Detnator

muthuk_vanalingam said:

mariowinco said:

Cannot understand why some consumers are against repair/upgradability. 

They are not consumers first, they are shareholders FIRST. The fact that they use Apple's products is secondary to them. Their main concern is - Apple's profits and brand image which drive the value of Apple's shares (which is very dear to them), with customer's interests being the last priority (if at all it is a priority). You will NEVER see a nuanced debate on this topic - trying to obtain a balance which serves the interests of the customers as well as Apple in this forum.

CloudTalkin said:

JBSlough said:

CloudTalkin said:

lkrupp said:

And this is what iOS and iPadOs users will face when side-loading is forced upon Apple. Adware and Spyware will be ram[pant like it is on macOS. Those who claim to be aware enough to avoid it might be okay but the common user will choose to install some cutesy app from god-knows-where and, well, there you have it. It’s probably coming and iOS users will be in the same camp as Android users. Buyer beware.

No they won't.  That's silly.  The common user is going to do what they've always done: install apps from the App Store.  It's what almost every common user does; choose the path of least resistance.  That's not a knock against the common user (I consider myself among them), it's simple human nature. That path only leads to the App Store.  It's the same for almost every ecosystem save one: Windows.  iOS users overwhelmingly use the App Store and will continue to do so.  Android users overwhelmingly use the Play Store and they've been able to sideload almost since inception.  Amazon users dl mostly from Amazon.  Chinese users dl from their primary app stores.  

Mac users may be more inclined to dl outside of the MAS than iOS users outside of the App Store, but I still think the majority of apps are dl'd through it.  Windows is the exception because Windows users typically are more used to downloading from the web instead of an app store, which really wasn't a thing until Win8 in 2012.  No, Windows Marketplace (hahahahahahahahaha) doesn't count.  Wait, where was I?

Oh yeah, please stop with the FUD.  

I beg to differ. A lot, a real lot, of apps will just opt out of Apple’s App Store. They’re just not going to pay that 30% (or whatever Apple drops that to). They’ll just be a lot less apps in the store, like the Mac App Store. A lot of us will stuck buying out of the store and paying who knows who. With no control over spyware or malware. 

A differing opinion is your prerogative.  I think it's wrong, but hey. I mean, what's your frame of reference for thinking there will be some sort of mass exodus? A few big apps would hypothetically opt out of the App Store.  Most apps won't because they are dependent on the traffic generated by the App Store.  Also remember, the vast, vast, vast majority of app devs are small.  So those small devs would only be paying 15% commission until they hit the million dollar threshold. A threshold that most won't ever hit.  There'd be no incentive to leave the App Store because there's no guarantee customers will follow. 

As I already said, sideloading and alternate app stores ave alway been a reality for Android.  Their impact could generously be called minimal.  More accurately, the impact could be described as near non-existent.  I'm pretty confident it will be the same for the App Store.  

pizzaboxmac said:

System 7 worked well. It’s just too bad Apple didn’t allow PowerComputing to continue.

anonymouse said:

appleinsideruser said:

anonymouse said:

appleinsideruser said:

anonymouse said:

ihatescreennames said:

I wonder if it will work with my projector. Obviously the phone would have to face the projector and not the screen. 

Obviously it won't work with your projector because your projector isn't designed to do this and doesn't have any capability to do it.

I’m not sure it’s so obvious. The beauty of the solution is that a TV doesn’t need to be designed to do this or have any particular capability. If the system was setup as a back projector (which is probably isn’t) then it could well work as described.

How would that possibly work? This back projector would have been designed to communicate wirelessly with an iPhone held up to the image the projector produces and adjust its color based on the communication with the iPhone, after having gone through the exact sequence of operations an Apple TV would in this mode? That would have been a remarkable instance of foresight and insight by the projector manufacturer.

I think it's pretty obvious when you actually, you know, think about it.

I think you’re missing the point. The iPhone sees the light and tells the AppleTV how to compensate for the peculiarities of whatever screen it is held up to. No other ‘communication’ with the screen needed. 

Pretty clever when you think about it. 😉

It might work with a projector driven by an Apple TV if it's rear projection (I doubt it would work with a front projection), but that wasn't how I understood the original question — i.e., there was no mention of Apple TV in the question, just the projector. (I mean, people are asking why the new Touch ID keyboards won't work with devices not designed for wireless Touch ID, so, no, I don't assume they mean a projector driven by an Apple TV.)

titantiger said:

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

For people wondering why the new low end iMacs didn’t come in at previous generation’s lower price point, it's kinda typical for Apple to reset the price with a major redesign. 

iMac G3 started at $1299 
iMac G4 started at $1299
iMac G5 started at $1299
iMac Intel stated at $1299
iMac Intel AL started at $1199
iMac Intel AL thin at  $1299

With the exception of the G4 each one went down in price over it's lifetime and then with a single exception the price went back to 1299 with the next redesign. The G4 iMacs were a little weird because they had the eMac come out which took the place of low end iMac. So there shouldn't be much surprise  when it comes to the price tag, it’s been remarkably consistent. Also, if you adjust for inflation the iMacs today cost about half as much as the original G3.

This makes some sense.  My only issue with this one compared to previous redesigns is that you didn't step backwards in functionality outside of when they finally ditched the optical drive with the last version of the Intel aluminum one.  Before, the iMac either kept the same number or even added USB, Thunderbolt or Firewire ports.  It kept ethernet as a standard option, not a configurable one for more money.  And the only differentiator in the $1299 one and the same size ones that were more expensive were things like more memory, larger HDD or SSD, or a faster processor.  The entry level one didn't lack any features or functionality that the upgraded one had - it just had a slower processor, integrated graphics instead of discrete ones, less RAM, less storage space.  

But with this one, they did return to the $1299 entry price but regressed on these kinds of things - just two thunderbolt ports, no ethernet.  It doesn't come with the Touch ID keyboard.  It's just, to me, a step backwards in terms how Apple has handled these redesign transitions in the past.