theLedger

I’m one of those people that do. One of the reasons is that demo environments need to be portable or a dev needs to spin up a local environment to test an application. In larger corporations, they don’t want you to attach those to a hypervisor because then you have to apply group policies which can be burdensome. 

I love the new Apple Silicon chips but I’m bummed that it cannot run x86 Windows which are the ones I have to work with. So, I have to stick with the Intel version of the Mac until my job changes where I won’t need it or Apple and Microsoft work something out. 

bala1234 said:

macgui said:

I don't mind USB-C for anything other than iPads or iPhones. Newer iPads already use USB-C, but I'd like to see Apple keep it off the iPhone for as long as possible. I'm good with Lightning.

It wouldn't and couldn't happen, but I'd like to see Apple say FU to the EU — "USB-C?? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' USB-C!" Not gonna happen though. The EU is too big of a market, so if Apple can't get around them, say "hi" to in on the phone.

Why? not trying to start a flame war here but, you have iPads and presumably already have usb-c chargers and cables. You are really so eager to carry one more cable?. I get the point about distaste for bureaucracies dictating terms to private companies. But why would you be opposed to it personally?

What will you say in 5 years when Apple or the industry comes up with a far superior standard but it takes another 5 years for the bureaucracy to get off their collective butts and pass legislation? 

When the EU first started talking about this, USB-C wasn’t even around. So without an end date or a built-in process to revise the standard, it will stifle innovation. As the previous poster noted with the Mercedes question - gov’t imposed standards often lead to design compromises that while it achieves a certain goal, it does not allow for that goal to improve such as with dynamically adjustable laser lights that increase safety for the driver and on-coming traffic. The centralized bureaucracy will inhibit the improvements that private enterprise can make. 

I doubt the Ending Platform Monopolies Act will survive Constitutional judicial review if it ever became law. We have already seen the Courts push back on narrowly defining a particular product a monopoly in of itself without reference to the market and the judge in the Epic vs. Apple trial had the same sentiment. 

Secondly, barring a tech company from selling wares on their own platform is incredibly silly and likely wouldn’t survive either. And I question whether the gov’t could prove a compelling public interest to force private companies to change their viable and otherwise legal business model. 

There was a rumor a while back that Apple may bring back MagSafe, HDMI and SD card slot to their pro laptops. I do hope that is the case because that would eliminate the need for the majority of dongles and probably save a few flying saucer Macs from someone tripping on the power cable. 

As for this campaign, well, if you have to mention your competitor, you’re obviously not in the lead. It’s not just that Intel is losing incremental sales of Mac laptops - it’s also the perception that they are being outperformed. And as M1 compatible versions of software is released, they will have trouble keeping up. Heck, Adobe even said that their M1 version of Photoshop runs up to 50% faster. To get that kind of boost out of an Intel processor is impossible at the same wattage right now. 

Back when the “I’m a Mac” series ran, everyone had the perception that PC’s were in the leadership position. Even my gamer son that custom builds his PC’s just selected AMD over Intel to rock the latest games. 

That should tell you something.