zoetmb

electrosoft said:

With the full migration to 64-bit, now is the perfect time for Apple to transition to ARM based Macs. Like previous architecture changes, we all know Apple has been running dual code bases for sometime.

Full migration?  A large percentage of the user base has not switched because of the cost and/or complexity of third party software upgrades.   My son-in-law manages Macs for five different companies and NONE of them have switched.   I haven't switched, not because I'm "cheap", but because I don't want subscription software, so I've been resisting, but eventually I might not have a choice.  I've switched from Photoshop to On1, although I prefer many aspects of Photoshop, especially some of the plug-ins.  And I really don't want to move to subscription-based Office.  

So it's neither a full migration nor, as the article suggests, that it was "easy".

I don't know if there are publicly available stats on how much of the Mac user based has switched, but if they are available, I'd love to know what the share is. 

Apple has had more problems with software in recent releases.  Some years back, I never had an issue with apps that stopped working and while there were some bugs, I never noticed them.   Now, even security updates break things.

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with not recruiting "fresh blood".   I think it's that Apple's testing is not as rigorous as it once was, that Apple doesn't care if they break older software and that Apple has become too large to effectively manage.  

Back in the day, Apple would test every message presented to an end-user.   I remember an example which I think was in the old Apple User Interface Guidelines from the Apple II days where they needed to know whether the user had a color monitor or not and it took something like seven different versions of the question before all end-users answered it correctly.   But today, Apple's messaging is as bad and cryptic as Microsoft's.  

I'm still on Mojave because I'm using too many 32-bit apps.   It's not that I'm too cheap to buy new apps, it's that I don't want subscriptions.  But I bet within a year, I'm not going to have much choice, but to update.  At some point, Apple will stop supplying security updates for Mojave. 

You're comparing the wrong camera.  The better Nikon camera for video purposes in the Z6 (which also happens to be less expensive), not the Z7 and while iPhone images and video are miraculous for the tiny lenses and tiny sensor, there is no way they compare to what a full frame camera (of any brand) is capable of, especially in low light conditions.  Having said that, Apple and other phone makers are light years ahead of the traditional camera manufacturers in terms of automatic image processing and making up for the issues that result from using such small sensors. 

Apple doesn't reveal the size of their sensor, but if it's the same size as the iPhone 6 sensor, it's 2.1% the size of a full frame sensor.   High resolution in a small sensor generates heat, which generates noise. 

Try to post-process a phone image in Photoshop or other such program and you'll see that phone images have no latitude and you can't do much with them as compared to a RAW image from a high quality camera (Nikon or otherwise).

The best camera to use is the one you have with you and just about everyone always has their phone with them, but for the highest quality images and video, a DSLR or Mirrorless is going to be superior, but cost of entry is quite high and you have to lug the damn things around.  

gatorguy said:

linkman said:

What sort of control does a company have over product placement like this? I know that Microsoft has to pay to get their products to appear on screen anywhere, but Apple does not. If I were a film maker and I wanted to put an Apple product on screen without any of Apple's approval/disapproval would I be completely free to do what I want?

Apple does pay, but traditionally in product rather than cash.

More recently they've had to modify tactics and enter into paid promotion contracts with some media companies which is why you now see “promotional consideration sponsored by Apple"  far more often than just two or three years ago. Why would they have to pay? Studio and broadcast media increasingly see Apple as a competitor rather than helpful partner and are far less apt to show them on screen in exchange for a couple of computers and a few iPhones. 

Years ago, the filmmakers paid for product placements.  Then someone figured out that it's the studios who should be getting paid and it's since become a big business with agencies cropping up just for product placements.  I doubt it has anything to do with film production companies seeing Apple as a competitor.  

Sometimes, if a director really wants a particular product in the movie because it's an appropriate prop, the product company doesn't pay.   I used to work for a publisher and we had a big set of books for the legal industry that frequently showed up in movies. We developed a set that was hollowed out on the inside so they wouldn't be so heavy.  Well before Google, we also had CD-ROM products. One filmmaker wanted one of those products for a well-known movie, but he insisted on one of the products from an international division even though the plot took place in the U.S. AND he wanted shelves full of them.   I actually manufactured more product just for the movie and in the end, they didn't use it or it wasn't noticeable and they could have used some empty boxes and wrapping paper and it wouldn't have made a difference.    Another famous film has the characters going to the library to search something related to the pattern of a murderer (before Google) and they wanted to use our search product and interface.   We supplied a special version that would display what they wanted and once again, it wasn't used for the film.   After that, I stopped going out of my way for filmmakers.   We'd only supply off-the-shelf product.  

And when there's no specific deal, every prop in a movie that has a copyright or trademark has to be cleared, even a poster hanging in the background of a living room set or a book jacket or magazine.   I personally think that if something is just in the background and not an integral part of the plot, it should be considered fair use, but that's not the current law. 

sirozha said:

Why don't you guys post a few pictures of the Chinese Apple stores? You are happy to post pics with people lining up in front of Chinese Apple stores when Apple releases a new iPhone. Why not publish pics of completely empty Apple stores now? 

Because what's the point?  Empty Apple stores aren't because of some Apple failure or because demand for their products is low - it's because of the virus and because people are staying off the streets and/or aren't even being permitted to leave their homes or areas.   Every store in certain areas of China are empty or closed.