You're painting with a wide brush if you think I'm a fanboy. Why would I need a fallback position? Why would I be arrogant? Where did I say anything about being lovey dovey?
I suggested you needed to gain some maturity and recognize that not everyone who made a different choice than you is out to attack your position, nor are they all as invested in their choices as you seem to be in yours. Does a Samsung device work well for you? Great! Does an Apple device? Great! Does Huawei? Xiaomi? Blackberry? Great! Find what works for you and enjoy it.
Apple works for me. I enjoy it, but whether they rise or fall in the market is no skin off my nose, so other than you projecting your past experiences with Apple fanboys onto me (and, to be fair, Apple fanboys are both real and really annoying), I have no idea where you're getting any of these wrong notions about me.
Really, I'd say that anyone in the chart is clearly a winner (as well as many who didn't make the chart), but who cares? If you've tied your self-worth to a particular brand's rise or fall, you need to break free from that.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple's smartphones are clearly aimed at a niche of the market, so we need companies like Samsung, Huawei, and Xiaomi to serve the needs of others, and I fully expect those other groups of people to outnumber the niche served by Apple. I don't recommend any given brand to everyone, nor would it be a good thing if all I had was a single brand that I could recommend. Instead, I listen to people, hear what their needs and priorities are, and then can tailor a recommendation specifically for that person. So long as we have a good diversity of companies offering a good diversity of products that fulfill a good diversity of different use cases and needs, I'm fine with the state of things.
Apple may be the company that sold me my current device (an iPhone 5s from 2013), and I expect I'll go with them for my next one as well because what they offer is what I like, but I have every reason to believe that may not always be the case. If they go out of business or shift their focus in a direction that doesn't align with my interests, I expect that others will rise to fill the void left by them, and I'm fine with that. I don't need for Samsung to fail to feel personally fulfilled, nor do I need Apple to succeed in the market for me to maintain some sense of self-worth. I'd advise you do similarly.
Apple’s average selling price is way up from a year ago
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Not much, actually, at least with the way that Apple is doing it.
There are lots of different ways to push average selling price (ASP) up. One way to inflate ASP is to simply raise the price points for your products. Raising ASP that way does come with a number of downsides, chief among them being the possibility of alienating price-conscious consumers who are unwilling to pay more. But that isn't what Apple did here.
Instead, what Apple did was introduce a new, higher-tier product that expanded their product line's upper end while leaving their existing price points intact for customers who had no interest in paying more. By doing it that way, they provided willing customers with the opportunity to pay Apple more money, while leaving the option open for price-conscious customers to remain at the price point that they are comfortable paying.
The quarters that followed were effectively an experiment to see whether or not there would be a significant number of willing customers, and by all indications, there have been. With ASP being way up on a YoY basis while unit sales have grown slightly, there is quite clearly a willingness among a large number of their customers to pay more than they were before. Apple recognized that willingness and cashed in on it by offering something that allowed those willing consumers to pay more, which, so far as I can see, is a perfectly valid, sustainable strategy with no significant downsides.
If later this year they introduce the iPhone X's successor at the X's current pricing while not offering a successor to the iPhone 8 line, then we'd be talking about a situation that could go wrong for them, since they'd be driving away a number of their existing customers at that point, but that's all speculation about future choices, rather than anything based in fact.
Yup. As I already said in response to an earlier correction, it was a brain fart on my part. Hopefully it was clear from the context that I intended to say "third". Thanks for the additional correction.
Samsung did well to hold onto first place in the face of truly aggressive competition.
Agreed. Both Huawei and Xiaomi had incredible quarters and Samsung managed to hang onto first despite them. We'll see if that lasts, but Samsung has had a great run so far at the top.
Oh, absolutely. Samsung is in no immediate danger of going out of business, nor was I intending to suggest they were. I'll readily admit that I don't like Samsung (because of their ongoing history of illegal business practices, such as the slush funds they've maintained for bribing South Korean politicians, a practice that has resulted in the ousting of their last two CEOs, as well as the impeachment and subsequent removal from office of the President of South Korea, who was a recipient of their bribes), but I don't tie my self-worth to the rise or fall of any given company and am by no means trying to make an argument that they're doomed, nor that everything is great in Apple-land. I'll leave those conclusions for others to jump to.
For my part, I'm simply pointing out the facts painted by the numbers: that, contrary to the implication of the headline, Huawei and Xiaomi didn't gain at Apple's expense, but rather Samsung's and others'. That's it.
Look at the chart and you'll see that the other half came at the expense of "Other" manufacturers, meaning it was churn within the Android ecosystem, since there essentially isn't anyone else. And yeah, Google definitely is the winner here, and I too wouldn't be surprised if Xiaomi overtakes Apple.
When a company grows its market share, increases units sold, increases average selling price, and posts record numbers, stocks tend to do okay.
The reason Apple dropped to second is because Huawei has been knocking it out of the park at Samsung’s expense. Samsung shed over 10% of their market share YoY. Apple grew their share, though not as fast as Huawei did, suggesting that it’s mostly Android manufacturers canabalizing each other’s sales and share.
It's not surprising: the iPhone X has been a disaster. Quick informal poll: anyone ever see anyone with one in the wild?
Actually, if you look at the table in the article, it looks like Huawei’s success is coming at Samsung’s and less popular Android manufacturer’s loss. Apple grew their market share and their total units sold this last year, while Samsung sold about 8 million fewer units and lost a significant amount of share.
Plus, Apple’s average selling price is way up from a year ago (as reported in their earnings call yesterday), suggesting the iPhone X is selling quite well. Which makes sense, since it was separately reported that it was the best selling smartphone in the US for the two quarters after it launched (and yes, I’ve seen a number of them in the wild). As for the phone that outsold it this last quarter? It was the iPhone 8.
I don't know why you'd think it was implied. The OP was specifically talking about changes that occurred in response to 9/11, but the air marshals were founded in 1962, have been carrying guns onto planes since 1962, and have been instructed to resist hijackers since 1962. 9/11 didn't change any of that, so clearly the OP wasn't talking about them.
Moreover, had the OP intended to talk about them, don't you think he would have said so rather than referring to them obliquely as "passengers"? Instead of trying to make his words fit what you read into them, maybe take what he said at face value and understand that by "passengers" he was simply referring to the normal people flying on a plane.
As for what he was talking about, I thought it was fairly evident that he was talking about the well-documented and frequently-cited change in conventional wisdom among passengers that followed 9/11. Prior to 9/11, conventional wisdom held that if you were on a hijacked plane, you should keep quiet, keep your head down, and enjoy your unexpected vacation to whatever tropical destination (typically Cuba) the hijacker chose. The hijacker had no reason to kill you unless you resisted, so you shouldn't resist. Simple as that.
That conventional wisdom flew out the door the moment those planes hit the towers on 9/11. Suddenly, not resisting is what would get you killed, and sure enough, passengers began actively resisting terrorists. Just a few months after 9/11, there was the shoe bomber. A few years later, there was the underwear bomber. Likewise, it's widely believed that the passengers on the last 9/11 flight heard what happened to the other three flights and resisted the terrorists on their flight, hence why it crashed in a field instead of into a landmark. All of those terrorist attacks were thwarted, not by the TSA, intelligence community, or other security measures, but by alert passengers who resisted (with their hands, not guns, just to be clear).
That's what the OP was talking about when he was talking about passengers resisting. Not air marshals. Not people with guns. Just plain old, everyday passengers.
The industry is moving to Vulkan, with the heavy hitter gaming and 3D engines going that way.
Don’t the big engines already support Metal? Unreal, Unity, etc.? Last I checked they all already support it.
Apple simply doesn't have the market share to push Metal
They aren’t trying to push it at all, so the point is moot. They’re only trying to control their own platforms. Metal debuted back when Vulkan was still floundering in the market as Mantle and OpenGL was falling behind DirectX in functionality and performance. Vulkan will hopefully receive third-party support on macOS and perhaps iOS eventually, perhaps even first-party support, but while it’s still establishing itself, it makes sense for Apple to push forward with their own thing that actually has quite a bit more traction in their sphere than you give it credit for.
Broadly speaking, RAM is roughly twice the price that it was two years ago, all other things being equal (e.g. from $38 to $80 and from $200 to $425), though prices seemed to have peaked sometime around the start of 2018, with them being on a very gradual decline ever since.
At the time that the price hikes started, people were saying it was due to several factories being retooled at the same time, and that we should expect the pricing to return to normal in about 1.5-3 years as those factories came back up and new ones were built to handle the increasing demand in the market. Well, it's been about that long, and sure enough, prices seem to have stabilized, may have even started to drop, and now we have more reason to believe that they'll be returning to normal(ish) soon as additional production capacity arrives in the market.
I'll believe it when I see it as well, but, at least so far, this jibes with what I've been expecting.
No, we aren't. 30 years ago you paid for a NES copy designed to work with a NES. You received everything you paid for. You are entitled to enjoy your NES copy as you see fit. Your NES version of the game may feature content that is similar to the content in a Sega Master System version of the game, but, despite their similarities, they were quite clearly different products requiring separate purchase. Likewise, your NES version may feature content similar to the digital copies being distributed today, but they are, once again, quite clearly different products requiring separate purchase.
If you want your copy to work with modern systems, that isn't something you paid for, so it falls to you to put in the work to make your copy function with new systems. I laid out the rather simple steps for doing so in my first post. If you're unwilling to do that work, then your other choice is to pay these companies for a product that works on systems other than the one that you originally paid for. Which makes sense, since producing different versions costs these companies time and money beyond the original cost for the product you purchased. They're entitled to the fruits of their labor.
How long do companies expect to profit from the same old thing?
Nintendo isn't sending monthly invoices for your NES collection. You are free to enjoy your collection to its fullest without having to pay Nintendo a single additional cent. But if Nintendo wants to package their old content up as a new product, it's their prerogative to charge whatever they want for it, and it's your prerogative to vote with your wallet.
The rich thing is relevant because they have the ability to make new products and bring them to market
No, that doesn't make it relevant. Moreover, they are able to bring new products to market thanks, in part, to the additional work they have put into keeping their older content accessible to modern gamers. Again, they are entitled to the fruits of their labor.
[...] and don't need more income from an old product they already sold and profited from.
That judgment is not yours to make, either morally or legally. Nintendo in particular has been on the ropes financially at several points over the years. It's almost certain that they actually DO need the income from their older content to continue producing as much new content as they do. Moreover, I have yet to see a "we're entitled to luxury items for free" argument that is anything other than a baseless rationalization for ill-gotten personal gain. Your arguments here are no exception.
At the end of the day, you're basically trying to make a "Robin Hood" argument that it's okay to rob Nintendo because they're rich and are keeping poor you from enjoying the things that you're entitled to. But they're not rich (see above), you're not poor (you're buying video games and your presence on/. makes it likely that you're in world's most wealthy 1%), access to video games is neither an entitlement nor a right (despite what many of us might like), and you already received everything you paid for.
In most states of the US bars close at 2am, meaning that a large number of people suddenly have nothing going on at the same time. I'd wager that, of the things to do after the bars close, a large number of them show elevated levels of activity right after bars close, regardless of where you live, simply because of the influx of people.
You won’t be hearing a reply other than crickets from me. It’s a good criticism. It’s possible they have one and the teardown simply didn’t mention it, but I agree that it’d be quite an oversight if one was missing.
According to the official statement from Apple (emphasis mine):
Following extensive performance testing under numerous workloads, we’ve identified that there is a missing digital key in the firmware that impacts the thermal management system and could drive clock speeds down under heavy thermal loads on the new MacBook Pro.
So, it sounds like they forgot to digitally sign their firmware, which led to the fans or whatnot refusing to take orders, which led to the system running far too hot. That's why they're able to fix it with a software update in the first place.
First off, why is it OK for a rich company to charge more than once for the same product?
They aren’t. If I see a movie in the theater, should I be entitled to a free DVD of the film? No, of course not, they’re different products. If I bought a paperback book, should I get the hardcover for free? No, of course not, it’s a different product. If I bought a game on cartridge for the NES, should I get a free Steam copy? No, of course not, they aren’t the same product. The content may be very similar, but you’re starting from a false premise if you’re suggesting it’s the same product.
Moreover, other than providing you with a false sense of entitlement, what does their being rich have to do with anything?
It seems the government’s tiger repelling rock has been enough to discourage further attempts, or we can go with the tigers don’t want to eat us now theory.
Long story short, you’ve created a false dichotomy. Given the 95% failure rate, we can assume the TSA’s security efforts aren’t doing much. Likewise, the terrorists likely still want us gone. The only reasonable conclusion is this that they aren’t attacking us for other reasons.
Sure thing. All you need to do is go to a site like eBay or Amazon, purchase the cartridge/disc for the game you want (buying it used should be fine), and then rip it yourself using one of the numerous ripping devices that are legally available. Easy peasy.
When you get down to it, the process is more or less identical to ripping audio from a CD or a video from a DVD (in fact, I used to rip all of my PS1 games from disc, just like I would my CDs, and I actually intend to go back and do so for all of my disc-based games in the next few years here) and, for the most part, just as legal.
The most obvious way that you might run afoul of the law with the steps above is that some emulators require that you separately download a copy of the console's BIOS before they'll work, which is an act of copyright infringement. Thankfully, more and more emulators are moving away from that practice by doing the tough work of reverse engineering the original BIOS so that they no longer need a copy of it to work, and the standing precedent in the US is that they are perfectly legal. The other way you might run afoul of the law is that newer systems may have copy protection mechanisms in place. Just as you're allowed to format shift a blu-ray but you're not necessarily allowed to break the encryption on the blu-ray to do so, you may run into issues with games on newer consoles that have similar protections in place.
Alternatively, if you don't want to deal with ripping ROMs from your own, legally-purchased copies of the game, most of the popular games from old Nintendo systems (as well as others) are available for purchase on newer Nintendo systems. Were you actually interested in pursuing this legally (rather than simply asking a rhetorical question as a poor rationalization for your illegal behavior), you'd already know that the Wii and Wii U provide a rather extensive back catalog of old titles that are available for purchase (though I think the Wii is losing access to the store in a few months). Likewise, many old console games are available on Steam, GOG, or similar storefronts. And for older games that had a PC release, many are still playable thanks to WINE, ScummVM, or other pieces of software that allow you to simulate outdated hardware.
Honestly, it's easier than ever to go about this stuff legally. Unless you're talking about obscure games that have been lost to time, there's almost always a legal avenue open that (after a possible fixed cost for the some necessary hardware) only costs whatever the prevailing price is for the game.
This is not the norm in any laptop from any manufacturer. I challenge you to name me a single laptop vendor who is soldering [...]
The feature I was rather clearly talking about in the quote you pulled was the addition of hardware encryption in these new models. That quote had nothing to do with whether or not Apple solders their drives, and I'm not even sure how you could come away thinking that it did.
Let me be clear: soldering a drive in is a horrible practice that needs to stop. I find it reprehensible. It is NOT a feature. It's an anti-feature.
That said, the issue being discussed here is that users with the new models can't recover their data. Whether Apple solders the drives or not has no bearing on that issue. As I already said, the actual reason people can't recover their data is due to the addition of hardware encryption as a security feature in the new models. I don't like that they solder the drives in either, but our complaints about their soldering drives in have as much to do with the issue at hand as our complaints about their ridiculous laptop keyboards do, which is to say, nothing at all.
With all of that in mind, when I gave my "huhr duhr poer users need backups" argument, I wasn't offering a defense of soldering drives in. I was offering a defense of hardware encryption. I was saying that hardware encryption is worth it, and was lamenting that Slashdot did such a poor job of laying out the facts of the situation.
(As a quick aside, Apple has been soldering these drives in for years, which the article makes clear. I suspect that the poor summarizing is why you and others have been misled into thinking that this is the "latest instance of apple's short-sided [sic] thinking", even though it's neither a new practice nor relevant to the actual news: that stronger security features are rendering previous data recovery techniques impossible to use. Apple should stop soldering the drives, to be sure (that way we could upgrade or replace them), but even if they stopped, you still wouldn't be able to recover that data.)
Actually, the issue has nothing to do with the fact that you can't remove the drive. The article spells out the actual cause of the issue: hardware encryption.
The data recovery port was likely removed because 2018 MacBook Pro models feature Apple's custom T2 chip, which provides hardware encryption for the SSD storage, like the iMac Pro, our sources said.
I.e. They removed the port because the port was useless in light of their change to using hardware encrypted drives. Even if the drive wasn't soldered in, even if you could remove the drive and plug it in elsewhere, it wouldn't help. This falls into the category of "it's a feature, not a bug" sort of issues, since this was an intentional change on their part to increase the security of the devices—something it does rather well—but it comes at the cost of data recovery in situations where the hardware fails.
Hopefully, the pros buying these models are aware of the importance of regular, frequent backups and already have a backup plan in place and tested, especially since this sort of feature is becoming the norm across more and more Apple (and non-Apple) products these days (e.g. all iPhones and iPads have been hardware encrypted for years, two of the most popular Macs now have it enabled by default, numerous Android phones have it enabled out of the box, and the list goes on and on). There are, of course, stories about people losing access to their data after their devices get mangled, but for the most part, hardware encryption is widely hailed as being a good thing, particularly among the technically literate crowd, so it's a bit disappointing to see a/. summary focus on the downside without explaining the "why?" behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
You're painting with a wide brush if you think I'm a fanboy. Why would I need a fallback position? Why would I be arrogant? Where did I say anything about being lovey dovey?
I suggested you needed to gain some maturity and recognize that not everyone who made a different choice than you is out to attack your position, nor are they all as invested in their choices as you seem to be in yours. Does a Samsung device work well for you? Great! Does an Apple device? Great! Does Huawei? Xiaomi? Blackberry? Great! Find what works for you and enjoy it.
Apple works for me. I enjoy it, but whether they rise or fall in the market is no skin off my nose, so other than you projecting your past experiences with Apple fanboys onto me (and, to be fair, Apple fanboys are both real and really annoying), I have no idea where you're getting any of these wrong notions about me.
Really, I'd say that anyone in the chart is clearly a winner (as well as many who didn't make the chart), but who cares? If you've tied your self-worth to a particular brand's rise or fall, you need to break free from that.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple's smartphones are clearly aimed at a niche of the market, so we need companies like Samsung, Huawei, and Xiaomi to serve the needs of others, and I fully expect those other groups of people to outnumber the niche served by Apple. I don't recommend any given brand to everyone, nor would it be a good thing if all I had was a single brand that I could recommend. Instead, I listen to people, hear what their needs and priorities are, and then can tailor a recommendation specifically for that person. So long as we have a good diversity of companies offering a good diversity of products that fulfill a good diversity of different use cases and needs, I'm fine with the state of things.
Apple may be the company that sold me my current device (an iPhone 5s from 2013), and I expect I'll go with them for my next one as well because what they offer is what I like, but I have every reason to believe that may not always be the case. If they go out of business or shift their focus in a direction that doesn't align with my interests, I expect that others will rise to fill the void left by them, and I'm fine with that. I don't need for Samsung to fail to feel personally fulfilled, nor do I need Apple to succeed in the market for me to maintain some sense of self-worth. I'd advise you do similarly.
Apple’s average selling price is way up from a year ago
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Not much, actually, at least with the way that Apple is doing it.
There are lots of different ways to push average selling price (ASP) up. One way to inflate ASP is to simply raise the price points for your products. Raising ASP that way does come with a number of downsides, chief among them being the possibility of alienating price-conscious consumers who are unwilling to pay more. But that isn't what Apple did here.
Instead, what Apple did was introduce a new, higher-tier product that expanded their product line's upper end while leaving their existing price points intact for customers who had no interest in paying more. By doing it that way, they provided willing customers with the opportunity to pay Apple more money, while leaving the option open for price-conscious customers to remain at the price point that they are comfortable paying.
The quarters that followed were effectively an experiment to see whether or not there would be a significant number of willing customers, and by all indications, there have been. With ASP being way up on a YoY basis while unit sales have grown slightly, there is quite clearly a willingness among a large number of their customers to pay more than they were before. Apple recognized that willingness and cashed in on it by offering something that allowed those willing consumers to pay more, which, so far as I can see, is a perfectly valid, sustainable strategy with no significant downsides.
If later this year they introduce the iPhone X's successor at the X's current pricing while not offering a successor to the iPhone 8 line, then we'd be talking about a situation that could go wrong for them, since they'd be driving away a number of their existing customers at that point, but that's all speculation about future choices, rather than anything based in fact.
Apple dropped to third, not second.
Yup. As I already said in response to an earlier correction, it was a brain fart on my part. Hopefully it was clear from the context that I intended to say "third". Thanks for the additional correction.
Samsung did well to hold onto first place in the face of truly aggressive competition.
Agreed. Both Huawei and Xiaomi had incredible quarters and Samsung managed to hang onto first despite them. We'll see if that lasts, but Samsung has had a great run so far at the top.
And don't forget that Samsung makes a bunch of moulah every time Apple sells an iPhone.
Oh, absolutely. Samsung is in no immediate danger of going out of business, nor was I intending to suggest they were. I'll readily admit that I don't like Samsung (because of their ongoing history of illegal business practices, such as the slush funds they've maintained for bribing South Korean politicians, a practice that has resulted in the ousting of their last two CEOs, as well as the impeachment and subsequent removal from office of the President of South Korea, who was a recipient of their bribes), but I don't tie my self-worth to the rise or fall of any given company and am by no means trying to make an argument that they're doomed, nor that everything is great in Apple-land. I'll leave those conclusions for others to jump to.
For my part, I'm simply pointing out the facts painted by the numbers: that, contrary to the implication of the headline, Huawei and Xiaomi didn't gain at Apple's expense, but rather Samsung's and others'. That's it.
Look at the chart and you'll see that the other half came at the expense of "Other" manufacturers, meaning it was churn within the Android ecosystem, since there essentially isn't anyone else. And yeah, Google definitely is the winner here, and I too wouldn't be surprised if Xiaomi overtakes Apple.
Sorry, seems I had a brain fart while typing. "Third" is what I had intended to say. Thanks for the correction.
When a company grows its market share, increases units sold, increases average selling price, and posts record numbers, stocks tend to do okay.
The reason Apple dropped to second is because Huawei has been knocking it out of the park at Samsung’s expense. Samsung shed over 10% of their market share YoY. Apple grew their share, though not as fast as Huawei did, suggesting that it’s mostly Android manufacturers canabalizing each other’s sales and share.
It's not surprising: the iPhone X has been a disaster. Quick informal poll: anyone ever see anyone with one in the wild?
Actually, if you look at the table in the article, it looks like Huawei’s success is coming at Samsung’s and less popular Android manufacturer’s loss. Apple grew their market share and their total units sold this last year, while Samsung sold about 8 million fewer units and lost a significant amount of share.
Plus, Apple’s average selling price is way up from a year ago (as reported in their earnings call yesterday), suggesting the iPhone X is selling quite well. Which makes sense, since it was separately reported that it was the best selling smartphone in the US for the two quarters after it launched (and yes, I’ve seen a number of them in the wild). As for the phone that outsold it this last quarter? It was the iPhone 8.
I don't know why you'd think it was implied. The OP was specifically talking about changes that occurred in response to 9/11, but the air marshals were founded in 1962, have been carrying guns onto planes since 1962, and have been instructed to resist hijackers since 1962. 9/11 didn't change any of that, so clearly the OP wasn't talking about them.
Moreover, had the OP intended to talk about them, don't you think he would have said so rather than referring to them obliquely as "passengers"? Instead of trying to make his words fit what you read into them, maybe take what he said at face value and understand that by "passengers" he was simply referring to the normal people flying on a plane.
As for what he was talking about, I thought it was fairly evident that he was talking about the well-documented and frequently-cited change in conventional wisdom among passengers that followed 9/11. Prior to 9/11, conventional wisdom held that if you were on a hijacked plane, you should keep quiet, keep your head down, and enjoy your unexpected vacation to whatever tropical destination (typically Cuba) the hijacker chose. The hijacker had no reason to kill you unless you resisted, so you shouldn't resist. Simple as that.
That conventional wisdom flew out the door the moment those planes hit the towers on 9/11. Suddenly, not resisting is what would get you killed, and sure enough, passengers began actively resisting terrorists. Just a few months after 9/11, there was the shoe bomber. A few years later, there was the underwear bomber. Likewise, it's widely believed that the passengers on the last 9/11 flight heard what happened to the other three flights and resisted the terrorists on their flight, hence why it crashed in a field instead of into a landmark. All of those terrorist attacks were thwarted, not by the TSA, intelligence community, or other security measures, but by alert passengers who resisted (with their hands, not guns, just to be clear).
That's what the OP was talking about when he was talking about passengers resisting. Not air marshals. Not people with guns. Just plain old, everyday passengers.
So, why did you think he said anything about bringing guns on planes?
He didn’t say anything about Air Marshals...
No disagreement from me. I’d love to see Vulkan adopted as an industry standard, including on Apple platforms.
The industry is moving to Vulkan, with the heavy hitter gaming and 3D engines going that way.
Don’t the big engines already support Metal? Unreal, Unity, etc.? Last I checked they all already support it.
Apple simply doesn't have the market share to push Metal
They aren’t trying to push it at all, so the point is moot. They’re only trying to control their own platforms. Metal debuted back when Vulkan was still floundering in the market as Mantle and OpenGL was falling behind DirectX in functionality and performance. Vulkan will hopefully receive third-party support on macOS and perhaps iOS eventually, perhaps even first-party support, but while it’s still establishing itself, it makes sense for Apple to push forward with their own thing that actually has quite a bit more traction in their sphere than you give it credit for.
With MA270 in mind I have to question your assertion that bringing guns on an airplane has increased security.
With his post I mind I have to question your reading comprehension, since he made no mention of guns at all.
RAM price trends for the last 18 months: https://pcpartpicker.com/trend...
Broadly speaking, RAM is roughly twice the price that it was two years ago, all other things being equal (e.g. from $38 to $80 and from $200 to $425), though prices seemed to have peaked sometime around the start of 2018, with them being on a very gradual decline ever since.
At the time that the price hikes started, people were saying it was due to several factories being retooled at the same time, and that we should expect the pricing to return to normal in about 1.5-3 years as those factories came back up and new ones were built to handle the increasing demand in the market. Well, it's been about that long, and sure enough, prices seem to have stabilized, may have even started to drop, and now we have more reason to believe that they'll be returning to normal(ish) soon as additional production capacity arrives in the market.
I'll believe it when I see it as well, but, at least so far, this jibes with what I've been expecting.
Except we're talking about 30 year old products
No, we aren't. 30 years ago you paid for a NES copy designed to work with a NES. You received everything you paid for. You are entitled to enjoy your NES copy as you see fit. Your NES version of the game may feature content that is similar to the content in a Sega Master System version of the game, but, despite their similarities, they were quite clearly different products requiring separate purchase. Likewise, your NES version may feature content similar to the digital copies being distributed today, but they are, once again, quite clearly different products requiring separate purchase.
If you want your copy to work with modern systems, that isn't something you paid for, so it falls to you to put in the work to make your copy function with new systems. I laid out the rather simple steps for doing so in my first post. If you're unwilling to do that work, then your other choice is to pay these companies for a product that works on systems other than the one that you originally paid for. Which makes sense, since producing different versions costs these companies time and money beyond the original cost for the product you purchased. They're entitled to the fruits of their labor.
How long do companies expect to profit from the same old thing?
Nintendo isn't sending monthly invoices for your NES collection. You are free to enjoy your collection to its fullest without having to pay Nintendo a single additional cent. But if Nintendo wants to package their old content up as a new product, it's their prerogative to charge whatever they want for it, and it's your prerogative to vote with your wallet.
The rich thing is relevant because they have the ability to make new products and bring them to market
No, that doesn't make it relevant. Moreover, they are able to bring new products to market thanks, in part, to the additional work they have put into keeping their older content accessible to modern gamers. Again, they are entitled to the fruits of their labor.
[...] and don't need more income from an old product they already sold and profited from.
That judgment is not yours to make, either morally or legally. Nintendo in particular has been on the ropes financially at several points over the years. It's almost certain that they actually DO need the income from their older content to continue producing as much new content as they do. Moreover, I have yet to see a "we're entitled to luxury items for free" argument that is anything other than a baseless rationalization for ill-gotten personal gain. Your arguments here are no exception.
At the end of the day, you're basically trying to make a "Robin Hood" argument that it's okay to rob Nintendo because they're rich and are keeping poor you from enjoying the things that you're entitled to. But they're not rich (see above), you're not poor (you're buying video games and your presence on /. makes it likely that you're in world's most wealthy 1%), access to video games is neither an entitlement nor a right (despite what many of us might like), and you already received everything you paid for.
You're not Robin Hood, but you are a thief.
In most states of the US bars close at 2am, meaning that a large number of people suddenly have nothing going on at the same time. I'd wager that, of the things to do after the bars close, a large number of them show elevated levels of activity right after bars close, regardless of where you live, simply because of the influx of people.
You won’t be hearing a reply other than crickets from me. It’s a good criticism. It’s possible they have one and the teardown simply didn’t mention it, but I agree that it’d be quite an oversight if one was missing.
According to the official statement from Apple (emphasis mine):
Following extensive performance testing under numerous workloads, we’ve identified that there is a missing digital key in the firmware that impacts the thermal management system and could drive clock speeds down under heavy thermal loads on the new MacBook Pro.
So, it sounds like they forgot to digitally sign their firmware, which led to the fans or whatnot refusing to take orders, which led to the system running far too hot. That's why they're able to fix it with a software update in the first place.
First off, why is it OK for a rich company to charge more than once for the same product?
They aren’t. If I see a movie in the theater, should I be entitled to a free DVD of the film? No, of course not, they’re different products. If I bought a paperback book, should I get the hardcover for free? No, of course not, it’s a different product. If I bought a game on cartridge for the NES, should I get a free Steam copy? No, of course not, they aren’t the same product. The content may be very similar, but you’re starting from a false premise if you’re suggesting it’s the same product.
Moreover, other than providing you with a false sense of entitlement, what does their being rich have to do with anything?
First off, you can't rip a NES cartridge with a DVD drive.
First off, you ought to read past the first sentence before you respond. I addressed this directly in the second sentence, including with links.
It seems the government’s tiger repelling rock has been enough to discourage further attempts, or we can go with the tigers don’t want to eat us now theory.
FTFY
Obligatory link to The Simpson’s clip: https://youtu.be/xSVqLHghLpw
Long story short, you’ve created a false dichotomy. Given the 95% failure rate, we can assume the TSA’s security efforts aren’t doing much. Likewise, the terrorists likely still want us gone. The only reasonable conclusion is this that they aren’t attacking us for other reasons.
Sure thing. All you need to do is go to a site like eBay or Amazon, purchase the cartridge/disc for the game you want (buying it used should be fine), and then rip it yourself using one of the numerous ripping devices that are legally available. Easy peasy.
When you get down to it, the process is more or less identical to ripping audio from a CD or a video from a DVD (in fact, I used to rip all of my PS1 games from disc, just like I would my CDs, and I actually intend to go back and do so for all of my disc-based games in the next few years here) and, for the most part, just as legal.
The most obvious way that you might run afoul of the law with the steps above is that some emulators require that you separately download a copy of the console's BIOS before they'll work, which is an act of copyright infringement. Thankfully, more and more emulators are moving away from that practice by doing the tough work of reverse engineering the original BIOS so that they no longer need a copy of it to work, and the standing precedent in the US is that they are perfectly legal. The other way you might run afoul of the law is that newer systems may have copy protection mechanisms in place. Just as you're allowed to format shift a blu-ray but you're not necessarily allowed to break the encryption on the blu-ray to do so, you may run into issues with games on newer consoles that have similar protections in place.
Alternatively, if you don't want to deal with ripping ROMs from your own, legally-purchased copies of the game, most of the popular games from old Nintendo systems (as well as others) are available for purchase on newer Nintendo systems. Were you actually interested in pursuing this legally (rather than simply asking a rhetorical question as a poor rationalization for your illegal behavior), you'd already know that the Wii and Wii U provide a rather extensive back catalog of old titles that are available for purchase (though I think the Wii is losing access to the store in a few months). Likewise, many old console games are available on Steam, GOG, or similar storefronts. And for older games that had a PC release, many are still playable thanks to WINE, ScummVM, or other pieces of software that allow you to simulate outdated hardware.
Honestly, it's easier than ever to go about this stuff legally. Unless you're talking about obscure games that have been lost to time, there's almost always a legal avenue open that (after a possible fixed cost for the some necessary hardware) only costs whatever the prevailing price is for the game.
This is not the norm in any laptop from any manufacturer. I challenge you to name me a single laptop vendor who is soldering [...]
The feature I was rather clearly talking about in the quote you pulled was the addition of hardware encryption in these new models. That quote had nothing to do with whether or not Apple solders their drives, and I'm not even sure how you could come away thinking that it did.
Let me be clear: soldering a drive in is a horrible practice that needs to stop. I find it reprehensible. It is NOT a feature. It's an anti-feature.
That said, the issue being discussed here is that users with the new models can't recover their data. Whether Apple solders the drives or not has no bearing on that issue. As I already said, the actual reason people can't recover their data is due to the addition of hardware encryption as a security feature in the new models. I don't like that they solder the drives in either, but our complaints about their soldering drives in have as much to do with the issue at hand as our complaints about their ridiculous laptop keyboards do, which is to say, nothing at all.
With all of that in mind, when I gave my "huhr duhr poer users need backups" argument, I wasn't offering a defense of soldering drives in. I was offering a defense of hardware encryption. I was saying that hardware encryption is worth it, and was lamenting that Slashdot did such a poor job of laying out the facts of the situation.
(As a quick aside, Apple has been soldering these drives in for years, which the article makes clear. I suspect that the poor summarizing is why you and others have been misled into thinking that this is the "latest instance of apple's short-sided [sic] thinking", even though it's neither a new practice nor relevant to the actual news: that stronger security features are rendering previous data recovery techniques impossible to use. Apple should stop soldering the drives, to be sure (that way we could upgrade or replace them), but even if they stopped, you still wouldn't be able to recover that data.)
Actually, the issue has nothing to do with the fact that you can't remove the drive. The article spells out the actual cause of the issue: hardware encryption.
The data recovery port was likely removed because 2018 MacBook Pro models feature Apple's custom T2 chip, which provides hardware encryption for the SSD storage, like the iMac Pro, our sources said.
I.e. They removed the port because the port was useless in light of their change to using hardware encrypted drives. Even if the drive wasn't soldered in, even if you could remove the drive and plug it in elsewhere, it wouldn't help. This falls into the category of "it's a feature, not a bug" sort of issues, since this was an intentional change on their part to increase the security of the devices—something it does rather well—but it comes at the cost of data recovery in situations where the hardware fails.
Hopefully, the pros buying these models are aware of the importance of regular, frequent backups and already have a backup plan in place and tested, especially since this sort of feature is becoming the norm across more and more Apple (and non-Apple) products these days (e.g. all iPhones and iPads have been hardware encrypted for years, two of the most popular Macs now have it enabled by default, numerous Android phones have it enabled out of the box, and the list goes on and on). There are, of course, stories about people losing access to their data after their devices get mangled, but for the most part, hardware encryption is widely hailed as being a good thing, particularly among the technically literate crowd, so it's a bit disappointing to see a /. summary focus on the downside without explaining the "why?" behind it.