tomahawk

I'm not sure you talked to that wide of an array of users if you didn't find any that are concerned about this transition.

As a home consumer, sure, it should be great.  As a professional, I have a number of concerns that I suspect will mean we have to move away from Macs in a number of use cases.

• Bootcamp - One of the major advantages to Macs for our needs are that we can run Windows on them as well.  I have by Bootcamp partition running in VMWare Fusion about 95% of the time to access Windows only tools.
• Scientific software - I support a research department at a university. We have a lot of macOS because we can easily compile and run a LOT of scientific software. A lot of that software is dependent on OpenGL, which Apple had already deprecated. I fully expect that this was simply so Apple didn't have to migrate it to Apple Silicon.  This alone may push a lot of our users toward Windows, where we now can run a full on Linux layer.  We may be able to get around this with virtualization and running Linux on the new Macs, we'll need to test, but it won't be nearly as convenient as running the software directly within macOS.

I'm hoping the updated 16" MBP that may be announced next week will still be an Intel processor.  I'll likely buy that machine for myself so that I have at least a few years before I need to worry about no longer having Bootcamp and hope new options become available.

crowley said:

Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist.  There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result.  It is very logical to question that.

Not necessarily. My wife and I each have our own credit cards (she also has access to mine) and are both listed on our accounts, etc.

Even though we are both listed there are a couple of accounts that I am still listed as the primary (there was no other way to do it and I had the accounts before we were married). I also used credit cards more often and for longer.

Despite the fact that our credit scores are going to be nearly the same I am going to qualify for a much higher credit line than she is simply due to my stronger credit history.

Want an even worse example, my mom owned 50% of my parent’s business and was denied a credit card in the business’ name.

A lot of banking only lists one primary account holder and who ever has that is going to have more credit history.

McJobs said:

I'm so sick of the Tim Cook era, where every product redesign comes with a substantial price increase over previous model. When Steve was there, products got better at the same price points (e.g. MBP--->unibody MBP), or even were less expensive at the same time (e.g. polycarbonate iMac--->aluminum iMac).

Why wouldn't a new device, with a larger screen, and likely a true "Pro" version of the Pro, cost more? It's going to have a more expensive screen, likely larger battery and potentially more powerful CPU/GPU combos.  It should cost more...  Even if it has the same config as the "better" 15" (8-core, 16GB and 512GB SSD) it would only be ~$200 more than the 15".

And Jobs raised prices too.  Look at the Mac mini. Started at $499, raised to $599 in 2006, and raised again to $699 in 2010.

clarker99 said:

In Canada, the release notes talk about new data transfer option.

That's for the 12.4 release (and is included in those release notes everywhere). It's much more unusual for Apple to release security updates for older versions of the OS (which is what this article is talking about).

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?

Might be counting on the fact that there is a large portion of the population that doesn't want their stupid phone to get even bigger.  There is no phone in this lineup that my dad would even consider using and I'll be forced to buy the 5.8" just to have the smaller sized device (and it's slightly bigger than my current 4.7").  It would be nice if they offered more differentiation on screen sizes and came out with a high end phone with a slightly smaller size.

Their designers should be forced to hold a baby and use the phone at the same time for a week or two before releasing a larger screen.  And they have to pay for it every time they drop it...