Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

magicMikeeee95 t1_j8t65mo wrote

Reply to comment by LSeww in Future Mac Pro may use Apple Silicon & PCI-E GPUs in parallel by chrisdh79

Apple still thinks "upgradable" means that you're able to carry it into a store every two years and buy another one

57

anatomized t1_j8uvd4y wrote

That's right. Apple think "upgradable" means that they upgrade it, not you.

11

seweso t1_j8vub8u wrote

If enough people buy the machines, they really don't care what the people say who do not buy the machines ;)

6

magicMikeeee95 t1_j8yyr2w wrote

That's completely true, but I don't think any company is too big they can afford to alienate the commercial sector, and that's the direction they've been running in for a while now. I didn't use to dislike Macs. They were all we used for a while, lol. Gradually, it was cheaper to buy workstation PCs that could do all the same things. So we did, and they ran somewhat alongside. But as they start to age and wear out, do you replace them for something a year or two better in hardware performance, or do you build out a PC workstation which can either cost less or, for the same money, put out much higher performance? We don't give a shit what color the computer case is, our clients don't care what logo is on the machine, and one of them I can just slap better parts in for years instead of constantly having to buy the latest and greatest.

1

seweso t1_j936x12 wrote

Total cost of ownership is lower for a mac than a pc. If your business can run on macs.... i'm not sure why you would choose pc. Maybe because people love the sound of fans?

0

magicMikeeee95 t1_j937ohy wrote

>Total cost of ownership is lower for a mac than a pc

Where are the numbers on that?

6

thecanadiansniper1-2 t1_j9crshi wrote

Source? How easy is it to get the IT department to change CPUs? Company wide on a Mac and a PC? IT can literally go to an OEM and buy in bulk new motherboards and choose either Intel or AMD for CPUs or Nvidia and AMD for new GPUs.

1

stiegosaurus t1_j8tcwfx wrote

Lol so true. Apple is terrible.

−7

MrGeekman t1_j8tfadk wrote

Tim Cook's Apple is terrible. He's taking the Sculley approach.

0

pseudocultist t1_j8uup0s wrote

Jobs knew who Tim Cook was, very well. He had competing visions for Apple in front of him, and he chose the beancounter. He wanted it to be successful, not artistic, in the end.

5

MrGeekman t1_j8v4m9t wrote

There's a difference between bean-counting and taking advantage of customers. I don't think Jobs knew Tim Cook would be like Sculley 2.0.

1

Seedeh t1_j8uxmje wrote

part of it is a technology limitation

0