chia

zoetmb said:

chia said:

The iPad in the developing world has numerous advantages over the Mac Mini setup:

All true, but the iPad is still far too expensive a device for the developing world.   What would be great is if Apple made a much lower cost model (or made one of the older models available at lower cost) for the developing world and also developed a solar power supply for it.    

I do not follow, can you elaborate as to what the iPad is too expensive to in comparison to what device for the developing world?
There's also no need for a specific solar power supply for it: there are plenty of appropriate solar power solutions readily available.

mike54 said:

A reasonably priced headless mac would help your company and them. So why ignore the mac mini for so long.

You've made quite a tenuous link to the article in expressing a potentially off-topic view about what products Apple should market.  I do hope you've read the recently revised commenting guidelines.

Nevertheless, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt in disagreeing with you as to what is useful for education in the developing countries cited.
Many of the developing countries have unreliable electricity grids, or a grid that is to geographically or economically out of reach for those in rural areas or the depths of poverty.  Instead of buying a Mac Mini that'll just sit in a corner doing nothing but look pretty without electricity, use the money to buy an iPad.
The iPad in the developing world has numerous advantages over the Mac Mini setup:

1. Cheaper, all in one design that can be used straight away without extra cost and complication of monitor, keyboard etc.
2. Portable so can be shared across different people or even different communities.
3. Built in cellular data so easier connection with internet.
4. Battery powered so can be used when the power goes off and where there is no power
   
5. Portable so it can be taken to where the power is to be recharged
6. Relatively small power required compared to desktop thus can be charged from small, inexpensive solar panels

An iPad offers at least the total utility of an iPhone with the bonus of a large screen comparable to that of a small laptop.
The iPad can definitely do all the basics that most desktops still do now: document writing, emails, browsing the web etc.
Furthermore the iPad is capable of image processing and even 1080p HD movie editing with iMovie.
Wakaliwood is a good example of what people can achieve with even very limited resource.

Most people in the developed world don't make use of the applications which require the complexity of a "desktop" Mac: most of them don't code, carry out complex CAD, create broadcast quality 4K content or use other apps which tax processing capability.  Hence, when seen from that context the idea, that a "headless Mac" would help those in the developing world struggling to maintain basic food, water, shelter and energy in addition to accessing education is ludicrous.  "On the ground", an iPad is the more pragmatic solution for aiding with education and information sharing.  As with the "developed world", there will be a path for those in the "developing world" with the talent and need to use the more "complex desktop machines"; I strongly suspect the proportion who fit into this category is even smaller than that in the developed world.

Malala is a remarkable young woman.  I will go as far as to say that she is as an inspiration to Tim Cook.  She is a wonderful example of how precious we all are as human beings and an example of how important education is for all of us upon Planet Earth, wherever and whomever we may be.

AI_lias said:

The numbers would be different if Apple would still sign iOS 10.

Seeing that we’re dealing with numbers here, do you have any quantitative evidence to show it’ll be significantly different, or are you merely speaking from sentiment?

ivanh said:

1. Capacity depleted up to 20% of design should not fail to deliver peak power required by the iPhone;

2. Running down to 30% energy left after a full charge will still provide peak power required by any iPhone;

These are quite specific determinations and expectations.  Any citations?

Are they based on science, observation, experience or expert opinion; that of an electronic/electrical engineer or a cut and paster?

VRing said:

chia said:

VRing said:

macxpress said:

Hey @VRing, does that supposed magical and revolutionary custom build of yours that is SO much better than an iMac Pro do this? Didn't think so and never will! 

I know you're just flaming, but TPM chips have been in the vast majority of Windows computers and motherboards for enterprise use for years. As well, a number of these types of computers have a self-healing BIOS to restore a corrupt or potentially attacked BIOS.

Apple has been using EFI/UEFI right from its first Intel-based Mac in 2005, it may have even been the first to ship consumer x86 Intel systems that used EFI/UEFI.  No production Mac has ever used BIOS; can’t vouch for what was used on the computers in Apple’s labs for their Star Trek project, the one where they ran System 7 on PC-compatible hardware.

It amuses me that VRing conflates UEFI with BIOS.  UEFI is far more advanced in what it does compared to outdated BIOS.
I knew the moment that Windows PC manufacturers started making their systems using UEFI that people would continue to lazily and confusingly use the term BIOS in systems where it’s absent.

It's not anyone being lazy. BIOS can still be exposed in Class 2 UEFI. Class 3 or 3+ devices (Surface Book, etc.) expose only UEFI at runtime. My mention of self-healing was with respect to older systems for enterprise and a history of these secure features.

Sorry but you are one of those that is confused, VRing.  The Surface Book uses only UEFI.  UEFI devices can have a mode where they emulate a BIOS boot for legacy operating systems, but UEFI isn't BIOS.