altivec88 said:

Rayz2016 said:

gatorguy said:

Rayz2016 said:

Mikeymike said:

Rayz2016 said:

saarek said:

I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.

With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.

Piss poor management, very unusual.

Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing. 

The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)

If Intels chips aren't producing significant speed gains then what is the point upgrading the machines? Well, there isn't any, unless you can come up with the tech to work around it. 

Post #77 makes what seems like valid arguments. 

Not really though. The chips didn't improve, so the suggestion here is that Apple takes the existing chips and pack more cores into a larger case. 

Pardon Me?

So what you are telling me is that there is no improvement in these processors.   That a 22 core E5v4 would render our scenes at roughly the same speed as a 12 core E5v2.  I think you need to do some more investigating on this before you continue spewing out your false assumptions.

The socket and thermal properties are exactly the same.  Using the new chips is just a simple swap with no case design change required, you know like Dell and HP are able to do or are you saying Dell and HP have super case designs where they were able to update their workstations twice in this time but Apple can't.

Are you also claiming there were no advancements in GPU's.   That the D-700 is equivalent to what HP and Dell offer in their workstations.  You know like the Nvidia Quadro line or even the low priced 1080 GTX.   Again I think you need to do some more investigating to see how behind Apple is on this.

Actually I was just saying why post #77 wasn't the answer: it's not Apple's style to solve the problem by putting more of the same cores in a larger case. They rarely go bigger unless there's a good reason.  

But reading your points it's like you've never read a single thing about the way Apple designs its machines. Yes, I'm sure that chips will work in Dell and HP machines but then I've never had a Dell or HP machine last half as long as an Apple box, and the reason I imagine, is that Apple takes a lot more care of how the put their gear together. The components they use aren't the most powerful, or the most up to date, but they work within the ridiculously close tolerances that they set for the machines they build. Just because an upgraded chip will work in a Dell case, doesn't mean it'll work in Apple's. Now, they could put them in the same cases as HP and Dell (and I can imagine the whining you'd do if they did) but as I said, that isn't their style. 

But you are right, this is on Apple. They could easily build a big ugly case with loads of fans and give the whingers here could then bleat on about how ugly it is. They simply chose not to. If you disagree then buy another machine. 

I don't thing you are understanding.  The newer 22core E5v4 is a direct replacement part for the 12 core E5v2.  The case or anything else would not have to be changed what so ever.

I have been using Macs since 1984.  I have a clear understanding of how well Apple designs their machines, thats why we use them.  At the same time, I'm also not a blind follower and know when they screw up.   The 2013 MacPro design is a flawed disaster.   People that use these machines such as myself don't care what they look like or how small they are.   Removing major functionality by removing a cpu,  creating proprietary GPU's which hand cuffs the user and themselves to easily update them, and then ignoring them for years at a time is not something I am happy about.    

You can get away with this if your competitors are doing the same.  But the competition is so far ahead, its not even funny anymore.

flaneur said:

altivec88 said:

flaneur said:

rogifan_new said:

It's pretty bad when Rene Ritchie is luke warm something Apple related.

http://www.imore.com/lg-5k

"I bought the LG UltraFine 5K display because there simply is no other option from Apple. If there had been, though, I would have bought it in a heartbeat."

It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic.  To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.



Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.

" . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.

YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.

We've had this discussion before.  Do you have anything to back up your absurd claim that LG told Apple that they don't want to sell them IGZO panels even though Apple puts them in their iMacs?  Their are numerous companies selling IGZO displays.  This post even refers to an 8K display from Dell.   How is Dell able to design and get panels for their monitors, but Apple isn't?   You honestly think Apple is not big enough to obtain panels if they wanted to make monitors.  Thats proposterous.

You then claim that people are making "Arrogant assumptions" when there is no assumption to make.  Apple publicly stated they no longer want to make monitors.  You are the one that is arrogantly concocting a baseless story that Big Bad LG forced Apple out of the monitor business.  That is a slanderous statement with absolutely no merit.  Stop spreading your Fud.

Hilarious. The new disease of using your own unreason to accuse someone of unreason. Guess who has the reason problem.

"Their [sic] are numerous companies selling IGZO displays." — Are there any that could supply Apple with a few million with custom built-in I/O and graphics processing? Is the 8K Dell IGZO? Are other Dell monitors IGZO that will sell in the milions? 

" . . . Apple is not big enough . . ." — Got you there, logician. Doesn't matter how big or how much money Apple has, if there aren't the production lines or the yield ratios, there's no surplus for Apple.

I have no hard information, only a regard for cause and effect based on logic. If IGZO is so easy to make in large, dense sizes, where are the Sharp monitors that Apple invested millions, like 100s of millions, in back in 2011 (as I recall).? I have questions. YOU are the one with the assumptions, which I wouldn't care about if you weren't here making an apocalyptic case, along with others, about Apple's competence.

What?  You are the one that is hillarious.   So you are saying, if Apple made an IGZO monitor, it would instantly sell in the millions and they wouldn't be able to meet supply.   So to deal with this problem, they decided to abandon monitors completely and forgo millions of sales.   Man... thats comedy gold.

Most companies would just price their product according to the market conditions.  In other words increase price of the product until production capacity meets demand.  But you're right.  its my logic thats flawed.  your crazy stories is what really happened.  

flaneur said:

rogifan_new said:

It's pretty bad when Rene Ritchie is luke warm something Apple related.

http://www.imore.com/lg-5k

"I bought the LG UltraFine 5K display because there simply is no other option from Apple. If there had been, though, I would have bought it in a heartbeat."

It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic.  To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.



Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.

" . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.

YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.

We've had this discussion before.  Do you have anything to back up your absurd claim that LG told Apple that they don't want to sell them IGZO panels even though Apple puts them in their iMacs?  Their are numerous companies selling IGZO displays.  This post even refers to an 8K display from Dell.   How is Dell able to design and get panels for their monitors, but Apple isn't?   You honestly think Apple is not big enough to obtain panels if they wanted to make monitors.  Thats proposterous.

You then claim that people are making "Arrogant assumptions" when there is no assumption to make.  Apple publicly stated they no longer want to make monitors.  You are the one that is arrogantly concocting a baseless story that Big Bad LG forced Apple out of the monitor business.  That is a slanderous statement with absolutely no merit.  Stop spreading your Fud.

Rayz2016 said:

rogifan_new said:

Rayz2016 said:

saarek said:

macxpress said:

Mikeymike said:

Rayz2016 said:

saarek said:

I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.

With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.

Piss poor management, very unusual.

Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing. 

The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)

What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???

There is more to a machine than the CPU, everything has moved on since the 2015 release.

although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.

It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.

And what should they upgrade them with? The chips are part of a chipset which are part of a board that hasn't changed that much in years. 

What about GPUs? Or can they only be upgraded when the CPU is upgraded? As I said in another post if it was as simple as Intel chips suitable for this product being delayed would there be this much complaining? I'm going to assume people like John Siracusa and Marco Arment are up to speed on Intel's roadmap and what chipsets are available.

Yes there would, because all the rags would say its poor upgrade that doesn't bring much to the table, and folk round here (you included) would agree. 

That is your opinion.  Companies such as ourselves don't care about marketing speak.  I don't care about a big NEW MAC PRO announcement party and fancy video.   I don't see Dell and HP throwing parties every time they update something for their workstations.   They constantly and silently update their configure to order page as new parts become available, most of time offering both new and old parts at the same allowing customer decide what they want.   Waiting three plus years to do a single thing is unacceptable and incompetent. period.