Ah, the tired old "fragmentation" myth comes out again. It has never been satisfactorily explained to me why this is such a big deal with Android, while Windows has the same or even greater "fragmentation" yet continues to thrive.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
What is APPLE planning?
- Thread starter NetViper
- Start date
Ah, the tired old "fragmentation" myth comes out again. It has never been satisfactorily explained to me why this is such a big deal with Android, while Windows has the same or even greater "fragmentation" yet continues to thrive.
All this talk about profit vs marketshare makes me think: do iPhone owners realize where all that profit is coming from?
When an oil company makes a huge profit, there are riots calling for a decrease in gasoline prices. However, if Apple makes a huge profit, everyone just gets all rosy about it while happily handing over even more of their hard earned dollars.
Furthermore, in checking Google's balance sheets, they're not exactly hurting for money.
When an oil company makes a huge profit, there are riots calling for a decrease in gasoline prices. However, if Apple makes a huge profit, everyone just gets all rosy about it while happily handing over even more of their hard earned dollars.
Furthermore, in checking Google's balance sheets, they're not exactly hurting for money.
It's not a myth it's a reality when you only have 7% adoption rate of the latest OS. That clearly shows there is a problem. Perhaps this one reason why 30-ish percent of iPhone buyers are coming from ex-Android owners.
I suspect the adoption rate for Windows is much higher - although sometimes you need to upgrade to more capable hardware. Phones in many ways are more complex than PCs. There are cameras, radios, various hardware subsystems that make things complex and these must be managed.
Microsoft appears to be doing a much better job of controlling things on their new phones compared to Google. They are keeping on top of things and mandate certain minimum and required specs by their OEM partners. Google just effed up in this regard and now they're paying for it.
Obviously people must feel that Apple's products are worth the price for them to keep forking over money without complaining, right? :wink:
I find this debate amusing. I have no horse in either race (other than owning shares of both companies in my retirement plan), and I like both Apple and Google as a user of both companies' products. I was strictly looking at their business strategies from an investor perspective, and which business model I would prefer if it was my company. From that point of view, I would much rather be in Apple's shoes than Google. You can say that Google is taking the long road when it comes to capitalizing on Android, but that just sounds like an excuse.
While it is true that Google isn't hurting for profits, it sure isn't coming from Android. They make far more profit from iOS. I understand why Google created Android, but I would argue that Google would be just as profitable, if not more (since they wouldn't have had to spend money developing Android and buying Motorola, etc.), if they hadn't invested in Android. Google primarily makes money off search & ads, and as long as they have the best/most popular search engine, they will continue to dominate in that market. However, if for some reason their search engine goes to shit, having Android in 100% of consumer handsets will not save them as users would just switch to another search provider.
Anyway, that's just my $0.02. I love seeing competition, and am glad that Android exists and forces Apple to keep innovating.
Last edited:
Amen. Keeps everyone honest.
I am getting the new Mac Book Pro with the Retina display this August. Do you think the flash memory can be upgraded later on? I am getting the 256 gb one. The additional 256 gb upgrade for $600 is a little too much to swallow.
Mainly I am going to use it for programming, design and one or two gaming (starcraft 2 and diablo 3). I plan to bring this for my PhD study next year.
Mainly I am going to use it for programming, design and one or two gaming (starcraft 2 and diablo 3). I plan to bring this for my PhD study next year.
It's theoretically possible, but I don't think I'd recommend it.
Get an external thunderbolt or USB 3.0 drive instead if you find yourself needing more storage in the future, and only keep current projects in internal storage.
Why not recommend it? People already upgrade the SSD on their MacBooks Air on their own. Granted this a new custom SSD for this new MBP, OWC and others will soon come out with their own, less costly, SSD upgrades. The MacBook Air also uses SSD sticks like this new MBP. It's just like replacing the RAM. I took out my optical drive and put in an SSD in it's place, so now I have to drives in my 13" MBP. It's not that difficult to do.
I'll be selling my MBP pretty soon to upgrade to a new Retina MBP. I'm in film school, so it will come in handy.
Last edited:
If someone is comfortable doing this on an Air, then the Retina should be no problem. However, the specialized tools needed and sensitive electronics make me reticent to recommend it.
But then again, I don't work on my own car, either.
I already bought five Retinas for my company -- but the lead time for delivery is up to three weeks! My users are already grumbling, but I did get a pretty decent discount...
Last edited:
What specialized tools? all you need are the appropriate sized screw drivers. Maybe torx/pentalobe drivers since Apple has been using those screws lately, but other than that, it's not difficult upgrading the RAM, HDD, SSD, on MBP's. iFixit.com has plenty of tutorials on how to do it.
I'd say it's the equivalent of changing your own oil on the NSX.
Found some interesting things on cnet about the new display.
1. Applications not made for the display look bad. There are very few as of now.
2. You cannot chose your resolution. You have only 5 options.
1. Applications not made for the display look bad. There are very few as of now.
2. You cannot chose your resolution. You have only 5 options.
Apps not designed for the display don't look as sharp when side by side with apps that do. Luckily a lot of the higher DPI artwork come for "free" if you're using the standard system UI elements, so you get the benefit without having to specifically design your app for HiDPI.
What Apple has is not to be confused with arbitrary resolution independance -- that's a much harder problem to solve. Apple found that doubling the DPI made it easy for developers to take advantage of HiDPI on iOS, and they're carrying the same paradigm forward on the desktop OS now.
I miss the days when your posts were more objective and not so pro apple. They did just drop AMD from all the new laptops. Surely you cannot be too happy about that.
Not particularly thrilled with Apple's decision on MBP, no.
Not exactly sure how my comments were pro-Apple? You said that only a few apps will benefit, and I'm clarifying that by stating that many apps will automatically benefit pervasively. I've done a fair bit of research and experimentation on High DPI displays. Mostly under MacOS, but also under Windows.
I also stated that Apple took the easy way out on resolution independence by simply doubling the DPI. Not sure how that is a pro-Apple statement? Easier for developers though...
Last edited:
Also keep in mind that you always have cloud storage. iCloud, Dropbox, SkyDrive, etc. A lot of the stuff I used to keep on my local drive I archived or moved to the cloud. It really is nice to have ubiquitous access.
-Jim
yeah, looks like the RAM is soldered, so you better max out if you can afford it. SSD upgrades, we'll have to wait till 3rd party companies come out with their offerings.
Just today...
http://www.cultofmac.com/173591/googles-chrome-browser-first-to-update-to-retina-resolution/
Apparently it is pretty easy if you've followed the rules.
I don't think it's going to take long.
What will take a bit longer is for websites to catch up. Apple should be one of the first (obviously).
-j
Last edited:
Could you explain that second statement? You say you can't choose, but then you note you have five choices.
Reading this
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling
It seems like they handled resolution exactly right. Your choices represent desktop space, but the system renders things as sharp as the screen is, independent of your desktop's physical size.
Last edited:
Very Simlpy, if you are a professional you might want to look how your stuff looks on different screen resolutions. Maybe 1600x1200 or 1920x1080 - which is what nearly all the laptops use. You cannot do that on the new macbook. you are stuck to 5 resolutions.
For me, this isn't really a big deal, but others might want more control of their screen for their projects.
Of course, I run at 2560x1600 all day long and would rather have the real estate vs. double pixels at a lower res. I doubt many people can see pixels on my screen -- maybe I have a retina display already and didnt know it.
They do but its from Search and Ad Revenue. Not from Android. Points I made with evidence, yet you seem to ignore the facts.
Caustic's Theory of Business: Market Share > Profits
Yet again, the evidence points to Android but The Great Caustic says otherwise. Do you use any evidence to back up your claims?
I've come to the conclusion that no matter how much evidence is provided, you will continue to derail this thread.
It was and that's been their strategy, to copy, not to innovate. They had no strategy at the time and followed Apple's path, but believe what you might.
Delusional.
Having a tough time being wrong huh? I don't think anyone has argued that Android doesn't have market share, but you sure can't swallow the fact that not only is the iPhone the most popular phone in the US, but the world as well.
So now you can predict the future? If so, go make some money and stop wasting your time with 'Apple fanboys' on a forum. Google has failed miserably in the tablet space and will continue to do so for a while.
Well done on not refuting any of my arguments with any data or evidence to prove your point. What I find funny is whenever Apple does something great, Google fandroids will attempt to rain on the parade. This thread is about Apple, I'll stop wasting my time now with your erroneous claims.
It comes from superior supply chain mgmt, negotiating better deals with parts manufacturers, investing in R&D for raw materials & design, etc. etc. Yes the products are expensive but they are of the highest quality when compared to others.
Very Simlpy, if you are a professional you might want to look how your stuff looks on different screen resolutions. Maybe 1600x1200 or 1920x1080 - which is what nearly all the laptops use. You cannot do that on the new macbook. you are stuck to 5 resolutions.
For me, this isn't really a big deal, but others might want more control of their screen for their projects.
Of course, I run at 2560x1600 all day long and would rather have the real estate vs. double pixels at a lower res. I doubt many people can see pixels on my screen -- maybe I have a retina display already and didnt know it.
I think I understand what you are saying. First 1600x1200 is 4:3 aspect ratio. The Macbook screen is 16:10, so it won't match except by making black bars on the side, or squishing it. But there is a 1680x1050 retina setting, which seems to me like a a close equivalent 16:10 version of 1600x1200.
Similarly, 1920x1080 is 16:9, so it won't fit the screen unless you have black bars top and bottom. So instead they offer 1920x1200. Are you saying you want exactly 1920x1080 with the black bars?
Since "retina" is a function of distance and pixel size (and our visual acuity), you definitely may have a retina display on your big 2560 monitor if you are sitting the appropriate distance. My 1920x1080 24" monitor at work is definitely not retina--I can see every pixel and fonts are jaggy.
My 15" MacBook Pro with 1680x1050 is almost but not quite retinal for me, but screen text on some web pages at that point is so small that it's hard for my eyes if I am tired. I would probably choose the Retina 1440x900 most of the time for casual surfing and then switch higher if I am writing code or editing video.
I think you get my point. Like I said, its not a big deal to me. But as a "professional" product, I would want complete control. For a casual user, 5 settings would probably be fine.
I think a lot of high end games will croak at full resolution on that MBP, and if they look bad upscaled, I don't think that will be very good. But I also don't expect a lot of gamers buy a $3000 laptop.
Of course, I could be wrong on all points.
