Why do you [not] buy Apple? Watch

Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by AdamskiUK)
: Anybody who tries to play the 'innovation' card; what about 64-bit mobile processors and sapphire displays etc etc. that are going into their phones?

Does it look like LG or Samsung are innovating to you?

You're like daft investment bankers - you expect growth year, upon year, upon year. The car industry has been putting diesel engines into cars for 80 years - why haven't we 'innovated' more and found something more efficient? Oh, we have? Minor, incremental updates including the revision of the constituent elements of the fuels and engines used? Not hydrogen powered cars though - not innovating enough. Shun them. They're rubbish.

^ Doesn't sound very plausible, does it? About as plausible as you sound when you say that tech companies have to produce new products every 4 months.

tl;dr? I buy Apple, not as a fanboy, but because I have no other viable options for my needs. My needs? Simplicity, speed and good after-purchase support.
The innovation element you speak of is the same as most Apple "innovations" in recent times, they are first to announce, not necessarily the first to actually do it.

  • The 64-bit is being worked on by others, it's almost certainly based on an ARM architecture (not for the first time either); less than 48 hours later Samsung came out and said that Apple weren't alone and Intel has also made a statement. This is having looked at an article from last September, so Qualcom and Nvidia almost certainly have something too. Also note, the ARM architecture referred to had been out for over a year when Apple made the announcement, so is it really that innovative? It's also worth noting that AT THIS TIME, unless Apple intend to more than double the amount of RAM they use, 64-bit is just a marketing ploy.
  • Sapphire Glass, I have a sapphire glass watch face, it's cool stuff, is it that much better than Gorilla Glass 3? I'm skeptical that it's substantially enough better to justify the extra expense and the environmental impact for a product you will only keep for a few years, it's not like a watch that, if it has sapphire glass, you will likely keep and use for decades. It's a nice thing for them to add, and is a good thing for press, not that innovative, and not so good on the environmental front.
  • As far as other recent innovations go, it's tending to be being innovative by beating major competition to market, you have to question whether they alone can take the credit, and making things thinner.


Much like I am taking a biased view against Apple because I really dislike them as a company, you're being rather biased against the competition. Yes, I would say Apples competition is being "innovative" I would not say because they are forced to make an announcement just to say "we aren't behind on this tech" means they aren't the innovator, not necessarily at least.

As for the car analogy, it's not a particularly good one. Technology moves forwards pretty quickly: flash storage capacity has increased over 1000 fold in the last decade; a lot of components still observe Moore's law, architectures are getting smaller and smaller every few years such that it's not at all long until quantum effects might have to be considered.

People aren't asking for new products every 4 months, we have come to expect new products annually, along with some groundbreaking progress every two. Look at how a lot of things are going- one year something new happens, the next it is revised, the following year something new. The iPhone naming system gives it away, it's visible in GPU and CPU road maps: Something new and groundbreaking every other year and a revision in the middle.
0
reply
luke_n
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
- Much prefer the operating system on Mac compared to windows.
- Recently got a MacBook Pro and it just works for me, a lot more than my previous windows laptop did. (plus I can now use Final Cut)

All my phones have been android, never felt it was worth the cost of an iPhone when you can get everything it offers for cheaper (excluding superior app catalogue). Although if the iPhone 6 adds a larger screen I may seriously consider this when upgrade time comes around!

Wearable tech: nah

Apple TV? No, Sky + Netflix on ps3 work for me.

Tablet: I have a nexus 7 and love it, but wouldn't rule out an iPad.

Not massively for or against Apple but I think I might convert to all Apple just to keep everything compatible with each other. (iTunes, iCloud etc..) Plus the designs of their products are superior in my opinion and I really like the consistent styling between the entire product range.

0
reply
Fallen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
I own an iPhone and iPad Air. I won the Nexus 7 and never really used it (I never thought I would, otherwise I would have bought a tablet years ago). Got the iPad recently (again, free, perk from work) and actually use it a fair amount. I do believe the iPad is simply a lot better than the Nexus, but will concede it might also be down to the fact I like/am used to iOS. Having the same OS on my mobile devices is definitely nice.

Have never owned a Macbook, but my next computer will certainly be one. Had the pleasure of using one for work last summer and loved it. Have otherwise been using Windows since 98.

I understand why people think Macbooks are overpriced, but it really isn't that black and white. To me the design, battery life, high-res display, build quality, and OS are worth the price. Easily. If someone could find a product which ticks all those boxes (every single one, except OS) I would be genuinely curious to hear about it.
When you use something enough price becomes significantly less important. The same reason I own expensive headphones, have an expensive keyboard, and will buy and expensive chair when I move.

Not a fan boy, but really love their product line right now. Definitely not clueless about computers.
0
reply
The Champion.m4a
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
I don't need Apple products to prove anything.
1
reply
XMaramena
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
I work in the media industry, primarily music for film, for which OSX is the universally preferred contender in creative technology.

I have an iMac, a Macbook, a Macbook Pro and an iPhone.
0
reply
CJKay
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
In what way are you meaning "messy". Messy as in a hassle to set up, or messy as in "too lazy to spend a bit of extra time (and maybe money) to make things look neat and tidy"
TBF Hackintosh on UEFI is messy as ****. I have the Windows Bootloader registered on my UEFI boot list, alongside GRUB2 that solely boots Ubuntu, and to boot OS X I have to insert a USB stick that boots the PC into BIOS mode and loads OS X. UEFI made booting Hackintosh awkward as heck because there's no EFI bootloader for it yet and GRUB2 can't boot it.
0
reply
Mariansc95
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
I have a Macbook Air because of its portability, its super light so good for traveling. And my Macbook Pro is great because of the large storage space. Generally I would recommend Apple because they just go so much faster and smoother than PCs, same goes for the iPhone, its really quick and aesthetically pleasing I guess. But I also think the prices are way too high, but the products last quite a long time so I would continue buying them.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by Mariansc95)
I have a Macbook Air because of its portability, its super light so good for traveling. And my Macbook Pro is great because of the large storage space. Generally I would recommend Apple because they just go so much faster and smoother than PCs, same goes for the iPhone, its really quick and aesthetically pleasing I guess. But I also think the prices are way too high, but the products last quite a long time so I would continue buying them.
Wut? Storage is same as or lower than similarly priced competition, same goes for speed and memory.
With phones they appear substantially behind straight up spec wise, but that's without looking in detail at the CPUs, at best it's only on par though.
1
reply
Sarahftw_
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
Apple just doesn't fit my requirements.

-I chose to get a Windows 8 phone simply because having Microsoft Office/Onedrive in my pocket while on the move makes editing work quick and easy.

-Don't see the need for and iPod, when I've got my phone.

-Apple TV? Netflix on PS3 is just fine.

-iPad are nice to use, but I'm not excited by them. Maybe because we use them in school sometimes. I'd rather have a Windows OS than a mobile OS on a tablet computer.
0
reply
Jambofun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
From my experiences with Apple and other products, I buy Apple and will continue to buy Apple based on a few things.

They provide the best user experience I have ever known from technology. After using Android phones from the likes of Samsung, I actually find it very hard to pick up as I believe it's not as "humanised" as Apple software - it's so easy to pick up and does exactly what you want it to do.

Second of all is design. A lot of people only care for the specification of a machine but what is clear is that Apple are far better engineers. Compare any of their products with one from a different supplier. Apple's have better form and are designed in a way that provides the best efficiency for a machine as well as looking fantastic. Maybe you should take a read of a book by Jony Ive.

The final thing that is also clear is that their software and hardware does not degrade as fast as the likes of Windows. From experience, my MacBook with still only 2GB RAM has lasted twice that of a siblings Acer computer which normally have large specifications. The thing is, with technology, you pay for what you get and there is a very strong correlation between quality and price.

I'm not a fanboy, I really want to change peoples' opinions on Apple.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Potally_Tissed
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Desktops
Software I need and want (games, plus some stuff I use for work) will only run on Windows, so even with a Mac I'd have to install Windows on it anyway. In which case the custom desktop I built is a better and cheaper option for what I want than anything Apple has. One does not buy a Mac if they want a high end gaming machine.

Laptops
Macbooks are less suited to my needs and significantly more expensive. Would make no sense whatsoever to buy one.

Tablets
Got a Galaxy Tab 2, like it, have no particular desire to change it, and in all likelihood even if I did I would get a Galaxy Tab 8 or something and save myself £50-100 over a comparable iPad Mini.

Phones
Prefer Samsung/Android and it's cheaper. My Galaxy S4 was cheaper than an iPhone 4S on the same contract.

Music players
You said phones already.

[hypothetically] wearable tech
No thanks.

Apple TV
My flatmate bought one. I've never used it. I don't watch much TV anyway so our Sky package is already more than adequate.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#32
Putting my dislike of Apple as a company aside:

Desktop
Would rather go for a custom rig any day, I'm in full control that way and don't have to make compromises. If I really wanted to use OSX then I would put the effort into a Hackintosh.

Laptop
Wouldn't get one anyway, I'm rarely away from my computer long enough to need any sort of significant mobile computer, a pen, paper, and my phone will deal with most things. The only time I am away from my computer for a prolonged period of time would be holidays, but then again, any NEEDS I have would be satisfied by my phone.

Tablet
similar argument to above.

Phones
Would rather not get a flagship phone of the current gen anyway, would rather go for something a bit lower down, which Apple doesn't cater for, or a flagship of a previous gen. All I want a phone for is: calls, texts, and mobile internet use. Extra features are nice, but generally not a necessity.

Music Players

Generally superfluous anyway.

Wearables
I tend to avoid them for the first few gens anyway, and it depends what wearables there are. I will be avoiding watches since I have a nice analogue watch anyway, and wearing two watches is just silly. other stuff, depends what they are, features prices etc. Definitely wouldn't get from apple though.

Apple TV
I'm surprised this is even a thing.

But I dislike Apple anyway: too many silly marketing ploys (Retina, 64-bit mobile processors etc); the constant petty legal battles; the claims of innovation and/or invention etc
0
reply
Nabbles
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
I would never buy a desktop/laptop. I would much rather spend half the price of a mac and build myself a better performing PC. I would save a ton of money, and also have far more functionality from the thousands and thousands of windows-only applications.
0
reply
AdamskiUK
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The innovation element you speak of is the same as most Apple "innovations" in recent times, they are first to announce, not necessarily the first to actually do it.

  • The 64-bit is being worked on by others, it's almost certainly based on an ARM architecture (not for the first time either); less than 48 hours later Samsung came out and said that Apple weren't alone and Intel has also made a statement. This is having looked at an article from last September, so Qualcom and Nvidia almost certainly have something too. Also note, the ARM architecture referred to had been out for over a year when Apple made the announcement, so is it really that innovative? It's also worth noting that AT THIS TIME, unless Apple intend to more than double the amount of RAM they use, 64-bit is just a marketing ploy.
  • Sapphire Glass, I have a sapphire glass watch face, it's cool stuff, is it that much better than Gorilla Glass 3? I'm skeptical that it's substantially enough better to justify the extra expense and the environmental impact for a product you will only keep for a few years, it's not like a watch that, if it has sapphire glass, you will likely keep and use for decades. It's a nice thing for them to add, and is a good thing for press, not that innovative, and not so good on the environmental front.
  • As far as other recent innovations go, it's tending to be being innovative by beating major competition to market, you have to question whether they alone can take the credit, and making things thinner.


Much like I am taking a biased view against Apple because I really dislike them as a company, you're being rather biased against the competition. Yes, I would say Apples competition is being "innovative" I would not say because they are forced to make an announcement just to say "we aren't behind on this tech" means they aren't the innovator, not necessarily at least.

As for the car analogy, it's not a particularly good one. Technology moves forwards pretty quickly: flash storage capacity has increased over 1000 fold in the last decade; a lot of components still observe Moore's law, architectures are getting smaller and smaller every few years such that it's not at all long until quantum effects might have to be considered.

People aren't asking for new products every 4 months, we have come to expect new products annually, along with some groundbreaking progress every two. Look at how a lot of things are going- one year something new happens, the next it is revised, the following year something new. The iPhone naming system gives it away, it's visible in GPU and CPU road maps: Something new and groundbreaking every other year and a revision in the middle.
Ok, fine. By your argument, Apple, Samsung and Intel are 'innovating' at a similar base wrt their CPUs. The point I'm making is that both big competitors (Samsung and Apple) are innovating at a pace which:

a) equals each other
b) don't match the current limitations of hardware (ie. they both don't use the best of every single component in any iteration of their device)

*I* don't expect much 'groundbreaking' progress any more from either Samsung or Apple; certainly not in a manner which is obvious to a typical consumer. The reviews of the S5 said it all; it did absolutely nothing to improve on the S4 aside from adding a faulty fingerprint sensor and making it benchmark faster - a trait which actually lends very, very little benefit to the user when using apps.

Technology increases at an exponential rate, yes, but like you said, we're having to look towards methods such as quantum engineering for CPU production which, currently, is quite difficult to achieve. We're very close to that brick wall with very little indication of success with the current budget being used to develop such technology. What will happen then? Will people finally stop hungering for the exponential gains we've been expecting?

You're right about the first announcers being classed as the innovators. I don't class Apple as the innovators for 64-bit ARM mobile chips solely because they were the initial announcers. I will class them as the innovators because only they will optimise their software and encourage developers to use it.

Samsung has no clout wrt how Android apps are developed. Just look at how Google forced them to stop modifying their UI so much - they don't have entire control over what they put out on their own phone! So if I build an S5/S6 with a 64-bit chip in it and absolutely 0 apps make use of it, then what's the point in having it? It will come with time as devs realise the benefit, but I can tell you now that my dad, who develops Android apps for business and daily consumer use, won't take advantage of the new architectures for at least a few more years. It means a lot of work for relatively little gains for a vast majority of the apps on the market, and for a minute userbase for Android as a whole.

Because Apple has such a large userbase on its flagship phones at any given point in time, the devs are more inclined to develop for those phones specifically, knowing that they aren't catering for a market which vastly outperforms the previous iteration of the device.

I'm not entirely sure what you expect from the iPhone 6 or the Samsung S6. Putting in stronger GPUs/bigger screens means bigger batteries which are currently limiting factors for both companies. They're racing to make their phones light and thin, so there's little room to pack in other features shown in concept videos (projectors in the phones, I'm talking about you!). Yes, the next iPhone will come in at 4.7", but I definitely don't want it any bigger. I had always hoped that the iP5 wasn't 4" but 4.5. I can meet apple in the middle with 4.7", but I wouldn't buy the 5.5" that is currently rumoured to also exist. It's too big for practical use - as is 5"! Even 4.7" is a stretch.

The only thing I want my iPhone 5 to do right now which it doesn't is optical image stabilisation and to be just that tad faster with simple apps (Safari, Mail, Messages etc). After toying with a friend's 5S, the speed differences for this stuff is quite big - I can't see how the 6, 6S and 7 could really improve to the point where I care.
1
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by AdamskiUK)
Ok, fine. By your argument, Apple, Samsung and Intel are 'innovating' at a similar base wrt their CPUs. The point I'm making is that both big competitors (Samsung and Apple) are innovating at a pace which:

a) equals each other
b) don't match the current limitations of hardware (ie. they both don't use the best of every single component in any iteration of their device)

*I* don't expect much 'groundbreaking' progress any more from either Samsung or Apple; certainly not in a manner which is obvious to a typical consumer. The reviews of the S5 said it all; it did absolutely nothing to improve on the S4 aside from adding a faulty fingerprint sensor and making it benchmark faster - a trait which actually lends very, very little benefit to the user when using apps.

Technology increases at an exponential rate, yes, but like you said, we're having to look towards methods such as quantum engineering for CPU production which, currently, is quite difficult to achieve. We're very close to that brick wall with very little indication of success with the current budget being used to develop such technology. What will happen then? Will people finally stop hungering for the exponential gains we've been expecting?
Of course they won't, spending on working it out will go up and maybe it will take longer to work it out. And it won't be too long until, if Intel, AMD, ARM etc haven't put enough money into it, Nvidia joins in funding it too since their GPUs for the end of this decade/beginning of the next will be running into the same problems.

You're right about the first announcers being classed as the innovators. I don't class Apple as the innovators for 64-bit ARM mobile chips solely because they were the initial announcers. I will class them as the innovators because only they will optimise their software and encourage developers to use it.
What proportion of apps are cross platform these days? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but will the developers not only start making use of 64-bit in a big way when it is actually necessary to do so?

Samsung has no clout wrt how Android apps are developed. Just look at how Google forced them to stop modifying their UI so much - they don't have entire control over what they put out on their own phone! So if I build an S5/S6 with a 64-bit chip in it and absolutely 0 apps make use of it, then what's the point in having it? It will come with time as devs realise the benefit, but I can tell you now that my dad, who develops Android apps for business and daily consumer use, won't take advantage of the new architectures for at least a few more years. It means a lot of work for relatively little gains for a vast majority of the apps on the market, and for a minute userbase for Android as a whole.

Because Apple has such a large userbase on its flagship phones at any given point in time, the devs are more inclined to develop for those phones specifically, knowing that they aren't catering for a market which vastly outperforms the previous iteration of the device.
Have you been living under a rock for the last few years? Android has a WAY bigger userbase, phones running an Android OS ship about 4 times as many units as those running iOS, last I checked that doesn't constitute a "minute userbase". Again, 0 apps is highly improbable, if there are 0 android apps I highly doubt there would be many 64-bit apps in the app store given how many of the apps are cross platform anyway, especially the bigger ones that one would expect to be more likely to make use of 64-bit; and, again correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that more apps are made for Android devices anyway, given how much easier it is, financially at least?

I'm not entirely sure what you expect from the iPhone 6 or the Samsung S6. Putting in stronger GPUs/bigger screens means bigger batteries which are currently limiting factors for both companies. They're racing to make their phones light and thin, so there's little room to pack in other features shown in concept videos (projectors in the phones, I'm talking about you!). Yes, the next iPhone will come in at 4.7", but I definitely don't want it any bigger. I had always hoped that the iP5 wasn't 4" but 4.5. I can meet apple in the middle with 4.7", but I wouldn't buy the 5.5" that is currently rumoured to also exist. It's too big for practical use - as is 5"! Even 4.7" is a stretch.

The only thing I want my iPhone 5 to do right now which it doesn't is optical image stabilisation and to be just that tad faster with simple apps (Safari, Mail, Messages etc). After toying with a friend's 5S, the speed differences for this stuff is quite big - I can't see how the 6, 6S and 7 could really improve to the point where I care.
I'm not expecting much more from this year's flagship phones, as you said, battery life is the main issue. I really don't get why people are so addicted to wanting lighter and thinner phones and laptops, it's just a bad idea. Making it thinner means less room for batteries and cooling (more so in the case of laptops, where it results in less power) which is really self defeating; they need more power generation on generation, but make the batteries smaller and smaller so any improvement in the tech is more or less cancelled out. I would like to see more phones take the hit in thickness and add the ability to be charged wirelessly, it may not be efficient, but effectively increase battery life. I know of people who have 3 recharge pads: one at home, and two at work (in two different places). Wireless charging may not be the most efficient but it keep their battery near full. Watching a review of the HTC One M8 one of the only criticisms was that they didn't add a mm or two to add that capability for those who want it.
And on the battery front it may become a relative non-issue in the near future. Can't actually find the article, but a few weeks back there was an article on the BBC about <30 second charging, when it hits the market we could, theoretically, be seeing mobile devices where the primary concern is the thermals.
0
reply
AdamskiUK
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Of course they won't, spending on working it out will go up and maybe it will take longer to work it out. And it won't be too long until, if Intel, AMD, ARM etc haven't put enough money into it, Nvidia joins in funding it too since their GPUs for the end of this decade/beginning of the next will be running into the same problems.


What proportion of apps are cross platform these days? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but will the developers not only start making use of 64-bit in a big way when it is actually necessary to do so?
It's not cross-platform unity I'm on about, it's cross Android handset compatibility. You make an app for a 2GHz quad core phone, you don't expect it to work very well on last year's 1.3GHz quad core phone.

Incidentally, if Intel/AMD haven't cracked quantum engineering yet, or aren't going to in the foreseeable future, then nVidia aren't going to be anywhere close. They have lots of potential upgrades for GPUs yet - we're about to see a new wave of DDR4/DDR5 memory chipsets with greater clockspeeds for the mass consumer market. I'd anticipate that this would take up the next 3 years of their cycles because the advantages are pretty huge. The CPUs are much more worrying because we can't really do much to improve them, aside from increasing caches - the next die-size for Intel is tiny. 14nm for Broadwell is a massive difference from Haswell.

Have you been living under a rock for the last few years? Android has a WAY bigger userbase, phones running an Android OS ship about 4 times as many units as those running iOS, last I checked that doesn't constitute a "minute userbase". Again, 0 apps is highly improbable, if there are 0 android apps I highly doubt there would be many 64-bit apps in the app store given how many of the apps are cross platform anyway, especially the bigger ones that one would expect to be more likely to make use of 64-bit; and, again correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that more apps are made for Android devices anyway, given how much easier it is, financially at least?
I don't care about the userbase which isn't on the flagship phones - the S5 and the HTC One. The Nexus 5 isn't a competitor and I can't think of anything else which ranks against the S5 or the One - correct me if I'm wrong. My point was that, proportionally, the numbers with S5s and HTC Ones to the rest of the Android userbase is tiny. The devs make apps to cater for everybody, otherwise they gain nothing in ad. revenue. That means very few people will actually make apps to cater solely for the top 5 Android phones because it's not financially viable.

The difference with Apple is that they have a userbase which *upgrades* a lot. They upgrade OS - adoption rates in the range of 70-80% for the latest iterations, compared to just 5-20% adoption rates of each major iteration of Android. They also upgrade their phones - the numbers speak. 9m units sold in a weekend of the latest phones, comprised primarily of the 64-bit capable unit. That means the target for developers is much larger - they can cater for the 64-bit phones more *easily*. I'm not saying it would be a walk in the park, but it's a better situation than Android.

I'm not expecting much more from this year's flagship phones, as you said, battery life is the main issue. I really don't get why people are so addicted to wanting lighter and thinner phones and laptops, it's just a bad idea. Making it thinner means less room for batteries and cooling (more so in the case of laptops, where it results in less power) which is really self defeating; they need more power generation on generation, but make the batteries smaller and smaller so any improvement in the tech is more or less cancelled out. I would like to see more phones take the hit in thickness and add the ability to be charged wirelessly, it may not be efficient, but effectively increase battery life. I know of people who have 3 recharge pads: one at home, and two at work (in two different places). Wireless charging may not be the most efficient but it keep their battery near full. Watching a review of the HTC One M8 one of the only criticisms was that they didn't add a mm or two to add that capability for those who want it.
And on the battery front it may become a relative non-issue in the near future. Can't actually find the article, but a few weeks back there was an article on the BBC about <30 second charging, when it hits the market we could, theoretically, be seeing mobile devices where the primary concern is the thermals.
I saw the article, no worries. The problem with that is it was made by an untested company and even then they predicted 3-5 years before it would be available to the general market. Also, I wouldn't mind betting that they would sign a limited period exclusivity deal to make big bucks off of either Apple or Samsung. Just a years worth of iPhone having that sorta recharging capacity ahead of Samsung could completely decimate Samsung sales, and vice versa.

I agree entirely - I don't want slimmer, lighter tech. It's not just a component thing; it's rigidity. Even if my next iPhone comes with Gorilla Glass 8 and is built with some super aluminomeganate alloy, if it weighs 30g and is as thin as a sheet of graphene then it just doesn't feel nice to use. I want to know my device is in my pocket so that I know if it's been stolen etc.

I agree further on the laptops - my next laptop will be a rMBP 13" from Apple - I've seen a friend use it and get 9 hours *heavy* usage throughout the whole day at home from his 15" and that's got a lower official battery life than the 13". In contrast, I bought a family Samsung laptop at £500 mid last year and we're lucky if we get 4hrs with just Chrome running.
0
reply
itsn0b0dy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by RumpeIstiltskin)
Ridiculously overpriced.
I think you mean 'cant afford'


give me one example of an overpriced apple product?
1
reply
AdamskiUK
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
too many silly marketing ploys (Retina...);
Sorry, wat?

How are the retina displays marketing ploys? A resolution with a PPI which is high enough to not notice the pixels from a typical viewing distance was a brilliant idea - they were the first to push it out.

Just because they use it in their marketing doesn't make it bad. On a rMBP, you can notice the difference whilst editing text...
0
reply
Kvothe the Arcane
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
Can't afford it.
0
reply
spanker
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 years ago
#40
Wouldn't buy because most other people have it, and I don't want to be a sheep.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (74)
19.32%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (155)
40.47%
Nope, not that interesting (154)
40.21%

Watched Threads

View All