mpantone

Johar said:

What I don't get is the joy that clowns like Lkrupp seems to derive from the fact that Mac users now need to purchase a second computer for gaming. Is there any reason at all to celebrate that one specific, and incidentally very popular, activity simply can't be adequately performed on a Mac computer?

At some point in the not-too-distant future, a lot of gaming will be done using streaming services like Nvidia GeForce NOW, Microsoft xCloud, whatever.

At least in 2021, for the Mac user who wants to play videogames, the best option is likely a console (PS5 or Xbox X|S).

While I am a longtime Mac user, I play videogames on Windows PCs since the available library is magnitudes larger than what is available to macOS gamers.

It's worth pointing out that the videogame industry blew past Hollywood in revenue back in the Nineties. It's not some niche activity.

But some AppleInsider commenters are locked in a worldview that hasn't changed for twenty years. They probably have no idea that the guy controlling a multi-million dollar Navy ROV or Air Force drone is probably some 24-year-old corporal (who played Starfox as a kid) with a 3-star general/admiral (in his early sixties) standing over his/her shoulder.

GeorgeBMac said:

elijahg said:

crowley said:

5 years too late. The sale to SoftBank shouldn’t have been allowed.

That seemed to take pretty much everyone off-guard. I think if it was publicised a bit more at the time it never would have happened. These massive acquisitions by holding companies rarely turn out well for anyone except a couple of execs.

Equating the sales to Softbank versus NVIDIA is a False Analogy.

Softbank is a neutral Japanese holding and investment company.

NVIDIA is an aggressive U.S. tech company that, if they do not abuse the patents themselves, could be used as a tool to weaponize those patents in the name of "National Defense".

Softbank is NOT "neutral" [sic]. Its founder is Masayoshi Son who is ranked in the top 50 richest people on this planet. No one on the world's richest list is "neutral." They all have their own interests and motivations.

Softbank Mobile is a major telecommunications carrier in Japan. They also own a substantial portion of T-Mobile US because they acquired Sprint (before the merger). Softbank holdings are diverse but they most certainly aren't some faceless holding company.

Softbank is Masayoshi Son.

lkrupp said:

The tech sector is taking a beating for some reason. Any guesses? The article says "Analysts believe investors are rotating out of tech stocks and into value or cyclical stocks that will benefit from the impending economic reopening.” 

I've heard this recently from family investment advisors and economists (and not the CNBC talk show types).

There is better expected upside from value stocks in the next six months. The growth stocks had a great run so far through the pandemic. Not to worry, the growth stocks will be back, this is just a portfolio rebalance.

It's not like these fund managers are completely eliminating AAPL and the other FANG+ symbols, simply reducing their holdings. They likely saw their portfolio as being overweighted on these tech issues.

It is noteworthy that the Dow 30 was up considerably today. The small cap Russell 2000 index was also up today. The S&P 500 index is market cap weighted so the big tech stocks (like AAPL, MSFT, GOOG, etc.) pulled down the index.

If you look at the top twenty S&P 500 components, the non-tech stocks actually did quite well:
Berkshire-Hathaway BRK-B +1.76%
Visa V +2.26%
Johnson & Johnson JNJ +0.83%
JPMorgan & Chase JPM +1.33%
(Walmart WMT was slightly down)
United Health UNH +0.88%
Mastercard MA +2.90%
Procter & Gamble PG +1.06%
Home Depot HD +2.17%

et cetera.

Of the top 20 S&P 500 components the seven tech stocks and WMT were down. Everything else was positive (including the two telecoms: Verizon and AT&T).

My guess is that this stock price slump for the techs will be short lived. They all weathered the pandemic quite well in terms of earnings.

AAPL at $116, FB at $255 and AMZN at $2950 are all quite attractive.

I'm guessing that Apple is done with this particular model but yes, the iMac really should have upgradeable RAM and at least an upgradeable auxiliary SSD, an m.2 NVMe.

I can understand Apple's desire to solder the chips for the boot drive: to increase system security.

These systems have custom motherboards and aren't subject to the conventions/restrictions placed on industry standard designs such as ATX, micro-ATX, mini-ITX, whatever. Apple has lots of flexibility to put the RAM slots and second m.2 slot in a location more accessible to the owner.

poisednoise said:

mpantone said:

n2macs said:

How did the battery charge last 6 months? The diver must have plugged it in.

The lake water is frigid which acted literally as cold storage (like a refrigerator). Remember that we are talking about a lake in British Columbia. Look at the snow-capped mountains: their runoff feeds this lake.

The hyperlinked article notes that the diver just turned on the phone (no note about charging it).

Apple's iPhone standby durations are based on ordinary room temperature conditions -- not near-freezing submersion.

He says towards the end of the video that he plugged it in. Battery performance is severely impaired at low temperatures, not improved.

Batteries lose their stored charge more slowly at lower temperatures. Their operational performance is negatively affected by low temperatures.

Heat is the true enemy of batteries. This is not specific to smartphone batteries.

One can get years of additional storage life from batteries if they are stored at low temperatures (like tossing your alkaline cells in the refrigerator).