Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > Editorial: Analysis of Apple's October device announcements

Editorial: Analysis of Apple's October device announcements
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 08:19 PM
 
Chatter between the staff of MacNN and Electronista is always occurring behind the scenes, but it ramps up when special events or live reveals happen in the tech world. Excitement was amplified this week as Apple took to the stage barely a month after its last event, the September showcase that launched the iPhone 6. Editors Mike and Charles, along with writer Jordan, debate some of the new device information that trickled out of the Wednesday event, while digging a little deeper on the impact the devices could have on Apple.

First, some background. Mike is the managing editor for MacNN and Electronista, is ex-military, and has worked at a half-dozen independent Apple shops over 30 years. He's been using Apple computers since 1979, with his first Apple an Apple ][ (not +, e, c, or GS). His first Macintosh was a Mac SE in the dawn of version 6 of the Macintosh Operating System on a 20MB hard drive. Once upon a time he bled in six colors, as the saying goes, but the saying itself dates how long ago that actually was.

Charles has been with MacNN off and on since 2000, and contributed to many other Mac-oriented print and web outlets. A decorated soldier in the Platform Wars of the 80s and 90s, he now finds himself in the odd position of believing that Microsoft is doing some of its best work ever, even as the Windows crowd turn their nose up at most of it. He is old enough that he is not just in the Apple ecosystem, he's actually part of it, like a mold that's hard to get rid of.

Jordan is relatively new to the MacNN family of sites, having started with gadgetry reviews in the tail end of 2013. He's now a full-time staffer, with a wide-range of cross-platform experience dating back 15 years. Jordan is primarily a Windows guy, but has been brought back into the OS X fold with a 2011 MacBook Pro. He has faded in and out of Apple hardware for the last 20 years.


On top of selling the iPad Mini 3, Apple decided to continue selling the Mini and Mini 2 at reduced prices. Is this smart, or self-sabotage?

Mike: I'm not sure the original iPad Mini should still be in the lineup. It's essentially an iPad 2. Lots of titles don't run properly on the old iPad 2, if at all. The (well-trained) staff will handle it fine in Apple Stores, but there will be loads of confusion at big-box outlets as to what model iPad does what the best.

Jordan: I'm with Mike on this one. I don't see why the oldest iPad Mini needs to stick around. Yes, it will give Apple another competitive tool against competitor tablets. If someone is considering leaving the iOS platform behind though, a basic Android tablet can be picked up for much less than $250. Depending on consumer needs, a 2013 Nexus 7 can be found for around $180 for casual-use situations. It makes me wonder if it was as low as they were willing to price the Mini.

Mike: It's curious to me, but not unexpected. I'm not sure that $50 from the $300 Retina iPad Mini 2 is worth the slower processor and lack of Retina. At $200? Maybe. At $250? Makes little sense to me.

Charles: I think it covers a range of price points, and gives Apple customers less reason to leave the ecosystem for a cheap Nexus tablet. Tech geeks will argue that the lower-end of the line isn't a good value for money. In thinking about typical buyers rather than power nerds, though, the older iPad models are more than enough for day-to-day use and are phenomenally popular with education, families and seniors. As far as the public is concerned, Apple just introduced much cheaper iPads, hooray!



Touch ID was added to both new iPads, but Apple Pay can only be used for online purchases, since the tablets lack an NFC radio. Why didn't Apple enable this for retail stores as well?

Charles: Because people would look ridiculous waving a huge eight-inch tablet at a NFC terminal? Still, we live in a world where clueless companies sell 18-inch tablets nobody can carry that offer two-hour battery life. I have no doubt someone somewhere has tried to hold such a monstrosity up to their face to take a picture, so maybe this was a misfire.

Mike: Hauling around an iPad to retail is only slightly less awkward than an iPhone 6 Plus. There is literally no reason to smack your iPad across the point-of-sale at a brick and mortar place.

Jordan: Perhaps I'm the only voice of dissent here, but I would figure adding it to the Mini 3 would have been wise. A tablet is more of a hassle to carry around than a smartphone in most cases, but the size difference between the two device types is getting smaller by the day. The iPad Mini 3 is only 1.6 inches shorter and 2.3 inches wider than the iPhone 6 Plus, something people already have problems carrying in a pocket. It also seems silly for a portable device to be lacking NFC at this point.

Charles: On the other hand, online sales are booming. With the iPad is mostly used at home by people (surveys say), so I think the logic there is pretty obvious: You want to do Apple Pay at retail, get an iPhone! Or an Apple Watch! Get both!

Jordan: If anything it'll give people even more excuses to use Apple Pay. For that reason alone, why not add the iPad to the pile?

Mike: Because you can, doesn't mean you should.



Bringing 5K screens to the iMac is a big move, but is it one that Apple is making too soon, since it's ahead of wide adoption of 4K?

Charles: Let's not confuse 4K displays for pro uses (video editing, artwork creation, photo jobs, et cetera) with 4K televisions, which haven't got a lot of content yet. The 5K iMac is a huge nod to the pro market, and will be extremely popular in content-creation industries, and will likely help spur a further boom in 4K TV content.

Mike: Nope. The screen for the 5K is available. We had a discussion in the forum, with one of our users saying that an iMac is a perfect 5K display for a Mac Pro. I had a light bulb moment when I read that. That said, we don't have positive confirmation yet that this is possible with the new iMac, but at that price point, the new model kills two birds with one stone.

This way, the product line is ready for the future. Why do 4K now, when you can do 5K?

Charles: Indeed! If you bought a Retina 5K iMac and only used it as a display for the Mac Pro or as a TV, you'd be getting it at a bargain price … and an amazing computer thrown in for "free!"

Jordan: I struggle with why the decisions to accelerate technology are made before a decent market saturation is reached. Devices with 4K are priced so far out of range of normal consumers, but I see the perks of why Apple made the move. PCs and Macs have been shuffling consumers on the creative front during the last few years, so releasing an iMac with a high-definition display certainly puts a mark in the Apple column. I get that the 4K movement is relatively new, but I can't help but feel that releases like this are going to force the market to shift faster than it's ready to. That said, the market weathered the release of Retina displays, so perhaps I'm thinking too cautiously. I guess Apple has been trying anticipate for the future and be ahead of the game since Retina came out.

Charles: The existence of 4K TV is not a reason to buy a 5K iMac. For most people, this is a super-premium iMac, but to content creators it's a bargain, and as Jordan points out it puts the Mac out front with the semi-pro and pro-creatives market.

Mike: The price will probably scavenge sales from the Mac Pro, but this isn't a bad thing. I suspect most user metrics on the new iMac will be better than those on the Mac Pro, other than scientific purposes. More cores is generally better, but not with every task!



While the $100 price drop on the low-end Mac Mini is welcome, the specifications are inferior to the previous generation's cheapest machine. Should consumers even bother, or should they pick up the older version when the price drops?

Mike: At first, I was pretty excited at the new price point, thinking that there'd be a shift, with the 2012 low-end being the $500 model. There is literally no reason for anybody reading this to get the $500 model! Either shell out for last years' model at $100 less to get better performance at the cost of a Thunderbolt port, or just pony up for the real Mac Mini, the midrange configuration.

Charles: The new low-end Mac mini being underpowered is not an issue for the switcher, light-duty and low-end user. It will be seen as cheaper, and it remains a plenty-capable device for non-geeks. Particularly for the Mac-curious or budget buyers who already have a monitor, the lower-end Mac mini just got more attractive, not less. It was already overpowered for their likely use as either a general Internet machine or step-up media server, anyway.

Mike: Don't get me wrong, there are uses. Toss it behind your TV for a burly Apple TV. It'll be a good workstation. It won't be as fast as a MacBook Air entry-level model, as the latter has a SSD. It just is utterly and completely not for me.

Jordan: The $500 machine struck me a consumer trick as soon as I looked at the specifications. I am clearly not the person that this box would be marketed to, though I'll admit I considered the Mini in the past compared to trying hackintosh builds. Charles hits it spot-on that these machines will be great for the curious user or the person that doesn't put a lot of emphasis on performance. I would just rather spend my money on a capable mini PC, perhaps something from the Gigabyte Brix line.

There are some good improvements in the more expensive models that I'll give a nod too, the inclusion of Haswell processors with Iris Pro graphics and SSD and hybrid storage options. In trying to keep the power requirements low without sacrificing performance, those were two great moves to make.



No news was mentioned on the state of the iPod. Is this a sign that Apple is slowly turning away from the product line, or is it going to shift to casual releases?

Charles: Yeah, as the guy who hoped for a new iPod touch at the event, I now have to say I think the company will continue to sell them for a while but the entire iPod line is basically done and fading away. As someone pointed out to me, the iPad mini is the new iPod touch hardware-wise, and in effect LTE and cloud services with huge capacity have made both the capacity of the iPod Classic and the main purpose of the iPod touch redundant.

Jordan: I was holding out hope for a new iPod too, if only because I don't see the cloud being an upsell for everyone just yet. With carriers all over the place these days on data caps, network management and throttling, services like Google Play, iTunes Radio and Amazon Prime can quickly eat away data plans. Even casual streaming on Pandora can breach a 2GB limit in a month. Until the cell data plans get better - which could be coming soon, portable music players are still a valid option. For some people.

On the other side of that coin, smartphones and tablets have rapidly been making the iPod obsolete. If I can hold my entire music collection on a 64GB iPhone or a 128GB iPad, why would I even need to think about buying an iPod? People can just recycle their old phones if they really need one anyway.

Mike: The iPod is done. I don't foresee any major updates here, ever. This may be a sign, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time. LTE is the new iPod.



Apple didn't update consumers on the release of the Apple Watch, leaving would-be buyers to wonder if it is still on schedule for early 2015. Is there a good reason to hold back on a release date?

Jordan: It was clear from last month's event that there was no way that the Apple Watch was going to be out for the holidays. With sapphire supply now up in the air due to the complete collapse of GT Advanced Technologies, Apple could be considering some changes to keep production on track even if it is just the high-end versions. As the device is still clearly being worked on, there was just no need to give an update on the timeframe.

Charles: Some sharp-eyed readers have noticed that the Apple Watch is still undergoing some minor cosmetic revisions (and may be also seeing under-the-hood changes), so I think they're still working on it is the answer. Why mention anything that's not going to be available by Christmas at this point, particularly if there's a good chance it will slip?

Mike: Because they don't know what it is yet. Sapphire supplies are in some question. The SDK isn't quite out yet. Investors will clamor if it goes too much longer, but they didn't need to make a firm date today, so they didn't. Speaking of investors, Apple stock is down over $1 on today's announcement, which may or may not be related to the Apple Watch. Happens every time for no discernible reason. What was Wall Street looking for?

Jordan: The next Apple innovation to spark a new wave in consumer electronics, with each and every report from the company.

Charles: The stock is just down because Apple announced stuff. This always happens.
( Last edited by NewsPoster; Oct 16, 2014 at 10:44 PM. )
     
sgs123
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 08:53 PM
 
"This way, the product line is ready for the future. Why do 4K now, when you can do 5K?"

Actually, there's an important reason for doing 5K: If you're selling a platform for editing 4K video, you need enough pixels to display 4K video content plus controls, menu bar, etc.
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 10:11 PM
 
Yep, they specifically mentioned exactly that during the keynote.
     
ElectroTech
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 12:47 AM
 
Entry level new Mac Mini underpowered? Every single one of the reviewers doesn't use any computer to the maximum capacity. How much 'power' do you need when all you do is write the odd review, sent a few emails, post to FaceBook and watch a few videos?
     
iphonerulez
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 05:11 AM
 
The news media was bored and Wall Street gave it the thumbs down. I don't know why Apple even bothers to have these events. Nobody seems to like them and usually everyone ends up being disappointed. This event only succeeded in driving down Apple's share price even further. These so-called events have turned into non-events for the news media. They only leave these events saying how Apple has lost all innovation and how badly dressed Tim Cook is. It honestly seems like a waste of time for all concerned. I don't care one way or another. I'm not expecting any unusual products. Just the usual upgrades which basically every computer company does.
     
pairof9s
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 09:54 AM
 
Yeah, and only to state the obvious here, but the entire stock market is down and has been for a few months. Apple is not immune to overall market pessimism. If anything, Apple is down less, if at all, in comparison to the broader market.
     
cisbell
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 12:01 PM
 
You guys should have researched your comments before making them. Even a call to the Apple Geniuses revealed a cautious NO stance on using the iMac retina in TDM mode with a Mac Pro. According to them, and many others, as it stands now, you can NOT use the iMac display in TDM because the display port 1.2 spec doesn't cover the up and down bandwidth necessary to drive the display. If Apple has a custom solution, they are not telling anyone at the moment, and it will likely involve using two thunderbolt ports to do it. Hence the custom hardware in the iMac itself to drive the display.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 12:40 PM
 
This isn't an all-encompassing article. DisplayPort 1.2 (And TB1) does not support 5k, but DisplayPort 1.3 (which was released in September) does, which TB2 can (and does!) include and can easily handle in one cable.

When we researched our comments, we went over the Geniuses' head (who had no earthly idea), and were told that they weren't sure.

We'll all see together.
     
cisbell
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 01:04 PM
 
Point taken. We'll see is correct. DP 1.3 will cover it, but DP 1.2 from what I understand is what's in the MP, and that's got limits at 20 Gbits/s. The throughput for this 5K display is estimated at 28 Gbits/s. As of now, it's expected not to work, unless Apple has a solution they're not talking about at the moment.
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 07:38 PM
 
I wonder if that "solution" you're referring to could be an updated Mac Pro sometime early-to-mid next year ...
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,