nht

rob53 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

10 years ago, it made sense to buy a Mac Pro for use with software like Adobe Photoshop. These days, that's not really a high-end software use anymore. Photoshop can easily be handled by a standard iMac. I think people who complain about what the 2019 version of the Mac Pro represents don't really understand just how much more powerful hardware is today vs. 10 years ago. The 'Pro' end for desktop is MUCH more specialized than it used to be. Only the heaviest of heavy lifting through software requires 'Pro' models anymore.

It depends on what size Photoshop file you're working on and what you're doing. Try working on a 300-dpi file that's 6-ft by 20-ft with multiple layers and all sorts or crazy filters. Next combine data from multiple visualizations systems into one file. How long are you willing to wait just to import the data? I'm not talking about an 8x10 glossy, I'm talking about dealing with massive data sets. Yes, the iMac Pro can handle a lot of these but when you're getting visualization data from a supercomputer and want to work on it outside of the supercomputer, the new Mac Pro looks like the type of device you'd be using.

MplsP said:

ericthehalfbee said:

MplsP said:

sacto joe said:

gatorguy said:

sacto joe said:

gatorguy said:

carnegie said:

gatorguy said:

sacto joe said:

titantiger said:

My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?

I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.

He'll be shocked as he's been convinced from the get-go that Apple intended to carry this thru to the end.  

If that's what he expected, I'm surprised. I check in on what he's saying sometimes, usually when I can't find a filing or when I'm interested in something that I won't be able to find information on myself (e.g., with regard to the judicial proceedings in Germany).

I thought it was likely that Qualcomm and Apple would eventually settle their disputes, and that it would be more likely that they did once this case and the FTC case were decided. I'm surprised that (if) he thought otherwise. Or did he just think that Apple would see the case which just went to trial (i.e. the one heard by Judge Curiel) through to the end before agreeing to settle?

The latter. 

Pure conjecture.

Well of course, as are your comments. So?

So what's your problem with waiting to find out more before making conjecture. I've already said I'll hold. You, on the other hand....

half of this site is people commenting on rumors by one analyst or another. Basically conjecture on conjecture. That's what a lot of people come to this site for - to debate topics with other interested people. 

Half of this site is comprised of reasonable people making common sense deductions of what’s going on while the other half desperately try to twist things to always have Apple come out in the losing end. 

...and a handful people bending over backward to always make Apple come out ahead, to be fair. But yes, it's often difficult to have a rational discussion

cgWerks said:

chasm said:

This is what we call a “disinformation campaign,” kids.

They have a lot of prior experience from ousting Eich.

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

anantksundaram said:

avon b7 said:

anantksundaram said:

GeorgeBMac said:

speakingmywords said:

As long as the Feds have a espionage warning on Huawei, Apple ain't  gonna put Huawei chips in their products. Any attempt will just make the spooks more suspicious.

The "Feds" don't.   Trump does.  But his propaganda machine could scare people off.

The "Feds" and the Congress sure do. Going back to at least 2011-12. 

I am not going to bother with giving you any links, since I have little doubt that you know how to do an internet search.

And all these years later they still have nothing. Off the record they are even admitting as much. 

It has been said time and time again, anyone involved in spying doesn't care which hardware is being run.

If anything, Huawei's products are likely to be more secure as, not only are they scrutinised more but when issues are found, solutions are demanded of them.

Apple would have more to gain than lose, not least in time to market.

Groan, you Huawei apologists are back out in force again.

1) Please send a link on who's admitting what "off the record." Otherwise, delete the post.

2) "They have nothing"? We'll see when Meng Wanzhou shows up in a US court. (Canada's formally started the extradition proceedings, as you likely know). Until then, I'd advise you to hold spouting off.

Your link:

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-tn-huawei-5g-trade-war/

"They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."

Sound familiar? Same old story. Yes. 'Groan'

... you have no "evidence" that Huawei is not acting, nor will act in the future, as an agent of China.

Likewise:
'you have no "evidence" that Trump is not acting, nor will act in the future, as an agent of Russia.'

But, fortunately for both Huawei and Trump, that's not how it works.  

You might want to consider adding something intelligent to the conversation.

Oh, wait, that might not be possible...

Since I was quoting you, that might be a correct statement.  A first for you!    Good job!

Funny thing is, I'm about as far away from a Trump supporter as you could possibly imagine, and yet your constant interjection of Trump into these conversations adds nothing.

But I repeat myself; you might want to consider adding something intelligent to the conversation.

sflocal said:

Chapman8tor said:

Buying an external drive to make up for the Mac Mini's lack of reasonably-priced internal storage makes it the ultimate dongle and an insult to customers. Go to any Best Buy and you can find a half terabyte internal SSD for under $60. I understand the case with Apple is the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts, but Apple's margin on storage shouldn't be as high as the markup for gold. 

Stop comparing a $60 SATA Best Buy drive with what Apple puts in their machines.  Not anywhere near the same thing.