Detnator

About

Username
Detnator
Joined
Visits
44
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
620
Badges
1
Posts
287

Reactions

390Like0Dislike26Informative

  • Apple's new display rumored to launch at Apple event alongside new Mac mini

    DetnatorDetnator
    Detnator said:
    There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.
    If it’s just being used as a display, sure, I guess. But if the display is also being used as a dock, then Apple’s displays are the best. I had two MacBook Pros in succession that I used with an Apple Thunderbolt Display 2K, beginning in 2012. A completely seamless experience. It’s still in use almost ten years later, hooked up to an M1 Mini.

    In my limited experience with it, HDMI isn’t an ideal experience with a laptop that you regularly connect and disconnect, you need Thunderbolt for that. It’s fine for a presentation, but not day-to-day use in real life. YMMV.
    Indeed.  Add that (the docking capabilities) to my list above as well -- at least for the Thunderbolt Display of the past.  But unfortunately I suspect that's not an option going forwards.

    I read somewhere that Thunderbolt 3/4 is mostly saturated by 5K+ resolutions such that the best you get out of any other ports is not much more than USB2 speed, which is why the USB-C ports on the LG 5K and Apple XDR are only USB2 speed -- no USB3/4, no other ports, and no TB3 pass through for daisy chaining (compare with the LG UltraFine 4K that does have TB3 pass through for daisy chaining). It's possible I heard/understood that wrong, and if so, someone please correct me, but if I did, then I'd love to know any other reason for the hobbled USB on both those displays.

    Fortunately, this is somewhat offset by the existence of other decent docks now. So with one of those connected between a TB3/4 display and the Mac, the process is as seamless, even if not quite as clean on the desk. But just note that in that situation, when the TB connection is (usually) saturated at 5K+, then the display takes precedence and everything else is throttled, meaning external drives etc. get slow, giving a similar result to the USB in the 5K+ displays.  Only real solution to that (and my solution) is two TB connections -- one to dock, one to display. Better performance, only slightly less seamless (two connections to Mac instead of one -- a compromise, but better than slow stuff).
    Worth mentioning that the Thunderbolt Display has a double cable, with MagSafe power and Thunderbolt 2. So there is precedent for a double cable… 
    Good point.  I guess that would solve it.  Could enable 8K too, if they'd also make the drivers.

    --------------------------

    Just for fun, here's some simplified numbers as a couple of thought exercises...

    We know that: 
    • 5K: 5120 x 2880 = 14,745,600 pixels
    • 6K: 6016 x 3384 = 20,358,144 pixels
    • 8K: 7680 x 4320 = 33,177,600 pixels

    So I for one, originally thought 5K just about saturated TB3/4 (leading to the only USB2 speeds in the LG 5K extra ports), but they got 6K through it.
    8K is more than double 5K, but less than double 6K so presumably 8K can get through 2x TB3/4 easily enough, with some room left over for other stuff... (though how much)?

    I wonder if that's how they're doing 7K...?  2x TB3/4 plus some decent left over bandwidth for better than USB2 speed for more data ports...?  That'd be nice. I wonder what 7K resolution might mean...?

    Consider...
    1. Take the halfway point between the horizontal and vertical of each of the 6K and 8K resolutions and we get 6848 x 3852 for possible 7K.
    2. Include the 4.5K of the new 24" iMac.

    Some comparisons: 
    • 4.0K: 3840 x 2160 =   8,294,400 pixels
    • 4.5K: 4480 x 2520 = 11,289,600 pixels
    • 5.0K: 5120 x 2880 = 14,745,600 pixels
    • 6.0K: 6016 x 3384 = 20,358,144 pixels
    • 7.0K: 6848 x 3852 = 26,378,496 pixels
    • 8.0K: 7680 x 4320 = 33,177,600 pixels

    Comparing each adjacent horizontal (vertical ratios will be the same of course): 
    • 4480/3840 = 1.17
    • 5120/4480 = 1.14
    • 6016/5120 = 1.18
    • 6848/6016 = 1.14
    • 7680/6848 = 1.12

    Point there being: the increments are all very close to each other, so 7K (even if it's not the exact resolution I'm suggesting above) fits in neatly.

    Back to leftover bandwidth, if 6K pretty much maxes out TB3/4, and if we assume the above 7K is what it will be, then:
    • 7K is exactly 30% more than 6K, leaving the equivalent of 70% of the second TB channel (about 28Gbps) for data ports.
    • 8K is exactly 63% more than 6K, leaving the equivalent of 37% of the second TB channel (about 15Gbps) for data ports.
    Better than 10Gbps USB3 in both cases.

    Sounds promising, although, all that said, my gut says:  It's one thing to have a TB cable for data, and a separate MagSafe cable for power (as with the last TB Display), because each cable had a separate purpose. I feel like two TB cables, with both required to be connected for anything to work, just doesn't quite fit with Apple's philosophies. Therefore, personally, I think the above is a bit of a reach. But, it'd be nice to be wrong on that.

    Still, if all the above is possible, perhaps TB5 could simply be 2x TB4 passed through one cable, and aggregate via software (either in the OS or in the electronics in the cable), to essentially deliver the above with one cable.  But at that point, I admit, I have almost no idea what I'm talking about, so maybe I'll stop. ;)
    tenthousandthingswatto_cobra

  • Apple's new display rumored to launch at Apple event alongside new Mac mini

    DetnatorDetnator
    There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.
    If it’s just being used as a display, sure, I guess. But if the display is also being used as a dock, then Apple’s displays are the best. I had two MacBook Pros in succession that I used with an Apple Thunderbolt Display 2K, beginning in 2012. A completely seamless experience. It’s still in use almost ten years later, hooked up to an M1 Mini.

    In my limited experience with it, HDMI isn’t an ideal experience with a laptop that you regularly connect and disconnect, you need Thunderbolt for that. It’s fine for a presentation, but not day-to-day use in real life. YMMV.
    Indeed.  Add that (the docking capabilities) to my list above as well -- at least for the Thunderbolt Display of the past.  But unfortunately I suspect that's not an option going forwards.

    I read somewhere that Thunderbolt 3/4 is mostly saturated by 5K+ resolutions such that the best you get out of any other ports is not much more than USB2 speed, which is why the USB-C ports on the LG 5K and Apple XDR are only USB2 speed -- no USB3/4, no other ports, and no TB3 pass through for daisy chaining (compare with the LG UltraFine 4K that does have TB3 pass through for daisy chaining). It's possible I heard/understood that wrong, and if so, someone please correct me, but if I did, then I'd love to know any other reason for the hobbled USB on both those displays.

    Fortunately, this is somewhat offset by the existence of other decent docks now. So with one of those connected between a TB3/4 display and the Mac, the process is as seamless, even if not quite as clean on the desk. But just note that in that situation, when the TB connection is (usually) saturated at 5K+, then the display takes precedence and everything else is throttled, meaning external drives etc. get slow, giving a similar result to the USB in the 5K+ displays.  Only real solution to that (and my solution) is two TB connections -- one to dock, one to display. Better performance, only slightly less seamless (two connections to Mac instead of one -- a compromise, but better than slow stuff).


    watto_cobra

  • Apple's new display rumored to launch at Apple event alongside new Mac mini

    DetnatorDetnator
    There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.
    For me it’s all of the above, and a little more. I've been very frustrated with the market for displays for years. I've looked far and wide for options and have come up disappointed at best. A few points:

    1. Integration with the software is the biggest thing. As you say:  no fiddling with wonky buttons on display. That alone is a kicker. But there’s more…

    2. 99% of displays suck, relatively. Compare any of them with the reasonably priced (so, excluding the XDR) displays that Apple still makes — i.e. the ones that come with a built in Mac (iMacs, laptops) — and what is there? 4K seems to be the highest resolution nearly everyone will go to and most of those are 27-32 inches meaning the dpi is much lower than Apple’s. The only non-Apple displays I know of that have higher than 4K resolution are the LG 5K (see below), a couple of others that are basically the same panel but obscure brands and no macOS integration, and the Dell 8K. The latter is 400 nits (too low) and not Mac compatible anyway. For some of us, this “retina” thing does actually make a difference. 

    On the topic of brightness (nits): 250, 350 seems to be the standard, up to 400 in the “good” ones. Too low. Almost no one makes displays with 500+ nits like Apple’s. 

    But specs is one thing and as we know specs don’t always mean much. But in this case it seems specs do translate to experience. Staring at an iMac for long hours is just (relatively) wonderful. Apple’s displays are sharp, crisp, bright, easy on the eyes, etc. compared with all the others looking comparatively washed out, fuzzy, and a strain on the eyes. 

    The one brand exception I’ve found is ASUS, who have some nice pro level displays, especially when it comes to  brightness, clarity, etc, but still nothing more than 4K, and the high end ones that might compare in experience with the iMac displays (but still only 4K) are approaching the Apple XDR price anyway. 

    3. Apple’s build quality and support aren’t perfect but they’re better than anyone else’s. The one set of displays that come anywhere near addressing 1 and 2 above are the LG UltraFines that Apple had a hand in designing and Apple has touted as kind of the “official” displays for the MBP’s etc. But many people who’ve owned those — myself included — have had hardware problems with them. Apple sends you to LG support, and LG’s support is woeful. One of the worst companies I’ve ever dealt with to get anything fixed. 

    4. Not a deal breaker or maker for me, but the aesthetics of Apple stuff is certainly very appealing, even in and of itself, but of course matching up with all our other Apple stuff is a nice bonus. The LG UltraFines are ugly and clunky. 

    5. The only downside of Apple displays might be the price, but not really. You get what you pay for. The “unofficial Apple but really LG” displays aren’t cheap ($1300 for the 5K), and I expect any comparable Apple displays to be more. But it would be worth it if they existed. $1500+ for a 27” display is 2-3x most of the other competition if you just look at the “27” part of the spec. But see above for all the reasons why. So, yes, sometimes Apple stuff is more expensive than we’d like. But in “you get what you pay for”, some of us want the “get” and are happy to pay for it.

    At the high extreme, the XDR is great for its price but it’s way beyond the budget, and needs, of most of us. Nearly everything else on the market is very affordable (low to medium $hundreds), but sucks. There’s this gaping hole in the middle that is currently filled only by displays with built in Macs (iMac) or the above-mentioned LG’s. It’s a hole we wish Apple would fill. We know they have the tech etc. for it because it’s in the iMacs. Just let us buy it without the Mac in it, so we can use it with our MBP’s, etc. 

    I’d say those are all the reasons most of us who want Apple displays want them.  Hopefully that helps with your question? 

    More individually, for me: 

    The current iMac 5K display without the built in Mac might have been $1500 for the last few years, if it existed, and would have been a no brainer purchase (at least two of them) for me anytime since the iMac 5K originally came out. I’ve hobbled through with the LG’s in that time but it’s the best of a terrible set of choices. 

    Moving forwards, I want more pixels and I’ve thought seriously about the XDR but it’s difficult to justify the price, for my needs. I really want the parts of what it offers that meet all the above requirements, but it comes with a whole lot more that I don’t need, and can’t really justify paying that much for. It’s also first gen, which means a lot of the price is recovering Apple’s R&D for it, which is fair enough for those who need its features. But not so good for the rest of us. 

    However, in the past, Apple’s outrageously priced, but awesome for the time displays (eg. the original 22” Cinema Display) got better and much cheaper in their subsequent generations (eg. the subsequent 23” and 20” models). So I’ve been holding out in the hopes that some successor to the XDR, and/or some lesser model(s) will come along and be significantly less.  

    If these 7K rumors are true and such a display is not a XDR replacement (in price and target market at least) it will be exactly what I need to meet all the above criteria, and I’ll jump on two of them the second they drop.  

    I suspect there are a bunch of us here who feel similarly, and hopefully all the above helps answer your question as to why. :) 
    argonautwatto_cobra

  • Apple wants 27% commission for Dutch apps using third-party payments

    DetnatorDetnator
    gatorguy said:
    aderutter said:
    It’s good to finally have clarity from Apple (for those that needed it) that in-app purchases are simply a means to unlock functionality in an app, be it views of peoples profiles or “virtual coins” in a game.

    Either way it is in-app functionality with no physical product only a digital service.

    As such, Apple are due their cut for payment of the digital service/product - just as the judge in the Epic case stated.

    The only thing they have to do in S.Korea, the Netherlands and likely other soon to follow territories is allow an “alternative payment processing method” but not relinquish their cut of the sale that excludes the financial processing aspect. The result will be that practically nobody bothers using an alternative payment method.

    Basically, the cheap ass developers wanted to keep all the in-app payment revenue, not just the payment processing fee from the credit card company. The Epic case showed what would happen - it’s Apple’ platform and they are due their cut just like MS on XBox.

    Philip Elmer-DeWitt, who is a huge Apple supporter on most issues, sees this one differently.
    https://www.ped30.com/2022/02/04/apple-dutch-medicine/

    "Steve Troughton-Smith, creator of apps like Broadcasts and Pastel for iOS, called the move “absolutely vile” and said Apple executives “should be ashamed.” Here’s what others are saying.

      • “This says everything about Tim Cook’s Apple and what it thinks of developers,” Troughton-Smith said. “I hope the company gets exactly what it deserves. Everybody on their executive team should be ashamed, and some of them should not be here when it’s all over.”
      • “They’re making non-App-Store payments as painful, expensive, and clunky as the regulators will tolerate,” said Instapaper creator Marco Arment. “Come on, THIS is comedy. Amazing, ridiculous comedy. I’d be surprised if a single app ever took them up on this. (And that’s exactly by design.)”
      • “Wow, Apple is going to fight dirty all the way,” said independent developer Frank Reiff. “Never mind the damage it does to its reputation.”
      • “Apple is going to fight this tooth and nail instead of adjusting its services business model from being that of a rent seeker,” said Dare Obasanjo. “They’ve created enemies among developers and regulators with their shenanigans.”

    My take (PED): I’ve read most of Apple’s 3,000 word support document “Distributing dating apps in the Netherlands” and it’s as forbidding, mean-spirited and loathsome (as) these guys say it is.


    Perhaps. But what choice do Apple’s executives have against the forbidding, mean spirited and loathsome characters who seem to have no interest in what’s best for consumers or what’s fair for Apple, and are just trying to exploit Apple because they are successful.  

    One question: why do people opposing Apple on this topic never seem to acknowledge (a) the value of Apple’s APIs and Apple’s customer base, and (b) the choice any given developer has not to pay Apple anything if those two items aren’t worth the price Apple charges for them to said developer?

    It’s been argued many times here and in other places a lot of things beyond payment processing, that go into the value Apple brings to the table for their “30%” (which of course is only 15% for the vast majority of developers - why does no one opposing Apple ever seem to acknowledge that part except as a tangential side point?)

    Now that we’ve established that Apple effectively only charges 3 out of the 15 or 30% for payment processing we can extrapolate that the rest — 12 or 27% — is what Apple seems is the price for everything else.

    Even if anyone wants to argue that the curation, hosting, delivery, etc. etc. is of no value to developers, what about Apple’s APIs and Apple’s customers.  Why should Apple give those away?

    Maybe those two things are not worth that much to some developers and if so, no problem. They have choice:  Build web apps and market them through their own websites.  What does Apple charge for this?  Zero.  And Apple holds you to no mean spirited or any other kinds of contracts either  

    If you (meaning the generic use of “you”, so you: any given developer, not you gatorguy specifically) then want to complain that web apps suck compared to native apps, most would agree with you. Although anyone who has used the entire Office 365 suite entirely in a web browser might argue that, sure the user experience kinda sucks but the functionality is almost all there. So are web apps really so bad?  But ok, let’s say they are. 

    So why are native apps better?  Hmmm… perhaps it has something to do with the 150,000 APIs that Apple has spent at least 15 years and hundreds of billions of dollars developing - and continues to do so - in order to make them (native apps) better. That’s Apple’s Intellectual property. They should give that away? (Or does anyone in their right mind think $99/yr - the price of a coffee once a month - covers that?)

    And/or… you might argue that access to Apple’s customer base through the App Store isn’t worth that price either.  No problem.  Get your own customers from your own marketing and your own web site (all of which is accessible from Apple’s devices, at no cost charged by Apple), sell them your app for anything you like, sign them up for subscriptions and in-app purchases, get all the contact details they’re willing to give you so you can keep in touch with them as much as you like, all via your own infrastructure, with your own payment processing…  and don’t pay Apple anything.  (Not even the $8/month developer program membership if it’s a web app). This is exactly what Netflix does, and I just can’t see how anyone can argue Netflix is getting any kind of raw deal from Apple. 

    And for those startup devs that want to take a punt on the App Store, there’s ZERO risk (except the $99). You don’t pay Apple anything more than that until you actually make money yourself.  Very, very few business models have such low startup investment/costs. 

    So… Someone tell me please: what’s the problem here…?

    Apple provides… stuff.  Does it have any value? I guess it’s up to each individual developer to decide. But at least they have choice.

    And in case it’s not clear: I’m pointing out that not only do we all (users and developers alike) have choice between the value (or not) and the cost (or not) of different platforms (Apple vs Android), we all have choice EVEN ON APPLE’s DEVICES. 

    The biggest thing those articles and comments tell me is that some people want, even expect, all the value they can get without having to pay anything for it. To them, any company whose business provides any less of a deal than that is “greedy” (or even mean spirited and loathsome). 

    No. I think it’s pretty clear who really are the mean spirited and loathsome characters here.

    RudeBoyRudyradarthekatwatto_cobra

  • Apple wants 27% commission for Dutch apps using third-party payments

    DetnatorDetnator
    Stabitha_Christie said:
    darkvader said:
    So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.


    Building the platform that apps run on, creating APIs, creating development tools and hosting apps isn’t nothing. And that is what I can come up with off the top of my head. 
    You mentioned you’re new here.  So no worries.  You’ll catch on soon that DarkVader’s comments are … laughable, at best.  

    He tried to tell us last year things like how outdated and under powered Apple’s Silicon is compared with Intel (despite the $1200 M1 MBA beats the $5000 Mac Pro on some tasks including some of the video editing Andrew here on AppleInsider does for videos for this site).

    When challenged on his posts he almost never replies. 

    I know nothing about him (her?) as a person, but his posts are just getting more and more entertaining in how ridiculous the claims in them are… as you can see of course from the example he’s presented this time round. Most of us have learned to just laugh or scoff rather than try to reason with him. Can’t wait to see what he’ll come up with next. 

    😉 

    Welcome to AI. 

    williamlondonradarthekatwatto_cobra