Rogue01

charlesn said:

You don't "update" a 30-month old model with a 16-month old chip that everyone knows is about to be replaced. 

Apple gave you a 15" MacBook Air with an M2 that was over a year old.

9secondkox2 said:

nubus said:

d_2 said:

This article jumps around illogically, M2 or M3… and misses the initial point that it would be 16 months from M2 release to M3 vs 19 months from M1 release to M2.

The cadence isn't about keeping a distance to a previous version - it is about technology being available. 3nm is available to Apple and only Apple. No reason to wait.

With Apple Silicon, Apple has the timeline squarely in their hands. They are free to push the tech, push the release timing, etc. 

Apple Silicon roadmap is a complete joke.  With Intel, and even PowerPC, Apple released faster Macs each year with newer and faster CPUs and GPUs.  What do we get with Apple Silicon?  Macs released with CPUs that are over a year and a half old and Apple calling them new.  15" MacBook Air with a year and a half old M2 CPU.  iMac with a 3 year old M1 with memory cut from 128GB to 16GB and a GPU that ran at a 1/4 of the speed of the iMac it replaced.

Too many iPad SKUs.  All the iPads run the same software at relatively the same speed, so there is no real difference between the base model and a Pro as far as the software and apps you run on it.  The M processor is wasted in the iPad because of iPadOS and apps are incapable of taking full advantage of the chip.  The base model iPad runs all the same software that the Pro model does.  Too many Macs too, and some have been neglected for years without an update.  

Totally disagree with PauloSeraa.  He just doesn't get it.  He prefers a MacBook Pro because it is portable.  That is his choice.

He thinks the form factor is not attractive.  The iMac is a desktop computer, and it has an award-winning form factor.  It is even better with a VESA mount because it can float over your desk and be positioned in every way possible.  My current 27" iMac 2020 has the VESA option and it floats over my desk without the stand taking up room, or a computer sitting on the desk.  The Studio Display (that replaced the iMac with the Mac Studio) has the same form factor as the iMac.  A Mac mini or Mac Studio and a separate display with all the cables coming off of them does not have the same elegant look as an iMac.

He thinks the iMac is not upgradable.  Does he know that the MacBook Pros are also not upgradable?  All Apple Silicon Macs are no longer upgradable.  You must buy what you want at the time of purchase.  Yes, the 24" iMac now falls under the category of non-upgradable, but now all Macs are not upgradable.  So that is a weak argument.

He specifically discusses the Intel iMacs as not upgradable and not reusable.  The Intel iMacs ARE upgradable!  The 27" had user-replaceable RAM and before the 2020 iMac with the T2 chip, the SSD was also upgradable, by the user!  I upgraded the RAM in my 27" iMac to 128GB for 1/4 the price of what Apple charges, and I did it two years after I bought it when RAM was at a low price.  The 21.5" iMac also had upgradable memory and upgradable drives, once you removed the display, which is not hard to do.

He claims they are not re-usable.  He thinks once a Mac is considered vintage or obsolete, you must throw them away.  My 2012 27" iMac would disagree.  I upgraded the memory to 32GB, replaced the spinning drive with a 1TB SSD, and also added the OWC 2TB blade SSD to the factory SSD slot.  It was not hard to remove the display and re-attach it with new adhesive.  Now this 2012 iMac can boot Mountain Lion, the original OS, Catalina, the latest version it can run, and also Windows 10 in Boot Camp.  If I want to try OpenCore, I could upgrade it to Monterey or Ventura.  I use it in my garage and iTunes also feeds to a stereo in the garage too.  So I can do lots of things with that 11 year old iMac.  I can also use my 'obsolete' Mac Pro 2008, QuickSilver G4, Power Mac G5, and Mac LC 575 for running vintage apps and games too.   I guess he thinks those are un-usable too.

All we wanted was a 27" 5K iMac with an M Pro or M Max CPU, just like in the MacBook Pros, and the iMac would have been a top seller with customers.  Instead, we got a bare-bones 24" iMac with a base model M1 chip that was hardly a valid replacement.  And Apple has done nothing with it for almost 2 1/2 years.  Sad.

My 27" 2020 iMac even has Parallels with Snow Leopard Server as a VM so I can run older PowerPC apps.  I guess that is un-usable too since it is an Intel iMac.

ericthehalfbee said:

Kind of ridiculous that Apple got flak for trying to implement CSAM using a better method to improve privacy while Google, Microsoft and others have had full-blown CSAM scanning for years and hardly anyone talks about it.

Google is even worse for using machine learning to try and identify images that aren't in the CSAM database, generating additional false positives.

It is ridiculous that you don't understand how it works.  Google, Microsoft, and others scan the photos that USERS upload to their cloud services and photos are scanned on the cloud servers.  Apple wanted to scan every single photo stored on your device whether you like it or not.  Big difference, and big privacy violation.  Apple's attempt at scanning was also known to produce false positives, then a third party company would review those photos.