danvm

dewme said:

elijahg said:

Perhaps this is the long fabled xMac that has been desired for so long by many prosumers in the Mac world!

Would be interesting to say the least. Even something that is about as functional as an iMac but with a certain amount of end-user accessibility, end-user upgradability, and modularity would be awesome. No, it doesn't have to be equal in performance or expandability to the Mac Pro, it just has to be less sealed-up than the Mini and the iMac.

I really like my iMacs, but every one has required servicing and every service issue requires a trip to the Apple Store, the loss of the computer for several days, and they always come back with smudges and bubbles under the bezel where the poor technicians had to pry the darn thing apart. And as others have said, it always seems like a waste to have to recycle an iMac that still has a beautiful screen on it even if its computing internals are scrambled. 

In case you didn't know, AppleCare+ includes onsite services for desktop and laptops.

https://www.apple.com/support/products/mac/

I think it's worth it.  My customers have Lenovo devices with onsite service, and the experience have been very positive.  You just make a support call, wait for the part and the service representative.  Priceless!

22july2013 said:

danvm said:

22july2013 said:

Funny, I consider brands 2, 3, 4, 5, and especially 13 to have negative brand value, mostly because of their approaches to security and privacy. I avoid those brands, and anything they do (as much as I can.)

I would consider those brand names to be as much of a turnoff as these: https://www.trademarknow.com/blog/the-7-most-unfortunate-brand-names-ever-trademarked <--

What's more funny is that brand #1 receives money from company #4 to make their search engine the default in company #1 browser.  So I suppose company #1 don't have the trust issues you have with company #4, considering they trust their customers to them.  

Company #2 is the largest cloud provider in the world, and even company #1 use their services.  And I haven't seen the security and privacy issues you mention.

Also company #3 is, maybe, the most trusted brand in enterprises and business.  So maybe they are not as bad as you think.  

Each of my three sentences had to do with how I felt about these companies. A person's feelings are personal and should always be respected. If someone hates General Motors, you can say all you want, but you can't make them like GM. Everyone has the right to hate any company they want to hate. There are lots of Apple haters on these forums, for example, and nobody shuts them down.

First of all, my intentions wasn't to disrespect you preferences.  Second, not everyone that post a negative comment in the forums is an Apple hater.  I consider myself a customer and not a fan of Apple or MS, considering my devices are only from those two companies (most of them are from Apple).  I have zero devices from Google or Amazon.  

Your second paragraph is the most interesting. but I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You said "you haven't seen the security and privacy issues [from Amazon]" Really? Amazon has many security and privacy issues. Like their Amazon Echo which is always listening to and recording what you are saying in your house. How is that not a security or privacy issue? I just googled "is amazon echo secure" and found 100 articles from different companies pointing out problems with it. Like this one. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/amazons-alexa-never-stops-listening-to-you/ I figured you might like the NY Times. In that article it says Apple has suspended the practice of recording people's speech, but Amazon is still recording you.

I did the same search and you, and my results were related on how to change privacy settings in Alexa, including opt-out of audio recordings.  I prefer what Apple does, of making it by default, but still very easy to do with Alexa.  

SpamSandwich said:

Here’s the thing:

Price isn’t the point. The Surface is a pile of hot garbage compared to the generally lean and efficient iPad.

I don't think that the Surface is as bad as you said compared to an iPad.  I have a Surface Pro 4 that completely replaced my iPad, notebook and desktop (since I have the Surface Dock).  I wouldn't be able to do that with an iPad.  And during these years, I have seen how the iPad have been copying many elements I had many years ago in my SP4, like the Pen/Pencil, side-by-side apps in tablet mode, Windows Hello / FaceID and more recently the keyboard with trackpad.  

I think that the iPad is the best tablet in the market.  But the Surface does many things better than the iPad, specially when you add the keyboard / trackpad.  For example, if I work with a complex document or spreadsheet, the Surface is a better device.  Same as multitasking, where the iPad is very limited compared to Windows.  

I would agree that the iPad is very efficient in many tasks, but I can said the same of the Surface in many tasks too.  IMO, it all depends of what you need, the apps / applications and your workflow.  I consider both, the iPad and the Surface Pro, excellent devices.

Graeme000 said:

bageljoey said:

I will get this. I refuse the subscription model for this product.

Seconded. The last time I paid for office was when they last had a perpetual license. I will definitely consider this. 

I really hope Adobe is considering a non-subscription version too. 

Maybe you didn't knew, but MS never took out from the market the boxed version of MS Office.  And Adobe have some applications without subscription, at least with business licensing, like Adobe Acrobat Pro.  The thing with Adobe Acrobat, is that the perpetual license is for old versions, in this case from 2017.  At least that was my experience with a customer, different from MS, that gives you an updated version of MS Office.  

tenthousandthings said:

The Ars Technica thread on this is fascinating — the initial rush of hot-take comments are overwhelmingly negative and any attempt to actually assess what Apple is doing here is downvoted to the point that the comment is hidden. But later on, more measured and thoughtful discussion becomes possible. I’m not sure I would recommend the thread, but it does show that Apple needs to do a better job of communicating anything that involves gaming — that sector is different, and Apple’s usual approach to PR must adapt. The baseline of trust Apple has earned in other areas doesn’t exist here.

My own view is that this is a wait-and-see moment — yes, it means that Google and Microsoft will have to do some extra work, possibly a lot of it, to bring Stadia and xCloud to iOS/iPadOS and tvOS [?], but no, it does not mean it won’t happen, which is what most of the aforementioned hot takes assume. 

None of the negative commenters there seem to grasp that it’s entirely possible that the end result will be that the user experience in these high-end game-streaming apps will be better on Apple devices due to this integration, not worse. I mean, to me, these guidelines mostly just point to where Apple is heading with Screen Time.

I don't see how this "integration" you mentioned will improve the experience.  If that's the case, then Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime should move to this method of integration too.  

And I don't see any issues with xCloud and Screen Time, since you could control the xCloud app as you do with other apps.