PickUrPoison

bonobob said:

So he played the role of CCO. That's saying a lot, and nothing: 

Chief channel officer, the executive responsible for indirect revenue with a partner within an organizationChief commercial officer, the executive responsible for commercial strategy and developmentChief communications officer, or sometimes, Corporate communications officer, the executive responsible for communications, public relations or public affairs or bothChief compliance officer, the executive responsible for compliance with regulatory requirementsChief content officer, the executive responsible for content in broadcastingChief creative officer, the executive responsible for the creative team of a companyChief customer officer, the executive responsible for the total relationship with customersChief culture officer, the executive position responsible for cultural alignment of a company, described in a 2009 book by Grant McCracken

The first sentence of the article says chief creative officer so I’d go with that. 

Appleish said:

For the Actual new MacBook Pros. Not the chip bump we got this week that tech bloggers were calling a "new" machine.

Although I have had zero problems with my MBP with the "faulty keyboard" that I only hear about online, I will be buying the next actual new model.

You don’t get to re-define “new” lol. There are people who buy a new MBP every year, some who buy every two or three years, and some that buy a new machine every eight to ten (or more) years. 

If you only only want to buy when there’s a re-design, feel free; those who are buying the new 8-core to replace their 2018 6-core couldn’t care less. Maybe it’s just a difference in perspective for home consumers vs. pro users who make their living with their Mac. When you’re billing $100-250+ an hour, it can make a lot of sense to have the fastest machine. Selling a ten month old high-spec’ed MBP with two years left on AppleCare is unbelievably easy. 

TC Young said:

As a 30 year Apple fan and loyal customer, I have to disagree with this article. Both my 2015, 2016, and now 2017 Macbooks have exhibited problems with their keyboards, eventually requiring replacement. This is a first of *any* Apple computers I have used since the mid 1980s. I can't chalk that up to simple coincidence, nor do I consider it "normal" when it comes to wear & tear. I can only hope Apple eventually gets the design right.

Your experience isn’t necessarily atypical; some users such as yourself have had trouble with both the scissor and the butterfly keyboards. Some people are just hard on keyboards, or unlucky.

If the class action lawsuit over the butterfly keyboards goes anywhere, we might get some hard data on the actual failure rates. The butterfly keyboards are definitely more problematic than the scissor-type, but there are plenty in the Apple-hate crowd—with no actual experience with the new keyboard—who will insist that everyone is having problems, when that’s just not true. 

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

elijahg said:

For comparison: 

This Dell is £1029, slightly less than the base iMac. It has an 8th Gen i5, newer than the iMac. It has faster RAM. It has a much better GPU, a Nvidia GTX1050 vs Intel Integrated. It has a 128GB SSD and a 7200RPM 1TB HDD. Still think the iMac should have an SSD? Granted, the display is likely to be better (though the iMac one is smaller, and neither are 4k)

The iMac is actually much closer to Dell's £749 offering. That still has a faster HDD, and faster RAM, though the graphics are slightly worse. Other than that, you get pretty much the same machine for £300 less. Of course you have to then deal with Windows, but Windows 10 whilst not exactly great, is nowhere near as bad as older versions. I love Apple, but the prices are just becoming ridiculous. The prices are markedly affecting sales, but for some reason Cook is obsessed with maximising profit, even if it means less sales and ultimately, less total revenue.

nemaworm said:

This 2017 1 terabyte which has a 32gb fusion (not 64gb like the previous poster said) is terrible at launching apps. 

Oh geez I didn't realise they'd gone down to just 32GB now. That's a f**king piss take.

macplusplus said:

elijahg said:

JWSC said:

myshkingfh said:

Anything with an HDD in 2019 (2015, really) is 0 stars out of 5. Come on.

Well, SDDs are optional for a few hundred dollars more.

StrangeDays said:

myshkingfh said:

Anything with an HDD in 2019 (2015, really) is 0 stars out of 5. Come on.

Then don’t buy the cheapest 21” iMac, as the 27” all have Fusion or SSD. If you need the cheapest base model for some reason, upgrade the storage. Problem solved, something for everyone. Users like my dad are not performance oriented, and just want something to hold photos, surf, etc. 

 
A Fusion Drive at least should be included in all the iMacs, especially when all the MacBooks and the old MacBook Air has an SSD and costs less than the iMac. They recently nerfed the Fusion Drive's SSD down to 64GB from the 128GB it used to be. Oh and even the top tier model that starts at £2,250 still has a hard drive. Apple's just taking the piss there. Plus upgrades to a SSD are ridiculously overpriced. Not only that, it's incredulous that the base iMac only has a 5400RPM drive. If that's not nickel and diming I don't know what is, and how you can try and defend that I dont know, and totally discredits anything you say.

A friend recently bought the base HDD iMac before the recent refresh, and it's so sluggish it's embarrassing. It's like a machine that's 5 or 6 years old. Hell, my 2012 iMac is faster than the HDD 2015 model she purchased in 2019.

Upgrade to a fusion drive is just $100. So all your chagrin is for that $100 difference? And if you pay $200 instead of $100 you get 1TB Fusion drive + 8th gen i5 + 4GB GPU. It is not meaningful to default to Fusion drive in all models because only the HDD component of that drive can be partitioned for BootCamp and this is not as easy as partitioning a 1TB HDD. 

Yeah, but then as the Fusion drive is only 32GB it isn't much better than a HDD. And Apple's charging $100 for a M.2 SSD that can be bought on eBay, singularly, for £35. Apple will be getting them cheaper than that. That Cook is willing to cause such a crap experience to save £35 on a £1000 machine is really quite saddening.

Great, then build your external SSD solution because you already have Thunderbolt 3. As for the internal, sorry no internal configuration is built with off-the-shelf components, because this is a matter of scale. You can buy one on eBay, but Apple needs to buy these in millions. Let the industrial production be a little different then your DIY fantasies.

Why should I have to fork out several hundred for a Thunderbolt caddy and SSD ontop of that, when Apple could put a SSD in the iMac to begin with?

Sorry what? Do you think someone makes a HDD and SSD for Apple specifically? That's funny, why do the chips have "Samsung" printed on? What about the Intel CPU, is that made bespoke for Apple?

And yes, you're right, it is a matter of scale. As i said before, the more Apple buys, the cheaper they become. If I can buy a 32GB M.2 SSD on eBay for £35, Apple can buy them for much less than that. I'm an electronics engineer, I'm quite well versed with industrial production, thanks, and funny how Dell are able to provide a machine with my apparent "DIY fantasies". The only fantasy is your perception of the performance of the HDD in the iMac.


This demonstrates how sluggish the HDD iMacs are, including my friend's one. That's acceptable to you?

This is a matter of expectations. You can try before your buy in an Apple Store. The sluggishness as apparent as you mention is not undetectable during a demo in an Apple Store. Since you say brand new I assume it is the $1099 1080p iMac. If she is satisfied with her purchase decision stop harassing her computer. Many people don't care about sluggishness, especially for kids it doesn't matter because what counts in their Windows game is the performance of the GPU. That is primarily pre-rendering frames that causes slow loading, not disk read/write.

You are happy with a brand new machine stalling for 15 seconds when opening Safari? You're happy for it to beachball when a new tab opens? "Harrassing her computer" haha that's a new one. She was happy, until she realised how slow it was. Apple is about exceeding people's expectations, not coming short. People spending £1000+ on a computer absolutely do care about sluggishness, otherwise why would my friend have spoken to me about it? I was embarrassed to tell her that the £1000 she just forked out on that machine was not good value, and by then it was past the 14 days return window. Plus as I said before, Apple doesn't have the base model on display. It's always the mid-range one with at least a fusion drive.

And who buys a new £1000 iMac for their kids?! You think the Radeon 555x is a good performer in games with a 4k display? 2GB GRAM is pretty abysmal, especially when the textures will have to be loaded in during gameplay from a slow hard disk.

Mate, you really have no idea what you're talking about and you're just embarrassing yourself now... like Apple's embarrassing themselves with their base iMac. Oh and I haven't noticed that you've failed to refute again that the iMac's a lesser spec for more money ߘ馬t;/div>

Really the only thing embarrassing is your thinking you’re entitled to a cheaper iMac. You’re not old enough to know, but people have been complaining about Apple’s prices for at least 35 years! You think you’ve come up with some breaking news here? Yeah no. 

They’re Macs. They’re expensive. Get over it. Apple’s prices are what they are. If you can’t afford it, buy used or buy a $300 windows laptop and replace it ever year or two when it fries out. 
  
If you want the 21.5” iMac, you can spend as little as $1,099. It has an HDD; so what? My Grandma sure as hell doesn’t need an SSD. Why should she have to pay an extra $200 for YOUR minimum config? She doesn’t want to spend 1,299, she wants to spend $1,099. Leave her the eff alone—she doesn’t need an SSD. If you do, no problem. You can even get a six-core i7, 32GB RAM, a Vega 20 GPU and a 1TB SSD. All you need to do is write a check for $3,349. What’s the problem?

If that’s not enough performance for you, get a 27” iMac Pro with an 18-core Xeon, 256GB of RAM, a Vega 64X GPU and a 4 TB SSD. Yours for $15,699. If you need more performance than that in a Mac, you’re going to have to wait until the new Mac Pro is released. Could be $20-30K (including monitor) for the maximum configuration, depending on what’s available; it’s currently unknown if it will support dual CPUs or 512+GB RAM or even which CPU family it will use... Skylake SP? 

The point is, you don’t have the right to a Mac that’s priced at what YOU want to pay. Apple prices their products at what its customers are willing to pay. 18+ million customers a year pay the prices Apple’s asking for their Macs, so clearly they are NOT overpriced. They are NOT too expensive. Too expensive for you, maybe, sure... but not for the people who actually buy them. 

knowitall said:

corrections said:

knowitall said:

As I indicated in earlier posts the iPhones are about twice as expensive as they should be (including a healthy profit margin).
It’s completely evident that Apple asks way to much for its products, just look at the billions of profit every month (that it burns away to even further insult its buyers).

Got any facts to back up your personal theories? I didn't think so.  

Actually, yes, see my previous posting about the value of an iPhone. Real profit is also a fact, unless Apple had its own info wrong.

I didn’t see anything you posted about the value of an iPhone—is that in another thread? Could you please point me to the post you refer to, or re-post it please? 

I’m also not sure what your comment on profit means.  Apple earned $20 billion in profit on sales of $84 billion. Yes, it’s real profit in fact, as you state, but what does it mean “unless Apple had its own info wrong”?