lorin schultz

qwwera said:

lorin schultz said:

qwwera said:

preclarotipo said:

I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.

I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products. 

Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product?? 

Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model. 

Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?

As with the switch to Intel, you deal with it and move on. What was the option? Stay with the Power PC chips to avoid upsetting people short term or work towards the future. Companies die when they can’t make the change.

ericthehalfbee said:

lorin schultz said:

qwwera said:

preclarotipo said:

I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.

I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products. 

Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product?? 

Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model. 

Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?

Large, slow moving sources? Like Nokia, Ericsson, Palm and BlackBerry who were too slow to adapt when the iPhone came out?

longfang said:

DAalseth said:

Microsoft has Windows on ARM now, with a 32-bit software compatibility layer, so virtualization or even Windows on top of one of these new machines isn't out of the question

One thing that nobody is talking about though is compatibility with Intel software. Sure Windows and some software will run on A series chips. But what about the Mac software that is coded to run on Intel? Are they going to run a Blue Box/Yellow Box strategy for a while? It took years before all critical software was ported from PPC to Intel. Some never was and there were a fair number of people who  refused to update their OS for years after Apple dropped Rosetta, because they did not dare lose the old software they depended on. Any idea what Apple is going to do for them?

Move on or get left behind. The backwards compatibility at the expense of moving forward is a Microsoft thing that resulted in the mess that is the Windows world.

Apparently I wasn't clear.

The argument was that Apple should begin the transition to ARM with it's professional line. I'm saying I disagree.

• Buyers of Apple's pro computers use software from vendors who are not going to quickly release an ARM version of their wares.
• If there's no ARM version of the software I use to make my living, there's no reason for me to buy an ARM-based Mac. I'll either stay with what I have or switch to Windows.
• That will hurt sales of new Macs. Users won't be left behind, Apple will.

There's no point in Apple producing a machine its intended market won't buy, hence it may not be a good idea for Apple to start the move to ARM at the high end. Users of entry level machines are less likely to be inextricably attached to specific systems and titles in which they have a sizeable investment. Thus I think the low end is a safer place to begin the switch.

qwwera said:

preclarotipo said:

I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.

I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products. 

Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product?? 

Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model. 

Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?

randominternetperson said:

[...] Wouldn't it make more sense to build in a thermal "chimney" so that a single fan module could control the airflow through the entire stack? 

That's a great idea! You could even make it cylindrical, with the various components wrapped around the outside of a vertical cooling tunnel.

Oh wait...

Another way of presenting the statistic in the headline is "Developers generate $51 Billion dollars in revenue for Apple."

The App Store may be the single greatest development in personal computing in the 21st Century, but it's a two way street. An App Store is only successful if it's stocked with compelling stuff from creative developers. Apple has certainly made it easier for developers to reach a wider audience, but devs managed to generate revenue before the existence of the App Store, and many still do without it.

Are developers successful because of the App Store or is the App Store successful because of developers?

blah64 said:

But the biggest mistake you made is trying to say what works for me as far as screens go.  First, I pay a LOT of attention to this, and I am not ignorant of the machines Apple builds.  I've been buying and using Apple computers almost exclusively for 40 years, Macs for 34 years, primarily as a developer for many of those years.  I live close enough to an Apple store that I probably visit more than once/month on average, and I know dozens of friends and family with these crappy screens that I've tried over and over through the years.  I've seen the reflections change with refinement from product to product, and over 6-7 years of glossiness I've seen some improvement of these "mirror screens", but it was from horrendous to just bad.  And then at one point they actually got worse again.  There is one simple statement that you cannot argue with, and that is that there are reflections.  They're never not there.  Apparently many humans have the ability to ignore reflections, but I don't understand that phenomenon, and quite frankly I don't understand how anyone can tolerate reflections in a screen you're staring at for hours on end.  In any case, doesn't work for me, they are quite literally unusable.

Does it help any to know there's a good reason the matte screens went away? They limit both the color gamut and dynamic range the screen can reproduce. Getting rid of the matte finish allows for displays that have a much broader range from dark to bright and much more accurate color.

Knowing that obviously doesn't affect your sensitivity to reflections, but it might be motivation to look into strategies for dealing with it. Maybe it's worth sometimes adjusting the screen angle or your seating position if the trade-off is a more accurate image.

blah64 said:

And keychain adapters?  LOL.  I'm sure as hell not going to add crap to carry around in my pockets 24/7, it's bad enough with all the keys I need to carry, phones, glasses, etc.   I'm over capacity as it is.  Perhaps for someone who carries a purse that could be feasible, but it's not a good general solution.  This is just making excuses and trying to cover up for a lack of ports.

It's not as daunting as it sounds to be Boy Scout prepared. All my devices have USB-C cables on them. To the end of the cables I have attached these compact, inexpensive adapters:



  https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B01C43FUIW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06__o00_s00  

If I have to connect to a USB-A port in the wild, it's already on the cable. If I'm attaching it to my own computer, I pop off the adapter and put it in my pocket. It's less disruptive in my pocket than loose change.

While we're on the subject of ports, please indulge my favourite rant:

My wife's Mac has ports for Ethernet, Firewire 800, Thunderbolt 2, SD card, and two USB-3 ports, one of which is permanently occupied with a mouse dongle. If I want to connect a second USB device I'm screwed, while the Firewire and Thunderbolt ports sit there doing nothing.

My Mac has four universal ports. Any one of them can be anything I want. They can be any combination of Thunderbolt, USB-A, USB-C, DisplayPort, HDMI, Ethernet, power input, power output, etc. etc. almost ad infinitum, just by using the appropriate cable.

My kit for hitting the road fits in an envelope. All my peripherals already have USB-C plugs on them. Some of them obviously came out of the box with USB-A cables, but I just replaced them with inexpensive USB-C versions. That means I carry no more cables than I did before. In order to accommodate plugging my stuff into other computers, those USB-C cables have the adapter shown above attached to them. The net increase in carry volume is zero, since they're attached to the cables. For connecting other people's stuff to my computer I have a small, lightweight adapter that provides USB-A, Ethernet, and HDMI. All from a single port.

Most of the dongle arguments I've heard exaggerate the severity of the issue. I carry exactly ONE adapter that's small and light enough that I'll forget it's there if I put it in a shirt pocket, and I gain a ton of flexibility. It's my carefully considered opinion that Apple's approach to ports on the MacBook Pro is a major win for users.