macplusplus

AppleInsider said:

...

Day 5

...
As I started to restore my Mac and get it back up to snuff, I reflected on what was working and not working with the iPad. Editing video was surprisingly doable and I actually quite enjoyed using LumaFusion and will use that again.

At the same time, I felt while things weren't difficult and doable, they took a bit more time than they did on my Mac. Little things like the space inserted in pasting text. I did try using a mouse with the iPad and iOS 13 but it still wasn't as smooth as experience as I had hoped.

I also felt like I kept having to jump in and out of apps more than simply being in them all at once like on my Mac.

Still, using my iPad Pro as a daily driver was refreshing. It was a different way of looking at things and the platform shows a lot of promise. For full video editing, I'm not 100-percent ready to give up my Mac but with the latest hardware and iOS 13, Apple is getting remarkably close to getting there. Perhaps next year will finally bridge the gap.

MrDavidFTurner said:

This seems like a good tax measure and other countries should consider it. Why??

The problem is that the big five tech firms and other multinational play tax and accounting games at a global level to get around playing there fair share of local taxes.

In Australia most of the big tech firms pay virtual no tax despite making billions of dollars in our country. Not because they aren’t profitable but because they just move the money around to make it look like they make no money.... rubbish.

This is unfair to local businesses that don’t have the ability / scale of business to do this and thus pay a tax rate closer to 30% in Australia vs the virtually nothing that these companies pay.

The second problem with this is that these companies are generating money in other nations while providing little back. These companies use our airports our roads our infrastructure yet pay virtually nothing to help keep it going despite using it.. just take take take.

This helps funnel billions of dollars back to a few rich Americans in Silicon Valley. I get why you would be pro this happening if you’re American, cause it is good for the US. For the rest of the world it’s not great and nations are looking for a way to fix this. 

It’s a difficult problem for a country to solve as a country can only make tax laws over there own area. Trying to get a global tax agreement between nations to stop this is extremely difficult so good on France for saying enough is enough.... you won’t pay your fair share, fine we will start going after your revenue. I hope many more do

MplsP said:

macplusplus said:

GeorgeBMac said:

macplusplus said:

GeorgeBMac said:

macplusplus said:

GeorgeBMac said:

lkrupp said:

ireland said:

Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.

128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.

It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's.  I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally.  But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?

Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.

Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable?  That's just silly.

That's not your business. This is the concern of those who know their priorities and decided to buy a Macbook. How do you claim that 128 GB SSD makes a laptop unusable? $1099 is not "premium". For that price you get the best value in an entry level machine, such as Retina, TrueTone, Thunderbolt 3, ultimate security with uncompromised fingerprint recognition and custom CPU. Show us another laptop with TWO CPUs, one totally dedicated to security and fast storage !..

If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.

GeorgeBMac said:

macplusplus said:

GeorgeBMac said:

lkrupp said:

ireland said:

Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.

128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.

It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's.  I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally.  But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?

Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.

Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise.  But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.

Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.

Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb  of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design.

It wouldn't be bad if, when the user fills that up, he could take it back to Apple and have it upgraded (at a reasonable cost).  But that's impossible -- so the laptop becomes worthless.

And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be.

And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy.

Somebody else said it best:    Apple is just pulling a "Bait and Switch" here with a low base price -- because when the customer gets to the Apple store he'll be told to cough up more cash to get a decent machine.

"Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb  of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design."

The industry moved on from 128 GB over a decade ago but on 2.5" HDDs, not on SSDs. Do you know what a SSD is? 

"And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be."

What? What are you drinking right now? What "similar specs"? Double concurrent CPU? Retina resolution? Unbreakable Touch ID? Apple Pay? Thunderbolt 3? 4K displays? Stop insisting so much on your unelaborated and compulsive ideas, you become more and more meaningless...

"And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy."

Your users will tell the difference when they BestBuy bought crappy Chinese knockoff SSD wears completely at the end of a few years usage. SSDs are not durable like hard disks, they get eroded after an undisclosed number of read/writes.

All the more reason to make the SSD replaceable. Taking a component that's expected to wear out and not making it replaceable seems almost like planned obsolescence.

As for the cost, I just went to Crucial.com. A 1TB SSD is $100-110. A 1TB upgrade for the Macbook is $600. I don't know who makes the SSD's for Apple, but Crucial isn't generally considered a second rate company; I've purchased many memory upgrades from them in the past and never had an issue.