zoetmb

I did not have to specifically enable Dashboard in recent OS updates - it just was always there and always worked.   But I always thought it was a stupid design.   I would like to have those gadgets on my regular desktop.   

wizard69 said:

Sadly if the 1906 Earthquake was to be repeated somebody would immediately blame it on global warming.   

No, but they might blame it on fracking, for which they're some evidence:

"Evidence for a link between fracking and earthquakes is incomplete, but in more than one area where fracking has been practiced, a noted increase in earthquakes has been recorded. In Arkansas in the United States, for instance, two injection wells, which are wells used to inject liquids into rock layers as part of the fracking process had operations suspended in early 2011, pending further study, after more than 800 small earthquakes, one registering 4.8 on the Richter scale were recorded in the area around the wells.

A similar occurrence near a fracking operation in Great Britain in 2011 also caused a halt in an operation, pending further study. The increase in earthquakes, most, if not all, of which are classified as microquakes, or very slight tremors, in areas where fracking operations are undertaken is well documented. The mechanism by which fracking might cause these quakes is not understood nor has it been conclusively proven that such a direct link between fracking and earthquakes exists."

deminsd said:

larryjw said:

If you can't afford $99 developer fee, you're not in the business of making a profit. At best, you have a hobby not a profession.

Not the point.  Apple has a monopoly over app distribution and the 30% piece of the pie is what is the "profit killer".  Not many businesses can take a 30% cut on profit.

What was the financial model before online distribution?    You sold your software at retail and unless you were a giant like Microsoft (or Apple), you had to go through a distributor, like Ingram Micro-D.   Do you know what you had to sell to Ingram Micro-D for?   Usually 52%-55% off of list, they kept about 5% and retailers worked on about a 50% margin at list which gave them room to discount.    And that didn't give you a platform or promotion.  It just got you onto dealer shelves if the dealer decided they wanted to sell your product.    But that was in the days when a "cheap app" sold for $200.

The 30% isn't out of profit.  it's off the list price.   All a developer has to do is raise the price a bit.    Is someone not going to buy an app because it's $4 instead of $3 or $18 instead of $14?  Believing you can have a viable business model selling applications for less than what a Starbucks coffee costs is ridiculous.   It's amazing that it worked for anyone at all.    And let's not forget that the 30% includes all the credit card fulfillment fees and the risk.    If Apple cut the fee for small developers to 20%, it wouldn't make any difference to most of them.   The problem isn't the 30%:   the problem is the ubiquity of competitive applications resulting in a cycle where only the top apps continue to sell because those are the ones end-users see on the store (because they're the top sellers) and the fact that most people already have a ton of apps on their phone that they don't use and they don't need any additional.  (An exception might be games where players are always looking for something new.)

IMO, the developers complaining don't understand anything about business.  

Unfortunately,  an idiot judge might cause Apple to lose this case just as they lost the e-book pricing case.   But the last thing we need is Apple forced to let users sell apps outside the store that don't go through Apple's technical approval process.   Then we'll wind up with all the security issues that Android apps have. 

And I agree with Larryjw:   if the $99 fee is a burden (when did Apple start charging this - I seem to remember it being free), you're not really in business and how could you afford a phone or iPad to test the apps you just developed on?   IIRC, the original version of Inside Macintosh cost more than that and when the iPhone was first released, I probably spent more than $99 on reference books that had information on how to code for it. 

AppleZulu said:

jSnively said:

The enthusiasts complaining about this machine are justified. The people pointing out that this machine is for an extremely niche and specific market are also correct.

IMO Apple messed up here, and they're going to get a lot of crap for it. This is a form factor that could, and should, have scaled to make multiple market segments happy. Instead Apple went as far to the extreme end as they could, to the exclusion of the middle road, and completely priced out individuals.The enthusiasts just wanted an expandable i7 with like 16-64GB of RAM and a good GPU they could upgrade. That should have been possible with this design.

Feels like a swing and a miss to me. Apple is either completely out of touch with the enthusiast market, or it might be time for the enthusiast market to give up on Apple. I think they probably sold a fair amount of PCs today.

Also, I know it's personal preference but man is that thing ugly. Can Ive stop trying to make every Apple product look like a Braun appliance from the 60s and 70s?

Or maybe there's a Mac tower in the future that will slot in below this device. If they want to sell as many Mac Pros as they can right out of the gate, it would probably unwise to roll out an "economy" version at the same time. Just looking at the naming convention of the current line-up of MacOS devices, there's one missing where a "Mac" would be. 

While I'm fairly certain that Apple doesn't develop product lines in response to internet chatter, it's nonetheless true that some people have been, for the last few years, fostering a narrative that Apple has "abandoned" real "Pros" in favor of offering sleek, slim, underpowered, non-upgradable, non-modular hardware. This new Mac Pro kind of destroys that narrative, doesn't it? So this device is aimed squarely at the Pro market, not the "enthusiast" market. In six months or a year, they'll offer some upgrades to the Mac Pro, making it even more spectacular, and maybe at that time, hit the 'enthusiast' market with a Mac tower that emulates some of the aesthetics of the Mac Pro, but smaller, with less power under the hood, and a lower price to go with it.

I don't think so.   Mac sales are tiny compared to the rest of their business and I think this new machine was released not so much because Apple anticipates substantial revenue from it, but to placate the pro community who they want to keep on their side.   But I think a second tier machine would be completely out of the question unless it could be easily done with component swaps.   I think a few years down the road, Apple may be saying, "we made the machine you said you wanted and you didn't buy it."

In fiscal 2017, Apple sold 19.2 million Macs.  In fiscal 2018, Apple sold 18.2 million Macs.  For the first two quarters of this fiscal, Mac revenue is up very slightly, by about 2.6%.  But those unit numbers for fiscal 2018 compares with almost 218 million iPhones and 44 million iPads.  Where do you think Apple is going to put their efforts?  Apple's Services revenue is far higher than Mac revenue.   

I would like to see Apple return to a MacBook Pro design in which the user can upgrade/replace storage, memory and battery.  I think they made a huge mistake by getting away from that.   If they did it because they don't want a seam in the case, they need psychological help.   If they did it because they want to force users to upgrade to a new machine, then it demonstrates a hypocritical stance on being environmentally friendly and a very cynical attitude towards their users.    I have to wonder who at Apple has decided this product strategy: whether it's all Ive or whether it's other executives.  

jdw said:

The greatest article of the century, if not the millennium would be named thusly:

Every lawsuit everywhere across the globe was DISMISSED!

It's time to turn the other cheek and realize life can indeed go on without litigation. 

No Suing.  It does a Human good.

Do I think there are too many lawsuits (especially in the U.S.) and an enormous number of incredibly trivial and stupid ones?   Of course.   But there are many quite valid lawsuits and without the threat of lawsuits, companies will run havoc endangering our health, the environment and our wallets.