mark fearing

Someone pointed out that 'internet experts' would get in here and point out all of Apple's 'mistakes'...And they are here. Thanks internet... I'm amazed at some readers misunderstandings of the article being demonstrated here.

1- Apple doesn't make Mac Pros for gamers to play games on. If you are looking to spend your time playing games - the VAST majority of humans use a mobile device now. If you are still interested in an X-Box or Playstation, welcome to 2003. I don't even know that many kids who care about consoles. 25 year old's, 30 year olds, maybe. But I wouldn't bet my future on console gaming.

2- The Mac Pro is leveraging technology for professionals in various markets, like film and TV production where the editor or whomever (SPFX Sup., animation pipeline ETC) doesn't game on their work hardware. They tend to do work on it.

3- I don't think Apple is looking to become a defecto game development platform nor does it care about the 80% of PC games that no one plays for more than 6 months. if they can leverage some development from iOS to the Mac, I can see why they would like that and how it would benefit them.

4- The article was well written and researched. I'm an old fart - was at GDC's back in the early 2000's and Macworlds (1995 first one I attended in person) back then too. Apple doesn't focus on games on the Mac. They NEVER have - even when they sort-of-seemed-to. I've listened to 'gamer on mac' arguments for like 25 years. If gaming is the thing that motivates your technology buying, then don't buy a Mac. You have choices.

Anyway, I think Apple is doing what Apple has always done. Creating a platform of integrated elements that can't be beat for what they target. Please buy some Surface and Windows machines if you don't like the Mac offerings. They are there for you. But bitc**** about the Mac Pro because it won't game the way you want seems pretty silly. But if you work in media you can at least appreciate the specs of the machine and you'd have to admit, nothing else comes close right now.

OK...this entire 'review' is more than a bit of sloppy writing. I'm sorry but I think this needs to be called out.

One example - " Putting aside debatable elements like the merits of iOS over Android or the long-time rivalry between the two companies " so you are comparing ONLY on hardware specs?

What about the speed of the os on its given hardware?

And what two companies? 'Android' isn't a company. I'd guess you meant to imply Samsung, but I'm not sure there is a rivalry with Apple.  Does Samsung make an OS? A computer? Does Apple make washers and dryers? I just think all kinds of things are being confused and tossed in this piece in order not to hurt feelings. And if you are actually doing a review and than saying 'but we won't look at the os' what is the point? Just run tech specs, take your free Samsung phones and move on. Honestly, this is a badly written and rather silly piece. I'm not attacking the writer. I'm criticizing the entire editorial system that puts this out. By the end I don't know what I've read, if the reviewer has an opinion (most reviewers have opinions...that's OK. Explain your opinion and let others decide) but don't pretend all is equal, i love everything, boy these are both so good...why bother writing it then?

1STnTENDERBITS said:

Part of these efforts included hiring luminaries in the modem world, including former Intel executive Umashankar Thyagarajan, an engineer thought to have played a key role in the development of Intel's XMM 8160 5G modem.

Understanding that Mr. Thyagarajan is an excellent "get" for Apple, maybe listing the XMM 8160 modem as a highlight of his talents isn't the best way to go.  I mean the failure of development on the XMM 8160 is, what some say, the reason Apple settled with Qualcomm, Intel left the mobile chip business, and Apple is buying their mobile shop.  It's probably the last thing I'd want mentioned on my list of accomplishments.

We simply don't know what aspects Apple was unhappy with- cost, size, materials, quality, or maybe something related to battery use. And perhaps Apple has inhouse engineering already able to tackle any issues. It's even possible that intel was hamstrung trying to meet Apple's demands while producing something to sell to everyone else.

As with most of these stories, it's worth considering what we don't know before jumping to a conclusion that the engineering was at fault. I think an educated guess is that Apple asked for A,B,C,D and Intel wanted to produce A,B,C because they needed to meet specs for others in the market. It's easier for Apple to spec, design, and manufacture EXACTLY what they need and only what THEY need.

wizard69 said:

iOS_Guy80 said:

Brings make memories of the GT ADVANCED (GTAT) Sapphire turmoil.

Maybe not!   This could be a mistake on Apples part.  If successful a QD based sensor could have higher sensitivity so there is good reason to pursue this tech.   Any number of companies could step in here.  

True, but I take it that Apple did their due diligence and realized that either the tech is not working, or the cost to commercialize is too great. Or perhaps they discovered something with the tech that makes it problematic. There is a reason to pursue many technologies but - the whole 'need to ship' steps in.

kkqd1337 said:

If there is a worse way of judging how popular a streaming service is than using a Drake album then I would love to hear it.

I use Spotify. I don’t know, want to know, or care who Drake is.

That's not the point. The article isn't asking you about your particular taste in music, who you stream and why you do or don't listen to 'Drake'. I don't listen to him either, but from what I can see in the popular culture around me many people do. That in and of itself doesn't matter. But the issue of why Spotify has so much lower numbers than a service with ( is it a third less subscribers?) is interesting. What it makes me think is that Spotify continues to BS their numbers. I worked for years for a very large electronics company that also owns media companies (and music labels) and online numbers for various types of games and interactions were known to be BS. They were often decided on (made up) in marketing meetings. So what I suspect is that Spotify is being used far less than we are being lead to believe.