charlesn

M68000 said:

If the author and others think the max is the best, have at it.  Here is a counterpoint.  As user of a base 15 with 512gb storage, I offer some advantages of the smaller (but still big) phone.   I can comfortably handle the phone in one hand to use,  I even have started using without case lately.  The iPhones are so great to hold without case and look so much better too.   I don’t think I would risk having no case on the larger Max. it’s already a risk on smaller phone, but  easier to hold the smaller phone. The weight difference is pretty big between the Max and base iPhone - 56 grams.  The other thing is cost.  To get 512gb storage costs $400 more for the Max phone.  

Of course, BIG difference in the feature set and specs between a base 15 and 16 Pro Max. Of course, those differences might not be worth $400 to you ($300 if compared to a base 16), but that's why Apple offers a wide range of phones at different prices. I tried a Pro Max once with the 12 series and couldn't wait to trade back to the smaller 13 Pro when the year was up. But these are all very subjective decisions. 

wood1208 said:

Ring size is too personal unless the same Ring can stretch to fit different people's fingers..

Ummm... hello? Oura? Samung Galaxy Ring? You realize those aren't rubber rings, right?

I would be shocked if we don't see an Apple Ring by end of '25. Why? Tim Cook has had enormous success iterating on the same product: 7 different iPhone models in the current lineup, 6 iPads, 5 Apple Watch lines, 4 AirPods lines, etc. So think of an Apple Ring as an iteration of Apple Watch, stripped down to its health and fitness tracking functions. Who is this for? The huge market of people, including those in the Apple user base, who like the health and fitness tracking features but will never buy an Apple Watch because they prefer a traditional wristwatch. How do you think traditional wristwatch companies are staying in business? It's still a very big market, especially in higher income households. The Ring makes so much business sense you have to wonder why we don't already have one from Apple. I suspect miniaturization of Watch health and fitness functionality into a ring form factor, with enough battery to last through a day may be easier said than done. And I'm sure Apple wouldn't want the Ring to be a lesser or worse version of those tracking features. In fact, knowing Apple, it might also want to give the Ring some exclusive tracking features, the better to sell you both the Watch and the Ring. 

lotones said:

No backlight, no upgrade... and still no Touch ID for me.     

Really? Why so set against Touch ID? On Apple's keyboard, it's an ease-of-use game changer when it comes to securely logging into your computer, password-required sites or online payments. I could never go back to a non-Touch ID keyboard. 

danox said 

Who will keep track/police and trust that other company offering this mythical Touch ID keyboard Apple?

HUH? 

jonyo said:

To be fair, they left all the prices the same as the previous otherwise-identical lightning devices, as they did with the AirPods Max when they switched it to USB-C, 

In the case of AirPods Max, what is "fair" about keeping a $549 price tag on 4-year-old headphone technology? Imagine if Apple were still selling the iPhone 12 at its original list price, which is the same as the current iPhone 16. The APM was expensive relative to its main competition when it first came out, but it was leading or at least competitive with best-in-class then, so you could make the case for its price tag. But four years later, the competition has passed it by (as has AirPods Pro 2 at half the price) and there's no longer any argument to be made for its $549 price tag. 

Another masterpiece from Daniel. Let the sheep go on bleating as they have since Apple's founding. It's unfortunate that for every Daniel article that sets the record straight, AppleInsider runs at least a dozen more filled with baseless nonsense and fictional "facts" or, at the very least, a misrepresentation of data. And then we need another Daniel article to sweep aside all the shite that's piled up since his last one. 

One thing to correct about the Macbook Air: the original's thinness and high price had nothing to do with using a solid state drive. The first Air shipped standard with an 80GB HDD of the 1.8 inch size used in the iPod. A 64GB SSD was an even more expensive option, but both models were pricey considering their specs and power. The Air didn't switch to SSD exclusively until 2010. 

m4m40 said:

I’m surprised that nobody complains about the 24” screen size. I’d never even consider iMac simply because of that. 27” feels like the bare minimum to me. 32” would make it a decent contender. 

As usual, a misunderstanding of the target market for a piece of Apple hardware. The iMac target market is fine with a 24" screen. End of story. Anyone who needs something larger can buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio, both available at a variety of price points and spec levels so you can buy only what you actually need and then pair it with the monitor of your choice at any size you like. Problem solved. Also, as usual, a misunderstanding of Apple. Apple is in the business of making money. IF--knowing all that they know from actual data about their customer base --Apple thought there was sufficient money to be made in manufacturing a 27" iMac or an iMac Pro, both of which were former products, they would be making them. 

rodwslc said:

I see that Apple said that the M4 is 1.7 times faster than the M1, how about telling us how much faster the M4 is compared to the M2 & the M3.

Could it be that it’s not very much faster than the M3?

What Apple is actually saying on the iMac product page is that it's 2.1 times faster "on demanding creative workflows" and up to 70% faster for everyday tasks. First: they're comparing it to M! (and also to Intel-based Macs) because the vast majority of potential upgraders will be coming from those machines. Remember: there was no M2 iMac ever released. It went from M1 to M3 only one year ago and only deep-pocketed hardware geeks would be upgrading from that model to M4. 

About those speed numbers Apple quoted: it actually isn't an apples to apples comparison. In the fine print, you'll read that the M1 machine tested had 16GB memory, which was the maximum for that machine, while the M4 model tested had 32GB, which probably contributed to the speed difference in a demanding creative workflow, where double the memory could make a real difference--it wasn't all about the chip and it's going to cost you an extra $400 to go from 16GB to 32GB on the M4 iMacs. Nevertheless, in demanding workflows where you're doing computer tasks that are both repetitive and time-consuming, if you can achieve them twice as fast, that really adds up.

As for "70% faster for everyday tasks," that sounds impressive but may not mean much. Everyday tasks are pretty much instantaneous, so how much are you going to notice a 70% improvement on "instantaneous?" If something that took half a second now takes a quarter second, that's 100% faster, but are you going to notice that? Probably not. 

I'm surprised, especially for future-proofing a desktop machine, that they bumped the Wifi to the nearly useless 6E instead of going to 7, which is a standard now supported in routers that start as low as $99. And there are honestly no words for keeping the new USB-C port on the underside of the mouse. The only thing that makes sense at this point is some kind of deathbed pact with Steve never to change his design, no matter how much it pisses off customers.