Special Event October 2013 Discussion Thread

Terpfen said:
Overall, a pretty good event. Mavericks available today for free is a gigantic middle finger to Windows 8.1's retail pricing, and the Mac Pro is really good stuff.
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure how an OS designed to work only with a single vendor's hardware is a middle finger. You have a point but it's more like a pinky.
 
MrCrispy said:
What are you talking about? :confused:

OSX updates are cheap/free because they are subsidized by Mac hardware. Which is also overpriced. Windows can be installed on any pc, OSX cannot.
Click to expand...

So many things wrong here.

First: OS X updates used to cost $130. It wasn't until the era of Leopard and Snow Leopard that their prices declined, eventually down to $20 and now free.

Second: The first point means you are wrong about how the price of software is or is not included in the MSRP of the hardware.

Third: You can only legally install every OS on Mac hardware.

And you really think a $3K Mac Pro is good value ?!
Click to expand...

I said "good stuff", not "good value", though the value is likely there for a technical professional. I wouldn't know about that, as I'm not in a field that would use a Mac Pro. The chassis design is very innovative and the use of Thunderbolt to get the chassis design to its current point is a pretty big deal. Whether or not it works is an entirely different story, but it's good to see that there's still life in the desktop workstation beyond annual Intel product refreshes.

heatlesssun said:
Not exactly sure how an OS designed to work only with a single vendor's hardware is a middle finger. You have a point but it's more like a pinky.
Click to expand...

It's pretty creepy how you pop out of the woodwork the moment anything is said about Windows.
 
Free if you are currently using Mountain Lion, Lion or Snow Leopard. Windows 8.1 is free for 8 users.






Step 1 :Flash some sales figures

Step 2: Bash the competition

Step 3: Unveil slightly updated product with new names and colors

Step 4: Bash the outgoing model by flashing more numbers, this time outrageous performance and graphics claims. Don't forget the Jony Ive video!


Do I want an iPad Air? Yup.
 
Terpfen said:
I feel like I could mention Windows in a router thread and you'd summarily appear. :eek:
Click to expand...

I was sort of agreeing with you. Apple obviously made a number of direct and not so direct givings of the finger at Microsoft today, free Mavericks was one of more indirect ones. The ironic thing about it though is that there are actually more Windows 8 machines eligible for the free 8.1 update than Mac machines eligible for free Mavericks.
 
I was kind of hoping the entry-level SKU would include a single FirePro card to reduce the price, but it seems clear this is how Apple's going to push professional software to start leveraging GPGPU more aggressively. The single quad-core CPU in this SKU seems to be more evidence to that.
 
heatlesssun said:
I was sort of agreeing with you. Apple obviously made a number of direct and not so direct givings of the finger at Microsoft today, free Mavericks was one of more indirect ones. The ironic thing about it though is that there are actually more Windows 8 machines eligible for the free 8.1 update than Mac machines eligible for free Mavericks.
Click to expand...

You were (and are) being backhanded about it. A company released for free something that used to cost $130 that runs on almost all of their supported products. Why try to play the market share card? It's irrelevant, beyond being a defense mechanism.

You're allowed to say Apple did something very good without attempting to detract from them somehow.
 
Terpfen said:
You're allowed to say Apple did something very good without attempting to detract from them somehow.
Click to expand...

That would put him at odds with his employer. He's a Windows evangelist, going back years with their mobile platforms (Phone, tablet, laptops).
 
Terpfen said:
You were (and are) being backhanded about it. A company released for free something that used to cost $130 that runs on almost all of their supported products. Why try to play the market share card? It's irrelevant, beyond being a defense mechanism.

You're allowed to say Apple did something very good without attempting to detract from them somehow.
Click to expand...

When did OS X upgrades ever cost $130? The last upgrade was $20 wasn't it? I never said that giving away Mavericks wasn't cool, it is. You were the one that mentioned that it was a finger to Microsoft.
 
Terpfen said:
So many things wrong here.

First: OS X updates used to cost $130. It wasn't until the era of Leopard and Snow Leopard that their prices declined, eventually down to $20 and now free.

Second: The first point means you are wrong about how the price of software is or is not included in the MSRP of the hardware.

Third: You can only legally install every OS on Mac hardware.
Click to expand...

It only means that Apple no longer cares about the small revenue to be made by OS updates because their profit from hardware has increased.

Why are you comparing the price of 10.9 to 8.1 anyway? 10.9 is a free upgrade, and so is 8.1.

Windows is made and tested to be installed on huge combination of oem pc parts and oem machines. You know that. In comparison OSX is meant for a tiny fraction of hardware and is not supported beyond a few generations. You cannot compare the two. Windows is a retail OS. OSX is not, its only for sepecifc Mac hardware.
 
Love the new iWork. Gone are the days iPad and iPhone can't do work. I don't see why anybody would get an Android tablet at all. You get what you pay for with superior softwares in iOS.
 
Ruoh said:
That would put him at odds with his employer. He's a Windows evangelist, going back years with their mobile platforms (Phone, tablet, laptops).
Click to expand...

Most people that like and use Windows don't work for Microsoft. That would be like saying all of the Apple evangelists aground here work for Apple. Or all of the Google evangelists work for Google. Funny thing too is that I'm really never been a much a critic of Apple. I do think that they tend to make themselves the inventor of everything but it obviously works for them. And I've often said their pricing overall isn't as bad as many constantly slam them for, save the Mac Pro.
 
heatlesssun said:
Most people that like and use Windows don't work for Microsoft.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you worked for MS. You, however, seem to only make posts regarding defense of the platform. Everywhere.

Now, back on topic, please.
 
heatlesssun said:
When did OS X upgrades ever cost $130?
Click to expand...

Since before Snow Leopard. Tiger, Jaguar, etc cost $130.

The last upgrade was $20 wasn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes. And now the upgrade is free. OS X pricing has dropped from $130 to free in a span of four years. Windows pricing has stagnated or increased depending on your licensing/upgrade path.

I never said that giving away Mavericks wasn't cool, it is. You were the one that mentioned that it was a finger to Microsoft.
Click to expand...

I said it was a middle finger to Windows 8.1's pricing, which it is. Apple is differentiating on price, which is something that most people on this forum claim only happens when they price something more than <generic product X>.
 
Terpfen said:
Yes. And now the upgrade is free. OS X pricing has dropped from $130 to free in a span of four years. Windows pricing has stagnated or increased depending on your licensing/upgrade path.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out many times and already by McCripsy in this thread, it's difficult at best to compare the pricing of OS X to Windows. Clearly Apple makes its money on the hardware side, and more specifically on the mobile hardware side, and Microsoft still makes the bulk of its money through software sales and licensing.

Terpfen said:
I said it was a middle finger to Windows 8.1's pricing, which it is. Apple is differentiating on price, which is something that most people on this forum claim only happens when they price something more than <generic product X>.
Click to expand...

But if one doesn't already own a Mac, then the differentiation on the OS pricing is meaningless and that's the reason fundamentally why comparing OS upgrade pricing between Windows and OS X isn't particularly clear. This is great for Mac customers, nothing wrong with that.
 
heatlesssun said:
As has been pointed out many times and already by McCripsy in this thread, it's difficult at best to compare the pricing of OS X to Windows. Clearly Apple makes its money on the hardware side, and more specifically on the mobile hardware side, and Microsoft still makes the bulk of its money through software sales and licensing.
Click to expand...

One is free, one is not. Comparison made. What you're doing is attempting to turn a pricing comparison into a revenue stream comparison. The thread has been steered quite far enough off course without delving into financial statements of a company that is not the topic of this subforum.

But if one doesn't already own a Mac&#8230;
Click to expand...

&#8230; Then one ought not be posting in this forum. Enjoy the rest of [H]. We're going back to talking about today's Apple product announcements now.
 
Terpfen said:
One is free, one is not. Comparison made.
Click to expand...

False comparison because neither is free to produce and the cost to customers has absolutely everything

Terpfen said:
… Then one ought not be posting in this forum. Enjoy the rest of [H]. We're going back to talking about today's Apple product announcements now.
Click to expand...

This thread is about today's event. And you were the one that bought up the cost of Windows. If it's supposed to be an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you, sorry, that's not in the forum rules.
 
MrCrispy said:
It only means that Apple no longer cares about the small revenue to be made by OS updates because their profit from hardware has increased.
Click to expand...
Has it? Do you have data that speaks to this?

MrCrispy said:
Windows is made and tested to be installed on huge combination of oem pc parts and oem machines. You know that. In comparison OSX is meant for a tiny fraction of hardware and is not supported beyond a few generations. You cannot compare the two.
Click to expand...
It's as valid as any comparison between two like objects or concepts. The idea that any comparison must be thrown out simply because there are disimilarities is laughable. Anyone who proclaims they must not be compared only does so as a result of their own insecurities with the comparison.
 
wonderfield said:
Has it? Do you have data that speaks to this?
Click to expand...

http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-12-444068 - Page 73, Apple's own financial reports clearly show that it makes the overwhelming majority of its money on hardware sales and the large bulk of that is from phone and tablet sales.

wonderfield said:
It's as valid as any comparison between two like objects or concepts.
Click to expand...

But there's the problem, they aren't all that alike in important ways. OS X is specifically meant to run on Apple's hardware, period.

wonderfield said:
The idea that any comparison must be thrown out simply because there are disimilarities is laughable. Anyone who proclaims they must not be compared only does so as a result of their own insecurities with the comparison.
Click to expand...

Mavericks is available for free to users of the previous three versions of OS X. Windows 8.1 only to users of Windows 8, thus more people are eligible for 8.1 for free than Mavericks. It's things like this that make this particular comparison not straightforward.
 
I can't believe that people who neither own nor operate apple products are derailing our yearly thread

also, in the OS discussion is being lost the equally awesome fact that iLife and iWorks are now free, too
Apple has effectively slashed the prices of its software by hundreds of dollars...incredible
 
mope54 said:
also, in the OS discussion is being lost the equally awesome fact that iLife and iWorks are now free, too
Apple has effectively slashed the prices of its software by hundreds of dollars...incredible
Click to expand...

And that's a great thing, no one here is saying otherwise. The only thing being pointed out is that Apple doesn't make much money on software and if by giving software away for free just adds a couple of points to the hardware sales side, that's a big windfall for Apple. Again, nothing bad about that and nothing wrong with pointed out the obvious motivation behind Apple's generosity. It's not like others haven't bundled software with hardware before in an attempt to increase hardware sales and profits.
 
wonderfield said:
Where Apple makes the bulk of its revenue is in no way what I asked, but you at least pointed to the relevant data in your response.
Click to expand...

Where Apple makes the bulk of its revenue provides a crystal clear and perfectly logical reason as to why they are giving away the software. If the software giveaways add just a little bump in hardware sales, the windfall would be huge for Apple. Again, nothing wrong with it, it's smart business. I don't understand why people are so bent out of shape over the perfectly obvious that's clearly shown in Apple's financial reports.
 
no one's getting bent about the question but it definitely doesn't need to occupy the last twenty responses in the thread that was moving smoothly enough until recently. and more importantly by people who don't have much knowledge about the thing being "discussed." it's one thing to try and make a point and move along but when you've actually demonstrated that you don't know the history of the pricing of the OS and then try to dig your heels in deeper it just comes across as obstinate and going to result in tension in a thread that is situated in the one place set aside from the normal [H] nonsense RE all things Apple.
 
heatlesssun said:
Bottom line, Apple is giving away its software to sell more hardware, it's that simple.
Click to expand...
just so the situation is clear here for non-apple customers...

in the past OS X was free for *new computers*, iLife was free for *new computers*, and iWorks was a purchase for everyone

now OS X is offered for free for every computer running snow leopard or better. Every computer sold during the past four years is eligible for this free upgrade *and* older ones that purchased SL.

Additionally, the iLife suite is now not only offered to everyone but the iWorks online suite is now available to everyone with an iCloud account. Previously @me accounts required a yearly sub and now access to those features (including 5gb of cloud space) are offered gratis to every iCloud account.

In fact, you don't even need Apple hardware to have an iCloud account. You can, in fact, create an iCloud account and use iWorks via iCloud for free from your PC.


If Apple was merely offering these software free of charge to generate additional hardware sales they would have tied them to new hardware purchases like they've been doing for the past few years.
 
Keep this thread on topic please and discuss the announcement. No one cares about Apples financials in here. Make a General Mayhem thread for that if you want.
 
In a mostly-unrelated note:

Kinda pissed the Mac Mini didn't get updated. Will be ordering my dad one of those (hello nearly-idiot-proof-computing!)

I know Ivy Bridge to Haswell didn't really increase performance (save battery life and graphics, neither matter really to my 75 year old dad), but dammnit, I wanted them!

Oh well, maybe a silent update shortly. /shrug
 
odoe said:
Thinking about finally jumping on a maxed out 15" rMBP. I'd be running a VM or 2 a lot of times and like the QuadCore for that or I would go with the 13".
Click to expand...

It kind of depends on what you're doing in the VM. I have an i5 2500 server I run VMs on, but I'll still fire up a Linux VM or two on my MBA. The server's VM volume is 2x WD5003ABYX in RAID1. Loading multiple CPU intensive VMs works better on the server, but the PCIe SSD in the MBA makes a noticeable difference in responsiveness.

Zumino Zufeilon said:
In a mostly-unrelated note:

Kinda pissed the Mac Mini didn't get updated. Will be ordering my dad one of those (hello nearly-idiot-proof-computing!)

I know Ivy Bridge to Haswell didn't really increase performance (save battery life and graphics, neither matter really to my 75 year old dad), but dammnit, I wanted them!

Oh well, maybe a silent update shortly. /shrug
Click to expand...

I think it'd be odd if it wasn't updated by Christmas, but maybe the Mini just doesn't sell or they're going to ride it out clearing out Ivy CPUs like other manufacturers.
 
MrMike said:
... I think it'd be odd if it wasn't updated by Christmas, but maybe the Mini just doesn't sell or they're going to ride it out clearing out Ivy CPUs like other manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figure on a silent upgrade on the mac mini by end of year. I know some people mentioned Ivy to Haswell not being a big deal, but I would disagree with this on machines that do not include a dGPU like the mini.
 
I've been running self-rolled PCs and Mac laptops for a decade now. But this Mac Pro has me a little tempted as my next desktop machine. With education discount, $2,800 isn't that crazy. And I can probably get some decent resale at the end of two or three years.

But here's the big question for me, since I game. (I'm lucky that my games are available on OS X. Thanks Steam!)

What are those FirePro D300 and D500 cards? Do we know yet? I've read v5900 and v7900, but that would seem pretty low end.
 
I think it would make sense if the D300, D500, and D700 corresponded to Radeon 270, 280, and 290.

Edit: Stream processor count rules that out. According to Apple's site, D700 = 2048, D500 = 1526, D300 = 1280.

290X = 2816, 290 = 2560, 280X = 2048, 280 = 1792, 270X = 1280, 270 = 1024.

Looks like they're all last gen hardware no matter how you cut it, since only the 290 is truly new.
 
I've been waiting on the Mac Mini refresh myself, having a Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo!) version from 2006 that just doesn't have enough CPU power anymore.

What really matters in Haswell for the Mac Mini is that the integrated graphics would be 2 to 3 times faster.
 
MrMike said:
I think it would make sense if the D300, D500, and D700 corresponded to Radeon 270, 280, and 290.

Edit: Stream processor count rules that out. According to Apple's site, D700 = 2048, D500 = 1526, D300 = 1280.

290X = 2816, 290 = 2560, 280X = 2048, 280 = 1792, 270X = 1280, 270 = 1024.

Looks like they're all last gen hardware no matter how you cut it, since only the 290 is truly new.
Click to expand...

Good point. Even more intriguing is this spec from the Apple website:

D300
1280 Stream Processors
256-bit Memory Bus
160GB/s Bandwidth

D500
1526 Stream Processors
384-bit Memory Bus
240GB/s Bandwidth

D700
2048 Stream Processors
384-bit Memory Bus
264GB/s Bandwidth


You have to go pretty high end on the FirePros before you get a 384-bit bus. Any workstation graphics nerds here that can make sense of that?
 
they're firepro's s so they need to be matched up to the w5000/w7000, w8000, and w9000 cards
 
CEpeep said:
Doesn't need it. A7 has the G6430 in it.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. The iPhone 5s can barely pull 37fps in the simple T-Rex HD GLBenchmark sub-test (and 53fps in Egypt) at iPhone 5s native resolution. An extra 2 clusters and increased clock speed would be very welcome at 2048x1536 resolution. Of course the power requirements wouldn't really allow both the reduced dimensions and long battery life, but the next iPad, if there is one, could benefit from an A7X.

And yeah, that click bait was funny. Too bad a quad cluster Rogue is 40% slower than Intel HD Graphics 4600. :p
 
pxc said:
Of course the power requirements wouldn't really allow both the reduced dimensions and long battery life, but the next iPad, if there is one, could benefit from an A7X.
Click to expand...

iPad Pro, Coming 2014
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top