colinng

About

Username
colinng
Joined
Visits
60
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,314
Badges
2
Posts
115
  • 'Find My Friends' helps save teenager trapped under car

    @Racerhomie3, you can just turn it off on your device (if you're in an abusive household). 
    racerhomie3watto_cobrajony0
  • Apple is using a custom connector for the SSD in the new Mac Pro

    dougd said:
    Apple greed at work, they will charge 3x what other SSDs cost.
    I really doubt that. Apple has shown time & again that their engineers lead with what they believe is the best solution for the product. The pundits and rumormongers just come up with their own invented reasons, which are conjecture only. 

    Actually, Apple has been known to just take a standard connector, flip the pins to different locations, and charge you differently. AirPort cards were just PCMCIA cards with 2 pins swapped. They started cheaper than PCMCIA cards but eventually the cost of a PCMCIA card dropped but the AirPort card stayed the same. 

    When it comes to flash storage, same thing. 

    As proof, here is a simple adapter that turns a standard SSD into one that works in your MacBook Air or Pro. The adapter is tiny because it contains no logic converters - it just, **surprise** swaps the pins! 

    https://www.amazon.com/Sintech-Adapter-Upgrade-2013-2016-2013-2015/dp/B07FYY3H5F/

    To courageously innovate around that, in 2016 they soldered the flash straight on to the logic board - giving you no choice but to pre-buy all the storage you anxiously worried that you might need down the road - and they charged handsomely for it. 

    Fanboys will say nobody upgrades. Pro users will say they upgrade if they can (that is why the new Mac Pro is the most upgradeable Mac ever - a course correction against the cylindrical Mac Pro). So who is right? Would MacBook Pro users buy less flash to start with, and buy more flash later (when it dropped in price) - if they could? 

    A company doesn’t boast a 38% margin (while the rest of the industry struggles to get past single-digit margin) and higher ASP just because they were able to be 38% cost efficient when everyone else was only 9% cost efficient. It is very hard to be 400% better than your long-lived competitors. 

    I’m not saying Apple is evil. They’re just doing business. They can compete any (legal) way they want to. 

    What I am saying is, some of us have had enough of these shenanigans. And we have proof that is what these actions are - shenanigans. 

    While I’m expressing my disappointment, “Apple pays every tax dollar it owes” is mindless drivel. Of course it does! Else they end up in jail! But “what it owes” isn’t some fair number arrived at that is mutually beneficial to the countries it operates in - it is a number arrived at where one country (Ireland) decides to be corrupt and set an artificially low tax rate in hopes of getting some revenue and shutting out other countries. 
    zinfellasingularitymuthuk_vanalingam80s_Apple_Guyairnerddysamoriaelijahgmaltz1983avon b7
  • Q&A with 'Tim Cook: The Genius Who Took Apple to the Next Level' author Leander Kahney

    tipoo said:
    "secretly talking to each other, secretly doing things like adding memory chips to the hardware." 

    I wonder what this part is about? Which product was Jobs trying to get out without memory? 
    Folklore.org article Diagnostic Port:
    Even though the diagnostic port was scuttled, it wasn't the last attempt at surreptitious hardware expandability. When the Mac digital board was redesigned for the last time in August 1982, the next generation of RAM chips was already on the horizon. The Mac used 16 64Kbit RAM chips, giving it 128K of memory. The next generation chip was 256Kbits, giving us 512K bytes instead, which made a huge difference.

    Burrell was afraid the 128Kbyte Mac would seem inadequate soon after launch, and there were no slots for the user to add RAM. He realized that he could support 256Kbit RAM chips simply by routing a few extra lines on the PC board, allowing adventurous people who knew how to wield a soldering gun to replace their RAM chips with the newer generation. The extra lines would only cost pennies to add.

    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. But this time Burrell prevailed, because the change was so minimal. He just left it in there and no one bothered to mention it to Steve, much to the eventual benefit of customers, who didn't have to buy a whole new Mac to expand their memory.
    tipoojony0
  • Cook talks slumping iPhone sales in interview, to reportedly hold 'all-hands' meeting with...

    From 2011 through 2017, many so-called analysts who didn't understand Apple, said that Apple stopped innovating, and the other players in the market caught up. They said Apple could not innovate without Steve Jobs. 

    It turns out that you can innovate without Steve Jobs (look at WayTools, Telsa, and other companies). You just really have to want it. Referring to what Steve said, R&D isn't about writing a cheque. You have to think on behalf of your customers' best interests, all-round, including fairness and providing value. 

    When the original iPhone dropped in price the year after it was released, Apple issued a $100 refund for every single early buyer. Apple took a small hit on the bottom line to be loyal to their customers. And that's why the Apple brand name was so strong in 2012. 

    2018 rolls around and finally the so-called analysts are right. Apple now increments but charges category-defining prices. iPad Pro 12.9" (512GB LTE) went from CA$1606 (2017) to over CA$1900 (2018). The damn pencil went up by 50%!!! Same goes for iPhone, Mac mini, MacBook Air - just about everything Apple makes. 

    If it was $1000 or more, it went up by $200-$300. Overnight. If it was under $1000, it went up to nearly $1000. Base model Mac mini went from $499 to $799. And all they did was put back the quad core that the 2012 model had that they took out in 2014. And the audacity to shout on stage at the keynote, "more cores is faster." No shit? 

    Is it a mystery that people aren't buying? 

    Steve used to say that Apple's customers were smart. If you want to lead, you got to make things for the leaders. i.e. artists, musicians, directors, and other professionals who do amazing things with their systems and push the boundaries. 

    But instead Apple is fooling itself thinking it can chase easy money. They send demo units to "influencers" i.e. people with YouTube channels. They hope that Apple customers are truly sheeple who just buy what "influencers" show off. 

    Apple is failing because it is pandering to fools, hoping that "a fool and their money soon part." They forgot their customers are artists, creatives, directors, engineers, authors, teachers, scientists. 

    We can easily see Intel is polishing a turd when they are at 14nm+++ (i.e. didn't do 10, 10+, and certainly didn't do 7). Nobody is going to buy their crap. Everyone is pissed off at Intel, to the point they are booting up their own silicon teams. 

    Perhaps the only area that Apple is leading in right now - is the A-series silicon. They used to lead in development tools too, like Swift. But hey, they pissed off the people who made Swift so they went elsewhere. 
    ElCapitanuktechieMisterKitmike54propodkiehtanapple4lizifetailstooshark5150decoderring
  • Benchmarked: Razer Blade Stealth versus 13-inch MacBook Pro with function keys

    That is, comparing price matched hardware, the Apple hardware will ALWAYS lose.   

    The Apple product can't win because:   A very big chunk of the price of an iOS or MacOS device is the cost of the operating system, ancillary software and Apple's ecosystem -- which I would guess is probably about a third of the total cost of the machine.  (Other hardware vendors buy a far cheaper OS and simply don't have an ecosystem to speak of).
    I don’t agree. A few years back, the MacBook Air was $100 cheaper than the closest PC knockoff - an Asus Zen book. The MacBook Air had only 2 USB 3 ports compared to the 4 on the Zen book, but as I told my friend - you didn’t need 4. The trackpad really works. The Bluetooth really works - so no silly corded mouse or silly mouse dongle. 

    But that was when Apple was making money like crazy even when trying to court PC switchers. 

    Now they price things like they don’t care. 

    Also, a good OS doesn’t have to be the most expensive - sometimes it’s actually the cheapest. The reason being if it is good - it will sell in volume, and it’s cost will be amortized over more units. If it is good, it is structured well and easy to maintain, so the cost of finding and fixing bugs is less. 

    Example of a really good OS dominating and being the cheapest? In server environments: Linux. 

    Yes, Linux is darn near unusable for common folk. But macOS is probably the largest Unix distribution on PCs. Surely they have enough users to amortize the cost? 

    AppleInsider picked an aluminum unibody PC with a comparable display, so you can’t accuse the compared item of “cheaping out” on those major components. Yet the Razor gives much better performance in every test, and costs $400 less. And Razor isn’t a charity - they need to make profit to stay alive - probably more than Apple needs to. 
    williamlondonelijahg