sdw2001

canukstorm said:

Japhey said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

AppleZulu said:

It’s a typo, I’m sure, but on the linked Apple support page, under “How to listen to lossless on your Apple TV 4K,” it says you should first “update your Apple TV 4K to tvOS 11.4.”

We’ve had lossless for years and didn’t even know it!

This has just been a spectacular own-goal from Apple from the jump. The Bluetooth lack of support for Apple Music Lossless wasn't a giant surprise, but the messaging surrounding it all has been replete with holes, wrong information, and modifications for the last five days.

An “own-goal” is a great way to put it. Some of Apple’s moves the last few months have defied logic. I mean, why even announce lossless until it was supported by the audio lineup? I don’t own a HomePod, but if I did I would be pretty pissed off right now. I’m really hoping WWDC will bring some unexpected new hardware announcements that will make sense of these seemingly erratic decisions. 

Because there's a lot of non-Apple audio gear that does support lossless and hi-res lossless.  For the audiophile that is into this type of gear, why keep them waiting from enjoying this new Apple Music feature?

That’s true, but I think this is more of a marketing ploy.  Most people don’t know that they won’t be able to discern the difference between 256k and lossless unless they have great ears *and* great equipment.  I don’t mean a nice home theater setup, either.  I mean pre-amp, amp, DAC and speakers costing five figures.  Or a pair of wired $1000+ headphones with a really good source.  

williamlondon said:

"the DIA had adopted the belief that the rules didn't apply to commercial data that the government purchases"

Scary to imagine how many *other* laws are broken using this exact form of mental gymnastics.

Well, the thing is that they are probably correct.  Not many gymnastics required.  If it's commercially available product, they can probably use it.  Whether or not it could be used in a criminal trial is another matter.  I'm not saying I agree with it.

That being said, the government is prohibited from using a private company to do that which it is not allowed.  Let's say the FBI wants to tap your phone, but doesn't want to get a warrant of any kind. They can't hire Bob's Phone Tapping service to do it for them.  Of course, they get around this by using things like national security letters and the FISA court improperly.  

All kidding aside, here's my take on the entire app store/Apple is a monopoly thing:  

My understanding is that that monopoly claims with Apple (for the app store or complaints like Tile's) are unlikely to fly.  Yes, Apple has monopoly on app distribution on their phones.  They also compete in that marketplace.  To a lesser degree, some of the same ideas apply with their physical and online stores.  They run their stores and sell 3rd party products, some of which they directly compete with.  

But there are a few key points.  First, monopolies are not illegal on their own.  It's only using/creating that monopoly in violation of U.S. law that is the issue.  Apple is allowed to compete in their own market.  They just can't use that monopoly power to push out or punish their competitors.  The evidence that they've done so is weak sauce, in my view.  They have app approval standards, curate and promote 3rd party content, etc.  Proving that they promote their own apps to the detriment of developers (who have to prove damages) is going to be very difficult.  Even if the latter was proven, I'm not sure it's enough to justify government action.  

Secondly, I don't see how Tile has any legitimate complaint here at all.  Apple does not have a monopoly on selling hardware items.  Stores promote their own brands all the time.  Is Wal-Mart not allowed to sell it's Great Value brand? Can target not sell their Up (or whatever it is) brand?  I'd argue stores like that have a much bigger market impact than Apple's physical and online presence.  

Finally, I don't see how the case is made that Apple's behavior harms consumers or developers.  There are hundreds of thousands of apps (millions?) and developers small and large have made a ton of money.  Paid versions of apps are often quite inexpensive....usually less than $5.  Developers love subscriptions and found they made even more money with in-app purchases.  Now they are complaining they have to pay the toll to use the highway that made them rich.   As a consumer, I no longer think of software as a major purchase, unless it's a large, staple Mac app (Office, A/V software, etc.).  Remember when software came in a box and costs $50-75 for one title? That wasn't that long ago.  

GeorgeBMac said:

sdw2001 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

sdw2001 said:

Wgkrueger said:

GeorgeBMac said:

seanj said:

GeorgeBMac said:

For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap

Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 

But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.

If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 

...

The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

 

Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.

I think I explained my thinking on the benefits to the customer.  A thinner, lighter, more solid and perhaps longer-lasting design benefits the customer.  Speaking from a real-world and personal perspective, the benefits to me have been more than marginal.  As I said, I was a person who used to upgrade things myself.  I did RAM, HDD, SSD, battery (modular or internal), etc.  I don't care about that anymore.  Know why?  Because I don't need to do it.  The components on my 2015 (model year, actually started using in fall of 2016) MBP haven't needed to be replaced or upgraded.  I'm at the point now where I still don't need more capabilities, but I'll probably upgrade in a year or two anyway.  After all, my product is now vintage and nearly obsolete.  

Again, all things being equal, I prefer upgradeability.  But things are not equal.  The design is better.  The feel is better.  Components last longer and are higher performance.  It's like complaining that you can't swap out your fuel injectors, when you could change your carburetor in your classic car.  

I still fail to see how eliminating a socket makes a machine thinner (at least in any meaningful way).  Nor do I see how soldering an SSD makes it any stronger.  If the frame of the machine is that weak, it will work the opposite and break the solder joint -- at which time you lose your data when you throw away your machine.

OK, we're beyond just a difference in philosophy or even consumer preference at this point.  Given the way you're going at it with others, I get the feeling that you are rigidly stuck in your position or perhaps just looking to debate.  I'm hoping I'm wrong, though.  

The point is not just removing a socket, though removing anything could conceivably allow less mass and therefore a potential thinner design.  We don't even have to speculate though, because it is an established fact that Apple products are thinner and lighter.  My 2009 MBP weighs 5.5 lbs and is .95 inches thick.  My 2015 is obviously a much higher performing machine, and is 4.49 lbs and .71 inches thick.  So it's about 20% lighter and thinner.  I won't get into the performance benchmarks, but you can imagine that my current quad core machine pretty much slays the dual core 2009 machine.  

So we've established that whatever changes Apple is making, they result in (or correlate with) faster, more powerful machines that are thinner and lighter.  So, let's now talk reliability.  As I stated, I've replaced my 2009's battery once, and it now needs it again.  I've replaced the charger.  I upgraded to an SSD (a Samsung that ended up being a problem) and then replaced the SSD again (an OWC I think).  I can't recall if I upgraded the RAM...but I think I may have.  Conversely, I'm in my 6th year of use with my 2015 MBP 2.2GHZ quad core (Retina).  I've repaired and upgraded precisely nothing.  The battery is still at least 80%.  It doesn't even have any loose screws.  The keyboard is better and quieter.  I've spilled liquids near it....no issues.  It's higher performance, thinner, lighter, more solid machine.  It's a better machine, period.  Nothing on the machine is user serviceable as far as I know.  But why does it matter to me anymore?  

Again, if you like having user upgradable laptops, that's fine.  I'm not arguing you shouldn't.  But you are being extremely critical of Apple and anyone who has a different take.  Your comment about "throwing away your machine" is frankly ridiculous.  A broken solder joint is not going to result in permanent data loss, for a variety of reason I suspect you already know, but won't acknowledge.  People back up their data quite a bit now, thanks to the cloud.  The system IS serviceable by authorized centers, including Apple.  People aren't just going to "throw their machine away."  That's absurd.  

You may prefer to swap out a failed SSD yourself, but at what cost does that come? Apple evaluated who actually works on their own machines, what the costs and benefits of each approach were, and decided to go with a more hardwired method.  Think what you like, but that's obviously what happened.  Again, you're entitled to your own opinion.  But you're not even considering the other side of the debate.  

 

Wgkrueger said:

GeorgeBMac said:

seanj said:

GeorgeBMac said:

For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap

Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 

But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.

If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 

I've been lurking here, but I'll now weigh in on this debate.   Put simply, I see both sides of it.  All things being equal, I'd rather have user upgradable RAM, SSD, and replaceable battery.  On the other hand, Apple doesn't glue and solder everything just to build-in obsolescence.  They do it to maximize design and performance, as well as reliability.  Granted, you can't switch out components, but the idea is you usually won't need to. Or, most people won't.   It's one reason my 2015 MBP feels a lot more solid (yet is thinner and lighter) than my 2009 MBP.  The latter has user serviceable HDD/SSD and battery, the former does not.  But I've had to replace said HDD/SSD twice and the battery once (as well as the charger).  The battery now needs to be replaced again.   I've used my current MBP for nearly 6 years and I've had no issues or need to upgrade. I'll likely wait until the M2 comes out.  

Concerning the argument you folks are having on a machine not meeting needs any longer:  There are some caveats there.  Granted, a MBA is not going to be upgradable like a Mac Pro is.  But who is buying a MacBook air for the same purpose as a Mac Pro? The Mac Pro is a workstation class machine now.  People are shelling out 5 to 20K on one.  They expect it will last at least 10 years, probably longer.  They are buying cutting edge performance for video/audio/photo production or animation.  But they are also buying a modular and upgradable system for the long term.  The market for the MBA and even the MBP is different.  You might be buying a higher end machine, especially with the MBP.  You might drop $3K on one.  Or even $6K if you go all out.  But everyone who buys a laptop knows you're not likely going to get more than 5-6 years out of it with heavy use.  It might survive longer, but even Apple says products that are 7 years old are obsolete.  5-7 years is vintage.  Consider the fact that many people get a new $1000+ iPhone every 1-2 years (me included).  Is a $1500 MBA really much different?  

The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.