this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45745 readers
89 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Luxury brand is what happened.

(First it was colored plastic.)

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I love the look of colored plastics.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Join us at /3dprinting

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A study from 2022 found that deploying Macs in the enterprise has a lower TCO than Windows. Mainly because they have to buy less extra software and they don't need as many IT staff to support them. Also, employees with Macs are more productive and do better on their performance reviews.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't see this mentioned there, but that Apple has largely ignored enterprise works out as a strength; other companies wrote and open sourced pretty good tools. That can result in tools that better meet your needs, and generally will result in a lower TCO.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

And since Macs are just UNIX machines under the hood, a lot of those open-source things are already built-in or can be added without much trouble.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Yes and by contrast Microsoft has been enshittifying the hell out of Windows in order to extract more and more money out of the corporations they have contracts with. They force everyone to use Teams, Azure, OneDrive, and Office 365 so that they achieve total lock-in and ratchet up the cost of the support contracts.

Microsoft is basically following the same playbook IBM pioneered in the enterprise: use a slick sales team to get your hooks into into the CEO, CIO, and other senior VPs in charge of IT in order to force all their crap onto the company by top-down fiat rather than bottom-up informed decision making.

[–] cramola@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the enterprise. If you're a 1 user to 1 device shop maybe. If you're an institution with shared devices...good fucking luck, be prepared to enter device management hell

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] st3ph3n@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago

They costed less back when the competition was the IBM PC, which cost as much as a car back in the 80s. Hasn't been true for decades now.

[–] zer0squar3d@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Guess it's as good a place as ever to remind everyone who uses Patreon that if you are subscribing through Patreon app on iOS that prices are going up in Sept by 50-60% and if you want to save money go through the actual website. This is Apple charging more not Patreon.

[–] Mbourgon@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s also PATREON fucking up. I’ve got a couple people i follow that are moving to Ghost as a hedge.

[–] TheKingBee@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

ghost?

nm I looked it up myself.

Why aren't more people on ghost? It's a stupid name for what it does, but the $9 a month and keeping the rest is a great deal if you have more than a handful of subscribers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fossphi@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

The monopolistic shenanigans aside. I hope that companies also learn from this and have functional websites again and stop forcing people to apps. It's gonna a be a win win

[–] tyler@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Apple is not charging 60% more. That is patreon. How this drivel spreads is beyond me. Apple charges 30%. This has been pretty fucking consistent for a decade. Patreon is telling creators to raise their prices because they (patreon) aren’t going to take the loss, they’re going to force it on their userbase. Patreon could easily just eat the 30% or even 15%, but that would cost them profits so they don’t. And then they claim Apple is costing users a 60% price increase. Fucking ridiculous.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why would anyone want to use an app for Patreon, anyway? It's very much a browser experience.

[–] Balooog@discuss.online 0 points 3 months ago

I don't disagree on the Patreon app point, but I sub to like 6 podcasts and never visit the app or website. For me it's very much an RSS feed experience via my preferred podcast app.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Does a small handful of things extremely well, is otherwise stupidly limited by choice and costs way too much.

Think different, even if it means thinking worse.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

What small handful of things?

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Um, being a status symbol, and um, its got some good software…

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My Linux nerd friend swore by Intel Macs for recording/mixing music for years.

He hasn't tried the Apple silicon macs at all though.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

I’ve been in the unix and Linux world for 10 years now, with forays into administering windows when necessary.

I currently write software for Linux hosts, I have tux tattooed on my chest, literally.

Today the only laptop I’d purchase is an Apple silicon machine.

The only thing I miss is i3.

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  1. Best trackpads. By far. Gaming? Use a controller. I will die on this hill.
  2. All of their OSes are a great user experience. They're stable, they're intuitive, and--most importantly--they're aesthetically pleasing.
  3. Logic Pro.
  4. Actually, basically every app that Apple makes is pretty good. I would swap out the majority of the software on my Pixel for Apple apps if it wasn't proprietary and exclusive.
  5. iPhone videos are outstanding. My Pixel can't match my old 13 Pro's video, and it's a newer phone. Photos are also slightly worse here, but not after some editing.
  6. Objectively better build quality ~~if you ignore planned obscelecense~~. My MacBook just feels well built. It feels sturdy and durable ~~even if a speck of dust can kill the display~~, and every factor of the build is just better than anything else available. Phones are mostly up to spec, but my Pixel just doesn't feel as nice as my old iPhone, especially the objectively worse button and camera layout.

Mostly everything else? No. I can't install cool FOSS projects on my phone, or know what's running on it. I prefer Linux as an OS, but not any DE compared to macOS. I've also had some periods where stuff doesn't just work, such as iCloud fucking my free space and wiping almost my entire system when I try to fix the issue as per instructions I was given by an employee. Then, there's just that Apple is gross. I don't need to explain that, or anything about repair. Else.. the closed source software is excellent closed source software. The unrepairable, proprietary hardware is excellent hardware.

They're just a few steps from being better than any other company or project.. a couple of several thousand mile long steps.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Number one is because they've patented the trackpad sol noone else can use the newer style. Number 6 is madecompletely moot by the high price and the fact that many other vendors have laptops with BETTER build quality. Especially if you factor in all the engineering missteps they seem to constantly make.

Doubt me? Just look up Luis Rossman teardown videos. He'll show you actual macs from customers, that he takes appart onscreen, and shows you exactly how Apple makes extremely basic engineering mistakes.

Don't like him? Look up anyone else that gets under the hood of Apple products without being in Apple's cultish parts program.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Excellent summation, mate. I would have agreed with 2 even five years ago. Sadly not anymore.

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago

Yeah. I don't have an iPhone anymore due to this downward trend. I still think macOS holds up well now, though, despite their insistence on killing off old app support for no reason.

Also, I'm a musician. Linux has nothing up to par with Logic, and going Windows is utterly stupid. Best option right now, or I'm out my literal largest hobby.. unless I start making stuff oldschool style.

Not gonna lie. If I had the equipment and knowledge, I would.

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Macs are like uncannily good at real-time audio processing, also audio and MIDI routing in general has less friction. Less tinkering in general when connecting external synths

Like with anything you can find tons of people online who have no issues with their windows based production setup, YMMV. But macs are ubiquitous in the music space, from my experience I think it’s deserved

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

14 hours of lifetime on Macbook while also being silent is great.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Well, that button probably dates from the late 80s or early 90s, when Apple was comparing Macs to branded IBM PS/2s and such that were sold to schools and enterprises.

And they weren't wrong, at the time. Those PS/2s were fuckin' expensive.

[–] linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

apple was never cheaper than their competition, and when IBM got into PCs they were also not even comparable in quality anymore. Reality is that even in the early days apples was also more expensive and they relied on a dedicated fan base to sell their trash, to be fair they sorta earned their reputation in the super early PC space with actually good products but when IBM came in it had better PCs at lower prices and apple was basically riding on pure brand power. Then they had a few good hits with the ipad and later the iphone (tho the ipad was not as significant at the time as people seem to think it was looking back) and now they have been entirely eclipsed when it comes to phones and are once again reliant on hype and brand recognition.

It is not a unique history by any means but i feel it is especially egregious considering just how shit apple products are and how expensive they are.

[–] pimeys@lemmy.nauk.io 0 points 3 months ago

At the same time Windows is going down the drain, so if you compare removed to that it definitely has an edge. And that 8GB Air is not that expensive either... And fanboy can tell you it can swap to SSD so fast blah blah...

But if you have the knowledge to use Linux, there are less and less reasons to go even near removed computers...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zarathustrad@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

My Apple IIC was the stuff back in the 80s.

It was also the last Apple product I owned.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Original iPod: Clunky, ugly, not the most storage.

But using jt will remind you of playing with nipples.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Most of Apple's history, actually.

Macs have a reputation for being expensive because people compare the cheapest Mac to the cheapest PC, or to a custom-built PC. That's reasonable if the cheapest PC meets your needs or if you're into building your own PC, but if you compare a similarly-equipped name-brand PC, the numbers shift a LOT.

From the G3-G5 era ('97-2006) through most of the Intel era (2006-2020), if you went to Dell or HP and configured a machine to match Apple's specs as closely as possible, you'd find the Macs were almost never much more expensive, and often cheaper. I say this as someone who routinely did such comparisons as part of their job. There were some notable exceptions, like most of the Intel MacBook Air models (they ranged from "okay" to "so bad it feels like a personal insult"), but that was never the rule. Even in the early-mid 90s, while Apple's own hardware was grossly overpriced, you could by Mac clones for much cheaper (clones were licensed third-parties who made Macs, and they were far and away the best value in the pre-G3 PowerPC era).

Macs also historically have a lower total cost of ownership, factoring in lifespan (cheap PCs fail frequently), support costs, etc. One of the most recent and extensive analyses of this I know if comes from IBM. See https://www.computerworld.com/article/1666267/ibm-mac-users-are-happier-and-more-productive.html

Toward the tail end of the Intel era, let's say around 2016-2020, Apple put out some real garbage. e.g. butterfly keyboards and the aforementioned craptastic Airs. But historically those are the exceptions, not the rule.

As for the "does more", well, that's debatable. Considering this is using Apple's 90s logo, I think it's pretty fair. Compare System 7 (released in '91) to Windows 3.1 (released in '92), and there is no contest. Windows was shit. This was generally true up until the 2000s, when the first few versions of OS X were half-baked and Apple was only just exiting its "beleaguered" period, and the mainstream press kept ringing the death knell. Windows lagged behind its competition by at least a few years up until Microsoft successfully killed or sufficiently hampered all that competition. I don't think you can make an honest argument in favor of Windows compared to any of its contemporaries in the 90s (e.g. Macintosh, OS/2, BeOS) that doesn't boil down to "we're used to it" or "we're locked in".

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Windows did a few vital things that Apple failed miserably on in the 90's.

Mac dropped support for legacy software and hardware on every new OS in the 90's. Microsoft maintained backwards capability. It was a major reason windows was more resource intensive and had more bugs. It was a smart move because windows OS was able to handle more software and hardware than Macs. This is the top reason why windows demolished Mac in sales.

Microsoft's business model allowed greater range of pricepoints. Most users in business or at home do not need the capabilities of the lowest priced Mac model. You don't need much to check e-mail, browse the web, and do some basic word processing. Apple did not service this largest section of the market at all.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Windows benefited by not being tied to the hardware. So if you could slap together a bunch of parts and swap out a few dozen floppies you could get a Windows machine. Which meant there were a ton of companies making Windows machines for cheaper than Apple could make Macs.

Apple tried to allow clones, but ran into the same problem because the clone makers could make cheaper machines by slapping together parts.

[–] the_radness@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's a shame that they won't just release macOS as a standalone product, even if it requires specific hardware to run. I would pay for it in a heartbeat.

I was actively into the Hackintosh scene in the early 10s. You could have an insanely powerful build (albeit the parts had to be compatible), and it would still be half the price of a lower end Mac Pro.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Apple is fundamentally a hardware company that uses features, workflows, and integrations to keep people buying hardware.

They’re never going to do something than undercuts hardware sales ever again.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thezeesystem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What's next? Google becoming evil ?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

seeing the mac logo im thinking this was when steve jobs was between. Nobody wanted an apple in 1999 and even early 2000's I remember a guy who used to stick apple stickets on his ibm to deter thieves.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Apple purchased NeXT in 1997. Steve became the i(nterim)CEO shortly after. iMac was first introduced in 1998. Steve was running the show already. That's around when the logo stopped being multi-colored.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samokosik@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

That aged like milk lol

[–] Surp@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

It doesn't even do anything more especially for the price. Just make an AMD rig that blows it outta the water ez.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

Just Capitalism Problems

[–] scottmeme@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Does less

Cost more

Fuck you

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Want wheels sucker?

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't that always the case? I mean compared to my IBM PC clone, mine did way more and cost way less. And it was upgradeable. And mine could play games.

[–] Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But does it have a cool rainbow apple?

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

Who cares when it could run Doom in full screen?

[–] patacon_pisao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Pro versions: Does a little more

Costs even more

Fuck you as well

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›