HobeSoundDarryl

AniMill said:

Fully loaded, it should be $750 less than the fully loaded M1 Max MacBook Pro. ߤt;/div>

So assuming that would be against the fully loaded 14" MBp, US$5899 - $750 = $5,149? A $5K Mac Mini?

I'm thinking screen, lid, camera, speakers, keyboard, trackpad, etc in MBp would equate to more value (or pricing influence) than only $750.

And I'm struggling to foresee any Mini priced at $5K... rampant inflation, chip scarcity, Apple premium plus plus plus, included.

Nevertheless, looking forward to my first Mini if this general description makes it to market. Goodbye iMac "all in one"... hello (separate) component parts.

I'd buy a prosumer 8K 60fps camcorder version of this long before I would buy this. This is basically a camera trying to cover the buik of very desirable features of a camcorder. While I'll grant you that perhaps as few as only me would be interested buyers- I'd rather have it the other way: a camcorder trying to also cover the bulk of very desirable features of a still camera. 

Here's a camera with almost all of the touted benefits about video. So they seem to know what benefits are apparently hot to push right now but are trying to realize them in a package that is meant to primarily shoot one great still photo at a time. 

The funny thing is that Canon is also a big player in consumer/prosumer camcorders. However, I just looked at the prosumer ones on their USA site to see if they had anything comparable and the most expensive one listed there is 4K/30fps. 

Call me crazy if you will but it seems the core of this same tech could be put into a Canon camcorder body, mixing in the other benefits of a camcorder device (focused on video) and essentially make great use of something already on hand. Instead, the marketing push seems to be trying to get people who shoot video to shoot it with what is structurally a still-shot camera. 

This is not just a Canon thing- they ALL seem to be reluctant to get their camcorders up to even compete with select cell phone video capabilities. I'm guessing that maybe their broadcast arms don't want in-house competition priced at prosumer/consumer price points???

Else, I'd rather capture my stills on a mobile device but- IMO- video begs much more so for the bigger sensor and better sound of a dedicated device.

Just one consumers opinion though. Perhaps mobiles have eaten up the video market but some of the same people still prefer dedicated camera bodies for shooting stills. Purely speculative gut (biased to my own wants): I would think it would be the other way out there. Then, again, I still see countless people shooting video with phone held vertically, dooming the result to the skinny strip (very thick black bars to the left & right) instead of filling their widescreen TVs with video by rotating the phone to landscape. Conceptually, in a still-shot camera body (or in a camcorder body too), they would naturally hold it in a way to capture widescreen-filling video.

If the headline highlight benefit is 8K 60fps video, where is the consumer/prosumer camcorder version of this kind of thing? Same guts, same bigger sensor but packaged as a camcorder with videography features & benefits focus instead of being a stills camera form factor that also shoots video. I'd be quite interested in a great 8K 60fps prosumer camcorder with a big sensor and at least DD sound recording too.

I wonder why still-shot cameras seem to keep roaring along the advancements trail but camcorders seem to lag... especially since the headline features of the advancements seem to revolve around video.

Will Apple finally be in$pired to move on from Lightning? If anything will do it, it's thi$. 

"the new iPhone 15, now with the incredible, magical new USB-C jack... plus the same great battery life. Starting at $85,550... and orders start this Friday"

bloggerblog said:

Hmm, imagine an Apple M1Max based gaming console. Bam!!

Yes priced at only 2X-3X (scalper-priced) PS5 and the latest Xbox and maybe 4X-5X a pretty well equipped PC that can also cover computing needs too. I would guess an Apple console would be specially engineered so that there would be no way to get native macOS or iOS on it for more utility either. Put the gamer in a situation where they can either buy this Apple MAX console or a PS5 + Xbox + Windows PC and see what all but the fan-niest choose. 

Never-the-less, this MIGHT be (sort of) coming if the rumored Mac Mini "Pro" rumor pans out. Or if that gets only M2, perhaps the Mac Pro Jr rumor? I can't see either being remotely price competitive with the latest gaming consoles though... and since both of the console makers spend/subsidize big for big games, I don't see the big games coming due to a simple lack of financial incentive: we can make a lot of money here or little there- which should we choose?

If Apple wants to be a gaming company, they need to compete in more ways than great hardware. Else, perhaps the word "lite" should be applied here... a lite gaming company? They are already that in a big & successful way. Building next gen hardware doesn't bring the programming investments. See countless next-gen consoles in the past that never got the traction. 

If they really want a serious bite of this space, they might want to do what the others did: spend a big pile of cash to buy some game programming studios, stop waging "our way or the highway" war on independent gaming companies, show gaming companies how they can make MORE money coding for Apple Silicon than they can for Windows/PS5/Xbox (especially tricky with the first cut of all revenue being 15%-30% right off the top) and probably throw some money at good gaming companies on top of that. It seems they need a "billions" investment pool for quality games much like the "billions" investment pool for AppleTV+ programming. 

Else programming businesses face a simple decision: we can spend countless hours and dollars coding for this incredible MAX chip that is in a fraction of only new Apple laptops, which is a fraction of all Silicon Macs, which is a tiny fraction of all Macs AND give Apple a first big cut of any revenue we can get right off the top...

...or we can put those same resources towards a market that is at least 10X larger (near infinitely larger if compared only to MAX-based Macs) and/or to a console markets proven to pay much more than a $1 or maybe $5 for games and likely get great games subsidized and/or exclusive money to boot. Hmmmm, what should we do? 

This is basically a "put your money where you mouth is" situation. Will Apple do that? If so, then this could actually go somewhere. If no, then Mac gaming remains largely as it has been for decades.