I'll hold onto anything you like at a temperature of 116F for as
long as you like.
Third degree burns in just a few minutes at that bath water
temperature.
https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/
Fahrenheit vs Celius, idiot.
Self-proclaimed
I'll hold onto anything you like at a temperature of 116F for as long as
you like.
Third degree burns in just a few minutes at that bath water temperature. https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/
These uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks are fantastically _desperate_ to excuse Apple's incompetence in designing the too-hot-to-hold iPhone 15.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
I'll hold onto anything you like at a temperature of 116F for as
long as you like.
Third degree burns in just a few minutes at that bath water
temperature.
https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/
Fahrenheit vs Celius, idiot.
Self-proclaimed
Jesus Christ. These iKooks are ignorant. Uneducated. And of really low IQ!
*That's _why_ they're iKooks* after all...
These ignorant uneducated low-IQ iKooks like Jolly Roger & Alan Baker
clearly don't even know the difference between the Celsius and Fahrenheit temperature scales!
Every single statement from these ignorant low-IQ uneducated iKooks reeks
of their utter incomprehension of how blazingly hot 116C would be!
Even 116F bath water would give people third-degree burns in minutes.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
I'll hold onto anything you like at a temperature of 116F for as
long as you like.
Third degree burns in just a few minutes at that bath water
temperature.
https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/
Fahrenheit vs Celius, idiot.
Self-proclaimed
Jesus Christ. These iKooks are ignorant. Uneducated. And of really low IQ!
*That's _why_ they're iKooks* after all...
These ignorant uneducated low-IQ iKooks like Jolly Roger & Alan Baker
clearly don't even know the difference between the Celsius and Fahrenheit temperature scales!
Every single statement from these ignorant low-IQ uneducated iKooks reeks
of their utter incomprehension of how blazingly hot 116C would be!
Even 116F bath water would give people third-degree burns in minutes.
These uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks are fantastically _desperate_ to excuse Apple's incompetence in designing the too-hot-to-hold iPhone 15.
Quellen <quellennospam@gmx.com> wrote
I'll hold onto anything you like at a temperature of 116F for as long as >>> you like.
Third degree burns in just a few minutes at that bath water temperature.
https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/
It's never Apple's fault - it's always the consumer's fault with Apple.
*You're holding it wrong.*
On 9/27/23 02:35, Wally J wrote:
These uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks are fantastically _desperate_ to
excuse Apple's incompetence in designing the too-hot-to-hold iPhone 15.
*how* did they manage to make it less safe??
The maximum temperature for bathing
On 2023-09-27 07:24, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/27/23 02:35, Wally J wrote:
These uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks are fantastically _desperate_ to >>> excuse Apple's incompetence in designing the too-hot-to-hold iPhone 15.
*how* did they manage to make it less safe??
Before you ask "how"...
...ask "if".
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
On 9/27/23 10:48, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-27 07:24, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/27/23 02:35, Wally J wrote:
These uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks are fantastically*how* did they manage to make it less safe??
_desperate_ to
excuse Apple's incompetence in designing the too-hot-to-hold iPhone 15. >>>
Before you ask "how"...
...ask "if".
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable! I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
Still not super comfortable! I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
The maximum temperature for bathing
You iKooks, Jolly Roger (and Alan Baker) don't own adult cognitive skills.
"Most experts and doctors are suggesting to adjust on your water
heater the max temperature in your home to 120 °F (48.8 °C)
to prevent injury."
<https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/>
They're talking about the water heater set temperature (which will only
cool down from there) but more importantly, look at the chart for
3rd-degree burns, JR. Yes. Look. Read it. Understand it. Cognate it.
<https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Temperature-Range-For-Staying-In-A-Bath-Or-Shower.png>
You'll notice they're talking also about showering - where the hot water
from the hot-water heater is mixed with the cold water from the source.
"According to dermatologists, the hottest safe water temperature for a
shower should not go higher than 109 °F (43 oC). Of course, when it comes
to small children who are much more sensitive to heat, they must use lower temperatures below 100 °F."
And that still doesn't excuse the fact that you and Alan Baker have never heard of the Celsius temperature scale where 116C is hotter than 116F.
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116F (46.7C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable! I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
As to the possible workarounds, they could change the setting at which
the processor throttles but that would affect performance.
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable! I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
Hi candycanearter07,
Certainly 116F is too hot for a phone - which is the main point that the religious zealot iKooks are _desperate_ to reflect attention from.
You have to comprehend that the low-IQ ignorant uneducated iKooks are _desperate_ to claim that what's happening with the iPhone 15, isn't.
Keep that in mind - because these religious zealots are _afraid_ of the
fact that Apple clearly screwed up (again!) in overall iPhone design.
This time in the heat dissipation calculations.
(You'd think Apple would have tested the iPhone at least once; but this
isn't the first time Apple easily proved to never have tested the iPhone.)
Nonetheless... let's play the game the ignorant low-IQ uneducated iKooks
want us to play which is to _distract_ from the topic of Apple being incompetent in design (again!)... this time with the iPhone 15.
While it's obvious that neither Alan Baker nor Jolly Roger has a clue that the Celsius system exists - nor that at 116C - it would be blazingly hot...
First off... I have a hot tub and I _know_ what 104F feels like.
Do you?
Secondly... the low-IQ ignorant uneducated iKooks don't know the difference between a setting for the output of the hot-water heater and the water temperature at the tap.
<https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/>
Thirdly... there are huge differences between a bath & a shower given the inherent mechanism of both is completely different.
But most importantly, this chart shows third-degree burns which is the
chart I was quoting and which the ignorant low-IQ uneducated iKooks are desperate to deflect claiming _they_ can handle water at 116C with aplomb.
<https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Temperature-Range-For-Staying-In-A-Bath-Or-Shower.png>
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
As to the possible workarounds, they could change the setting at which
the processor throttles but that would affect performance.
It wouldn't be the first time that the "vaunted" speed of the bionic CPUs only was attainable in the lab but not any semblance of real-world usage.
As has always been the case, Apple is incompetent at design but extremely good at marketing - which is what Apple & Big Tobacco have in common.
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116F (46.7C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable!
I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:03:56 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable!
You're holding it wrong.
I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/
Apple's Response to iPhone 4 Antenna Problem: You're Holding It Wrong
There's an old joke about a man who visits a doctor, complaining that
his arm hurts whenever he moves it a certain way. The doctor's response? "Stop moving it that way." That pretty much sums up Apple's response to
the people who have complained that holding the iPhone 4 in their left
hand is wrong.
The iPhone can only be held properly in the right hand!
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable! I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
Hi candycanearter07,
While it's obvious that neither Alan Baker nor Jolly Roger has a clue that the Celsius system exists - nor that at 116C - it would be blazingly hot...
First off... I have a hot tub and I _know_ what 104F feels like.
Do you?
Secondly... the low-IQ ignorant uneducated iKooks don't know the difference between a setting for the output of the hot-water heater and the water temperature at the tap.
<https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/>
Thirdly... there are huge differences between a bath & a shower given the inherent mechanism of both is completely different.
But most importantly, this chart shows third-degree burns which is the
chart I was quoting and which the ignorant low-IQ uneducated iKooks are desperate to deflect claiming _they_ can handle water at 116C with aplomb.
<https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Temperature-Range-For-Staying-In-A-Bath-Or-Shower.png>
On 9/27/23 11:32, Wally J wrote:
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote[snip]
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable! I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
Hi candycanearter07,
While it's obvious that neither Alan Baker nor Jolly Roger has a clue
that
the Celsius system exists - nor that at 116C - it would be blazingly
hot...
It's a simple Google search..
First off... I have a hot tub and I _know_ what 104F feels like.
Do you?
Well, it was 100F where I lived last week. So kinda..?
Secondly... the low-IQ ignorant uneducated iKooks don't know the
difference
between a setting for the output of the hot-water heater and the water
temperature at the tap.
<https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/>
Thirdly... there are huge differences between a bath & a shower given the
inherent mechanism of both is completely different.
But most importantly, this chart shows third-degree burns which is the
chart I was quoting and which the ignorant low-IQ uneducated iKooks are
desperate to deflect claiming _they_ can handle water at 116C with
aplomb.
<https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Temperature-Range-For-Staying-In-A-Bath-Or-Shower.png>
I'd be surprised if someone would willingly hold their device that long.
Also YIKES that is fast past 130f.
You're holding it wrong.The National Burn Victim Foundation states that an adult can be in
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:03:56 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable!
You're holding it wrong.
I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/
Apple's Response to iPhone 4 Antenna Problem: You're Holding It Wrong
There's an old joke about a man who visits a doctor, complaining that
his arm hurts whenever he moves it a certain way. The doctor's response? "Stop moving it that way." That pretty much sums up Apple's response to
the people who have complained that holding the iPhone 4 in their left
hand is wrong.
The iPhone can only be held properly in the right hand!
I'd be surprised if someone would willingly hold their device that long.
Also YIKES that is fast past 130f.
There's an old joke about a man who visits a doctor, complaining that his
arm hurts whenever he moves it a certain way. The doctor's response? "Stop moving it that way."
Quellen <quellennospam@gmx.com> wrote
I'll hold onto anything you like at a temperature of 116F for as long as >>> you like.
Third degree burns in just a few minutes at that bath water temperature.
https://www.thehomehacksdiy.com/what-is-a-safe-bath-water-temperature-dermatologist-explain/
It's never Apple's fault - it's always the consumer's fault with Apple.
*You're holding it wrong.*
Even 116F bath water would give people third-degree burns in minutes.
On Sep 27, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <uf0m0e$2faov$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
Even 116F bath water would give people third-degree burns in minutes.
It would take 45 minutes to get a 3rd degree burn at 116ºF [1].
Even 116F bath water would give people third-degree burns in minutes.
It would take 45 minutes to get a 3rd degree burn at 116F [1].
[1] https://antiscald.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=1
5
On 2023-09-27 09:03, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/27/23 10:48, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-27 07:24, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/27/23 02:35, Wally J wrote:
These uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks are fantastically
_desperate_ to excuse Apple's incompetence in designing the
too-hot-to-hold iPhone 15.
*how* did they manage to make it less safe??
Before you ask "how"...
...ask "if".
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable! I wouldn't want to use something that
hot.
But you agree that your question "*how* did they manage to make it
less safe?" was complete bullshit, right?
On 9/27/2023 4:42 PM, Dorper wrote:
On Sep 27, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <uf0m0e$2faov$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
Even 116F bath water would give people third-degree burns in
minutes.
It would take 45 minutes to get a 3rd degree burn at 116ºF [1].
Apparently, some people don't understand the difference between °C and
°F.
What do _you_ think Apple will do to make its harmed customers whole again?
On 2023-09-27 12:43, Patrick wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:03:56 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:
The maximum temperature mentioned so far has been 116°F (46.7°C).
That's not hot enough to be unsafe...at all.
Still not super comfortable!
You're holding it wrong.
I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/
Apple's Response to iPhone 4 Antenna Problem: You're Holding It Wrong
There's an old joke about a man who visits a doctor, complaining that
his arm hurts whenever he moves it a certain way. The doctor's
response? "Stop moving it that way." That pretty much sums up
Apple's response to the people who have complained that holding the
iPhone 4 in their left hand is wrong. The iPhone can only be held
properly in the right hand!
I had the iPhone 4. Never had an issue with it no matter how I held
it.
Apparently, some people don't understand the difference between °C and
°F.
It's mostly just Arlen and candycanearter07.
I suspect Apple will _never_ do the decent thing, which is recall the
phones and then supply the damaged parties with a working iPhone 15.
Yet - Apple already played its card of _secretly_ throttling iPhones to
hide the fact that Apple is incompetent at power delivery design.
Instead of coming clean and just admitting they were incompetent in power delivery design, Apple decided to try to hide the facts - which resulted in Apply paying over a billion dollars in losing criminal and civil cases.
What will Apple do about the overheating iPhone 15?
I suspect Apple will throttle the CPU to _half_ of what it is now - just--
like they did with they tried to hide their poor power delivery design.
What do _you_ think Apple will do to make its harmed customers whole again?
What do _you_ think Apple will do to make its harmed customers whole again?
It could be worse, you could buy an MSI and have it fail after 3 years because of poorer thermal design than a late 2010s Intel macbook.
On 9/27/23 21:42, Jolly Roger wrote:
Apparently, some people don't understand the difference between C and
F.
It's mostly just Arlen and candycanearter07.
I know the difference...
However it is true that it would be uncomfortable to hold a device
operating at 116F for very long and some 15 Pro owners have seen 117F.
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
On 9/27/23 21:42, Jolly Roger wrote:
Apparently, some people don't understand the difference between °C and >>>> °F.
It's mostly just Arlen and candycanearter07.
I know the difference...
Fact is...
1. The uneducated low-IQ ignorant child-like iKooks brought up Celsius.
2. It's they who don't know the difference - not the actual adults here.
2. Because these religious iKooks are _desperate_ to deflect the subject.
This thread is not about bath water - no matter how _desperately_ the uneducated low-IQ child-like ignorant religious iKooks want to make it so.
*The subject is what will Apple do to make iPhone 15 customers whole?*
*Specifically, will Apple (finally) do the decent thing this time?*
a. Recall.
b. Fix.
c. Replace.
Doing the decent thing (for once) has got to be cheaper than the billion dollars it cost Apple last time losing many civil & criminal court cases.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:03:56 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:
You're holding it wrong.
I wouldn't want to use something that hot.
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/
Apple's Response to iPhone 4 Antenna Problem: You're Holding It Wrong
There's an old joke about a man who visits a doctor, complaining that
his arm hurts whenever he moves it a certain way. The doctor's response? "Stop moving it that way." That pretty much sums up Apple's response to
the people who have complained that holding the iPhone 4 in their left
hand is wrong.
The iPhone can only be held properly in the right hand!
I know the difference..
On 9/27/2023 8:39 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
<snip>
I know the difference..
Okay, then just Arlen. At 116°F you're not going to hold the device in
your hand for very long, since it's uncomfortable, but it's not going
to give you even a first degree burn.
On 28/9/2023, sms wrote:
However it is true that it would be uncomfortable to hold a device
operating at 116F for very long and some 15 Pro owners have seen
117F.
Do you think those temperatures will negatively affect the battery?
On Sep 27, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <uf2h2d$2mu2q$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
What do _you_ think Apple will do to make its harmed customers whole again?
It could be worse, you could buy an MSI and have it fail after 3 years because of poorer thermal design than a late 2010s Intel macbook.
On 9/27/23 21:42, Jolly Roger wrote:
Apparently, some people don't understand the difference between °C and
°F.
It's mostly just Arlen and candycanearter07.
I know the difference..
And Arlen *desperately* wants us all to ignore the plethora of reports
from iPhone 15 users who say they have no heat issues at all.
Do you think those temperatures will negatively affect the battery?
Do you think all (or even most) iPhone 15s exhibit these temperatures on
a regular basis?
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
And Arlen *desperately* wants us all to ignore the plethora of reportsWhat difference does it make if most people haven’t reported overheating problems? Does it make those who reported it less important or unworthy? If you were one of the people with overheating problems on your brand new
from iPhone 15 users who say they have no heat issues at all.
iPhone 15 you wouldn’t like it either.
What difference does it make if most people havent reported overheating
problems? Does it make those who reported it less important or unworthy? If >> you were one of the people with overheating problems on your brand new
iPhone 15 you wouldnt like it either.
This should be (I believe it is) covered by the manufacturer's warranty. If I ran into this issue I would return the device and request either a replacement or a refund.
On Sep 28, 2023, badgolferman wrote
(in article <uf4oam$3rnr1$1@dont-email.me>):
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
And Arlen *desperately* wants us all to ignore the plethora of
reports from iPhone 15 users who say they have no heat issues at
all.
What difference does it make if most people haven’t reported
overheating problems? Does it make those who reported it less
important or unworthy? If you were one of the people with overheating
problems on your brand new iPhone 15 you wouldn’t like it either.
This should be (I believe it is) covered by the manufacturer's
warranty. If I ran into this issue I would return the device and
request either a replacement or a refund.
Maybe, maybe not. "It occasionally gets warm while playing games" isn't
a defect where I come from.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
And Arlen *desperately* wants us all to ignore the plethora of
reports from iPhone 15 users who say they have no heat issues at all.
What difference does it make if most people haven’t reported
overheating problems?
Does it make those who reported it less important or unworthy?
If you were one of the people with overheating problems on your brand
new iPhone 15 you wouldn’t like it either.
Maybe, maybe not. "It occasionally gets warm while playing games" isn't
a defect where I come from.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote(https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
Maybe, maybe not. "It occasionally gets warm while playing games" isn't
a defect where I come from.
Are you uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks seriously claiming that all these many well-respected magazine and testing editors are liars, Jolly Roger?
You're _that desperate_ to brazenly deny all truth about Apple products JR?
*You're _that_ fearful_ of the facts about Apple*, JR?
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F – though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games).
Does it make those who reported it less important or unworthy?
The only person trying to make that disingenuous claim is *you*.
On Sep 28, 2023, Wally J wrote
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F – though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games).(https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
And Arlen *desperately* wants us all to ignore the plethora of reports
from iPhone 15 users who say they have no heat issues at all.
What difference does it make if most people haven’t reported overheating problems? Does it make those who reported it less important or unworthy? If you were one of the people with overheating problems on your brand new
iPhone 15 you wouldn’t like it either.
The difference of course is that ...
1. If everyone or even the majority of people are having
heat issues, then it's a design flaw, which seems unlikely
since such a simple thing would be picked up during the
testing (and despite the anti-Apple nutters' claims, Apple
does test their products before public release).
2. If only a few or minority of people are reporting heat
issues, then the problem is more likely either with their
particular device or the way they use it / what they use it
for, and everyone else's phone is still fine. (A mobile phone
is not meant to be a super computer!)
Pretty much every electronic device under the sign has heat issues to
some degree when under constant or high demand usage - electrical
current produces heat. Try touching the charger brick of any phone and
it wil be getting hot when charging.
On Sep 28, 2023, badgolferman wrote
(in article <uf4oam$3rnr1$1@dont-email.me>):
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
And Arlen *desperately* wants us all to ignore the plethora of reports
from iPhone 15 users who say they have no heat issues at all.
What difference does it make if most people haven’t reported overheating >> problems? Does it make those who reported it less important or
unworthy? If
you were one of the people with overheating problems on your brand new
iPhone 15 you wouldn’t like it either.
The difference of course is that ...
1. If everyone or even the majority of people are having
heat issues, then it's a design flaw, which seems unlikely
since such a simple thing would be picked up during the
testing (and despite the anti-Apple nutters' claims, Apple
does test their products before public release).
or
2. If only a few or minority of people are reporting heat
issues, then the problem is more likely either with their
particular device or the way they use it / what they use it
for, and everyone else's phone is still fine. (A mobile phone
is not meant to be a super computer!)
Pretty much every electronic device under the sign has heat issues to
some degree when under constant or high demand usage - electrical
current produces heat. Try touching the charger brick of any phone and
it wil be getting hot when charging.
The people reporting the iPhone 15 design flaws are well respected editors. https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/
Widespread iPhone 15 overheating reports, with temperatures as high as 116F
Read the article. Their own employees reported those problems, YourName.
Nobody is talking about "normal heat"; they're talking abnormal heat.
*Only an iKook would declare abnormal heat is normal when it's an iPhone.*
Maybe, maybe not. "It occasionally gets warm while playing games" isn't
a defect where I come from.
Are you uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks seriously claiming that all these >> many well-respected magazine and testing editors are liars, Jolly Roger?
You're _that desperate_ to brazenly deny all truth about Apple products JR? >>
*You're _that_ fearful_ of the facts about Apple*, JR?
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F V though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games).(https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I fully and completely understand your argument because it has been Apple's argument from day one that all Apple design flaws are the consumers' fault.
It's teh consumer's fault that Apple advertised this iPhone as a gamers' phone, and it's the consumers fault that this iPhone failed at that task.
It's _always_ consumers' fault whenever Apple products have design flaws.
The people reporting the iPhone 15 design flaws are well respected editors. >> https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/
Widespread iPhone 15 overheating reports, with temperatures as high as 116F >>
Read the article. Their own employees reported those problems, YourName.
I can't find where in the article they mention Apple employee reports.
May have missed it somewhere, though..
Nobody is talking about "normal heat"; they're talking abnormal heat.
*Only an iKook would declare abnormal heat is normal when it's an iPhone.*
Yeah, if its bad enough to be reported something is wrong.
On 9/29/23 00:07, Dorper wrote:
On Sep 28, 2023, Wally J wrote
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F – though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games).(https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I don't think that charging your phone should make it that hot.
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
The people reporting the iPhone 15 design flaws are well respected editors. >>> https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/
Widespread iPhone 15 overheating reports, with temperatures as high as 116F >>>
Read the article. Their own employees reported those problems, YourName.
I can't find where in the article they mention Apple employee reports.
May have missed it somewhere, though..
You jumped to conclusion nobody said so I should have been clearer,
although you would have understood had you read the article, right?
<https://twitter.com/ianzelbo/status/1706188289827381490?s=20>
HINT: The employees were 9to5mac employees, specifically Ian Zelbo.
<https://twitter.com/ianzelbo/status/1706188289827381490?s=20>
"My iPhone 15 Pro Max is almost too hot to touch
while fast charging right now. I thought people were
exaggerating, but no, this isn’t great.
Interestingly if I’m holding it, the left side rail and a
little of the back on the left side is what is the hottest '
by far… lines up perfectly with the logic board."
Nobody is talking about "normal heat"; they're talking abnormal heat.
*Only an iKook would declare abnormal heat is normal when it's an iPhone.*
Yeah, if its bad enough to be reported something is wrong.
Note that it's "almost too hot to touch", which is pretty bad.
The excuse by the iKooks seems to be it's the consumers' fault that the iPhone 15 is so hot during normal things like charging that they can barely touch it.
And, the other iKooks' argument is that all facts about Apple are lies (simply because the iKooks _hate_ these well-reported design flaws).
In addition, the iKooks claim Apple couldn't possibly have made a mistake when they tested the iPhone 15 - which astounds me the most because Apple just paid over a billion dollars to settle the many criminal and civil
cases arising over the fact Apple forgot to test earlier iPhones, right?
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F V >>> > though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games). >>> (https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I don't think that charging your phone should make it that hot.
JR seems to have been referring to the benchmark heat issue in that post.
In addition, the iKooks claim Apple couldn't possibly have made a mistake
when they tested the iPhone 15 - which astounds me the most because Apple
just paid over a billion dollars to settle the many criminal and civil
cases arising over the fact Apple forgot to test earlier iPhones, right?
They don't learn :(
Apple has _never_ sufficiently tested any product that they produce.
You - the consumer. You're the tester. Not Apple.
Just look at how atrocious Apple's QA is in that they release the same
bugs, in subsequent releases - _after_ fixing them the first time!!!!!
That's how atrocious Apple's testing is.
It doesn't exist.
It's no longer shocking the iKooks are oblivious to these known facts.
On Sep 28, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
(in article <uf5ok9$4kce$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/23 00:07, Dorper wrote:
On Sep 28, 2023, Wally J wrote
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F – >> > > though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games). >> > (https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I don't think that charging your phone should make it that hot.
JR seems to have been referring to the benchmark heat issue in that post.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Does it make those who reported it less important or unworthy?
The only person trying to make that disingenuous claim is *you*.
Notice the ignorant low-IQ uneducated fear-filled iKooks have just
called the editors of 9to5mac.com liars
low-IQ
uneducated
ignorant
Classic.
On 9/29/2023 2:32 AM, Dorper wrote:
(https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is
116F V though this was admittedly during demanding use
(benchmarks and games).
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I don't think that charging your phone should make it that hot.
JR seems to have been referring to the benchmark heat issue in that
post.
The nine-to-five-mac article was talking about overheating while
charging.
Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote
(https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)Maybe, maybe not. "It occasionally gets warm while playing games"
isn't a defect where I come from.
Are you uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks seriously claiming that
all these many well-respected magazine and testing editors are
liars, Jolly Roger?
You're _that desperate_ to brazenly deny all truth about Apple
products JR?
*You're _that_ fearful_ of the facts about Apple*, JR?
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F
¡V though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and
games).
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I fully and completely understand your argument because it has been
Apple's argument from day one that all Apple design flaws are the
consumers' fault.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Does it make those who reported it less important or unworthy?
The only person trying to make that disingenuous claim is *you*.
Notice the ignorant low-IQ uneducated fear-filled iKooks have just called
the editors of 9to5mac.com liars - since they documented the overheating.
On 9/29/2023 2:32 AM, Dorper wrote:
In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F �V(https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games).
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I don't think that charging your phone should make it that hot.
JR seems to have been referring to the benchmark heat issue in that post.
The nine-to-five-mac article was talking about overheating while charging.
On Sep 29, 2023, Bradley wrote
(in article <uf65js$74ol$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/2023 2:32 AM, Dorper wrote:
The nine-to-five-mac article was talking about overheating while charging.In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F �V
though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games). >>>>> (https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I don't think that charging your phone should make it that hot.
JR seems to have been referring to the benchmark heat issue in that post. >>
It talked about both, actually. A two part article.
On Sep 29, 2023, Bradley wrote
(in article <uf65js$74ol$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/2023 2:32 AM, Dorper wrote:
The nine-to-five-mac article was talking about overheating while charging.In his tests, he showed temperatures as high as 46.7C, which is 116F �V
though this was admittedly during demanding use (benchmarks and games). >>>>>> (https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/26/iphone-15-overheating/)
What part of DURING DEMANDING USE do you not understand?
I don't think that charging your phone should make it that hot.
JR seems to have been referring to the benchmark heat issue in that post. >>
It talked about both, actually. A two part article.
On 9/29/23 04:43, Wally J wrote:
Apple has _never_ sufficiently tested any product that they produce.
You - the consumer. You're the tester. Not Apple.
Just look at how atrocious Apple's QA is in that they release the same
bugs, in subsequent releases - _after_ fixing them the first time!!!!!
That's how atrocious Apple's testing is.
It doesn't exist.
It's no longer shocking the iKooks are oblivious to these known facts.
Probably saves a ton of money to just push stuff out fast and use
customers for unpaid labor. Until the lawsuits
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Maybe, maybe not. "It occasionally gets warm while playing games" isn't
a defect where I come from.
Are you uneducated low-IQ ignorant iKooks seriously claiming that all these many well-respected magazine and testing editors are liars, Jolly Roger?
You're _that desperate_ to brazenly deny all truth about Apple products JR?
*You're _that_ fearful_ of the facts about Apple*, JR?
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was going
to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they did.
Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1 never gets
warmer than 33c (I checked).
On 2023-09-29, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1
never gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling.
You're assuming (without evidence) that this is a hardware issue. I've
seen owners of other models reporting that after upgrading to iOS 17
their devices got hot too. I've also seen widely varying reports of
what devices are doing during the heat generation. Some report it
while doing resource-intensive operations, and other while relatively
idle. So it's a little early to make such assumptions. For all we know
this is simply a software defect that will be fixed in a future
update.
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1 never
gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling. <https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-vapor-chamber-cooling-smartphones-tested-explained/>.
For Snapdragon SOCs and Samsung SOCs there is really no choice, they
generate too much heat to use just heat pipes because the 5G modem is integrated.
For the Bionic chips, Apple was able to avoid the expense and the space needed by vapor chamber cooling because the modem is a separate device
but the Bionic chips are getting more complex, adding more transistors
and increasing the amount of heat generated.
Eventually, Apple will integrate their own 5G modem into the Bionic and
then they'll likely be forced to use vapor chamber cooling but that
likely won't happen until the iPhone 19 or 20 depending on how the modem development goes. They'll likely first go with a separate modem chip in
the 17 and 18 before integrating it into the Bionic.
Initially, Kuo believed that the iPhone 14 Pro would use vapor chamber cooling but it did not. The issue with vapor chamber cooling is that it
could add maybe 0.2-0.3mm to the thickness of the phone. The 15 Pro
actually went down in thickness by 0.1mm. OTOH, Would any user would be
upset about a fraction of a mm increase in thickness?
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1 never
gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling.
On 2023-09-29 7:19 p.m., sms wrote:
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1 never
gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling.
<https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-vapor-chamber-cooling-smartphones-tested-explained/>.
For Snapdragon SOCs and Samsung SOCs there is really no choice, they
generate too much heat to use just heat pipes because the 5G modem is
integrated.
For the Bionic chips, Apple was able to avoid the expense and the
space needed by vapor chamber cooling because the modem is a separate
device but the Bionic chips are getting more complex, adding more
transistors and increasing the amount of heat generated.
Eventually, Apple will integrate their own 5G modem into the Bionic
and then they'll likely be forced to use vapor chamber cooling but
that likely won't happen until the iPhone 19 or 20 depending on how
the modem development goes. They'll likely first go with a separate
modem chip in the 17 and 18 before integrating it into the Bionic.
Initially, Kuo believed that the iPhone 14 Pro would use vapor chamber
cooling but it did not. The issue with vapor chamber cooling is that
it could add maybe 0.2-0.3mm to the thickness of the phone. The 15 Pro
actually went down in thickness by 0.1mm. OTOH, Would any user would
be upset about a fraction of a mm increase in thickness?
I love Apple's newer devices but there is no denying that style has a
lot to do with the product they're selling (despite the fact that the
MacBook Air 15 is butt ugly). As such, the extra fraction of a mm in thickness would likely bother the people who don't know a thing about
the internals, but want their device to be the bee's knees in terms of
looks. It's the price Apple to pay for insisting on attracting both
computer users and idiots who only buy technology to be noticed.
On 2023-09-29, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1 never
gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling.
You're assuming (without evidence) that this is a hardware issue. I've
seen owners of other models reporting that after upgrading to iOS 17
their devices got hot too. I've also seen widely varying reports of what devices are doing during the heat generation. Some report it while doing resource-intensive operations, and other while relatively idle. So it's
a little early to make such assumptions. For all we know this is simply
a software defect that will be fixed in a future update.
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
On 2023-09-30, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-29, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1
never gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling.
You're assuming (without evidence) that this is a hardware issue. I've
seen owners of other models reporting that after upgrading to iOS 17
their devices got hot too. I've also seen widely varying reports of
what devices are doing during the heat generation. Some report it
while doing resource-intensive operations, and other while relatively
idle. So it's a little early to make such assumptions. For all we know
this is simply a software defect that will be fixed in a future
update.
"Honestly, I found major heat issues even on 12 Pro after the iOS 17
update. Sometimes my phone starts getting hot without any particular
reason" <https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k29xuf8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>
"Yeah iOS 17 might be the cause of this rather than the hardware. My 11
Pro is getting much worse battery life since iOS 16. It’s also getting hotter." <https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2a491i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>
"Agreed there is some sort of looping glitch. I setup a 15 pro max for
the so and her phone well is pretty much ok. There was some conversion
from 16 to 17 that has gone off the rails. My 14 pro is tanking bad and
it honestly started after a security update in the 16 family. So I
wonder if they have adjusted something and had unintended consequences" <https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2a87ly/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>
"Same, noticed my 14 Pro Max getting really hot and draining battery
fast when using Instagram for example, which never have been an issue on
that phone for me with iOS 16 Was also the first time I had to use
battery saving mode so for me there is something wrong since upgrading
to iOS 17. edit: maybe it could be this?: iPhone 15 Overheating? It is Instagram app for me and I have a fix for you. - YouTube" <>https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2aqc91/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
""It may not just be an iPhone 15 issue. My 14P gets blazing hot during Facetime calls. Like actually uncomfortable to touch the screen. And the battery drains about 5% every 10 minutes of call time. Started during
one of the iOS 17 betas and still hasn't been fixed. <>https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2acqyc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
"My 14 pro gets hot AF as well randomly" <https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2amor7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>
...and the list goes on...
I realize you trolls *really* want this product to be defective, but
there are lots of indications this may just be a software glitch. It may
be really convenient for you to focus only on the reports to match your
bias, but the actual adults here don't necessarily have that burning
desire and are far more interested in factual, honest discussion. 😉
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
What should matter is the performance of the phone.
Who cares what the phone looks like? It's just a rectangle.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
What should matter is the performance of the phone.
Who cares what the phone looks like? It's just a rectangle.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
On 2023-09-30, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
What should matter is the performance of the phone.
Who cares what the phone looks like? It's just a rectangle.
Explain why Apple sells more phones than any other phone company then. You've apparently lost touch with reality.
On 2023-09-30, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
What should matter is the performance of the phone.
Who cares what the phone looks like? It's just a rectangle.
Explain why Apple sells more phones than any other phone company then. You've apparently lost touch with reality.
On 9/29/23 22:00, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
What should matter is the performance of the phone.
Who cares what the phone looks like? It's just a rectangle.
Explain why Apple sells more phones than any other phone company then.
You've apparently lost touch with reality.
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
On 9/29/23 22:00, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
What should matter is the performance of the phone.
Who cares what the phone looks like? It's just a rectangle.
Explain why Apple sells more phones than any other phone company then.
You've apparently lost touch with reality.
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16
years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16
years.
<smirk>
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16 years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty
On 2023-09-29 21:18, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for
16 years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
The might see that once... ...or even twice...
...but they command fantastic loyalty.
Pointing out that the only thing selling new iphones is the brand. (andThat takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
How is that relevant?
On 9/29/23 23:20, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:18, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for
16 years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
The might see that once... ...or even twice...
...but they command fantastic loyalty.
What?
Pointing out that the only thing selling new iphones is the brand. (and camera if you really care about that)That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
How is that relevant?
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers, Thunderbolt, binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the general public.
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can'thttps://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
play any role, can it?
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can'thttps://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
play any role, can it?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/ https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can'thttps://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
play any role, can it?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/
https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html
https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
"doesn't always" is hardly sufficient.
See if you can figure out why.
On 9/29/23 23:58, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can'thttps://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
play any role, can it?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/
https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html >>> https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
"doesn't always" is hardly sufficient.
See if you can figure out why.
Consider how many controversies there are.
Consider what that says about their track record.
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers, Thunderbolt, binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the general public.
To be fair, yes.
The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just repackaged
an existing thing and made it a selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting new model" of devices.
On 9/29/23 23:58, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can't play any role, can it?https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already
-happening/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/ https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-t
he-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/in
dex.html https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-1
72000800.html
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
"doesn't always" is hardly sufficient.
See if you can figure out why.
Consider how many controversies there are.
Consider what that says about their track record.
On 2023-09-29 18:04, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-29 7:19 p.m., sms wrote:
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1 never
gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling.
<https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-vapor-chamber-cooling-smartphones-tested-explained/>.
For Snapdragon SOCs and Samsung SOCs there is really no choice, they
generate too much heat to use just heat pipes because the 5G modem is
integrated.
For the Bionic chips, Apple was able to avoid the expense and the
space needed by vapor chamber cooling because the modem is a separate
device but the Bionic chips are getting more complex, adding more
transistors and increasing the amount of heat generated.
Eventually, Apple will integrate their own 5G modem into the Bionic
and then they'll likely be forced to use vapor chamber cooling but
that likely won't happen until the iPhone 19 or 20 depending on how
the modem development goes. They'll likely first go with a separate
modem chip in the 17 and 18 before integrating it into the Bionic.
Initially, Kuo believed that the iPhone 14 Pro would use vapor
chamber cooling but it did not. The issue with vapor chamber cooling
is that it could add maybe 0.2-0.3mm to the thickness of the phone.
The 15 Pro actually went down in thickness by 0.1mm. OTOH, Would any
user would be upset about a fraction of a mm increase in thickness?
I love Apple's newer devices but there is no denying that style has a
lot to do with the product they're selling (despite the fact that the
MacBook Air 15 is butt ugly). As such, the extra fraction of a mm in
thickness would likely bother the people who don't know a thing about
the internals, but want their device to be the bee's knees in terms of
looks. It's the price Apple to pay for insisting on attracting both
computer users and idiots who only buy technology to be noticed.
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 22:00, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
What should matter is the performance of the phone.
Who cares what the phone looks like? It's just a rectangle.
Explain why Apple sells more phones than any other phone company then. >>> You've apparently lost touch with reality.
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16
years.
<smirk>
On Sep 29, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
(in article <uf87iv$fg0s$3@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16
years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers, Thunderbolt, binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the general public.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:My iPhone 13 gets hot sometimes when I’m charging her, she’s sunbathing on
On 2023-09-29, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1
never gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling.
You're assuming (without evidence) that this is a hardware issue. I've
seen owners of other models reporting that after upgrading to iOS 17
their devices got hot too. I've also seen widely varying reports of
what devices are doing during the heat generation. Some report it
while doing resource-intensive operations, and other while relatively
idle. So it's a little early to make such assumptions. For all we know
this is simply a software defect that will be fixed in a future
update.
"Honestly, I found major heat issues even on 12 Pro after the iOS 17
update. Sometimes my phone starts getting hot without any particular
reason"
<https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k29xuf8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>
"Yeah iOS 17 might be the cause of this rather than the hardware. My 11
Pro is getting much worse battery life since iOS 16. It’s also getting
hotter."
<https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2a491i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>
"Agreed there is some sort of looping glitch. I setup a 15 pro max for
the so and her phone well is pretty much ok. There was some conversion
from 16 to 17 that has gone off the rails. My 14 pro is tanking bad and
it honestly started after a security update in the 16 family. So I
wonder if they have adjusted something and had unintended consequences"
<https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2a87ly/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>
"Same, noticed my 14 Pro Max getting really hot and draining battery
fast when using Instagram for example, which never have been an issue on
that phone for me with iOS 16 Was also the first time I had to use
battery saving mode so for me there is something wrong since upgrading
to iOS 17. edit: maybe it could be this?: iPhone 15 Overheating? It is
Instagram app for me and I have a fix for you. - YouTube"
<>https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2aqc91/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
""It may not just be an iPhone 15 issue. My 14P gets blazing hot during
Facetime calls. Like actually uncomfortable to touch the screen. And the
battery drains about 5% every 10 minutes of call time. Started during
one of the iOS 17 betas and still hasn't been fixed.
<>https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2acqyc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
"My 14 pro gets hot AF as well randomly"
<https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/16slezg/comment/k2amor7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3>
...and the list goes on...
I realize you trolls *really* want this product to be defective, but
there are lots of indications this may just be a software glitch. It may
be really convenient for you to focus only on the reports to match your
bias, but the actual adults here don't necessarily have that burning
desire and are far more interested in factual, honest discussion. 😉
my car seat, or wearing that negligee I bought for special occasions.
I guess I’ll skip iPhone 15 since unlucky 13 is doing fine so far.
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
(Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
Thunderbolt,
binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
general public.
To be fair, yes.
The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just repackaged
an existing thing and made it a selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting new model" of devices.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone?
What should matter is the performance of the phone.
Who cares what the phone looks like? It's just a rectangle.
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16
years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty
On Sep 29, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
(in article <uf87iv$fg0s$3@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16
years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers, Thunderbolt, binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the general public.
On 9/29/23 23:58, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can'thttps://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
play any role, can it?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/
https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html >>> https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
"doesn't always" is hardly sufficient.
See if you can figure out why.
Consider how many controversies there are.
Consider what that says about their track record.
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
(Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
Thunderbolt,
binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
general public.
To be fair, yes.
The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just repackaged
an existing thing and made it a selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting new model" of devices.
I got my own iPhone 13 with the intention of holding onto it for at
least four years. Two more to go. It's done a wonderful job so far, but
ithas a lot of trouble with Bluetooth in the car. Occasional restarts of
the device are necessary. It seems that this has already been widely
reported without being fixed.
I have to agree with Alan here. If they focused on safety/functionality,
they would be no better off than they were in the mid-90s when they
almost went bankrupt. They need to continue standing out from the competition, and if style is all that the potential customer considers, that's fine. In my case, the company's decision to concentrate on
battery life and by extension battery longevity without compromising on performance through its investment in the ARM architecture is the
principal selling point. I see more potential from the Mx processors
than I do from the x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that
they need twice the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful
fans to get the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself
buying another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
On 2023-09-30 08:37, RabidPedagog wrote:
I got my own iPhone 13 with the intention of holding onto it for at
least four years. Two more to go. It's done a wonderful job so far,
but ithas a lot of trouble with Bluetooth in the car. Occasional
restarts of the device are necessary. It seems that this has already
been widely reported without being fixed.
Usually Bluetooth issues in cars are due to terrible Bluetooth implementations by car makers.
My iPhone 11 is fine. Good for 2 more years, I believe.
On 2023-09-30 09:05, RabidPedagog wrote:
I have to agree with Alan here. If they focused on
safety/functionality, they would be no better off than they were in
the mid-90s when they almost went bankrupt. They need to continue
standing out from the competition, and if style is all that the
potential customer considers, that's fine. In my case, the company's
decision to concentrate on
Not sure what this obsession about Apple style is about. It is one component of the their product design process. And frankly, given their cash hoard, they can spend more on that than anyone else and it's a
rounding error in accounting.
battery life and by extension battery longevity without compromising
on performance through its investment in the ARM architecture is the
principal selling point. I see more potential from the Mx processors
than I do from the x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that
they need twice the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful
fans to get the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself
buying another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
Yes indeed. The Mx line is the quiet massive innovation that intel did
not pay attention to. intel knew it was coming (by near a decade).
My i7 based 2012 iMac is still more than serviceable for most things
that I do. But for video rendering it is pretty slow. Also the WiFi hardware appears to have failed...
So waiting for the "just right" Mx Mac (Studio, mini or iMac). Great
hopes for this October... but I suspect the M3 Macs won't come out until
next year.
I see more potential from the Mx processors
than I do from the x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that
they need twice the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful
fans to get the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself
buying another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
On 2023-09-30 10:03 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-30 09:05, RabidPedagog wrote:
I have to agree with Alan here. If they focused on
safety/functionality, they would be no better off than they were in
the mid-90s when they almost went bankrupt. They need to continue
standing out from the competition, and if style is all that the
potential customer considers, that's fine. In my case, the company's
decision to concentrate on
Not sure what this obsession about Apple style is about. It is one
component of the their product design process. And frankly, given
their cash hoard, they can spend more on that than anyone else and
it's a rounding error in accounting.
I'm just pointing out that unlike the old days, the customer base for
cell phones is not aware of what's inside. They barely even care whether
the cameras are any good or if it's responsive; it's the look of it that prompts them to purchase it.
battery life and by extension battery longevity without compromising
on performance through its investment in the ARM architecture is the
principal selling point. I see more potential from the Mx processors
than I do from the x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that
they need twice the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful
fans to get the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see
myself buying another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
Yes indeed. The Mx line is the quiet massive innovation that intel
did not pay attention to. intel knew it was coming (by near a decade).
My i7 based 2012 iMac is still more than serviceable for most things
that I do. But for video rendering it is pretty slow. Also the WiFi
hardware appears to have failed...
So waiting for the "just right" Mx Mac (Studio, mini or iMac). Great
hopes for this October... but I suspect the M3 Macs won't come out
until next year.
Intel now knows that what Apple did was the right move and they are apparently going in the same direction with the future processors. On
the other hand, this is Intel we're talking about... going in what is obviously the smartest direction doesn't come naturally to them.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
On 9/29/23 22:00, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:10:26 -0700, Alan wrote:
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
Why should style matter at all for a phone? What should matter is
the performance of the phone. Who cares what the phone looks like?
It's just a rectangle.
Explain why Apple sells more phones than any other phone company
then. You've apparently lost touch with reality.
Brand. Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be
prioritized.
On 2023-09-30 01:05, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:58, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience
can't play any role, can it?
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
"doesn't always" is hardly sufficient.
See if you can figure out why.
Consider how many controversies there are. Consider what that says
about their track record.
Consider that when you're at the top of the market you have not only
more opportunities to "fail" in some area or another, but a raving
crowd of detractors all too anxious to amplify molehills into
mountains.
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
They managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as
an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
On Sep 29, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
(in article <uf87iv$fg0s$3@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16
years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers, Thunderbolt, binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the general public.
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind
of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once
this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
"Many engineering applications only develop versions that are available
on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers can access
these applications by leveraging our remote access tools." <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3% <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
On 2023-09-30 12:38 a.m., Dorper wrote:
On Sep 29, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
(in article <uf87iv$fg0s$3@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
Brand.
Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
Riiiiiiiight.
"Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16 >>>> years.
<smirk>
Yes.
People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
(Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
Thunderbolt,
binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
general public.
Fantastic post. There is absolutely no denying that this rings true.
Most PC and Android users who will point out that their devices get
certain features before iPhones do neglect to mention that they are
usually cumbersome, hidden or barely functional. When Apple decides to implement the same functionality, it is done in such a way that it
appears seamless and even the most novice of users are able to take
advantage of them right away. Also, what they implement sometimes
appears like the most obvious thing, such as the way that Mac OS now
hides every window when you click on the desktop or natural scrolling.
On 2023-09-29 10:10 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 18:04, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-29 7:19 p.m., sms wrote:
On 9/29/2023 1:44 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
I believe it, myself. The obsession with making things thinner was
going to going significant problems for cooling no matter what they
did. Still, my iPhone 13 never gets warm and my MacBook Air M1
never gets warmer than 33c (I checked).
They'll probably need to follow Samsung's lead and use vapor chamber
cooling.
<https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-vapor-chamber-cooling-smartphones-tested-explained/>.
For Snapdragon SOCs and Samsung SOCs there is really no choice, they
generate too much heat to use just heat pipes because the 5G modem
is integrated.
For the Bionic chips, Apple was able to avoid the expense and the
space needed by vapor chamber cooling because the modem is a
separate device but the Bionic chips are getting more complex,
adding more transistors and increasing the amount of heat generated.
Eventually, Apple will integrate their own 5G modem into the Bionic
and then they'll likely be forced to use vapor chamber cooling but
that likely won't happen until the iPhone 19 or 20 depending on how
the modem development goes. They'll likely first go with a separate
modem chip in the 17 and 18 before integrating it into the Bionic.
Initially, Kuo believed that the iPhone 14 Pro would use vapor
chamber cooling but it did not. The issue with vapor chamber cooling
is that it could add maybe 0.2-0.3mm to the thickness of the phone.
The 15 Pro actually went down in thickness by 0.1mm. OTOH, Would any
user would be upset about a fraction of a mm increase in thickness?
I love Apple's newer devices but there is no denying that style has a
lot to do with the product they're selling (despite the fact that the
MacBook Air 15 is butt ugly). As such, the extra fraction of a mm in
thickness would likely bother the people who don't know a thing about
the internals, but want their device to be the bee's knees in terms
of looks. It's the price Apple to pay for insisting on attracting
both computer users and idiots who only buy technology to be noticed.
Style matters in consumer products.
This is not news.
But smaller and lighter are also useful in and of themselves.
How does the iPhone 15 being thinner than a similarly-powered Android
give it any kind of additional utility?
On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
(Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
Thunderbolt,
binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
general public.
To be fair, yes.
The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just
repackaged an existing thing and made it a selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
new model" of devices.
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time, telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
They managed to
spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to USB-C into an
enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind
of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once
this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
"Many engineering applications only develop versions that are available
on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers can access
these applications by leveraging our remote access tools." <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3% <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind
of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once
this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering
software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
via remote access, is not a great solution.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
(Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
Thunderbolt,
binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the >>>> general public.
To be fair, yes. The marketing hides that they haven't made
anything NEW, just repackaged an existing thing and made it a
selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
new model" of devices.
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
that.
They managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as
an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
(Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
Thunderbolt,
binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the >>>> general public.
To be fair, yes.
The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just
repackaged an existing thing and made it a selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
new model" of devices.
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying that.
They managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as
an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable >>>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
Thunderbolt,
binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the >>>>> general public.
To be fair, yes.
The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just
repackaged an existing thing and made it a selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
new model" of devices.
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of the accessories purchased for their phones.
They managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as
an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone <https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>
On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the
amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the
same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another
PC once this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual
machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
"Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers
can access these applications by leveraging our remote access tools."
<https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
they really wanted simply because their university program required x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2 on
eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much software for the Mac as there is for the PC. Even in the early 2000s, I
was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I inquired why he finally went for
a PC, I learned that the guy loved walking into a computer store and
buying random programs, but that there was less and less for the Mac
(which was true at the time).
Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
are actually nicer.
On 2023-09-30 2:09 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 10:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice
the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a
virtual machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings): >>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
access tools."
<https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
run it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
they really wanted simply because their university program required
x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2
on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he
quickly realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just
isn't as much software for the Mac as there is for the PC. Even in
the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I
learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).
Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the
PC are actually nicer.
Yup. The early 2000s were a period of significant rebuilding for the
Mac as a consumer platform.
Remembering that Mac OS X was first released in 2001, and a lot of
software developers would have been questioning whether or not it
would be a good idea to continue developing for the new OS.
Since then, macOS has quintupled its share of the personal computer OS
market.
<https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide#monthly-200901-202309>
It's a good thing for Windows stats that there are parts of the world
where Macs aren't affordable for large swathes of the population...
<https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america#monthly-200807-202309>
...and that a lot of Windows "personal computers" are sold for
non-personal usage.
😏
I can say that Mac OS X didn't have the right kind of hardware to run it
at the time. I actually purchased an iBook G3 600 with 128MB RAM back
then. It came with Mac OS X but retained Mac OS 9.2.2 for compatibility purposes. With the default hardware, Mac OS X was unbearable. Even after maxing out the RAM to 640MB, it wasn't much better. I was actually
encouraged to just use Mac OS 9.2.2. On the G4 PowerBook I purchased to replace it (G4 1GHz 1GB RAM), it was mostly fine but nothing special. I
don't think that the operating system got the kind of hardware it
deserved until it switched to the G5 processors.
On 2023-09-30 10:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice
the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual
machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings): >>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
access tools."
<https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
they really wanted simply because their university program required
x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2
on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
software for the Mac as there is for the PC. Even in the early 2000s,
I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I learned that he was a
Mac die-hard since it was released. When I inquired why he finally
went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved walking into a computer
store and buying random programs, but that there was less and less for
the Mac (which was true at the time).
Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
are actually nicer.
Yup. The early 2000s were a period of significant rebuilding for the Mac
as a consumer platform.
Remembering that Mac OS X was first released in 2001, and a lot of
software developers would have been questioning whether or not it would
be a good idea to continue developing for the new OS.
Since then, macOS has quintupled its share of the personal computer OS market.
<https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide#monthly-200901-202309>
It's a good thing for Windows stats that there are parts of the world
where Macs aren't affordable for large swathes of the population...
<https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america#monthly-200807-202309>
...and that a lot of Windows "personal computers" are sold for
non-personal usage.
😏
On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable >>>>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
Thunderbolt,
binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to >>>>>> the
general public.
To be fair, yes.
The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just
repackaged an existing thing and made it a selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
new model" of devices.
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
the accessories purchased for their phones.
And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.
Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.
Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have significant investments in Lightning accessories.
You're the one who originally missed the point by talking about theThey managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used
as an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>
Way to miss the point.
On 2023-09-30 11:16, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 2:09 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 10:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice >>>>>> the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a
virtual machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar
warnings):
"Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
access tools."
<https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
run it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the
MacBook they really wanted simply because their university program
required x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his
MacBook Air M2 on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely
because he quickly realized that as fantastic as the machine is,
there just isn't as much software for the Mac as there is for the
PC. Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3,
and I learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When
I inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy
loved walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but
that there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time). >>>>
Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the
PC are actually nicer.
Yup. The early 2000s were a period of significant rebuilding for the
Mac as a consumer platform.
Remembering that Mac OS X was first released in 2001, and a lot of
software developers would have been questioning whether or not it
would be a good idea to continue developing for the new OS.
Since then, macOS has quintupled its share of the personal computer
OS market.
<https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide#monthly-200901-202309>
It's a good thing for Windows stats that there are parts of the world
where Macs aren't affordable for large swathes of the population...
<https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america#monthly-200807-202309>
...and that a lot of Windows "personal computers" are sold for
non-personal usage.
😏
I can say that Mac OS X didn't have the right kind of hardware to run
it at the time. I actually purchased an iBook G3 600 with 128MB RAM
back then. It came with Mac OS X but retained Mac OS 9.2.2 for
compatibility purposes. With the default hardware, Mac OS X was
unbearable. Even after maxing out the RAM to 640MB, it wasn't much
better. I was actually encouraged to just use Mac OS 9.2.2. On the G4
PowerBook I purchased to replace it (G4 1GHz 1GB RAM), it was mostly
fine but nothing special. I don't think that the operating system got
the kind of hardware it deserved until it switched to the G5 processors.
I think it was probably a combination of the early Mac OS X being far
from optimized AND better processors, but yeah.
All of it left developers hesitant to invest resources in rewriting for
Mac OS X... ...and of course that's why Apple kept the "Classic
Environment" (which also hurt performance of course) as well as the
Carbon API.
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
the accessories purchased for their phones.
Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>.
On 2023-09-30 2:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
the accessories purchased for their phones.
And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.
Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.
Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have
significant investments in Lightning accessories.
The USB-C claim of being forced.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/10/26/weve-no-choice-apple-says-iphones-will-switch-over-to-usb-c-chargers-to-comply-with-new-eu-law/?sh=1240b35cbcde>
"We've no choice."
The Apple desire to hold onto Lightning to control the sale of accessories.
<https://screenrant.com/apple-iphone-switch-lightning-usb-c-avoid-why/>
"Apple’s ‘Made For iPhone’ program is just that. A system setup to promote and sell products made are specifically made for iPhone. It is understood to be a lucrative business for the company and Kuo was quoted
as saying a switch to USB-C would be “detrimental” to Apple’s MFI business. "
On Sep 29, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
(in article <uf89pi$n7qd$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
Like them or not:
- The Notch
- Removing the headphone jack
- The reversible charging port
- Marketable wireless earbuds
- Marketable wireless trackers
- AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
- Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
- On-chip ML acceleration
- Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
(Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers, Thunderbolt, >>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
general public.
To be fair, yes.
The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just repackaged
an existing thing and made it a selling point.
Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting new
model" of devices.
All technology is built upon existing technology.
On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind of
performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once this
one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering
software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
"Many engineering applications only develop versions that are available
on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers can access
these applications by leveraging our remote access tools."
<https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as
capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
they really wanted simply because their university program required x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2 on
eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much software for the Mac as there is for the PC.
Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).
Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
are actually nicer.
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
In a VM (Parallels).
On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
In a VM (Parallels).
On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
In a VM (Parallels).
And people report it works well.
On 2023-09-30 14:00, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
run it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
In a VM (Parallels).
Yup.
So what?
On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run >>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly >>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
In a VM (Parallels).
And people report it works well.
I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run >>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly >>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
In a VM (Parallels).
And people report it works well.
I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
Pretty much even in I/O
And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the "Max" version).
On 2023-09-30 17:30, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't >>>>>>> run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly >>>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
In a VM (Parallels).
And people report it works well.
I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
Pretty much even in I/O
And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the
"Max" version).
RealView performance was not great.
Quote: "It is quite usable __ depending __ on the size of the model."
Quote:(ish - using the transcript extraction) "there can be no doubt
about the fact that running a cpu intensive piece of software like
solidworks on an m1 macbook especially the first gen laptop is far from
ideal if you consider yourself a heavy user "
Quote:(ish ...):
"and m1 ultra processors also it's
important to be aware that you will
experience some performance related
issues when running solidworks on a mac
for example occasional graphical
glitches in features such as
transparency and reality this is because
apple does not build these macs with a
graphical driver similar to the nvidia
quadro or ati firepro graphics cards
that solidwork is optimized for you may
also experience other little glitches
such as items temporarily disappearing
when you rotate zoom and pan especially
with dimension text and 3d details ..."
That said - considering the whole thing has to pass through Rosetta II
to work at all, it's pretty good.
Maybe Solid Works will take another look at Macs ...
On 2023-09-30 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-30 17:30, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and
can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
nearly
as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
That's SolidWorks fault.
But...
<https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
In a VM (Parallels).
And people report it works well.
I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
Pretty much even in I/O
And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the
"Max" version).
RealView performance was not great.
Quote: "It is quite usable __ depending __ on the size of the model."
On a far-from-fastest Mac...
Quote:(ish - using the transcript extraction) "there can be no doubt
about the fact that running a cpu intensive piece of software like
solidworks on an m1 macbook especially the first gen laptop is far
from ideal if you consider yourself a heavy user "
Exactly.
So he compared one of the fastest workstations available with 384GB of
RAM to a MacBook Pro with a first generation Mx processor.
Quote:(ish ...):
"and m1 ultra processors also it's
important to be aware that you will
experience some performance related
issues when running solidworks on a mac
for example occasional graphical
glitches in features such as
transparency and reality this is because
apple does not build these macs with a
graphical driver similar to the nvidia
quadro or ati firepro graphics cards
that solidwork is optimized for you may
also experience other little glitches
such as items temporarily disappearing
when you rotate zoom and pan especially
with dimension text and 3d details ..."
That said - considering the whole thing has to pass through Rosetta II
to work at all, it's pretty good.
Yup. Imagine if you just upgraded to the Mac Studio...
Maybe Solid Works will take another look at Macs ...
Indeed.
They're already including the Mac as an officially recognized option
with Parallels 17.1.2
<https://www.solidworks.com/support/system-requirements>
And AutoCAD isn't SolidWorks, but it's going native:
"AutoCAD for Mac 2024 and AutoCAD LT for Mac 2024 deliver incredible,
new performance improvements with the ability to run AutoCAD natively on Apple silicon," says Dania El Hassan, Director of Product Management for AutoCAD, Autodesk. "It's exciting to see how customers can now take full advantage of the latest hardware and M-series chips for faster ways to
work."
And of course, the cloud is becoming a more and more viable option:
<https://www.onshape.com/en/>
<https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/28/autocad-mac-2024-apple-silicon/>
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can't
play any role, can it?
https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/
https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html
https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can't
play any role, can it?
Let's brake this down, shall we?
https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
And Apple included a feature to let someone know if an AirTag was moving
with them.
But what you're really showing is that a useful technology can be used
in nefarious ways. That's hardly unique to Apple.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/
Seriously? 2016, and Apple didn't give the FBI the access they wanted.
https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
Yes... ...let's look:
'We don’t really think there was anything substantial to the problem,
and the iPhone 4 sold tremendously well. Customers didn’t seem to
notice, let alone mind, and Apple repeatedly pointed out that other
mobile phones suffered the same effect. The iPhone 4S did have two
antennas, mind.'
Wow, you can bend a piece of electronics. You're not seriously claiming
that no other smartphone doesn't suffer from this non-problem, are you?
Gee, MobileMe wasn't great. Oh, no!
They gave people a free album, and this is supposed to be a real problem?
Apple Maps wasn't great from the word go. Golly.
"Crackgate" is just people not treating a piece of electronics with due
care.
Sorry... ...but this is a pretty lame list.
Moving on.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
Utterly irrelevant in a discussion of how well Apple's products work for customers.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html
Dude... ...an article that starts with the Apple III? Honestly?
https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
Show me the parts of that article that are relevant to a discussion of consumer satisfaction.
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
That would be true of any large company with lots of products that has
been around for 43 years.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
the accessories purchased for their phones.
Actually, there's no evidence control has nothing to do with it. It's
just as plausible that Apple simply wanted to get full support for USB-C accessories lined up and deployed in iOS before transitioning. Keep in
mind there were a shitload of existing Lightning accessories in use that would require an adapter and potential changes to those accessories to continue working, which no doubt required careful coordination with third-party accessory makers.
Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>.
Not necessarily. That law doesn't go into effect until 2024. And there's little doubt Apple was already planning the transition of the iPhone to
USB-C long before that law was but a spark in the EU's eyes.
On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 2:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
the accessories purchased for their phones.
And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.
Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.
Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have >>> significant investments in Lightning accessories.
The USB-C claim of being forced.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/10/26/weve-no-choice-apple-says-iphones-will-switch-over-to-usb-c-chargers-to-comply-with-new-eu-law/?sh=1240b35cbcde>
"We've no choice."
The law doesn't go into effect until 2024 (the iPhone is already
released), and it's likely Apple was planning to transition the iPhone
and iPhone accessories to USB-C anyway.
The Apple desire to hold onto Lightning to control the sale of accessories. >>
<https://screenrant.com/apple-iphone-switch-lightning-usb-c-avoid-why/>
"Apple’s ‘Made For iPhone’ program is just that. A system setup to
promote and sell products made are specifically made for iPhone. It is
understood to be a lucrative business for the company and Kuo was quoted
as saying a switch to USB-C would be “detrimental” to Apple’s MFI
business. "
Yet it's a fact that Apple's MFi business represents an insignificant
portion of its overall profits. You're also purposely ignoring other
more important reasons for the iPhone transition taking longer than
other Apple products.
On 2023-09-30 3:43 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
the accessories purchased for their phones.
Actually, there's no evidence control has nothing to do with it. It's
just as plausible that Apple simply wanted to get full support for USB-C
accessories lined up and deployed in iOS before transitioning. Keep in
mind there were a shitload of existing Lightning accessories in use that
would require an adapter and potential changes to those accessories to
continue working, which no doubt required careful coordination with
third-party accessory makers.
I am very reluctant to believe that Apple actually cared that people had already purchased Lightning accessories, and didn't want to force them
to buy new ones. This is a company whose business depends on people
buying the same phone they already have but with a higher number every
year. The "theory" that they wanted to hold onto very lucrative
accessory market makes the most sense.
On 2023-09-30 17:39:44 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice
the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual
machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
"Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
access tools."
<https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
they really wanted simply because their university program required
x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2
on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
software for the Mac as there is for the PC.
The fact that there is "more" Windoze software doesn't mean anything
when 95% of it is just useless drivel. :-\
With the exception of some games and some specific / custom work or
school apps, you can get every app the average user needs on the Mac.
Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I
learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).
There were tons of "random apps" easily obtainable, often for free, on magazine cover disks / discs. I got a free copy of ColorIt! from a
magazine cover disk and I used that as a Photoshop replacement for many
years (it didn't have all the fancy "features" as Photoshop evolved, but
was much easier to use and did everything I needed it to).
Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
are actually nicer.
That's because the MacOS itself is much "nicer" to use (although Apple
keeps trying to negate that with more and more unnecessary gimmickry). Windoze is just a continual kludge and mess, not to mention all the
malware issues.
Most people use Windoze for one or two reasons:
1. Work / school forces them to use it.
2. Because Windoze PCs appear to be cheaper when
solely look at the price tag in-store.
On 2023-09-30 18:56, RabidPedagog wrote:
I am very reluctant to believe that Apple actually cared that people had
already purchased Lightning accessories, and didn't want to force them
to buy new ones. This is a company whose business depends on people
buying the same phone they already have but with a higher number every
year. The "theory" that they wanted to hold onto very lucrative
accessory market makes the most sense.
But it simply ISN'T "very lucrative" for Apple.
Take a look:
<https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2022/q4/_10-K-2022-(As-Filed).pdf>
Page 21.
"Wearables, Home and Accessories" taken TOGETHER totaled 20% of iPhone
sales in 2022...
...and that category includes:
'AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod mini and accessories.'
Do you really think that the Lightning accessories are any significant fraction of that?
On 2023-09-30 3:43 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
the accessories purchased for their phones.
Actually, there's no evidence control has nothing to do with it. It's
just as plausible that Apple simply wanted to get full support for
USB-C accessories lined up and deployed in iOS before transitioning.
Keep in mind there were a shitload of existing Lightning accessories
in use that would require an adapter and potential changes to those
accessories to continue working, which no doubt required careful
coordination with third-party accessory makers.
I am very reluctant to believe that Apple actually cared that people
had already purchased Lightning accessories
This is a company whose business depends on people buying the same
phone they already have but with a higher number every year.
The "theory" that they wanted to hold onto very lucrative accessory
market makes the most sense.
Not necessarily. That law doesn't go into effect until 2024. And there'sWere they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>. >>
little doubt Apple was already planning the transition of the iPhone to
USB-C long before that law was but a spark in the EU's eyes.
There's little doubt, but no concrete proof. Either way, the transition
is good for customers.
On 2023-10-01, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 18:56, RabidPedagog wrote:
I am very reluctant to believe that Apple actually cared that people had >>> already purchased Lightning accessories, and didn't want to force them
to buy new ones. This is a company whose business depends on people
buying the same phone they already have but with a higher number every
year. The "theory" that they wanted to hold onto very lucrative
accessory market makes the most sense.
But it simply ISN'T "very lucrative" for Apple.
Take a look:
<https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2022/q4/_10-K-2022-(As-Filed).pdf>
Page 21.
"Wearables, Home and Accessories" taken TOGETHER totaled 20% of iPhone
sales in 2022...
...and that category includes:
'AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod mini and
accessories.'
Do you really think that the Lightning accessories are any significant
fraction of that?
It's an insignificant percentage. Just look at AirPods revenue alone:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/n5m2xp/oc_airpods_revenue_vs_top_tech_companies/>
On 9/29/23 23:58, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can'thttps://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
play any role, can it?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/
https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html >>> https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
"doesn't always" is hardly sufficient.
See if you can figure out why.
Consider how many controversies there are.
Consider what that says about their track record.
On 2023-09-30 4:00 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 2:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time, >>>>>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying >>>>>> that.
Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of >>>>> the accessories purchased for their phones.
And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.
Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.
Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have >>>> significant investments in Lightning accessories.
The USB-C claim of being forced.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/10/26/weve-no-choice-apple-says-iphones-will-switch-over-to-usb-c-chargers-to-comply-with-new-eu-law/?sh=1240b35cbcde>
"We've no choice."
The law doesn't go into effect until 2024 (the iPhone is already
released), and it's likely Apple was planning to transition the iPhone
and iPhone accessories to USB-C anyway.
Likelihood isn't concrete evidence of anything. History will show that
the move to USB-C for the iPhone was forced, not Apple's own decision.
Yet it's a fact that Apple's MFi business represents an insignificant
portion of its overall profits. You're also purposely ignoring other
more important reasons for the iPhone transition taking longer than
other Apple products.
Indulge me.
Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it will
come with some rather significant compromises. For similar performance
and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose a Mac.
One issue with the Mac that has always been a limitation is the lack of
any pen input
On 2023-09-30 4:51 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2023-09-30 17:39:44 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64 >>>>> platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount >>>>> of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind of >>>>> performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once this >>>>> one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering >>>> software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings): >>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are available >>>> on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers can access >>>> these applications by leveraging our remote access tools."
<https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as >>>> low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as >>>> capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
they really wanted simply because their university program required
x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2 on
eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
software for the Mac as there is for the PC.
The fact that there is "more" Windoze software doesn't mean anything
when 95% of it is just useless drivel. :-\
With the exception of some games and some specific / custom work or
school apps, you can get every app the average user needs on the Mac.
Actually, _most_ games. My Steam and GOG libraries both suddenly became
very small when I installed the program on my MacBook. Still, if the
machine plays Civilization 6 and Borderlands 3, I'm good.
Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I
learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).
There were tons of "random apps" easily obtainable, often for free, on
magazine cover disks / discs. I got a free copy of ColorIt! from a
magazine cover disk and I used that as a Photoshop replacement for many
years (it didn't have all the fancy "features" as Photoshop evolved,
but was much easier to use and did everything I needed it to).
I don't doubt that. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some people
actually prefer to use GIMP over Photoshop.
Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
are actually nicer.
That's because the MacOS itself is much "nicer" to use (although Apple
keeps trying to negate that with more and more unnecessary gimmickry).
Windoze is just a continual kludge and mess, not to mention all the
malware issues.
Most people use Windoze for one or two reasons:
1.Work / school forces them to use it.
2.Because Windoze PCs appear to be cheaper when
solely look at the price tag in-store.
Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it will
come with some rather significant compromises. For similar performance
and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose a Mac.
On 9/30/2023 10:08 PM, Dorper wrote:
On Sep 30, 2023, sms wrote
(in article <ufaoqm$1cebh$1@dont-email.me>):
One issue with the Mac that has always been a limitation is the lack of any pen input
You can get a Wacom tablet. They work fine with OS X and they unlock the Ink
control panel.
The goal is to not be buying lots of bits and pieces of additional
hardware in order to gain functionality that should be built in.
On Sep 30, 2023, sms wrote
(in article <ufaoqm$1cebh$1@dont-email.me>):
One issue with the Mac that has always been a limitation is the lack of
any pen input
You can get a Wacom tablet. They work fine with OS X and they unlock the Ink control panel.
On Sep 30, 2023, sms wrote
(in article <ufaoqm$1cebh$1@dont-email.me>):
One issue with the Mac that has always been a limitation is the lack of
any pen input
You can get a Wacom tablet. They work fine with OS X and they unlock the Ink control panel.
On 2023-10-01 05:08:25 +0000, Dorper said:
On Sep 30, 2023, sms wrote
(in article <ufaoqm$1cebh$1@dont-email.me>):
One issue with the Mac that has always been a limitation is the lack of
any pen input
You can get a Wacom tablet. They work fine with OS X and they unlock
the Ink
control panel.
I haven't checked recently, but you used to be able to get an
tablet-external screen that you could use to draw directly onto the Mac disply with the pen (rather than indirectly like most other tablet
devices).
These days you can do that same trick using an iPad and Pencil / stylus,
and the built-in MacOS and iPadOS.
Of course, that isn't really an issue, because the vast majority ofThe ergonomics of reaching out to touch a vertical (basically vertical)
computer users do not even want to use pen-input anyway. Nor do they
want to use touch input on a desktop / laptop computer.
Unfortunately most people only see the sticker price and have no clue
about the actual tech inside, so you get the silly myth that Mac
computers are more expensive then Windows. As the old saying goes: "You
get what you pay for."
On 9/30/2023 10:08 PM, Dorper wrote:
On Sep 30, 2023, sms wrote
(in article <ufaoqm$1cebh$1@dont-email.me>):
One issue with the Mac that has always been a limitation is the lack of
any pen input
You can get a Wacom tablet. They work fine with OS X and they unlock
the Ink
control panel.
The goal is to not be buying lots of bits and pieces of additional
hardware in order to gain functionality that should be built in.
On 9/30/2023 7:07 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:
<snip>
Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it will
come with some rather significant compromises. For similar performance
and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose a Mac.
That is true. The real issue is that there is so many Windows-only applications that users have a need for. But if you're just mainly doing web-browsing, office applications, and photo and video editing, then a
Mac is fine. It's when you get into engineering, industrial, medical, business, and educational applications that you are usually forced to
run Windows. The x86 Macs were great in this regard since you got the
quality of design and construction of a Mac but could run both Windows
and OS-X.
One issue with the Mac that has always been a limitation is the lack of
any pen input (which would affect iPad sales if they added it). This is
a major issue since there are many software packages that require the
use of a stylus. My son had to run one of those in college and at the
time there was no iPad version of the app but now there is. A touch
screen has been predicted for the 2024 Macbook though not with Apple
Pencil support.
On 2023-10-01, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 18:56, RabidPedagog wrote:
I am very reluctant to believe that Apple actually cared that people had >>> already purchased Lightning accessories, and didn't want to force them
to buy new ones. This is a company whose business depends on people
buying the same phone they already have but with a higher number every
year. The "theory" that they wanted to hold onto very lucrative
accessory market makes the most sense.
But it simply ISN'T "very lucrative" for Apple.
Take a look:
<https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2022/q4/_10-K-2022-(As-Filed).pdf>
Page 21.
"Wearables, Home and Accessories" taken TOGETHER totaled 20% of iPhone
sales in 2022...
...and that category includes:
'AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod mini and
accessories.'
Do you really think that the Lightning accessories are any significant
fraction of that?
It's an insignificant percentage. Just look at AirPods revenue alone:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/n5m2xp/oc_airpods_revenue_vs_top_tech_companies/>
On 2023-10-01 02:07:30 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
On 2023-09-30 4:51 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2023-09-30 17:39:44 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice >>>>>> the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a
virtual machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings): >>>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
access tools."
<https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
run it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the
MacBook they really wanted simply because their university program
required x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his
MacBook Air M2 on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely
because he quickly realized that as fantastic as the machine is,
there just isn't as much software for the Mac as there is for the PC.
The fact that there is "more" Windoze software doesn't mean anything
when 95% of it is just useless drivel. :-\
With the exception of some games and some specific / custom work or
school apps, you can get every app the average user needs on the Mac.
Actually, _most_ games. My Steam and GOG libraries both suddenly
became very small when I installed the program on my MacBook. Still,
if the machine plays Civilization 6 and Borderlands 3, I'm good.
Steam a GOG use what is basically their own proprietary wrapper to make
old Windows (and even old Amiga, etc.) games run on the Mac and newer
Windows versions. The fact that some of their games don't have Mac compatibility is largely down to them.
Epic is similar, but even worse since they have a vendetta and current lawsuits against Apple, so seem to be purposely not making games
available for the Mac.
But there are many Mac games around. Diablo III was released only last
week.
Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it will >> come with some rather significant compromises. For similar performance
and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose a Mac.
Unfortunately most people only see the sticker price and have no clue
about the actual tech inside, so you get the silly myth that Mac
computers are more expensive then Windows. As the old saying goes: "You
get what you pay for."
.
Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it will
come with some rather significant compromises. For similar performance
and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose a Mac.
On 2023-09-30 22:07, RabidPedagog wrote:
.
Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it will
come with some rather significant compromises. For similar performance
and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose a Mac.
Until you up the memory/SSD. Apple are real pricks there.
Used to be you could buy the least spec'd model for a given processor,
and then buy memory from Crucial (et al) at a much lower cost than Apple upgrades.
Now - all soldered in place - so you need to spec high and pay the Apple ransom.
(A few people have managed to de-solder RAM and SSD's and upgrade, but
this is not for the faint of heart and can go wrong badly).
On 2023-10-01 00:56, Your Name wrote:
Unfortunately most people only see the sticker price and have no clue
about the actual tech inside, so you get the silly myth that Mac
computers are more expensive then Windows. As the old saying goes:
"You get what you pay for."
OTOH, specing a Mac these days with more memory or SSD is horrifically
more expensive than specing a PC and then adding the memory and SSD to
taste.
On 2023-10-01 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-30 22:07, RabidPedagog wrote:
.
Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it
will come with some rather significant compromises. For similar
performance and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose
a Mac.
Until you up the memory/SSD. Apple are real pricks there.
Very much agreed. Admittedly, you don't _need_ to maximize the RAM on
the Mx Macs for most people and the storage upgrades are not required if you're making use of the cloud, but those are still compromises.
Used to be you could buy the least spec'd model for a given processor,
and then buy memory from Crucial (et al) at a much lower cost than
Apple upgrades.
Now - all soldered in place - so you need to spec high and pay the
Apple ransom.
(A few people have managed to de-solder RAM and SSD's and upgrade, but
this is not for the faint of heart and can go wrong badly).
Yeah, I wouldn't touch that. I'm already dreading the possibility of replacing the battery in this Zephyrus G14 laptop of mine. When I sent
it in for repairs during the summer, I asked them to switch the battery
at the same time (which they surprisingly did for free) since it was
already at 17% wear, but if I hold onto this laptop for another two
hours, I'll inevitably have to do it myself. It wouldn't be an issue for
me on any other machine, but this one is known to cause a spark and kill
the motherboard if you make even one wrong move. Clearly, the days of
opening up your own laptop and fixing it are becoming a memory with
these thin devices.
On 2023-10-01 09:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
On 2023-10-01 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-09-30 22:07, RabidPedagog wrote:
.
Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it
will come with some rather significant compromises. For similar
performance and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose
a Mac.
Until you up the memory/SSD. Apple are real pricks there.
Very much agreed. Admittedly, you don't _need_ to maximize the RAM on
the Mx Macs for most people and the storage upgrades are not required
if you're making use of the cloud, but those are still compromises.
I'm not the power-user I used to be, but re-compiling some of my s/w
takes a while and rendering video is long on this 2012 i7 quad core.
I have a lot of apps open at a time, and I like using RAM disks for
source file (say a video in one container) for conversion to disk in the desired container. So I allocate 12 GB of RAMdisk. (The memory is not actually used until a file is written. To recover the memory, eject the drive).
I currently have 24 GB of RAM and that's fine (bought the computer with
8 GB and bought the rest 3rd party).
I keep my computers for a long time (10 years+) - so over-spec now pays
off (in theory) down the road.
New iMac|Studio|Mini will probably spec at 32 or 48 GB depending on how
they sell it.
As to SSD I'll want at least 2 TB, and I'm pondering 4TB.
So it will be a big chunk of cash.
Used to be you could buy the least spec'd model for a given
processor, and then buy memory from Crucial (et al) at a much lower
cost than Apple upgrades.
Now - all soldered in place - so you need to spec high and pay the
Apple ransom.
(A few people have managed to de-solder RAM and SSD's and upgrade,
but this is not for the faint of heart and can go wrong badly).
Yeah, I wouldn't touch that. I'm already dreading the possibility of
replacing the battery in this Zephyrus G14 laptop of mine. When I sent
it in for repairs during the summer, I asked them to switch the
battery at the same time (which they surprisingly did for free) since
it was already at 17% wear, but if I hold onto this laptop for another
two hours, I'll inevitably have to do it myself. It wouldn't be an
issue for me on any other machine, but this one is known to cause a
spark and kill the motherboard if you make even one wrong move.
Clearly, the days of opening up your own laptop and fixing it are
becoming a memory with these thin devices.
If you need a good laptop that you'll be able to upgrade in all respects
look at Framework.
I notice that a lot of the students at my workplace are already used to
the idea of touching the screen to scroll or click items on a webpage. . Anything that could easily have been done with a mouse, they will choose
to do by touching the screenHowever, I'm the kind of person who can't
stand his screen being dirty, and I'd never get used to the idea of
touching it to accomplish the simplest thing. Therefore, whether the Mac eventually gets this functionality or not makes no difference in my
life. However, I can indeed imagine it being necessary for some
software. Admittedly, I would have enjoyed using a touchscreen to draw
things in Photoshop rather than a graphics tablet back in the day when I still showed some potential as an artist.
I want to get away from something where my only options are Linux or
Windows. Both have a tendency to break on me. The Mac is looking like
the most interesting option for me as a 44-year-old who no longer gets
much of a chance to play games. We'll see what kind of brilliant device
Apple will be selling in 2026.
On 2023-10-01 09:58, RabidPedagog wrote:
I want to get away from something where my only options are Linux or
Windows. Both have a tendency to break on me. The Mac is looking like
the most interesting option for me as a 44-year-old who no longer gets
much of a chance to play games. We'll see what kind of brilliant
device Apple will be selling in 2026.
When Vista came out I was on the verge of a new computer. Vista (alas)
was broken out of the gate with many missing drivers for existing and emerging peripherals.
I experimented with Linux (Mandrake IIRC) for a month or so, but the key needs were far from met (Photoshop, Excel, Word, Powerpoint and others).
I never got much into programming under Linux though some simple
command line programs compiled and ran with minor tweaks (usually file references).
I looked up the Mac specs, was delighted that MS Office and Photoshop
were supported (and Adobe transferred the license at no charge but I had
to buy a new Office license).
And then discovered Fusion (VM) so a lot of legacy apps (and WinXP)
followed me onto the new Mac (2007). In 2014 the business went Mac in
the backoffice too with Win7 in VM to support accounting (Sage).
On 2023-10-01 10:20 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 09:58, RabidPedagog wrote:
I want to get away from something where my only options are Linux or
Windows. Both have a tendency to break on me. The Mac is looking like
the most interesting option for me as a 44-year-old who no longer
gets much of a chance to play games. We'll see what kind of brilliant
device Apple will be selling in 2026.
When Vista came out I was on the verge of a new computer. Vista
(alas) was broken out of the gate with many missing drivers for
existing and emerging peripherals.
I experimented with Linux (Mandrake IIRC) for a month or so, but the
key needs were far from met (Photoshop, Excel, Word, Powerpoint and
others). I never got much into programming under Linux though some
simple command line programs compiled and ran with minor tweaks
(usually file references).
I looked up the Mac specs, was delighted that MS Office and Photoshop
were supported (and Adobe transferred the license at no charge but I
had to buy a new Office license).
And then discovered Fusion (VM) so a lot of legacy apps (and WinXP)
followed me onto the new Mac (2007). In 2014 the business went Mac in
the backoffice too with Win7 in VM to support accounting (Sage).
I wouldn't mind losing my Office 2021 license by going to the Mac
because I get a free Office 365 license from work. The only drawback is
that it is tied to my workplace e-mail account and almost forces me to
save on the work OneDrive. However, since any work I would do in Office
would be purposed for work anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference. Migrating to the Mac is a reality for me, it would just be slightly inconvenient because of the significant investment in media. Time will
tell how much I will actually care about this.
I wouldn't mind losing my Office 2021 license by going to the Mac
because I get a free Office 365 license from work. The only drawback is
that it is tied to my workplace e-mail account and almost forces me to
save on the work OneDrive. However, since any work I would do in Office
would be purposed for work anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference. Migrating to the Mac is a reality for me, it would just be slightly inconvenient because of the significant investment in media. Time will
tell how much I will actually care about this.
I wouldn't mind losing my Office 2021 license by going to the Mac
because I get a free Office 365 license from work. The only drawback is
that it is tied to my workplace e-mail account and almost forces me to
save on the work OneDrive. However, since any work I would do in Office
would be purposed for work anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference. Migrating to the Mac is a reality for me, it would just be slightly inconvenient because of the significant investment in media. Time will
tell how much I will actually care about this.
On 2023-09-30 19:11, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2023-10-01, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 18:56, RabidPedagog wrote:
I am very reluctant to believe that Apple actually cared that
people had already purchased Lightning accessories, and didn't want
to force them to buy new ones. This is a company whose business
depends on people buying the same phone they already have but with
a higher number every year. The "theory" that they wanted to hold
onto very lucrative accessory market makes the most sense.
But it simply ISN'T "very lucrative" for Apple.
Take a look:
<https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2022/q4/_10-K-2022-(As-Filed).pdf>
Page 21.
"Wearables, Home and Accessories" taken TOGETHER totaled 20% of
iPhone sales in 2022...
...and that category includes:
'AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod mini and
accessories.'
Do you really think that the Lightning accessories are any
significant fraction of that?
It's an insignificant percentage. Just look at AirPods revenue alone:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/n5m2xp/oc_airpods_revenue_vs_top_tech_companies/>
Wow!
I mean I knew that AirPods would be a bit part of the category, but
damn.
Apple has not yet made an official
statement about this issue.
it integrates beautifully with the
rest of my Apple products (Macs, iPad and Watch) in ways other "system" vendors can only dream of.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
it integrates beautifully with the
rest of my Apple products (Macs, iPad and Watch) in ways other "system"
vendors can only dream of.
I realize Alan Browne has...
On 2023-10-01 9:20 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 00:56, Your Name wrote:
Unfortunately most people only see the sticker price and have no clue
about the actual tech inside, so you get the silly myth that Mac
computers are more expensive then Windows. As the old saying goes: "You
get what you pay for."
OTOH, specing a Mac these days with more memory or SSD is horrifically
more expensive than specing a PC and then adding the memory and SSD to
taste.
It's actually quite laughable how expensive doubling the storage and
RAM from its default configuration on a Mac is. For the price they
charge to double from 256GB to 512GB, here in Canada at least and using CanadaComputers.com as a reference, you can buy a 2TB NVMe with
excellent performance. For what Apple demands to double the RAM, you
can get get 64GB (2x32) or more. I imagine that Apple's tech is a
little faster, but it's still shocking.
Steam a GOG use what is basically their own proprietary wrapper to make
old Windows (and even old Amiga, etc.) games run on the Mac and newer
Windows versions. The fact that some of their games don't have Mac compatibility is largely down to them.
PC, with a huge game and movie library (through the Windows Store). IfWhy are you using the Windows Store?
On 9/30/23 23:56, Your Name wrote:
Steam a GOG use what is basically their own proprietary wrapper to make
old Windows (and even old Amiga, etc.) games run on the Mac and newer
Windows versions. The fact that some of their games don't have Mac
compatibility is largely down to them.
Do you mean Proton?
Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple
that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the
Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly
haunts their tortured souls.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly haunts their tortured souls.
The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly Roger. *It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*
However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than Apple. *Maybe Big Pharma comes close.*
Big Tobacco too.
They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple is.
On Oct 1, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <ufdn57$3uuq1$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple
that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the
Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly
haunts their tortured souls.
The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly Roger.
*It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*
However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than Apple. >> *Maybe Big Pharma comes close.*
Big Tobacco too.
They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple is.
"Apple is more despicable than Big Tobacco" is one hell of a take
On Oct 1, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <ufdn57$3uuq1$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple
that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the
Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly
haunts their tortured souls.
The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly Roger.
*It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*
However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than Apple. >> *Maybe Big Pharma comes close.*
Big Tobacco too.
They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple is.
"Apple is more despicable than Big Tobacco" is one hell of a take
On Oct 1, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <ufdn57$3uuq1$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for
Apple that they literally spend hours and hours every single day
trolling the Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them.
Apple very clearly haunts their tortured souls.
The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly
Roger. *It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*
However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than
Apple. *Maybe Big Pharma comes close.* Big Tobacco too.
They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple
is.
"Apple is more despicable than Big Tobacco" is one hell of a take
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 76:52:44 |
| Calls: | 6,716 |
| Files: | 12,247 |
| Messages: | 5,357,582 |
