zoetmb

Lenses don't really have resolution in the common sense of the term, sensors do.   Lenses have resolution only in the sense of their ability to resolve a line.  And increased resolution in a very small sensor can cause inferior quality, because the photosites are smaller and when they heat up, they create noise, especially in low-light conditions (high ISOs).  

If you look at DSLR's, which have full frame sensors 20 times the size of a phone sensor, the highest-end cameras have lower resolution than the less expensive cameras right below them for this very reason.   They do that because it results in higher overall picture quality, especially in low light.   For example, in the case of Nikon, the highest end D5 has a 20.8MP sensor and the upcoming D6 is expected to have a 24MP sensor.   The D5 body was originally $6500 and is now selling for $5500.    The lower-priced D850 (originally $3300, now $2800) has a 45.7 MP sensor.   It's similar for Canon.   Sony's highest end mirrorless camera, the A9ii, has a 24.2MP sensor.   The lower-priced a7Riv has a 61MP sensor.   

Apple's QC is really in the toilet. And lately I'm experiencing all kinds of new problems in Safari (13.0.1) under MacOS Mojave 10.14.6. In addition, old emails that I was saving disappeared from the in box on my iPhone and it is not the issue where Apple moved the cheese (I didn't accidentally delete anything). I realize it's hard to test for every use case with every piece of software and hardware, but can Apple test their own damned products? For what they charge for their products, they really need to get their act together. They're becoming just like every other incompetent company, only with higher prices. I think Apple has gotten too large to manage properly. They hire more and more people and things seem to get worse.

SpamSandwich said:

Seems like Sony Pictures would still be a good takeover target. Other than Spider-man Into The Spiderverse, they've had a very rough decade.

Then why buy it?   Apple doesn't need a studio because most studios are nothing more than finance managers (ok, and distribution companies, but Apple, like most of the streaming services, doesn't really care about theatrical or physical distribution, except as it applies to being eligible for awards).   Look at the credits for any film of recent years.  There are usually multiple production companies involved.  Some actually do production - the rest are simply providing financing because Hollywood studios no longer want to take the total risk themselves.    Apple doesn't need a studio - what it needs are creative and successful production entities.

Now if Apple wanted a studio for its library, that's another matter, but Sony pictures doesn't have that big a library.  Since 1960, Sony (including both Columbia and Tri-Star) only has about 1400 films in the library and many of those were theatrical distribution deals and/or co-pros in which they don't have full rights.  8 of the 12 Columbia pictures in 2018 were co-pros.  

And who says Sony is willing to sell?   I think Viacom might be more willing to sell Paramount, but maybe with CBS and Viacom re-merging, maybe not.  

>>Through Van Amburg and Erlicht, Apple offered not only a $250 million budget ...

A $250 million budget for what???  That doesn't sound right.   That's the budget for a super-hero movie, not a budget for a TV show on a streaming service. 

It's great what Apple is doing, but IMO, Apple is still completely hypocritical.   If they really care about the environment, they would make devices that lasted longer because the user could easily replace parts.   IMO, it's unforgivable that in a MacBook Pro, one cannot replace/upgrade the battery, storage and memory, all of which used to be easily user replaceable.    It was one of the things I liked the most about my late 2008 MBP:  The little flip control to open the door for the battery, the shock mounted hard disk and the easy access to the memory modules were so well designed.  

So there's two reasons for this (take your pick):  Apple's obsession with thinness destroys the practicality of making these components user replaceable (although hopefully with Ive gone, that will change) -or- Apple's strategic objective is to do this purposely so that people have to upgrade their machines more often.  

The best thing Apple ever did in this regard was offer those $29 battery replacements for the iPhone.   It probably hurt iPhone sales, but it saved an awful lot of phones from going to landfills.  

There's a report today in the Washington Post that AirPod batteries are dying within 18 months and can't be replaced.   This is absolutely ridiculous.  If batteries in hearing aids that are far smaller than AirPods can be replaced, then Apple could have designed AirPods with replaceable batteries.   It's both poor treatment of consumers and it's bad for the environment.  And how many people do you think are going to take those useless AirPods to a recycling center?   Most will wind up in the trash....maybe the plastic/metal bin, but still the trash.  

My current MBP just might be my last Apple laptop if they don't change their approach (and that's aside from the fact that my $3100 early 2017 MBP has NEVER gotten more than 4 hours of battery life and four of the keys have had the part of the black area disintegrated).  It's like buying a car where you have to return to the dealer to replace tires, belts or battery, only where they're all mounted using non-standard methods that make it difficult and extremely costly.  Actually...it's worse than that.   It's like having to buy a new car because you need new tires, belts or battery.   

disneylandman said:

Apple only wants to put them in theaters for a few days for 1) a money grab, and 2) to be considered for Oscars.  Sad that Apple wants to join the douchebags of Hollywood in which they give each other fake awards after patting themselves on the back, while the rest of the real working world does not care about their politically charged award show. Winning an Oscar does not make you a player in Hollywood.  No one is really interested in Apple's boring offerings.  Do millennials really want to watch the progression of an elephant?

Putting them in a few arthouses for a few days is no money grab.  In fact, they'll probably lose money on it.   A typical arthouse today has far fewer than 100 seats.   These aren't films that are going to attract big audiences.   

And while Oscar ratings do drop every year, you really have no idea whether the rest of the real working world cares about it or not.   And by the way, do you know what (good) artists do?   They make statements about the world.  That includes politics.  You might not like their politics, but that's really your problem.  

It's also quite strange to me that you seem to hate Hollywood when your name is "disneylandman" because if anything personifies Hollywood today, it's Disney, with ownership of everything Disney, ABC, 20th Century Fox (including Fox2000 and Fox Searchlight), Marvel, Lucasfilm, the Muppets, Pixar, most of Hulu, 20CFox Television, FX Networks, Freeform, Blue Sky, ESPN, 73% of National Geographic, Star India and a bunch of other stuff.