User7440441409

It's actually way more complicated than the game publisher being "greedy". They have to license the ability to even have most of the cars in the game, and so their ability to "pass on" a copyright to the car imagery alone is likely curtailed (or forbidden explicitly). Heck, there are certain landmarks (more current buildings, structures like bridges, etc) that require copyright and again, they might not have the ability to pass the rights on. So again, it's a far more complicated landscape than one might imagine.

I don't think the question really is how far could DSLR tech could evolve, this is not an absolute measure, rather, it's how far the DSLR could evolve relative to mirrorless. If the DSLR could "only" keep up, there would still be an argument for settling on a single technology base.

I assume it's whatever voltage is the standard for his country (110 or 220).

Nah, Apple is not saying that the phone is every bit as good as a RED. However, they are saying that one can do many creative things with the phone that one might not have thought possible due to the increase in quality.

And yes, their target audience is the mass market, not Wally Pfister.

@mr bolton, actually it's not nearly so simple. When Apple was manufacturing the previous Mac Pro (trashcan) they ran into logistics issues on parts as simple as screws. Those issues nearly led them to move the new Mac Pro (cheese grater) production back to China. It's not just about cheap labor, that can be found in many places, it's about the supply chain and the availability/scalibiity of labor that makes it more difficult to simply move on to some other country (even the US). Plenty of non political articles on the subject if one cares about real numbers.

@chadley_chad, @steveanderson: But Apple has a computer for those who want to expand and is more of a direct lineage from the Mac II computers of yore, the Pro. iMac has always been a descendant of the original compact Macs that were focused on ease of use, not expandability. And in general, Apple has always greatly restricted the extent to which one can expand/upgrade the Mac, they never intended it to look the PC world (with the exception of that brief dalliance into the world of Mac Clones).

That said, you may or may not like their approach, and that's fair enough. But the computers that Apple is producing today are philosophically similar to those they produced 'back in the day', one simply doesn't have the number of options (in models).

@chadley_chad:

"The latest IMacs are also twice the price I paid for my old iMac so again, another reason why I’m holding out (not to mention a lack of an SD card reader ... good old Apple, form over function!)"

That doesn't follow, the 2012 iMac's started at $1300, the exact same price as the new iMac's (once you throw in inflation, the new one's are actually cheaper).

Plus if buying a usbc SD card reader is so egregious, then that is certainly your prerogative. However, I ended up using a reader anyway since reaching behind the machine to plug in cards was a PITA. Different strokes.

If you're nearly 10 year old Mac is still going strong, that just shows that despite the fact that folks have had more or less the same complaints about the iMac for decades now, it's still a very capable machine. Outside of licensing issues (which are not under Apple's purview anyway), there is no reason to think that today's iMac's won't serve users 10 years from now as well.

@chadley_chad:

"I remember the first macs where Jobs heralded ‘multiple ports for everything’ and lots of room for expansion."

Then you are misremembering. The first Mac's were not internally expandable at all (other than RAM) and used external proprietary connectors for pretty much everything. They also had no fans. So they are actually philosophically very much like the current slate of M1 iMacs with the exception of the industry standard USB/Thunderbolt ports.

"If"? I think they've already shown that they can. What we don't know yet is what the upper end looks like, but we'll be finding out soon.

In a general sense, I don't think it would be practical for Apple to get too heavy handed with MacOS and file access. Remember, the Mac is used for a great many things, including development, outside of more mainstream apps. Always _possible_ for Apple to abandon those folks I guess, but the question is what would they replace it with. Going with a IOS model would be extremely counter productive, probably better to go with a virtualization scheme so apps that need more of a true *nix like environment can still do their thing (e.g. docker), but are isolated enough from a file system standpoint that any harmful app could only do limited damage.

uh, it's a high resolution liquid crystal display, did you think that it was actually made of retinas floating in a solution and hence the seemingly oddly misplaced and disproportionate anger?

Apple has explicitly stated that they don't think a converged device makes sense, this isn't a lack of technical ability on Apple's part, it's a conscious business choice.

MacOS/iOS have always been the exact same under the hood. The differences are at a higher level and OS "convergence" is really about user interfaces and apps ability to work well with two very different input paradigms. Current M1 Macs can already run ipad apps.

My "official" work computer is a Windows convertible, I can count the number of times I've used it as a tablet on one hand because the overall experience is not remotely pleasant (hardware or software). If it wasn't for the terrible MS Office ipad apps, I'd likely use my ipad pro more often.

Considering that most other manufacturers drop prices over time, i'd say _any_ increase, regardless of it's relationship to inflation, is quite relevant.

@radphoto care to hunt down my posts that demonstrate that I'm a "sony fan" and what about my posts that leads you to believe that "I hate it when other makers make good cameras"?

And no need for the hyperbole, "panicked", really? (◔_◔)

@profhankd your the second person who has stated that this was a 'great pr move' on Nikon's part. Can you elaborate as to what makes this a 'great' move vs a 'necessary' move? Is it great because at least they did something under the assumption that they would fumble the opportunity?

Well it's not that small and it is in a substantially different color than the accompanying text so it stood out and it directly follows the text of the article (vs saying being past the fold). Why is this 'beyond words'?

Or is it a bad sign that folks are so apathetic to the brand that it's not even worth trolling ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@thoughts r us, wrt a7siii, how does that "rumor" make even the slightest bit of sense? If they were ready to release two years ago, the camera would have been in development up to four years ago. Why would they then sit on something that over time would start to get overtaken and then you'd have to toss/change features to keep it up to date, while you collect $0 in revenue to recoup the original development costs. The logic just doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Now, if the argument/conjecture is that they intentionally phased the development of the camera such that it was spec'ed out but not fully developed to give them time to adjust to market forces _and_ they planned it so they could have a reasonable go to market timeframe once the decision was made (e.g. the camera was designed modularly so they could have convenient stopping points once they had to actually go to production), that I could kinda see. Still seems like a pretty significant stretch .

Could simply be a matter of maturity of their noise detection model. R5 has been around longer, so Topaz has had time to train the model on those files. A1 hasn't shipped yet so Topaz still has to make adjustments.

Could also have to do with the simple fact that while these products get delivered at approx the same time, doesn't mean that they started at the same time. A9II came out not long after the A9, A7SIII many years after the A7SII, assuming that all these projects are somehow lock step is pretty naive. This doesn't even count the notion of different specs for different audiences and price points. And _that_ doesn't factor in the practicalities of hitting said price points by making judgements on said specs.