So, if a Pixel phone costs $1000 and is supported for (at most!) 3 years, that works out to:
$333.33 per year of SUPPORTED use.
But if an iPhone costs $1000 and is supported for FIVE years, that is more like:
$200 per year.
So, is the Pixel (which by all accounts is a vastly inferior phone, performance-wise, to its iPhone competitor (iPhone 7 and 7 Plus)), really worth $133 dollars PER YEAR more than an iPhone?
What are they trying to say, that selling a million Pixel phones is somehow a failure?
FWIW, the number announced in the recent earnings call was 2.6M devices. I don't know what the download count of the Pixel Launcher on the Play Store means, but it clearly doesn't correlate with devices sold, because Pixel devices don't need to download the Pixel Launcher; it's pre-installed. Upgrades, maybe? But I don't think upgrades count as downloads. Even if they did, if the launcher is very infrequently updated and devices typically leave the factory with the latest version, only the earliest-sold devices would need to have upgraded.
I'm not sure what that number actually means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what Ars thinks it means.
Woo! 2.6 Million Pixel phones. That's incredible!
Now compare that to 78.3 Million iPhones in ONE QUARTER (Q1-2017) :
It's a platform for them to develop new technologies on. Like the computational photography that got them the highest ever rating for a phone camera. The million sales are a nice way to offset the R&D costs.
I think the poor sales are likely due to poor deals with carriers, who don't offer good deals or promote it much.
SOMEbody's promoting it.
In the past couple of months, I have seen three or four times as many Pixel commercials on TV as I have iPhone commercials.
Don't you just wish you could heat up your dinner a little bit faster by cheaply upgrading your microwave, instead of shelling out for a new one?
Would you rather your phone had a better camera you could just snap in rather than buying a whole new phone?
If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', then you enjoy and expect it when computers act like computers.
We just all grew up in the pioneer days of computers. In about 20 or 30 years, hardly anyone alive will remember someone that remembers when computers were nothing but boxes of random parts. They'll treat it like someoneone who asked a question about building a television from a kit.
Ah ok. I thought they were using commodity stuff on the lower-end models, fuckwit.
Nope. They use the same CPUs and GPUs and some of the glue logic that everyone does; but the motherboard designs are their's and they also have some custom silicon on the Mobo, and in various other places in the system.
Apple makes their own motherboards? I don't think so.
Yes, production capacity is a concern. Just because you have a sweet design doesn't mean it can be produced in the quantities you need at your desired price-point and on schedule.
They use Foxconn as a Contract Manufacturer; but they are Apple Designs.
Beachballs generally have a happy ending. It is equivalent to Windows' Hourglass.
Maybe that's true now. The last time I spent much time with OSX, seeing one for long meant that the whole machine was in an unrecoverable state forever and ever amen.
Until you upgrade the 5400rpm to something usable and void your warranty.
You've got Apple confused with Dell and HP.
Apple has an unwritten (but occasionally stated) policy of not voiding a warranty just because an owner did an upgrade, unless the upgrade was done in such a way as to cause actual damage to the unit.
It's not really about repairability, for consumer electronics that doesn't really happen.
What? That's crap. Only Apple makes it so hard to work on desktop PCs. Which I have to say is fucking pathetic, if you go back in time Apple's machines used to be the easiest to work on. You didn't even need a screwdriver to open a Mac II series machine, for example, or to replace its power supply.
Hobbyists aren't going to buy Apple-branded RAM for $300 if they can get similarly speced RAM from Kingston for $200.
Neither are professionals. My mom had a Mac IIci back when those were hot, for graphic arts. She ordered it with minimum specs, and then I helped her to source RAM, HD, and laser printer from other vendors, saving her thousands of dollars. Only idiots will buy that stuff from Apple, which is why Apple focuses on the idiot market.
if you include smartphones and tablets as "computers" than Apple might actually beat Lenovo in volume numbers. Maybe. And again, only some idiot Wall Street analyst would do that - not anyone who actually understands the tech sector.
ORLY?
Then explain the many bloody battles I've had on Slashdot, where the typical AC Apple-Hating Slashtard would argue to the ends of the earth that his precious Android Smartphone or Tablet was INDEED a "General-Purpose Computer".
If you want an actual number, Lenovo shipped 55.5 million PCs in 2016. HP is at 54.2 million. Dell at 40.7 million.
It lists Apple at 18.4 million PCs.
...And if Lenovo, HP and Dell are STILL selling that many PeeSees at this late stage of the game, that MUST mean that even most PeeSee owners don't "Upgrade" their computers either, because neither Windows nor Linux are enjoying GROWTH to the point where that many NEW PeeSees would be needed; people would just be UPGRADING their existing ones.
Their entire market group is "pretty things omgomgomg" and "it's an appliance".
There is 0 incentives to make it upgradeable -- they'll just fork out 3000 for more.
For 99.99999999997% of the computer-using population, the more you can make their computer "like an appliance", the better. Sorry.
Would you rather have to fix the display driver in your microwave before you can heat up your dinner? Would you rather have to fix the focusing-code in your phone's camera before you can take a picture of your daughter's birthday? If the answer to either of those is "yes", than YOU enjoy and expect it when computers act like appliances, too.
yeah apple just didn't bother yet with soldering the components yet since they don't have market data about demand so it's easier for now.. and you have to break the glue anyways, making it a no no for most users.
they might start doing that for cost cutting without telling anyone though once the new line is up to speed in production.
Well, the processor is easy. Intel doesn't sell BGA parts yet. Apple's only one customer of Intel and they're only able to buy what Intel can supply. Most likely what Intel can supply immediately in the quantities Apple wants at the price they want precludes BGA parts and soldering.
Apple did the math - Intel can custom produce the CPUs for Apple, but likely the demand is such that Intel doesn't really want to (everyone is waiting for Kaby Lake processors, so when Intel started providing them in quantity, Apple became like everyone else) so quoted Apple the "if you really want it, we can do it" price. Or they can take what Intel is making right now and supplying everyone, with the benefit that it's no longer a custom order and Apple can buy what they need, at the expense of making it socketed. Or in other words, it's cheaper socketed right now because Intel is providing them in quantities to everyone in that format.
The cost of the computer is a trivial expense in professional video editing. Less than 1% of the annual cost. So your company should simply be choosing is the best equipment, whatever it is.
The best equipment is equipment that you can repair, so that you're not stuck buying a whole new computer if something goes wrong and you've got work to do. Only Apple users would ever pretend that hardware never fails.
If you are using your computer for PAYING work, then you don't have the TIME to "repair it yourself".
I'd MUCH rather be able to go to the Apple Store, plunk down another $1200, and take home a brand new iMac. 5 Minutes to unbox and setup. A couple of hours to restore from Time Machine (or from the other Mac, if it still boot far enough to be used as a Source for Migration Assistant), and you're up again making money before Amazon can get you a replacement whatever for that PC...
But remember, the prerequisite here is that you are actually WORKING with your Mac. If it is just for plinking-around, then by all means, waste half a day troubleshooting, another couple of hours chasing the best price on replacement parts, then a few more days for shipping. And THEN you get to start rebuilding your system...
Slashdot Mirror
So, if a Pixel phone costs $1000 and is supported for (at most!) 3 years, that works out to:
$333.33 per year of SUPPORTED use.
But if an iPhone costs $1000 and is supported for FIVE years, that is more like:
$200 per year.
So, is the Pixel (which by all accounts is a vastly inferior phone, performance-wise, to its iPhone competitor (iPhone 7 and 7 Plus)), really worth $133 dollars PER YEAR more than an iPhone?
The support time is very short compared to Apple but pretty much par for the course when it comes to Android.
And that is the beginning, middle, and end of that story.
What are they trying to say, that selling a million Pixel phones is somehow a failure?
FWIW, the number announced in the recent earnings call was 2.6M devices. I don't know what the download count of the Pixel Launcher on the Play Store means, but it clearly doesn't correlate with devices sold, because Pixel devices don't need to download the Pixel Launcher; it's pre-installed. Upgrades, maybe? But I don't think upgrades count as downloads. Even if they did, if the launcher is very infrequently updated and devices typically leave the factory with the latest version, only the earliest-sold devices would need to have upgraded.
I'm not sure what that number actually means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what Ars thinks it means.
Woo! 2.6 Million Pixel phones. That's incredible!
Now compare that to 78.3 Million iPhones in ONE QUARTER (Q1-2017) :
https://9to5mac.com/2017/01/31...
and "only" 50.7 Million iPhones in Q2-2017 (with rumors of the iPhone 8 coming soon ramping up considerably) :
https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/02...
So, Apple's got that 2.6 Million Pixel phones "right here"...
It's a platform for them to develop new technologies on. Like the computational photography that got them the highest ever rating for a phone camera. The million sales are a nice way to offset the R&D costs.
I think the poor sales are likely due to poor deals with carriers, who don't offer good deals or promote it much.
SOMEbody's promoting it.
In the past couple of months, I have seen three or four times as many Pixel commercials on TV as I have iPhone commercials.
They won't be able to charge premium prices forever.
Yeah, let's all race to the bottom. Afterall, it has worked out so well for the quality of PeeSees...
Don't you just wish you could heat up your dinner a little bit faster by cheaply upgrading your microwave, instead of shelling out for a new one?
Would you rather your phone had a better camera you could just snap in rather than buying a whole new phone?
If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', then you enjoy and expect it when computers act like computers.
We just all grew up in the pioneer days of computers. In about 20 or 30 years, hardly anyone alive will remember someone that remembers when computers were nothing but boxes of random parts. They'll treat it like someoneone who asked a question about building a television from a kit.
Ah ok. I thought they were using commodity stuff on the lower-end models, fuckwit.
Nope. They use the same CPUs and GPUs and some of the glue logic that everyone does; but the motherboard designs are their's and they also have some custom silicon on the Mobo, and in various other places in the system.
Apple makes their own motherboards? I don't think so.
Yes, production capacity is a concern. Just because you have a sweet design doesn't mean it can be produced in the quantities you need at your desired price-point and on schedule.
They use Foxconn as a Contract Manufacturer; but they are Apple Designs.
Beachballs generally have a happy ending. It is equivalent to Windows' Hourglass.
Maybe that's true now. The last time I spent much time with OSX, seeing one for long meant that the whole machine was in an unrecoverable state forever and ever amen.
When was that? OS X 10.1?
"They warranty their work for a year"
Until you upgrade the 5400rpm to something usable and void your warranty.
You've got Apple confused with Dell and HP.
Apple has an unwritten (but occasionally stated) policy of not voiding a warranty just because an owner did an upgrade, unless the upgrade was done in such a way as to cause actual damage to the unit.
But....
Does it run FreeBSD?
TrueOS?
Linux?
Actually, Macs have the widest-range of LEGALLY available OSes on the planet.
You didn't need one for a G4, G5, or Mac Pro either - there was just a latch you pull on, and the whole side comes off, or hinges open.
I absolutely loved working on the G4, where the logic board was mounted to the hinged door. It was a brilliant design.
I agree that the El Capitan tower was quite the innovative take on the whole "tower" concept.
Oh, and that was a Jony Ive design...
It's not really about repairability, for consumer electronics that doesn't really happen.
What? That's crap. Only Apple makes it so hard to work on desktop PCs. Which I have to say is fucking pathetic, if you go back in time Apple's machines used to be the easiest to work on. You didn't even need a screwdriver to open a Mac II series machine, for example, or to replace its power supply.
Ever work on a PowerMac 8500?
Hobbyists aren't going to buy Apple-branded RAM for $300 if they can get similarly speced RAM from Kingston for $200.
Neither are professionals. My mom had a Mac IIci back when those were hot, for graphic arts. She ordered it with minimum specs, and then I helped her to source RAM, HD, and laser printer from other vendors, saving her thousands of dollars. Only idiots will buy that stuff from Apple, which is why Apple focuses on the idiot market.
Dude!
You just called your Mom an IDIOT!!!
I'm tellin'!!!
Sometimes I wish Slashdot had an edit button.
Sometimes?
if you include smartphones and tablets as "computers" than Apple might actually beat Lenovo in volume numbers. Maybe. And again, only some idiot Wall Street analyst would do that - not anyone who actually understands the tech sector.
ORLY?
Then explain the many bloody battles I've had on Slashdot, where the typical AC Apple-Hating Slashtard would argue to the ends of the earth that his precious Android Smartphone or Tablet was INDEED a "General-Purpose Computer".
http://fortune.com/2017/01/11/lenovo-hp-dell-pc-market/
If you want an actual number, Lenovo shipped 55.5 million PCs in 2016. HP is at 54.2 million. Dell at 40.7 million.
It lists Apple at 18.4 million PCs.
...And if Lenovo, HP and Dell are STILL selling that many PeeSees at this late stage of the game, that MUST mean that even most PeeSee owners don't "Upgrade" their computers either, because neither Windows nor Linux are enjoying GROWTH to the point where that many NEW PeeSees would be needed; people would just be UPGRADING their existing ones.
Amirite?
You're kidding right?
Their entire market group is "pretty things omgomgomg" and "it's an appliance".
There is 0 incentives to make it upgradeable -- they'll just fork out 3000 for more.
For 99.99999999997% of the computer-using population, the more you can make their computer "like an appliance", the better. Sorry.
Would you rather have to fix the display driver in your microwave before you can heat up your dinner? Would you rather have to fix the focusing-code in your phone's camera before you can take a picture of your daughter's birthday? If the answer to either of those is "yes", than YOU enjoy and expect it when computers act like appliances, too.
Well, the processor is easy. Intel doesn't sell BGA parts yet. Apple's only one customer of Intel and they're only able to buy what Intel can supply. Most likely what Intel can supply immediately in the quantities Apple wants at the price they want precludes BGA parts and soldering.
Apple did the math - Intel can custom produce the CPUs for Apple, but likely the demand is such that Intel doesn't really want to (everyone is waiting for Kaby Lake processors, so when Intel started providing them in quantity, Apple became like everyone else) so quoted Apple the "if you really want it, we can do it" price. Or they can take what Intel is making right now and supplying everyone, with the benefit that it's no longer a custom order and Apple can buy what they need, at the expense of making it socketed. Or in other words, it's cheaper socketed right now because Intel is providing them in quantities to everyone in that format.
So how does that explain the socketed RAM?
What sockets are you referring to?
The RAM, which has had the same sockets for quite a bit, now?
The CPU, which just became available LAST MONTH?
If you don't like it, don't fucking buy one.
We don't buy it, just check the market share for proof.
Seems to be rather steadily trending upward year over year.
What's your point?
I want a new MacBook but I want one with M2 and SO-DIMM so I can use it for a long time.
Even at the cost of inferior performance?
Ever wonder why the SSDs in the MacBook Pros are the fastest on the market?
Sockets mean (vastly) increased inductance and capacitance over soldered-in designs.
Increased inductance OR capacitance means slower signal propagation and slower signal rise-times.
Slower signal propogation and slower signal rise-times means SLOWER SPEED.
Got it?
I'm fairly certain that EVERY iMac generation has had replaceable RAM, despite what TFS says.
But we're all to familiar with the software failures on windows. So we use Macs.
Because you prefer beach balls to blue screens? Whatever makes you happy, sport.
Beachballs generally have a happy ending. It is equivalent to Windows' Hourglass.
Bluescreens NEVER have a happy ending. Because they ARE the End.
The cost of the computer is a trivial expense in professional video editing. Less than 1% of the annual cost. So your company should simply be choosing is the best equipment, whatever it is.
The best equipment is equipment that you can repair, so that you're not stuck buying a whole new computer if something goes wrong and you've got work to do. Only Apple users would ever pretend that hardware never fails.
If you are using your computer for PAYING work, then you don't have the TIME to "repair it yourself".
I'd MUCH rather be able to go to the Apple Store, plunk down another $1200, and take home a brand new iMac. 5 Minutes to unbox and setup. A couple of hours to restore from Time Machine (or from the other Mac, if it still boot far enough to be used as a Source for Migration Assistant), and you're up again making money before Amazon can get you a replacement whatever for that PC...
But remember, the prerequisite here is that you are actually WORKING with your Mac. If it is just for plinking-around, then by all means, waste half a day troubleshooting, another couple of hours chasing the best price on replacement parts, then a few more days for shipping. And THEN you get to start rebuilding your system...
By all means...