- Last Active
tenthousandthings said:That doesn't negate the point that HP offers lower-tier "prosumer" towers that Apple does not -- it just negates what you've just said here. It also doesn't negate madan's basic point, which he could easily have made without bringing his DIY numbers into it. It only illustrates that his DIY numbers are bullshit and in the real world even the base configuration of the Mac Pro is a decent deal. It's just that the iMac Pro and the iMac are even better deals.
Awhile back, AI had an article about the Mac Pro with this image:It has this caption: Apple demonstrated a Mac Pro stuffed with 6 Avic HDX cards, handing over 1,400 audio tracks and costing over $22,000 alone
So, this looks like a base model buy to me. 2 or 3 of these Avic HDX cards, and if memory or storage is needed, they can buy third party. A big production house could buy 10, 20, 100 base models for this type of purpose, or a small production house can buy 1 or 2 base models.No matter how much people want this to be a consumer machine, a $6k price tag should completely obviate the idea that it is. It’s blindingly obvious. For those in the market to buy such a machine, it’s hubris to think that you or I know better than whoever wants to buy the machine.
Just delete this from the editorial. Natural gas overtook coal for electricity generation about 2 years ago. Maybe in the 5 years, coal will slide under nuclear.As a general rule in the United States, household electricity is still primarily coming from coal. While coal use is on the decline, the majority position isn't likely to change any time soon, as it's fairly difficult -- at least in the United States -- to update infrastructure to incorporate things such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric. On top of that, a majority of U.S. citizens still oppose nuclear energy.
As a sign of things to come, renewables+hydro generated more electricity than coal last spring in the USA for the first time. This will become permanent in spring in 2 to 3 years, and will gradually spread to the other months of the year.
melgross said:The only thing I’m concerned about with any of these folded smartphone designs has to do with the sensor.
when the camera is conventional, the sensor can be as large as the manufacturer wants, obly constricted by the size of the lens for coverage. Obviously, there are restrictions. The larger the sensor, the thicker the camera will need to be, hence a lens bump.
but with this design, the sensor size is severely restricted by the distance between the rear of the screen, and the rear of the back glass, or plate. With phones being thin, that doesn't leave more than a few millimeters between those parts. With the housing of the camera taking more room, just how large can that sensor be? If Apple were to place another prism at the rear of the lens, this could allow a sensor to lie flat against the rear of the screen, or back plate, thus allowing a larger sensor. But I don’t see that in this illustration.
It’s just one of many design iterations. There’s probably been a lot of discussion on whether optical zoom is worth the volume and floor space over a fixed 2x telephoto, and its not that surprising it isn’t a big enough feature to warrant it. Now with computational photography, the window for doing something like this is probably over.
If multi-image, long exposure can work for night mode, it can work for telephoto too. Won’t be fast, so you lose quick movement, but it will cover a few use cases.
MplsP said:So do these class action law firms go looking for people to list as a plaintiff so they can file their suit? These people are no better than the patent trolls, in my opinion.This is no different than tv screen measurements, or multiple other products. Furthermore, it’s standard across the industry, so comparisons between products are equal, which is what really matters.
You take the good with bad. There are ethical companies and unethical companies just as there are ethical and unethical people. Companies do lie about the features of their products. The marketers feel they could get away things because of semantics or industry “standards”, but in the end, advertising still needs to be truthful in layman’s terms.
What matters is that features are advertised in layman understandable terms, right? Not technically disclosed in small print. Apple’s case here is ambulance chasing, but companies do cross the line.
In the CRT days, display manufacturing often advertised the size of their displays by the diagonal length of the tube, but the viewable diagonal of the display was typically 10% smaller. A monitor advertised as being 17” really only had 15.5” to 16” diagonal. In terms of area, that would be 15% to 20% less. The OEMs knew that advertising the smaller number meant lower sales, and that the larger number would make their displays more attractive, and that people would interpret their advertising of the vacuum tube diagonal as the diagonal of the viewable display.
There are a lot of misleading advertising. I recently looked at energy plans and many providers advertise the ¢/kWHr if you use 2000 kWHr. They had an clickable asterisk, which expanded to show that if you used 500 kWHr, the price was 25% higher for lower usage. They can get away with it because they disclosed it, but how close to the line are they lying here? Or like the carrier plans advertised as “unlimited”, but it is really “unlimited up to x GB, then throttled, then cancelled if the carrier doesn’t like your usage” plans.