I'm not sure I'd use "Stack Overflow agrees with me" as a supporting argument. I mean, in this case you're not wrong, but... Just be careful with it:)
They seem to be fairly level-headed for an internet forum. Sure, every forum has flamewars and trolls; but in my experience, they don't seem to be that bad...
Maybe I've just been lucky, eh?
Oh, and another reason I continue to use capitalization instead of HTML "font tags" for stuff, especially italicizing, is that, when I am home on my iPad, iOS insists on changing the "i" to "I" in that tag, and I can never remember if that tag is case-sensitive or not. My HTML knowledge is very weak; so don't flame me if I should know better than to keep correcting the damn italic-tags.
Yes, I know I could turn off auto-correct (and I should); but it occasionally does me a solid; so I let it play its game...;-)
Now if someone would fix WebKit for iOS 9 (which is as far as my iPad 2 goes), so it stops getting clobbered by who-knows-what tags and forcing a re-render of the page. Browsing MacRumors.com, for example, is an exercise in utter frustration. And its not the only site. I'm about ready to use Opera or some other "remote-rendering" browser to avoid that most-annoying habit.
Since you're a web guy, ya got any thoughts on that?
Ugh... HTML quote fail... Whatever, you know which part of that you wrote and which part was written by me...
I fingered it out, LOL!
And actually, I was busy when I posted that, so decided to use the snarky comment to hide the fact that I was too lazy to find a reference to "What is necessary for something to be called a computer language?"
Hey, "Snarky" without citation works for all the damn ACs; so why can't I use it once in awhile?;-)
I'm suspicious of anyone who calls HTML 'venerable.' They should call it, "notorious" or "infamous," maybe, "expectorant." Marc Andreesen points out there are just problems with it, and I can't see OOP fixing things.
So, I looked at this guy's project, and it's better than I expected. The major problem it solves is: "how do you avoid repeating yourself, while still keeping things flexible?" The common approach right now is to either throw it into a CSS library (like Bootstrap) or write Javascript to produce the HTML. The latter idea there sounds like a joke but it's not.
In comparison, this lets you break things into components (like React does), but without any cost to the front end. Overall a good approach, but likely to get lost in the noise of a thousand other web frameworks.
I'm suspicious of anyone who calls HTML a "LANGUAGE", let alone "venerable".
Despite the "L" in the acronym, HTML is NOT a computer Language. It lacks several of the criteria. Must I list them for a Slashdot audience?
Object oriented is very overblown methodology. It has its advantages but overall it just gets in the way, because it takes the effort away from logic and workflow and more towards design. So you often end up with a well designed product that doesn't do what it needs to do.
MS, like almost every company on earth, would kill to have a "fad" like that...
The article you link in fact state "In contrast to the iPhone and Mac, the iPad continues to struggle". They made a lot more even on Mac computers. Their competitors make more (revenue) on laptops/desktops than Apple does on Macs. While no company would turn down an extra $5 billion in revenue certainly, the players in the industry don't have much reason to be *exceedingly* envious of that particular product.
iPad fever had the world on fire as it went from $2 billion a quarter to 5 and then 11 billion, with people assuming that trend would continue. $11 billion was respectable in its own right and would outpace most companies PCs sales if sustained, but people were *mostly* focused on the presumed future. Since then iPad sales half fallen to half of that, without a sign of that trend reversing.
And as an argument against MS' sales of all Surface products sales, that 5 Billion figure is still pretty damning.
So, your statements sound just like what they are: Sour grapes. You can "glass half full" it all you want; but the dollars don't lie.
And Apple didn't make "a lot more" on Macs during the same Quarter, with the insinuation being that the iPad sales are in trouble. They made 36% more DOLLARS on products (Macs) that generally cost 3 to 6 times that of a typical iPad. So, with that "adjustment" in mind, what I would say is that both the iPad and the Mac are generating a metric shitpotfull of cash, and sales are quite strong for both product classes.
The Sales Figures seemed to combine the ENTIRE "Surface" brand of Products.
Yeah. The Surface and those rarely sold books and the almost non-existant Surface desktop itself.
I'll stay right where I am, on the plane of reality thankyou very much. But hey since Apple is outstripping MS sales and has been for all these years there's no way Microsoft would release another such device because making money is not enough when someone else has higher sales and dumber fans right?
And you don't even know the difference between an iPad and an iPad pro. You really are just a fake.
Oh, I know the (relatively small) difference between an iPad and an iPad Pro (primarily better digitizer (and one model with a larger display than any iPad), better SoC, Pencil Support) but I just can't find sales figures that break it out by model. Apple has those; but you and I don't.
And remember, it's you that said the Surface Books and Surface Studio sales weren't even worth considering. But the flaw in that "logic", as far as it "excusing" the Surface Line's relatively embarrassing sales performance, is that They've had that same ONE QUARTER Period to contribute to the Surface LINE's sales revenue as Apple's Mac and iPad Products did for Apple. But, as you pointed out, they just, er, didn't.
Why? A Quarter's Sales is a Quarter's Sales. All the products have been on the market for a full quarter. So no "adjustments" are necessary. These figures don't lie, and in fact, are actually quite illuminating.
Oh, that must explain why Apple themselves have apologized for the Mac Pro.
If there's a troll here, it's you.
What "must explain"?
While I have most certainly defended the 2016 MacBook Pro (and more particularly, the 15" TouchBar models), I haven't seriously "defended" the Trash Can Mac Pro, other than to say that, IMHO, Apple was clearly betting on a rapid adopition of Thunderbolt that is only now picking up speed; and that if TB had kicked butt early-on (like USB had years earlier), the Mac Pro would definitely been more popular.
And I also make no secret that it sounds like Apple IS listening to the Pro market, and is attempting to redefine their products to address a wider envelope of "Pro" applications. Why is that a "Bad Thing"?
Every Company, (especially "tech" companies), makes mistakes and gets sidetracked. But what matters is how quickly they realize the mistake and how accurately they correct for it. All I can say is that I have 41 years of experience with Apple products, and I can honestly say that Apple (while certainly not perfect!), does have a much better track record in both of those metrics than pretty much any other tech company (especially big ones). That's not fanboiism; its observation.
and transforming into a company like Apple. They've more or less failed at that. 23% is a huge number in the corporate world. Somebody in Microsoft is freaking out over that I'm sure. Another quarter or two like that and their senior management will kill the line. Microsoft doesn't spend billions on branding, which come to think of it is probably why they can't hang with Apple.
No, they "can't hang with Apple" because their hardware sucks compared with Apple's, costs every bit as much as Apple's, and their OS is simply a bad joke and compared with Apple's, not to mention more like malware than a proper OS.
Because you're comparing all Mac sales against a single type of product ("ultraportable" Surface). The Mac line-up consists of quite a few product lines including desktop (iMac, Mac Pro, Mac Mini) and notebook/laptop devices (Macbook, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro) that target many different types of consumers.
Ahem. I saw no such "product distinction" in TFS. In fact, It specifically said "Revenue generated by Microsoft Surface Hardware"., and later referring to the "Surface LINE. So, I call shenanigans.
The Surface line consists of Laptops, Franken-Tablets, and now, even a Desktop. So what's "unfair" about my comparison? You might be surprised...
Since those are all designed to DIRECTLY compete not only with all sub-groups of the Mac line (except perhaps the Mac mini and Mac Pro, which, together, likely only account for less than 10% of Mac sales), AND also to DIRECTLY compete with the iPad line, the only thing "unfair" about my comparison was that it DIDN'T include the 5.3 Billion in iPad sales along with the 7.2 Billion in Mac sales. Together, those two product-lines come to 12.55 Billion in sales.
So, what we REALLY have is a 15:1 Ratio of products that are DEFINITELY AND DIRECTLY Competing (and calculatedly-so on MS' part).
And yet they are making billions off it. So maybe no one gives a shit about Apple sales of a completely different product with a completely different target market.
Come off it:
The Sales Figures seemed to combine the ENTIRE "Surface" brand of Products. That includes Laptops, Franken-Tablets, and even a Desktop.
Most of those products COMPLETELY overlap Apple target markets; in fact, they are CALCULATED to do JUST THAT.
So, if we want to include the iPad sales in with the Mac Sales (since the Surface Pro is at least tangentially aimed at that market), that 8:1 Ratio likely becomes more like 15:1.
In fact, even though Q1 2017 iPad sales were down, they still managed to completely eclipse the entire Surface line, at 5.3 BEELION dollars, or only slightly less than the 7.2 BEELION dollars in the more-expensive Mac sales. Read it and weep:
So, adding 5.3 BEELION in iPad Sales to the 7.2 BEELION in Mac sales, we have a grand total of 12.5 BEELION Dollars in sales of products that are DIRECTLY COMPETING with the Surface "brand". So, if you do the math, that comes to a Ratio of 15.1:1.
Now, aren't you glad you brought that up?
And If the figures were reversed, I can assure you that you wouldn't be trying to "distinguish" those target markets between the two companies.
Brand new product vs 2 year old product. Comparing a product (computer) to a product it doesn't compete with (professional tablet). How well are those iPad Pro sales coming along?
Yeah thought so, just more shit-posting from TheFakeTimCook with the VeryRealRealityDistortion that goes with it.
What you talking about, Jackson?
The Surface Book was updated one MONTH before the 2016 MBP came out. The $4k Surface Studio (with its hideously weak hardware) was announced at that same time, and came out one MONTH after the 2016 MBP came out.
And isn't the common meme that Apple puts outdated hardware in their products? So which is it? Can't have it both ways...
And IIRC, the Surface Pro 4 was released near the END of 2015 (October), and so, what is this "2 year old hardware" you're yammering about? And, if the rumors are true, we're about to see a Surface Pro 5. So, we'll see...
And iPad Pro sales are doing QUITE well, thanks for asking! And customer satisfaction is nearly 100%. Nice strawman, there; since we were supposedly talking about Mac Sales.
And so, while we're off in the weeds in the discussion, I'd like to point out that Only Microsoft is stupid enough to make a half-fast (and half-assed) "product" that TRIES (and FAILS!) to be BOTH a Tablet and a Laptop, and then RUINS their halfway-decent Desktop OS (Windows 7) by TRYING to shoehorn a laughable, Fisher-Price "touch UI" into it, resulting in THREE sweeping UI paradigm-shifts in as many years... And they have yet ANOTHER (Neon), UI-shift planned for Real Soon Now(tm), who's main "trick" is the use of "Transparency", a UI feature that OS X featured prominently no later than 10.1 (nearly 20 years ago). That's ok, maybe someday MS will even rediscover Overlapping Windows again...
The "updated" MacBook Pro is hated in the MacRumors forums by most pro users (useless touch bar, lack of ports, thinness over function).
The iMac is hated by everyone who doesn't want a built-in display in their desktop computers so it's not a valid option. So our only options left are either an underpowered and downgraded Mac mini (which is itself now three years old - or five years old if you count from the 2012 Mac mini which was the last real update) or a not-really-upgradable, not-really-Pro-featured but pro-expensive trashcan Mac Pro which Apple themselves apologized about.
So no, I'm not "ignoring" anything.
MacRumors has almost as many Trolling Mac Haters on it than Slashdot. It's a serious problem on that Forum.
Try AppleInsider for a little more "rational" discourse.
Uh, "pulling an Apple" would be introducing updates to Windows and other software that make it no longer work on the old hardware.
Nobody buys Apple because of hardware. Apple hardware is shit to begin with but then they never update for many years so you're left with shit out-of-date hardware. People buy a new Apple because of either the above mentioned forced upgrade or because it comes in a new cool looking box.
2016 MacBook Pro. Previous update 2015.
2014 MacBook Pro. Previous update 2012. Next update in the works.
Your point is meaningless. Microsoft doesn't need to outsell Apple on units to be successful. They're not even trying. The fact that they are letting other Windows device makers reuse the concept in their own hardware is evidence of that.
So seriously shut the fuck up. This stupid apple vs. Windows versus Google versus whatever flag-waving as annoying as fuck. It's the third time in the comments you've made this point and it's been a useless point every time you've said it.
Nice that you disingenuously ignored that the MacBook Pro got updated about a year after the last model, and the iMac only about 6 months more than that.
It doesn't mean there's a loss of interest. It just means that everybody who really wanted one already has one.
Now all they have to do is release updates every year or so for those users to give them an upgrade path.
And, apparently, something they might also have to do is to have Apple go out of business, since Macs outsold Surface devices EIGHT TO ONE in the same time period:
- The Surface Line is more about making windows trendy and sexy in an era of iPads and multifunction laptops.....The surface line has pushed other manufacturers that sell windows machines to innovate and deploy more modern products (even Asus has been experimenting with combining tablet display technology and form factor with windows, Dell has been investing more in their small tablet line).
- Since the whole point of the surface line is to cater to Microsoft's affluent customers and push the state of windows mobile computers, it is more important that Microsoft deliver new products well and perfectly than to delivery frequently. The last several refreshes of the line have gone well....the Surface Studio, Pro 4, and book have all done their job....if there is any complaints, it is that Microsoft pushed releasing the hardware before all the bugs were worked out or before newer hardware could be slimmed down enough in size. And, the book has already gotten a modest boost with the recent performance base release.
So what if sales for the current quarter are trending down as a result of Microsoft taking longer to release a Surface pro 5 or book 2? Isn't waiting until they can deliver properly what we want them to do?
Then, why did Mac Sales outstrip Surface Sales 8 to 1?
I note you didn't mention Boot Times, I'll bet those were significantly faster.
For a system that's left on (and sleeping when not in use), boot times are largely irrelevant. The difference between a 5 second boot time and a 50 second boot time is less than a second a day. That's the live most of the iMacs I've seen (let's just say more than a handful) live. Load times are what people who actually use their computers notice; most people seem to go get a cup of coffee or a snack while their computer boots, and they're gone much longer than it takes to do so no matter how fast or slow it is; but they're sitting at the damn thing when they launch a program, aren't they?
You may have me there. And it may explain why Apple has de-emphasized the Fusion Drive.
I guess the problem is that people run too much of a mix of Applications to make the "Copy the most-used ones to SSD" actually work out in practice. Well, at least I have an answer to my internal question regarding that topic...
How many users do you think really spend "upward of $10-20k or more on a single workstation?" The numbers just aren't there.
Enough that companies exist just to serve them. If the numbers weren't there, those companies wouldn't be, either.
Those companies are mostly systems-integrators, not really OEMs. And most of them are nearly always teetering on the verge of insolvency. Yes, there are a lot of "qualifiers" in that sentence; because there are always exceptions. But for every "Avid" (which I am not sure even makes any "systems" anymore), there are probably a dozen flash-in-the-pan companies of this ilk.
HOWEVER, I do get the sense that Apple is trying to figure-out how to address at least some of that market, by saying that the next Mac Pro is going to be "modular", and that the emphasis will be on "expandability, customize-ability, and 'A system that can be updated to continue to meet future needs.' "
You mean like the MacPro they killed off in 2012? Like I said, they were the darling of the video production industry until they did that and, by now, those systems have been replaced and the industry has migrated to new platforms; they won't be coming back after being bitten once.
As I said, they were betting on Thunderbolt; but most of the rest of the industry didn't follow their vision. If they had, the Trash Can would have been a much larger success.
What that translates to in actual hardware/software terms remains to be seen; but it is heartening that Apple appears to be listening and trying to address the "Pro" market in a much less "one size fits all" approach.
Indeed, and they shouldn't have tried to make it one-size-fits-all in 2013, either.
But the flip-side of that concept is Dell or HP, which have 12 thousand overlapping models with a Googolplex of BTO options. That isn't engineering, it's nothing more than Newegg whitebox-computers with a brand-name on the case.
But what is the actual bottom-line of any "card-cage" computer (like the 2012 Mac Pro), other than trying to be "one-size-fits-all". The 2013 Mac Pro could have been that (at least to a much larger extent), if Apple had simply created their own TB card-cage and set "C'mon boys, fill 'er up!". Then it would have been far-closer to a "re-imagining" of the tower computer that I believe they had envisioned. I am kind of amazed that they never came to that conclusion, actually.
In other words: Jobs is dead. And Apple is just beginning to realize that some of his peccadilloes regarding a penchant for minimalism do not necessarily serve some higher-end market segments very well.
Funny, you blame Jobs for this, but the decision to destroy the Mac Pro came after h
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I'd use "Stack Overflow agrees with me" as a supporting argument. I mean, in this case you're not wrong, but... Just be careful with it :)
They seem to be fairly level-headed for an internet forum. Sure, every forum has flamewars and trolls; but in my experience, they don't seem to be that bad...
Maybe I've just been lucky, eh?
Oh, and another reason I continue to use capitalization instead of HTML "font tags" for stuff, especially italicizing, is that, when I am home on my iPad, iOS insists on changing the "i" to "I" in that tag, and I can never remember if that tag is case-sensitive or not. My HTML knowledge is very weak; so don't flame me if I should know better than to keep correcting the damn italic-tags.
Yes, I know I could turn off auto-correct (and I should); but it occasionally does me a solid; so I let it play its game... ;-)
Now if someone would fix WebKit for iOS 9 (which is as far as my iPad 2 goes), so it stops getting clobbered by who-knows-what tags and forcing a re-render of the page. Browsing MacRumors.com, for example, is an exercise in utter frustration. And its not the only site. I'm about ready to use Opera or some other "remote-rendering" browser to avoid that most-annoying habit.
Since you're a web guy, ya got any thoughts on that?
Besides, Stack Overflow agrees with me that HTML, despite the "L", is NOT a Programming Language (pretty much for the reasons I was thinking).
http://stackoverflow.com/quest...
Ugh... HTML quote fail... Whatever, you know which part of that you wrote and which part was written by me...
I fingered it out, LOL!
And actually, I was busy when I posted that, so decided to use the snarky comment to hide the fact that I was too lazy to find a reference to "What is necessary for something to be called a computer language?"
Hey, "Snarky" without citation works for all the damn ACs; so why can't I use it once in awhile? ;-)
I'm suspicious of anyone who calls HTML 'venerable.' They should call it, "notorious" or "infamous," maybe, "expectorant." Marc Andreesen points out there are just problems with it, and I can't see OOP fixing things.
So, I looked at this guy's project, and it's better than I expected. The major problem it solves is: "how do you avoid repeating yourself, while still keeping things flexible?" The common approach right now is to either throw it into a CSS library (like Bootstrap) or write Javascript to produce the HTML. The latter idea there sounds like a joke but it's not.
In comparison, this lets you break things into components (like React does), but without any cost to the front end. Overall a good approach, but likely to get lost in the noise of a thousand other web frameworks.
I'm suspicious of anyone who calls HTML a "LANGUAGE", let alone "venerable".
Despite the "L" in the acronym, HTML is NOT a computer Language. It lacks several of the criteria. Must I list them for a Slashdot audience?
Object oriented is very overblown methodology. It has its advantages but overall it just gets in the way, because it takes the effort away from logic and workflow and more towards design. So you often end up with a well designed product that doesn't do what it needs to do.
Exactly.
Form over Function writ large.
Well, since Mac and OS X are pieces of shit, I see things changing pretty soon.
LOL.
I'll wait...
MS, like almost every company on earth, would kill to have a "fad" like that...
The article you link in fact state "In contrast to the iPhone and Mac, the iPad continues to struggle". They made a lot more even on Mac computers. Their competitors make more (revenue) on laptops/desktops than Apple does on Macs. While no company would turn down an extra $5 billion in revenue certainly, the players in the industry don't have much reason to be *exceedingly* envious of that particular product.
iPad fever had the world on fire as it went from $2 billion a quarter to 5 and then 11 billion, with people assuming that trend would continue. $11 billion was respectable in its own right and would outpace most companies PCs sales if sustained, but people were *mostly* focused on the presumed future. Since then iPad sales half fallen to half of that, without a sign of that trend reversing.
And as an argument against MS' sales of all Surface products sales, that 5 Billion figure is still pretty damning.
So, your statements sound just like what they are: Sour grapes. You can "glass half full" it all you want; but the dollars don't lie.
And Apple didn't make "a lot more" on Macs during the same Quarter, with the insinuation being that the iPad sales are in trouble. They made 36% more DOLLARS on products (Macs) that generally cost 3 to 6 times that of a typical iPad. So, with that "adjustment" in mind, what I would say is that both the iPad and the Mac are generating a metric shitpotfull of cash, and sales are quite strong for both product classes.
The Sales Figures seemed to combine the ENTIRE "Surface" brand of Products.
Yeah. The Surface and those rarely sold books and the almost non-existant Surface desktop itself.
I'll stay right where I am, on the plane of reality thankyou very much. But hey since Apple is outstripping MS sales and has been for all these years there's no way Microsoft would release another such device because making money is not enough when someone else has higher sales and dumber fans right?
And you don't even know the difference between an iPad and an iPad pro. You really are just a fake.
Oh, I know the (relatively small) difference between an iPad and an iPad Pro (primarily better digitizer (and one model with a larger display than any iPad), better SoC, Pencil Support) but I just can't find sales figures that break it out by model. Apple has those; but you and I don't.
And remember, it's you that said the Surface Books and Surface Studio sales weren't even worth considering. But the flaw in that "logic", as far as it "excusing" the Surface Line's relatively embarrassing sales performance, is that They've had that same ONE QUARTER Period to contribute to the Surface LINE's sales revenue as Apple's Mac and iPad Products did for Apple. But, as you pointed out, they just, er, didn't.
Why? A Quarter's Sales is a Quarter's Sales. All the products have been on the market for a full quarter. So no "adjustments" are necessary. These figures don't lie, and in fact, are actually quite illuminating.
Oh, that must explain why Apple themselves have apologized for the Mac Pro.
If there's a troll here, it's you.
What "must explain"?
While I have most certainly defended the 2016 MacBook Pro (and more particularly, the 15" TouchBar models), I haven't seriously "defended" the Trash Can Mac Pro, other than to say that, IMHO, Apple was clearly betting on a rapid adopition of Thunderbolt that is only now picking up speed; and that if TB had kicked butt early-on (like USB had years earlier), the Mac Pro would definitely been more popular.
And I also make no secret that it sounds like Apple IS listening to the Pro market, and is attempting to redefine their products to address a wider envelope of "Pro" applications. Why is that a "Bad Thing"?
Every Company, (especially "tech" companies), makes mistakes and gets sidetracked. But what matters is how quickly they realize the mistake and how accurately they correct for it. All I can say is that I have 41 years of experience with Apple products, and I can honestly say that Apple (while certainly not perfect!), does have a much better track record in both of those metrics than pretty much any other tech company (especially big ones). That's not fanboiism; its observation.
By reading the comments you can clearly see they're not trolls. The complaints make sense.
Only to another Troll.
And I have thoroughly detailed arguments that factually show why their pseudo-complaints are specious, ridiculous and just plain untrue.
Hint: Look for posts by author "MacsRuleOthersDrool" for details.
and transforming into a company like Apple. They've more or less failed at that. 23% is a huge number in the corporate world. Somebody in Microsoft is freaking out over that I'm sure. Another quarter or two like that and their senior management will kill the line. Microsoft doesn't spend billions on branding, which come to think of it is probably why they can't hang with Apple.
No, they "can't hang with Apple" because their hardware sucks compared with Apple's, costs every bit as much as Apple's, and their OS is simply a bad joke and compared with Apple's, not to mention more like malware than a proper OS.
People are stupid; but not THAT stupid.
-The tablet fad has pretty much come and gone.
I think you need to tell that to the people that bought $5.33 BEELION worth of iPads I Q1 2017.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news...
That ALONE is 6:1 of the ENTIRE Surface LINE (Surface Book, Surface Pro and Surface Studio).
So, if the iPad is a "fad", it's a pretty long-lived and vibrant one. MS, like almost every company on earth, would kill to have a "fad" like that...
Because you're comparing all Mac sales against a single type of product ("ultraportable" Surface). The Mac line-up consists of quite a few product lines including desktop (iMac, Mac Pro, Mac Mini) and notebook/laptop devices (Macbook, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro) that target many different types of consumers.
Ahem. I saw no such "product distinction" in TFS. In fact, It specifically said "Revenue generated by Microsoft Surface Hardware"., and later referring to the "Surface LINE. So, I call shenanigans.
The Surface line consists of Laptops, Franken-Tablets, and now, even a Desktop. So what's "unfair" about my comparison? You might be surprised...
Since those are all designed to DIRECTLY compete not only with all sub-groups of the Mac line (except perhaps the Mac mini and Mac Pro, which, together, likely only account for less than 10% of Mac sales), AND also to DIRECTLY compete with the iPad line, the only thing "unfair" about my comparison was that it DIDN'T include the 5.3 Billion in iPad sales along with the 7.2 Billion in Mac sales. Together, those two product-lines come to 12.55 Billion in sales.
So, what we REALLY have is a 15:1 Ratio of products that are DEFINITELY AND DIRECTLY Competing (and calculatedly-so on MS' part).
Sorry, Dem's da facts.
Suck it.
And yet they are making billions off it. So maybe no one gives a shit about Apple sales of a completely different product with a completely different target market.
Come off it:
The Sales Figures seemed to combine the ENTIRE "Surface" brand of Products. That includes Laptops, Franken-Tablets, and even a Desktop.
Most of those products COMPLETELY overlap Apple target markets; in fact, they are CALCULATED to do JUST THAT.
So, if we want to include the iPad sales in with the Mac Sales (since the Surface Pro is at least tangentially aimed at that market), that 8:1 Ratio likely becomes more like 15:1.
In fact, even though Q1 2017 iPad sales were down, they still managed to completely eclipse the entire Surface line, at 5.3 BEELION dollars, or only slightly less than the 7.2 BEELION dollars in the more-expensive Mac sales. Read it and weep:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news...
So, adding 5.3 BEELION in iPad Sales to the 7.2 BEELION in Mac sales, we have a grand total of 12.5 BEELION Dollars in sales of products that are DIRECTLY COMPETING with the Surface "brand". So, if you do the math, that comes to a Ratio of 15.1:1.
Now, aren't you glad you brought that up?
And If the figures were reversed, I can assure you that you wouldn't be trying to "distinguish" those target markets between the two companies.
So, I repeat: COME OFF IT!
Brand new product vs 2 year old product. Comparing a product (computer) to a product it doesn't compete with (professional tablet). How well are those iPad Pro sales coming along?
Yeah thought so, just more shit-posting from TheFakeTimCook with the VeryRealRealityDistortion that goes with it.
What you talking about, Jackson?
The Surface Book was updated one MONTH before the 2016 MBP came out. The $4k Surface Studio (with its hideously weak hardware) was announced at that same time, and came out one MONTH after the 2016 MBP came out.
And isn't the common meme that Apple puts outdated hardware in their products? So which is it? Can't have it both ways...
And IIRC, the Surface Pro 4 was released near the END of 2015 (October), and so, what is this "2 year old hardware" you're yammering about? And, if the rumors are true, we're about to see a Surface Pro 5. So, we'll see...
And iPad Pro sales are doing QUITE well, thanks for asking! And customer satisfaction is nearly 100%. Nice strawman, there; since we were supposedly talking about Mac Sales.
And so, while we're off in the weeds in the discussion, I'd like to point out that Only Microsoft is stupid enough to make a half-fast (and half-assed) "product" that TRIES (and FAILS!) to be BOTH a Tablet and a Laptop, and then RUINS their halfway-decent Desktop OS (Windows 7) by TRYING to shoehorn a laughable, Fisher-Price "touch UI" into it, resulting in THREE sweeping UI paradigm-shifts in as many years... And they have yet ANOTHER (Neon), UI-shift planned for Real Soon Now(tm), who's main "trick" is the use of "Transparency", a UI feature that OS X featured prominently no later than 10.1 (nearly 20 years ago). That's ok, maybe someday MS will even rediscover Overlapping Windows again...
And yet everyone around here praises Android...
My Android phone is running the Open Source Lineage OS, you insensitive clod!
So, the only way to make an "Android" phone acceptable, is to DITCH ANDOID?!?
Hilarious!!!
The "updated" MacBook Pro is hated in the MacRumors forums by most pro users (useless touch bar, lack of ports, thinness over function).
The iMac is hated by everyone who doesn't want a built-in display in their desktop computers so it's not a valid option. So our only options left are either an underpowered and downgraded Mac mini (which is itself now three years old - or five years old if you count from the 2012 Mac mini which was the last real update) or a not-really-upgradable, not-really-Pro-featured but pro-expensive trashcan Mac Pro which Apple themselves apologized about.
So no, I'm not "ignoring" anything.
MacRumors has almost as many Trolling Mac Haters on it than Slashdot. It's a serious problem on that Forum.
Try AppleInsider for a little more "rational" discourse.
Uh, "pulling an Apple" would be introducing updates to Windows and other software that make it no longer work on the old hardware.
Nobody buys Apple because of hardware. Apple hardware is shit to begin with but then they never update for many years so you're left with shit out-of-date hardware. People buy a new Apple because of either the above mentioned forced upgrade or because it comes in a new cool looking box.
2016 MacBook Pro. Previous update 2015.
2014 MacBook Pro. Previous update 2012. Next update in the works.
Your point is meaningless. Microsoft doesn't need to outsell Apple on units to be successful. They're not even trying. The fact that they are letting other Windows device makers reuse the concept in their own hardware is evidence of that.
So seriously shut the fuck up. This stupid apple vs. Windows versus Google versus whatever flag-waving as annoying as fuck. It's the third time in the comments you've made this point and it's been a useless point every time you've said it.
Sez the Karma-Proof COWARD.
Imagine if Apple actually cared to update their Macs more often, they would outsell Surface even more!
#MacMini2014WasAnInsult
#MacMiniNotUpdatedForFiveYears
Nice that you disingenuously ignored that the MacBook Pro got updated about a year after the last model, and the iMac only about 6 months more than that.
It doesn't mean there's a loss of interest. It just means that everybody who really wanted one already has one.
Now all they have to do is release updates every year or so for those users to give them an upgrade path.
And, apparently, something they might also have to do is to have Apple go out of business, since Macs outsold Surface devices EIGHT TO ONE in the same time period:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Someone is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
- The Surface Line is more about making windows trendy and sexy in an era of iPads and multifunction laptops.....The surface line has pushed other manufacturers that sell windows machines to innovate and deploy more modern products (even Asus has been experimenting with combining tablet display technology and form factor with windows, Dell has been investing more in their small tablet line).
- Since the whole point of the surface line is to cater to Microsoft's affluent customers and push the state of windows mobile computers, it is more important that Microsoft deliver new products well and perfectly than to delivery frequently. The last several refreshes of the line have gone well....the Surface Studio, Pro 4, and book have all done their job....if there is any complaints, it is that Microsoft pushed releasing the hardware before all the bugs were worked out or before newer hardware could be slimmed down enough in size. And, the book has already gotten a modest boost with the recent performance base release.
So what if sales for the current quarter are trending down as a result of Microsoft taking longer to release a Surface pro 5 or book 2? Isn't waiting until they can deliver properly what we want them to do?
Then, why did Mac Sales outstrip Surface Sales 8 to 1?
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Q1 2017 Mac Sales: $7.244 BEELION.
Surface Sales: $831 MEELION.
Yep, peeps be lovin' them some Surface kit, LOL!
The Incredible Secret Money Machine.
There is no other book like it.
https://www.amazon.com/Incredi...
I note you didn't mention Boot Times, I'll bet those were significantly faster.
For a system that's left on (and sleeping when not in use), boot times are largely irrelevant. The difference between a 5 second boot time and a 50 second boot time is less than a second a day. That's the live most of the iMacs I've seen (let's just say more than a handful) live. Load times are what people who actually use their computers notice; most people seem to go get a cup of coffee or a snack while their computer boots, and they're gone much longer than it takes to do so no matter how fast or slow it is; but they're sitting at the damn thing when they launch a program, aren't they?
You may have me there. And it may explain why Apple has de-emphasized the Fusion Drive.
I guess the problem is that people run too much of a mix of Applications to make the "Copy the most-used ones to SSD" actually work out in practice. Well, at least I have an answer to my internal question regarding that topic...
How many users do you think really spend "upward of $10-20k or more on a single workstation?" The numbers just aren't there.
Enough that companies exist just to serve them. If the numbers weren't there, those companies wouldn't be, either.
Those companies are mostly systems-integrators, not really OEMs. And most of them are nearly always teetering on the verge of insolvency. Yes, there are a lot of "qualifiers" in that sentence; because there are always exceptions. But for every "Avid" (which I am not sure even makes any "systems" anymore), there are probably a dozen flash-in-the-pan companies of this ilk.
HOWEVER, I do get the sense that Apple is trying to figure-out how to address at least some of that market, by saying that the next Mac Pro is going to be "modular", and that the emphasis will be on "expandability, customize-ability, and 'A system that can be updated to continue to meet future needs.' "
You mean like the MacPro they killed off in 2012? Like I said, they were the darling of the video production industry until they did that and, by now, those systems have been replaced and the industry has migrated to new platforms; they won't be coming back after being bitten once.
As I said, they were betting on Thunderbolt; but most of the rest of the industry didn't follow their vision. If they had, the Trash Can would have been a much larger success.
What that translates to in actual hardware/software terms remains to be seen; but it is heartening that Apple appears to be listening and trying to address the "Pro" market in a much less "one size fits all" approach.
Indeed, and they shouldn't have tried to make it one-size-fits-all in 2013, either.
But the flip-side of that concept is Dell or HP, which have 12 thousand overlapping models with a Googolplex of BTO options. That isn't engineering, it's nothing more than Newegg whitebox-computers with a brand-name on the case.
But what is the actual bottom-line of any "card-cage" computer (like the 2012 Mac Pro), other than trying to be "one-size-fits-all". The 2013 Mac Pro could have been that (at least to a much larger extent), if Apple had simply created their own TB card-cage and set "C'mon boys, fill 'er up!". Then it would have been far-closer to a "re-imagining" of the tower computer that I believe they had envisioned. I am kind of amazed that they never came to that conclusion, actually.
In other words: Jobs is dead. And Apple is just beginning to realize that some of his peccadilloes regarding a penchant for minimalism do not necessarily serve some higher-end market segments very well.
Funny, you blame Jobs for this, but the decision to destroy the Mac Pro came after h