trifid

roundaboutnow said:

trifid said:

AI chose some of the ugliest monitors that don't reflect the current market trend. First of all if you are going with a Mac Mini, why choose a 24" monitor? Choose 27". A simple amazon search for "27" monitor 4k" shows all the relevant results have thin bezels, they look far better than AI's recommended 24" monitors from the 90s, some even come with HDR10 and the cost is still around the same price range.

Ok sure, I know AI was trying to show the closest comparison possible to Apple's offering, but it's NOT realistic to what's trending in the market. The external monitor to get is 27" or higher, period. Of course you can choose 24" but there aren't as many options because the demand is for the higher sizes.

Those are definitely nicer looking monitors. A 27" 4K monitor is not a bad choice, but you don't get more pixels (or real estate) than any other 4K monitor, you just get larger pixels. It may be an advantage for some to be able to place a larger monitor farther away from the eyes, but as a person spoiled by the 27" 5K iMac, I think the 27-28" 4K monitors are a bit of a letdown by comparison.

Just to put things in perspective, the dpi (pixel pitch) of a 27" 5K or 24" 4.5K is less than 300 dpi, so even a cheap laser printer can do better (with most printers capable of 600 dpi or more).

Mike Wuerthele said:

trifid said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

trifid said:

It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

"Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

"Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.

So, if I've read this right, it's "shameful" that we wrote an editorial (that it appears you didn't read) that disagrees with you.

We aren't against Right to Repair as a whole, not are we unabashedly supporters of all of it, because there are massive security implications behind it. If you read the article, you'd know that it fully praises iFixit and Rossmann, and what they do. Most of the AI staff has been on that side of the counter.

What we're wholeheartedly against is factually light low-quality hit-pieces -- which is precisely what the CBC article is.

CBS showed BOTH iFixit's founder and Rossman receiving legal threats when they share schematics or repair manuals from Apple, and how they were collaborating with lawmakers to push for right to repair legislation. CBS spends a LARGE part of the documentary showing iFixit and Rossman explain how important the right to repair is so that they can keep helping others repair their devices. You acknowledge iFixit and Rossman but then you state "CBC's implication that Apple should source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent is ludicrous" I went back to the CBS video and could not find that conclusion ANYWHERE after rewatching it. CBS shows extensively how important right to repair is, I don't see supporting evidence of your claim that CBS was trying to imply something else. If anything it seems very disingenuous from you that even after you cite iFixit and Rossman's stance, that you don't acknowledge the real conclusion/implication, which is more transparency, and even Rossman's own wishes shown in the CBS video is that Apple just stops suing him when he shares technical documentation. Neither Rossman nor iFixit even remotely hint and the ridiculous idea of to "source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent"

You're welcome to believe what you want, but -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but I don't feel like you've ever worked at a high-volume service center.

CBC is absolutely implying they should have multiple Rossman-grade techs at every store. That's how the "bent pin" gets found, versus following the repair procedure that Apple promulgates, which starts with "check the moisture sensors for indication."

AppleZulu said:

trifid said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

trifid said:

It's not the first time I see a dismissive and pro-Apple editorial article from Appleinsider and this is unfortunate because at the heart of CBS's message is something all of us should be able to agree on, this is the exact quote that CBS ends its article:

"Silicon Valley has been bribing the US economy for years now, but there is growing scrutiny on the questionable business practices of Apple and other star companies here, and a growing movement to make them more accountable to consumers."

I actually saw the CBS clip and I was surprised to see not just a couple of fringe cases as Appleinsider suggests, but a number of disturbing facts that we all know to be true.

"Right to repair" 100% genuine concern and valid and it's shameful Apple is on the opposite side of this given their "green" focus.

Questionable business practices such as Apple slowing down iPhones up to 70% and not telling users for almost 1 year that this had been happening qualifies 100% as questionable business practices, ESPECIALLY when genius bar people were recommending users to buy a new iPhone instead.

Instead of taking the CBS video and supporting it for right to repair, and making Apple accountable for issues such as Error 53, and throttlegate, Appleinside tries to dismiss CBS story and side with Apple. Shameful.

So, if I've read this right, it's "shameful" that we wrote an editorial (that it appears you didn't read) that disagrees with you.

We aren't against Right to Repair as a whole, not are we unabashedly supporters of all of it, because there are massive security implications behind it. If you read the article, you'd know that it fully praises iFixit and Rossmann, and what they do. Most of the AI staff has been on that side of the counter.

What we're wholeheartedly against is factually light low-quality hit-pieces -- which is precisely what the CBC article is.

CBS showed BOTH iFixit's founder and Rossman receiving legal threats when they share schematics or repair manuals from Apple, and how they were collaborating with lawmakers to push for right to repair legislation. CBS spends a LARGE part of the documentary showing iFixit and Rossman explain how important the right to repair is so that they can keep helping others repair their devices. You acknowledge iFixit and Rossman but then you state "CBC's implication that Apple should source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent is ludicrous" I went back to the CBS video and could not find that conclusion ANYWHERE after rewatching it. CBS shows extensively how important right to repair is, I don't see supporting evidence of your claim that CBS was trying to imply something else. If anything it seems very disingenuous from you that even after you cite iFixit and Rossman's stance, that you don't acknowledge the real conclusion/implication, which is more transparency, and even Rossman's own wishes shown in the CBS video is that Apple just stops suing him when he shares technical documentation. Neither Rossman nor iFixit even remotely hint and the ridiculous idea of to "source repair technicians at each store with that level of talent"

CBS is an American TV network, the “Columbia Broadcasting System.” The piece referenced in the article at the top of this thread was created by the CBC, or “Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.” This is something made clear in the original article, and repeatedly throughout this discussion thread. Nonetheless in your comments, you repeatedly refer to CBS, even as you include quotes from Mr. Wuerthele that reference the CBC. It would seem reasonable, therefore, to conclude that you are inattentive or don’t know what you’re going on about, or both, and subsequently that the value of your thoughts on the matter should be significantly discounted.