zoetmb

About

Username
zoetmb
Joined
Visits
123
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,555
Badges
1
Posts
2,658
  • Apple refreshes MacBook Pro with six-core processors, 32GB of RAM


    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:

    seankill said:
    DuhSesame said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 
    Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year.  DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.

    Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? 
    Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. 
    Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out. 



    You're right - engineering is always a compromise.

    Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
    The only reason it was a comprise was due to the fact Apple lowered the battery over 20% in the pursuit of thinness. How about go slightly thicker and not comprise on a working machine?


    Sigh.

    have you listen everything that I said?

    But then, if you just wanna blaming on thiness for blaming on thiness, go ahead.
    IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues.  If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had.   I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life.   My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially.   Before that, I never got more than four hours. 

    But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years.   Apple was supposed to be better than this.
    aylkwilliamlondon
  • Apple refreshes MacBook Pro with six-core processors, 32GB of RAM

    It's been this way for a while, but I think Apple has lost its mind in regard to pricing.   I think the fact that their executives and managers make so much money (even if offset by absurd housing costs) has distorted their perception of what the masses, even the higher-end of those masses, can afford to buy.

    One can buy an internal Samsung 4TB SSD drive for $1051 and a 2TB for $500.    Of course you can't use that in a MBP because Apple hardwired the storage and made it almost impossible to replace/upgrade.   Apple wants $1200 to go from 512K to 1TB and $3200 to get to 4TB of storage.    Ridiculous.  Apple charges $400 to get from 16GB to 32GB of memory and a 32GB DDR4 kit from a company like Crucial is as little as $350.   And those are (obviously) in quantity one. 

    2.6G / 16GB / 2TB is $4000.    2.9G/ 32GB / 4TB is $6699.   Personally, I think that's absurd.   The only saving grace is that on models released in the last few years, prices came down pretty quickly and there were and continues to be lots of sales.
    aylkwilliamlondon
  • Drake's Scorpion sets streaming records and tops Billboard 200 under new stream weighting ...

    nunzy said:
     Drake owes everything to Apple.  Without iTunes, he would be nothing.

    Apple came in and changed the entire music industry forever. Drake is reaping the rewards.
    That may have been the case when downloading dominated.  But downloading is now (as of calendar 2017) only 15.7% of industry sales (in dollars) and it will probably be even lower this year.   Downloads comprised 64% of industry dollars as recently as 2013.  Streaming in 2017 was 66.7%. of industry dollars, but total industry dollars, adjusted for inflation are only 40% of their former peak.
    SpamSandwichnunzy
  • Dr. Dre, Jimmy Iovine slapped with $25 million verdict in Beats royalty suit

    nunzy said:
    Monster better stop it's lawsuit, or it will get Appled. Just ask Samsung.
    Reading the AI article about the lawsuit, it seems to me that there must have been outright incompetence in writing the contract that Monster had with Beats.   If there was a clear contract, there's no way that Dre et al could have walked away with the company.   And I don't see what Apple has to do with it in any case.   It's funny because what Dre is accused of doing is very similar to what Jack Warner did to get his brothers out of Warner Bros.    

    We'll never know because Apple doesn't break out numbers, but I don't see how this could have been a good acquisition for Apple in terms of return on investment.   Apple would have done far better, if they were going to acquire a headphone company at all instead of developing a line themselves, of going after Grado, which they probably could have gotten for pocket change, or even Sennheiser.    Personally, I think the Beats headphones have awful audio quality, but obviously a lot of people like them.    Unfortunately, if Apple decided to sell Beats, it's unlikely they'd get anything even close to what they paid.  


    nunzy
  • Sony buys controlling stake in EMI for $2.3B to become world's largest music publisher

    eightzero said:
    Is this good or bad for Apple? 
    Since most publishing royalties are statutory, it won't make any difference.   For those that aren't, Sony will be in a position to negotiate a better deal.

    Having said that, the U.S. Copyright Office has made recommendations to Congress that the whole system be changed to a "willing buyer - willing seller" free-market system (although Congress has shown no interest in acting on this), which means that instead of statutory rates, everything would be negotiated.   In that case, I would say Sony would have the upper hand because Apple could not take down all Sony Publishing owned tracks and still survive as a viable streaming/downloading service.   

    Other countries vary depending upon their copyright laws.  

    Note that "publishing" has nothing to do with the actual recording and payments to performers .  It only has to do with royalties to composers (and their publishers).  
    watto_cobra