- Last Active
AppleZulu said:cgWerks said:AppleZulu said:
They didn't put the charging port on the bottom because that was the only place left after they eliminated all the other places where they didn't want to put it. They put the charging port on the bottom because it would prevent people from leaving it plugged in while they use it.
Ironically, there's a popular self-help book called Who Moved My Cheese that seems to address the sort of angst some people feel about the charging port being on the bottom of this wireless mouse.
I see see no evidence of design in that tear down certainly not the level of skill other Apple products have.
cgWerks said:entropys said:
Oh, it is pretty obvious the design is deliberate to stop you using it plugged in. Thing is, I want to use it plugged in.
mr. h said:The whiners who are trying to argue the case for an xMac do themselves a great disservice by poo-pooing the new Mac Pro. It makes you look like you are unable to process information logically and makes it more likely that people will just dismiss everything you have to say.
I do think that there is a very good case for the xMac, but there's no need to rubbish the Mac Pro in order to make said case. The new Mac Pro is a seriously awesome and absolutely gorgeous machine, as is the XDR display, and despite the fact I'm nowhere near the target market for these things, it still made me almost giddy with excitement when it was announced - and it's been a long time since any hardware announcement from Apple had me so excited. It was just so refreshing to see Apple take this stuff seriously and produce a correspondingly uncompromised product. The Mac Pro is expensive. But it is also good value. And as for the XDR display, that is just astonishingly good value - come on, this thing is better in every way than a monitor costing $40+k, and it costs $6k - if that's not staggeringly good value, I don't know what is.
Now, having said all that, there does still remain the question - why on earth is Apple making the entry cost for a configurable machine on the macOS platform $6000??? It's like they actively don't want to sell more Macs! It's a decision that just baffles me. You can't seriously tell me that Apple offering an xMac that starts at $999 is going to cannibalise a $6000+ workstation? They are completely different products for completely different markets and there is simply no way that someone who would consider buying a $6k workstation would end up buying a $1k tower instead, and equally and just as importantly, visa versa. Here is what I would envisage an xMac consisting of:
A tower design with easy access to innards, but something much simpler and less high-end than the new Mac Pro
Support for intel Core i3, i5, i7, i9 desktop processors
Support for up to 64 GB RAM (in DIMM Slots)
NVMe SSD (user upgradeable)
two PCIe slots
dedicated graphics options (but not supporting anything like the MPX Modules for Mac Pro).
And what would the $999 option consist of? Take the $799 mini and put those specs in a tower:
- 3.6GHz quad-core 8th-generation Intel Core i3 processor
- 8GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
- Intel UHD Graphics 630
- 128GB SSD
BTW - just looked at the Mac Mini, and Apple's prices for storage and RAM are quite simply disgusting and totally unjustifiable. So that's the reason they don't have an xMac.To me the new xMac is the MacPro 18months old as a refurb.With all the upgradable modules and flexiblity and pitching firstly at the serious demand users who will update modules as soon as they become arrive on the market there will be a strong market in second hand parts. Apple (as is their standard MO) will no doubt be working to get cost of the shell and other modules down in price. So combine the stock of refurb MPX modules and Xeon CPU, memory, even Mainboards down the track for PCIe 4 support,....Add to that Apple will no doubt lease these machines to production companies who might only want it for 12 months, so they'll have maybe two streams of machines and parts.There you have xMac refurb'edand rehoused modules sold or leased again at a much lower price.
anome said:I didn't realise this was meant to be a "Global Flagship" store. I'm not surprised they've given up on Federation Square, though. Melbournians are very conservative and parochial. Comes from their inferiority complex over Sydney. Kind of like Chicago and New York.
Apple, if you're reading this, if you want to open a bigger store in Canberra, I'd be willing to go there. And at least a few hundred other people would, too...
Just don't put it in Perth. No-one wants to go to Perth.Parochial* yes but I'd hardly call them conservative.I mean this is poor design on Apples part and follows a bit of a trend of them co-oping the public space for stores of late.The orginal roll out Apple stores were infill and heritage recovery projects that did create and interesting hybrid of private space opened to the public but projects of late have crossover the other way. Apple should look at what made the orginal store good from a city making prespective and try and get back to that.*Sydney architect who regularly works in many other cities including Melbs ( ;-)yes I did aberviate because I know how much it annoys people from Melbourne).