PickUrPoison

macapfel said:

I can see why pro is used for a computer or maybe an iPad – but what exactly is a ‘Pro iPhone’ user?

It’s not the user that’s a pro, it’s the iPhone. It’s really just a model designation. Apple reserves “Pro” for the higher spec’ed models in the lineup.

The iPad Air will get a dual camera before the entry level model would.

Also, I’d be very surprised if the iPad Pros were updated so quickly. Next month would be unprecedented. March 2020 or even September 2020 (awaiting an A14X) make more sense to me but who knows?

entropys said:

dedgecko said:

virtualshift said:

I hope Apple had very low iMac sales this past year, just so they would see the the need to put more love into the desktops and not just the laptops. I have no use for a laptop. The iMac pro is 2 years old now (and a little over priced) and iMac needs a major redesign. It has not had one in over 7 years! That is just Lazy...

What needs to change on the iMac/iMac Pro?  
When does Apple change stuff just to change it?  
If there’s not a valid reason for the update, then why

 iMac pro definitely needs an update, or at the least repositioned with a price drop.

iMac Pro is sold at a fair price, I wouldn’t expect any price drops. Intel has announced the new Cascade Lake Xeon W-series CPUs, so now we can expect an iMac Pro refresh. If the new Mac Pro drops in September, I think Apple will want to give it a little space, so I don’t think we’ll see a new iMac Pro until Nov/Dec.

TDP of the new Xeons are in the 180-200W range, compared to the 140W of the previous generation. So it’s reasonable to expect underclocked CPUs again, even if Apple can save 50W with AMD’s latest GPU (7nm/Navi/RDNA). Ideally Apple would beef up the cooling system a bit, and maximize the CPU/GPU gains that will be available soon.  

AppleInsider said:

With Apple no longer reporting unit sales, however, media outlets are forced to rely on the estimates to gauge the health of Apple's Mac business. 

Sorry, but that’s just not a valid statement. In fact, media outlets would be well advised to ignore the estimates of both firms, since they are known to be unreliable in their forecasts. How either firm can pretend to actually have valid sales estimates, when neither have any visibility whatsoever into Apple Store sales data, is beyond me. 

Media outlets aren’t “forced” to rely—or to even bother passing along—the latest guesswork of any market research firm. Rather, they could simply throw a properly labeled 12-sided die, or utilize a dartboard. Alternatively, they could do something even crazier and simply report the audited figures that Apple provides. Quarterly Mac revenue are an excellent way to gauge the health of Apple’s Mac business—unlike the estimates provided by market researchers—who literally have to guess at Apple Store sales, since Apple does not disclose any data at all that would enable them to make a valid forecast. 

proline said:

When someone says the truth about you and you don't like it, the best response is to pretend they said something else that isn't true and write a rebuttal to that. Cook's rebuttal is against the claim that Apple's design team is untalented, not against any claim the WSJ ever made. That's a pretty good indication the WSJ was spot on. 

No, Cook’s rebuttal was about the inaccuracy of the sum and substance of the article: “A lot of the reporting, and certainly the conclusions just don't match with reality. At a base level, it shows a lack of understanding about how the design team works and how Apple works. It distorts relationships, decisions and events to the point that we just don't recognize the company it claims to describe.”

In other words, the article is BS and Trickle is full of it as usual.