You clearly believe in the policy of GREED. You take what I say, which is reasonable and turn it into "give it away" which is beyond absurd. If seeing light blue looks dark blue to you and dark blue looks black, there's clearly no talking to you because cataracts require an operation to fix.
Slight bias there since you obviously liked what you saw or you wouldn't have bought it.
For one thing, "better made" and "better designed" are absolutely subjective. I, for one, hate all trackpads, no matter how well they're designed. I prefer a mouse. So a "great trackpad" means very little to me. Well put together means little if they sacrifice other areas to make it unnecessarily "thinner" at all costs.
What do you mean you "converted" everything? Most devices still do not come in USB-C and if you're saying that you ditched all your old external drives, etc. and bought a new one just to get a USB-C connector, that's 100x worse than buying a simple dongle and buying a different cable is also more expensive than a dongle. I'm not going to buy all new hardware and/or cables just to be rid of USB A connectors. If they weren't so obsessed with thin, they could have at least included one USB A connector for the next couple of years until USB C starts catching on. Apple started with Thunderbolt years ago and there's still hardly anyone with a PC that uses it and so everything is overpriced and hard to find. And there's no way you "converted" your iPhone to USB-C without a cable or dongle (no lightning port on the Macbook Pro).
As for wireless, anyone that's ever used wireless knows it SUCKS compared to Gigabit Ethernet and always will. For a desktop, nothing but Gigabit or better yet 10 or even 100 Gigabit will do. It's also more secure since you're not transmitting all your data over the air. Now if you're not at home, that's one thing, but using wireless at home docked is not ideal.
Do you have money to burn that you can just throw out perfectly good hardware because of a connector? My USB3 drives will not be one iota faster with a USB-C cable. You're talking absurd measures to be rid of USB A now.
Then you cannot relate. Maybe if you spent more time relaxing, you wouldn't be ranting and raving about throwing out all legacy USB equipment.
So in other words, you'd have to buy a PS4/XBox or build a separate Windows machine that takes up an entire new desk space. How is THAT a 'good' solution? A better one would be to have ONE quality Mac desktop that has capable hardware (for over $2000, it DAMN WELL SHOULD have good hardware!) and use Boot Camp if necessary (with a really good GPU, you shouldn't need to boot into Windows as long as the game is available for the Mac and many are).
You have no idea how much money I make or what I do with it. I'm really not a believer in "Screw everyone else so long as I'm OK." If it turns out there's a god, that crap probably won't fly. Besides, that doesn't excuse Apple for not offering a single Mac with a decent GPU in it. NOT ONE.
Well, I do blame certain people for things like putting a Megalomaniac in office, yes. It's 100% their fault and they will reap what they sow. Sadly, the rest of us will too.
If I were a greed monger, I would have chosen to be a lawyer instead of an engineer and be making ungodly amounts of money chasing ambulances and taking 1/3 of everything they are awarded (or pulling down $600+ an hour for doing very little work). I would have had troubling living with myself, but then that's just me. I have a conscience. Other people clearly do not.
Generally speaking, I find it's very hard if not impossible to convey ideas of balance, equality and fairness to people that are greedy, self-centered and narcissistic. They simply don't comprehend why anyone would want any socialist policies what-so-ever and if you can frack 'em, why join them? Bill Gates was perfectly happy to put competition out of business no matter the cost or dirty handed tactics. He's richer than god as a result. Too bad he can't take it with him....
You don't really seem to understand the premise behind the ideas of patents, copyrights and Capitalism. The first two are temporary to allow someone to make money off their ideas for a time. They expire because society is supposed to benefit in the long run. It's the reason we have libraries and even social security. A dog eat dog world is not very fun to live in if you're born into poverty, for example. People should have a reasonable opportunity to contribute to society and succeed too. Letting any given company buy out all the others (because they "earned" it by making so much money) deprives others of having any chance to compete and/or succeed. It puts all the money/power into the hands of a select few and everyone else can just SUCK IT by their thinking. If the roles were reversed, they might have a different view, but they cannot see past their own since of self worth which is defined by how much money they have.
Capitalism, contrary to what some believe, is not a a greed-based system. It's defined by the idea that competition is good for the consumer by offering more innovation and lower prices. But let unregulated and unchecked, results in monopolies and/or huge corporations as they swallow the smaller fish. This THWARTS the entire premise of Capitalism which is why true Capitalism requires REGULATION and CONTROLS of the market or you end up with the 1920s with a few ultra-rich robber barons and children working in coal mines. The children of the former have life in their pocket and the latter are SCREWED through no fault of their own (should have been born into a rich family eh?)
What I talked about is TYING two different markets (e..g hardware and software) together ARTIFICIALLY (e.g. Macs are just PCs inside; there is NOTHING to differentiate them functionally) so as to preclude all competition in one or both markets. That is exactly what Apple does with Macs for hardware sales (because you can still freely get software from sources other than Apple despite Gatekeeper whining, there is no software limit there, just a hardware one). With iOS, you get BOTH. If you want a given App only for iOS, you need an iPhone/iPad/AppleTV/iPod. If you want an iOS device, you are forced to buy your software through Apple even when there's a 3rd party program. Apple benefits from TYING on both ends of the stick.
Now you can argue that smart phones are relatively OS specific designed so the hardware end might not stand up in court on the tying issue. But the software end is utterly artificial tying to net Apple a large percentage of the profits of every App sold. THAT is why they're going to court. I do no trust the corrupt US justice system to do the right thing, however. Other smart phones will allow you to easily side load apps without an App store. Yes, there might be more of a security risk, but no more than with a Mac/PC doing the same. Apple doesn't even offer an OPTION because they want 1/3 the profits of EVERYTHING (i.e. that's called GREED).
With the Mac, the software end won't stand up because you can install outside software for a Mac freely. But the hardware end is artificially tied to Apple's OS. It's just a generic PC and so you're forced to buy from whatever limited hardware they decide to offer. One year they might have a Mac you like (e.g. 2012 Mac Mini Server Quad i7) and then suddenly purposely limit the successor so as to push you towards an iMac or Mac Pro even if it doesn't meet your needs. They can do this because short of hacking, you have no other hardware alternatives short of dumping all your paid for Mac software and changing over to Windows. With some software (e.g. Logic Pro), the application might not be available period on Windows, thus locking you into the Apple ecosystem short of finding a new alternative. Some Pro software is not cheap either. And while someone like you might not mind tossing thousands of dollars around just because you decided you wanted a Windows machine, some of us have an issue with just throwing our money away just because one day Apple decided they didn't want to make real desktops anymore in favor of ultra-thin "desktops" that don't need to be thin at all.
Do you even have any clue what I'm talking about? That sentence says NO to me since I never talked about "freebies" anywhere in any post. I talked about prohibiting Apple from tying their software to their hardware and vice-versa. If both are good, both should sell well on their own merits. They should not have to force you to buy one to get the other artificially. It's one thing to not make a PC version of Logic, but it's quite another to tell someone if they want to go back to a PC, they can't run OS X on something like VMWare to retain their software library. That is where Apple steps over the line. I should be able to buy OS X separately and install it on a compatible PC without Apple getting in the way. If Apple wants to charge $400 for OS X, that's their business. The fact they don't want to sell it period is telling. They don't want any hardware competition, but they're preventing it artificially instead of letting the market decide whether their hardware is 'better' than another PC maker's hardware.
Allowing competition is not "give it to me". The fact you appear to think so is very telling of your state of mind.
What are YOU doing here? WTF is wrong with you? Your logic makes NO sense WHAT-SO-EVER. It sounds like fanatical logic to me. "If you don't love everything Apple makes, leave already!!!"
So wanting competition (the heart of Capitalism) is now a socialist view? What does that have to do with Mac Rumors? Is this is a non-fanboy free zone now?
