And the iPhone, too. What a waste. Right? Apple could have instead been a Dell, Acer, or Lenovo.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Music Award Design Features Apple's Custom Silicon Wafer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And the iPhone, too. What a waste. Right? Apple could have instead been a Dell, Acer, or Lenovo.
Agree with everything you said, except this - I remember it as being uniformly 99 cents a track (that was a big selling point), up until he traded the record labels two additional prices (69 cents and $1.29 - you recall all those songs the labels rushed to offer at 69 cents), in exchange for doubling the bit rate and removing DRM.
(Steve did give the music industry a way out of the threat that was Napster et al. - I mentally liken it to Arnold in Terminator 2 holding out his hand and saying, "come with me if you want to live". OTOH, I think the music industry were idiots to ever sign the contracts - was Spotify the first? - for all-you-can-eat music streaming.)
The only way the iPod would never have been released is if Jobs had resigned from Apple and taken Jony with him to start a new company, leaving Apple at their 2001-era tech/design level and no further inspired guidance to go from, and a public only interested in them as an expensive alternative to Windows. Arguably, the explosive popularity of the iPod and then iPhone also gave them more funds to put into developing the Mac, which people were buying more of because they liked the iPod, than if they'd just stuck to computers.
If the iPod never happened, Apple would have been absorbed by another company by decade's end.
And "on par with Linux machines"... what's that even supposed to mean?
Linux machines? You have a Linux machine you want to offer as an alternative to the latest 16" MBP? (from the standpoint of great hardware that's thoroughly integrated with the OS, with a great GUI and the ability to run lots of commercial software - actually, it'd have to significantly exceed an MBP in usefulness to make up for not playing in the Apple ecosystem which affords interoperating with my iPhone and such). I spend all day working on Linux systems, but I do it from a Mac.
Why compare the two. The post wasn't about google at all. It was about Apple. Not to mention. The first words of realtuner post was asking why someone never complains about google
[automerge]1575397117[/automerge]
Productivity?
Where did he say a Chinese phone outselling the iPhone?
That's easy. Because the comparison is very apt and contrasts the overall stability of Apple's highest revenue segment being a product (iPhone and an ecosystem) people like and embrace, over a product that provides a huge percentage of google's revenue that people do not like (selling ads) and subject to government regulation.
If you don't see the relevancy or find that interesting, that's ok with me.
[automerge]1575399044[/automerge]
You're right! Thanx for the correction!
That's a beautiful award. It doesn't make much sense for music, but whatever. The design is awesome.
Are you joking? I’m trying to decide whether this merits a serious response. Even if it’s joking, I guess I’ll address it for anyone else who falls into this trap.The 2014 had a slower processor than the 2012. Don't you remember? It went from quad-core to dual-core.
Slower processor, RAM went from upgradable to soldered. The integrated GPU was the only definite improvement (edit: connectivity was a little bit better with 802.11ac WiFi and Thunderbolt 2). So the 2014 refresh overall was a lateral move at best, a downgrade at worst, but definitely not an upgrade over the 2012.
You can throw 200 threads at a problem and it won’t help a bit if your code’s only written to run on one thread. Quite a bit of code is written to use only one core because thread safety can be a huge pain, even for relatively common tasks. A better question, then, is how fast each core is, because that’s where you start to actually perceive performance gains for most tasks.
So, both the 2012 and 2014 Mac minis had three processor options. For each, the 2014 Mac mini has about 5% higher single-core performance per Geekbench 5. It’s not night and day, but the 2014 Mac mini is faster per core. Therefore, it should feel modestly faster.
Nowadays most apps that need a lot of CPU will be multi-threaded, the performance gains are well worth the added hassle. This includes browsers, photo/video viewing/editing apps, etc. The only time single-core really becomes important is when encountering a modern webpage with lots of JavaScript as that will be confined to a single thread.
The single-core performance gains of the 2014 over the 2012 were modest compared to the massive loss in multi-core.
The thing is most people don’t care about googles data use. The sell their data for for google services.
clearly the billions of people who use google understand this or are ok with it.
I use Apple devices because of I enjoy the quality of the hardware and the ecosystem. But let’s be honest. iOS is no better than android minus the privacy stuff. Both do what people need them to do. I’ve used both and both work fine for million and millions of people. Both have bugs. Some minor some major.
It's technology in the shape of an LP record (or CD, if you must), an icon of the industry. Would have been even better if they'd drilled a spindle hole in the center.
That has not changed. This is *in addition* to what they already excel at, and I think it's great that Apple is not short-changing on the recognition aspect. Unique and creative. And if they are using rejected wafers, all the better. It's a quality, long-lasting tip of the hat to these hard-working artists.
[automerge]1575407029[/automerge]
Are these designed to be hung on the wall, or do they come with a kickstand on the back?
Well they couldn't fit all the warehouse extras in the upcoming "SE2".
[automerge]1575409906[/automerge]
The stand is $999.
I think he's writing it on an old Tandy computer in the last Radio Shack on earth...
[automerge]1575410558[/automerge]
What does "lol trillion dollars" even mean? Why do you keep writing that? Apple is literally a trillion dollar company. Sure, if they stopped selling iPhones of course the company would be in trouble. If BMW stopped selling cars they'd be in trouble too. Can you imagine a single scenario besides literally the end of the world as we know it where Apple stops selling iPhones in our lifetime?
I read the same comment on reddit - did I miss something in the description?
[automerge]1575437151[/automerge]
That's why they are expanding
I agree. Apple used to be both incredibly ambitious and effortlessly cool, and artists would gravitate towards them because of that.
Now it's just like they're trying too hard. I don't know Tim Cook, and I'm sure he has many great qualities, but he is not a cool fella. You can just tell. Apple is not one man, but he is the public face of the company and sets its direction. As a result, it's almost like they're under pressure to affirm their coolness and it's often pretty cringe. Really, I don't think Apple needs a music awards show. I mean, I'm all for bringing back the 90s, but I'd rather Apple didn't become MTV.
Anyway - cool trophy.
Apple took in $64 billion revenue in the last quarter. That's $700 million of business every day.
The iPhone isn't going to "dry up" any time soon. There's a whole ecosystem of software and services tied to it, and it's still a well-loved product line.
Also, Apple have been diversifying their income. Here are the actual revenue figures (Q4 2018 vs Q4 2019):
| Product | Q4 2018 | Q4 2019 | Change |
| iPhone | $37 billion | $33.4 billion | - $3.6 billion |
| Mac | $7.4 billion | $7 billion | - $0.4 billion |
| iPad | $4 billion | $4.7 billion | + $0.7 billion |
| Wearables, home, accessories | $4.2 billion | $6.5 billion | + $2.3 billion |
| Services | $10 billion | $12.5 billion | + $2.5 billion |
| Total | $62.6 billion | $64.1 billion | + $1.5 billion |
The iPhone accounts for 52% of Apple's revenue. That's a lot, but at the same time, a $35-billion-per-quarter product would dominate any company's balance sheet.
