lorin schultz

bobolicious said:
[...] the mini without a discrete GPU questioned by so many

Just as many question the pricing of the mini as it is. On one hand you have those who say the mini is not complete without a dedicated GPU, on the other you have those saying it's too expensive. How can Apple satisfy both camps?

The answer is to provide a method of adding a GPU so those who don't need or want it don't have to pay for it but those who do still have the option. That method is an external GPU via Thunderbolt.

This has some advantages even beyond flexible pricing. There is no place my setting for a giant box like the old aluminum Mac Pro, but a mini, external GPU, and external storage can all sit next to each other on a bookshelf. I wind up with the same net result, but in a much more adaptable physical form.

Using modular components this way may not be what we're used to, but it strikes me as a pretty good idea.

I recently looked into monitors for a little audio post suite. I discovered a couple things I didn't expect.

One is that 32" monitors present a serious size challenge in a multi-monitor setup. They're big, so they take up a lot of space. One of my clients has a nice suite with one 27" monitor and one 32". Even with a spacious desk and one smaller monitor, it's still too crowded. I have to push the big monitor out of view to have clear listening paths to all three front speakers.

Given space constraints, I narrowed my search to 27" displays. That led to the second surprise. With a 27" at roughly arm's length distance, the difference between WQHD (2560 X 1440) and 4K is not that great, at least to my eyes.

That means 6K is definitely overkill for my needs, especially if it drives the price as far up as I think it will. The 32" size might also present placement challenges for those using more than one monitor. I'm glad Apple is making a really serious monitor and don't begrudge anyone wanting what Kuo's predicting, I just kinda hope maybe they'll offer a more modest alternative as well.

ireland said:

seanismorris said:

Apple is years behind the competition.  Netflix has an enormous amount of original content, and it’s surprisingly decent.

I’ll probably give Apple a shot in a free trial, but between Amazon Prime Video (free) and Netflix it’s an uphill battle.

I did try to rent a movie from Apple recently, but had to request a refund.  Can’t stream/download a movie without a WiFi connection?  How stupid is that...

I may not even get as far as a free trial...

Netflix has a lot of garbage original content, too, IMO. Seeing what sticks to the wall doesn’t work for video content and that’s what Netflix is all about. Also Netflix’s business practices such as rearranging My List every time I visit it after viewing an individual show page, to trick you into watching other stuff, is annoying and anti-user. Netflix increasingly treats their users like garbage.

The Netflix user experience is, without question, utterly obnoxious, but I gotta admit I've been pretty impressed with the lineup. Netflix has hooked me with new shows WAAAAY more often than the traditional TV networks.

bestkeptsecret said:

What gives this guy the right to dictate what should happen in some other country?

If your neighbours are kicking their dog, do you take action to intervene or do you mind your own business?

AppleExposed said:

As opposed to pricing them much lower and losing money on each iPhone sold?

That was, of course, a joke, and I think you recognized it as such, but still, to your point -- there is another option beyond pricing too high for the market and losing money: make some compromises in the design that remove costs for things that fall into the realm of diminishing returns.

I think Apple actually DID that. They made the XR. I just replaced a dead iPhone last week, and I admit being hard pressed to find a reason to buy the XS. The XR is a really good value.

AppleExposed said:

I remember reading that the camera array and sensors cost more. I could be wrong

The only place I've seen that written is by users like you and me who just assume it must cost more because it's newer and cooler. We don't actually know that.

AppleExposed said:

but as I said, Apple is using very expensive components and tech.

Are they? Are Apple's components really much more expensive that those used by other suppliers? If they were, how would we know? Maybe the components Apple uses do cost more than the modems, flash storage, camera modules, etc. you'll find in competitors top-of-the-line products, but I kinda doubt it. I'm pretty sure Apple's massive purchasing power insures it gets very competitive pricing on third-party components. There doesn't seem to be a massive chasm in the hardware capabilities of an iPhone compared to a similarly-positioned product of another brand, so I'm not inclined to give Apple a free pass on build costs.

That doesn't mean I don't think iPhones have value -- I do -- I just that I don't think component cost is a major contributor to rising iPhone prices.

AppleExposed said:

Right, neither of us know for sure but does he think FaceID is free?

Of course not, but that's irrelevant to the point I made. My point is about the assertion that Face ID makes new iPhones more expensive. We don't know that. If Face ID really does cost more than Touch ID, then it's a valid argument. If it actually costs the same as or less than Touch ID, the argument that its cost contributes to the rising price of iPhones is wrong.