mattinoz

About

Username
mattinoz
Joined
Visits
155
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,014
Badges
1
Posts
1,151
  • Apple Music web browser player launches in beta

    Airpods double tap or take out doesn't stop playback.

    lostkiwi
  • The worst Apple designs by Jony Ive, according to the AppleInsider staff

    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. 
    Any evidence for that? Why haven't they done that with the rest of their products?
    Well, it seems pretty self-evident, if you're not all tense and offended by the port being on the bottom. Then there's also the fact that the patent for the mouse includes drawing with a cord out the front "for the purposes of example," but notes that "the force sensing mouse may not include a cord in various implementations, and/or may communicate with an associated electronic device utilizing various wireless communication methods such as WiFi, Bluetooth, and so on." So they had a completely elegant-looking design with a cord coming out of the front, but yet when they made it wireless, by golly, the port's on the bottom. It's a wireless mouse. It's not meant to be plugged in while you're using 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.
    Fixity tear down suggests they put in the bottom because all they did Engineeering wise was replace the battery carrier with a rechargeable pack. 

    I see see no evidence of design in that tear down certainly not the level of skill other Apple products have. 
    cgWerks
  • The worst Apple designs by Jony Ive, according to the AppleInsider staff

    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.
    That's actually a good point. Aside from charging, some wireless devices communicate over USB when plugged in vs BT (not sure about the MM2), which gives that option if something is interfering with signals, or can bypass pairing issues when booting, etc. (Again, not sure if the MM2 can do that, but some BT devices do.)
    Keyboard will, mouse won't.
    cgWerks
  • Apple debuts new $5999 Mac Pro with up to 28-core Xeon processors

    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
    This configuration would have both PCIe slots empty. Adding a dedicated graphics card would enable macOS dynamic graphics switching.

    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. 
    cgWerks
  • Apple scraps plans for first Australian 'global flagship' store

    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).
    caladanianGeorgeBMacJWSCsteveauwatto_cobra