seankill

randominternetperson said:

seankill said:

tht said:

fastasleep said:

I'm still confused about this lineup. I don't understand how they're going to market the mid-sized LCD model in comparison to the other two. It appears that it'll have slightly thicker bezels, but what other differentiating factors will there be that separates it from the OLED models to the average consumer? I don't think most people are going to know or care about the difference between LCD and OLED. Plastic body like the 5c?

The LCD model is rumored to have a single back camera, no 3D Touch, aluminum frame instead of steel, the aforementioned larger bezels, and the usual segmentation in storage and maybe SoC. It will look less “pretty” for lack of a better term. 

No 3D Touch stings imo. That maybe implies no Taptic Engine, or a lessor version of it. 

I know it’s there and I hardly ever use it. To each their own but I’ve met very few people that use it. I would imagine it doesn’t impact the average user. If they leave it off, they must think the same thing. 

I've become addicted to the ability to move the insert cursor around in text by doing a force-press-and-drag on the popup keyboard.  I wonder what percentage of users knows that that's available.

You are right on that one. I use that from time to time. 

DuhSesame said:

seankill said:

DuhSesame said:

seankill said:

DuhSesame 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. 

Designing that chip will be much difficult than what keyboard commando suggests.

Because Apple never designs custom chips.... They are more than capable. Regardless, clearly Apple felt it was needed (would they have done it without the critical crowd? Who knows), just take the loss and move on. It’s called progress! 

The argument of “no one needs 32GB” is null anyway. I got my MacBook in 2012, I only needed 8GB (or so I thought, running simulations for classes easily took advantage of the 16GB) but I knew the RAM was soldered so I got 16GB. It’s called future proofing. I now use 16GB on a regular basis just doing general tasks, not “Pro” grade work. I have a desktop for that now. 

They’re more than capable if they build their own processors.  You simply can’t bypass Intel’s design (if possible), otherwise that will be reverse engineering and lawsuits up your butt.

I’m not saying 16GiB is better than 32GiB, but if you can’t then you just can’t.  You could say they start to build a 32GiB machine in the first place, but no one knows for sure how tech will go wo years after.

Even so. 
According to the website, the new one has a 83 watt hour battery in it. If I am not mistaking the older models had 76 whr batteries. Could they just have made it a tiny bit thicker with the 83 whr battery to begin with? You bet. 

Of course, blaming on them on why they didn’t start this the first place.  But then let’s move on.

The thickness haven’t change by the way.

Remember when the battery size change took place, in the 2015 to 2016 transition. The thicknesses changed from the 2015 to 2016 models. The compromise between RAM and battery life was required because of the thinness. It’s simple volume. They went from a 99 whr to 76ish whr battery to get the machine thinner. 

ericthehalfbee 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?

DuhSesame said:

seankill said:

DuhSesame 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. 

Designing that chip will be much difficult than what keyboard commando suggests.

Because Apple never designs custom chips.... They are more than capable. Regardless, clearly Apple felt it was needed (would they have done it without the critical crowd? Who knows), just take the loss and move on. It’s called progress! 

The argument of “no one needs 32GB” is null anyway. I got my MacBook in 2012, I only needed 8GB (or so I thought, running simulations for classes easily took advantage of the 16GB) but I knew the RAM was soldered so I got 16GB. It’s called future proofing. I now use 16GB on a regular basis just doing general tasks, not “Pro” grade work. I have a desktop for that now. 

They’re more than capable if they build their own processors.  You simply can’t bypass Intel’s design (if possible), otherwise that will be reverse engineering and lawsuits up your butt.

I’m not saying 16GiB is better than 32GiB, but if you can’t then you just can’t.  You could say they start to build a 32GiB machine in the first place, but no one knows for sure how tech will go wo years after.

Even so. 
According to the website, the new one has a 83 watt hour battery in it. If I am not mistaking the older models had 76 whr batteries. Could they just have made it a tiny bit thicker with the 83 whr battery to begin with? You bet. 

DuhSesame 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. 

Designing that chip will be much difficult than what keyboard commando suggests.

Because Apple never designs custom chips.... They are more than capable. Regardless, clearly Apple felt it was needed (would they have done it without the critical crowd? Who knows), just take the loss and move on. It’s called progress! 

The argument of “no one needs 32GB” is null anyway. I got my MacBook in 2012, I only needed 8GB (or so I thought, running simulations for classes easily took advantage of the 16GB) but I knew the RAM was soldered so I got 16GB. It’s called future proofing. I now use 16GB on a regular basis just doing general tasks, not “Pro” grade work. I have a desktop for that now.