Does less
Cost more
Fuck you
Wasn’t that always the case? I mean compared to my IBM PC clone, mine did way more and cost way less. And it was upgradeable. And mine could play games.
Gaming aside (though that particular gap is beginning to close) I honestly can’t think of anything I’ve wanted to do with my various Macs over the years that I couldn’t because of macOS.
The closest I can get to is running radio station playout software, but that was less something I needed to do, and more an itch I fancied scratching at that moment. Other than that, my Macs have always had a way to do exactly what I wanted with them.
Guess it’s as good a place as ever to remind everyone who uses Patreon that if you are subscribing through Patreon app on iOS that prices are going up in Sept by 50-60% and if you want to save money go through the actual website. This is Apple charging more not Patreon.
Edit: Apple is forcing Patreon to abide by the 30% Apple store fee this going through Patreon App on iOS will increase costs for end users by at least 30%; easiest solution is subscribing through the website, still being able to access content through the iOS app.
https://www.imore.com/apps/your-next-patreon-sub-might-cost-more-if-youre-paying-with-iphone
This is a common trend actually, don’t subscribe to services through Apple iOS apps if you want to save money. And to a lesser extent Android.
The most annoying thing is that in apples terms of service you are not allowed to tell people that you could go to the website for cheaper prices. Or if you don’t offer payments through the app store why you are doing it. (because of apples stupid fee)
Android isn’t really better, but at least you are allowed to link to websites that function out of the play store payments.
Why would anyone want to use an app for Patreon, anyway? It’s very much a browser experience.
It’s also PATREON fucking up. I’ve got a couple people i follow that are moving to Ghost as a hedge.
ghost?
nm I looked it up myself.
Why aren’t more people on ghost? It’s a stupid name for what it does, but the $9 a month and keeping the rest is a great deal if you have more than a handful of subscribers.
Ghost managed hosting gets more expensive as you get more subscribers, I don’t think Patreon does. You also have to set up the payments processor yourself (usually Stripe), and if you self-host, you need to set up an email service like Mailchimp. Ghost also has much more basic community features than Patreon, and doesn’t do per-user RSS feeds, so stuff like subscriber-only podcasts are more difficult.
Apple is not charging 60% more. That is patreon. How this drivel spreads is beyond me. Apple charges 30%. This has been pretty fucking consistent for a decade. Patreon is telling creators to raise their prices because they (patreon) aren’t going to take the loss, they’re going to force it on their userbase. Patreon could easily just eat the 30% or even 15%, but that would cost them profits so they don’t. And then they claim Apple is costing users a 60% price increase. Fucking ridiculous.
You are mistaken there. 60% increase means that patreon gets just as much as they get now, because 60/160 is approx 30%.
Also, just eating 30% margin is absolutely a problem and far from easy
I’m not mistaken. Even Patreon doesn’t claim the apple change will cost 60%. https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/11111747095181-Creator-fees-overview
And 60% of 160 is almost 40%, nice rounding down there to make your numbers sound better. And what the fuck does that have to do with anything anyways??? 30% of 100 is 30%. I’m saying that the creators shouldn’t have to do anything.
Why does Patreon even have a fucking app!? There’s no need for it at all. This ridiculous rise of companies creating useless apps just so they can harvest your info in addition to the info they’re already harvesting from you just signing up.
Most of Apple’s history, actually.
Macs have a reputation for being expensive because people compare the cheapest Mac to the cheapest PC, or to a custom-built PC. That’s reasonable if the cheapest PC meets your needs or if you’re into building your own PC, but if you compare a similarly-equipped name-brand PC, the numbers shift a LOT.
From the G3-G5 era ('97-2006) through most of the Intel era (2006-2020), if you went to Dell or HP and configured a machine to match Apple’s specs as closely as possible, you’d find the Macs were almost never much more expensive, and often cheaper. I say this as someone who routinely did such comparisons as part of their job. There were some notable exceptions, like most of the Intel MacBook Air models (they ranged from “okay” to “so bad it feels like a personal insult”), but that was never the rule. Even in the early-mid 90s, while Apple’s own hardware was grossly overpriced, you could by Mac clones for much cheaper (clones were licensed third-parties who made Macs, and they were far and away the best value in the pre-G3 PowerPC era).
Macs also historically have a lower total cost of ownership, factoring in lifespan (cheap PCs fail frequently), support costs, etc. One of the most recent and extensive analyses of this I know if comes from IBM. See https://www.computerworld.com/article/1666267/ibm-mac-users-are-happier-and-more-productive.html
Toward the tail end of the Intel era, let’s say around 2016-2020, Apple put out some real garbage. e.g. butterfly keyboards and the aforementioned craptastic Airs. But historically those are the exceptions, not the rule.
As for the “does more”, well, that’s debatable. Considering this is using Apple’s 90s logo, I think it’s pretty fair. Compare System 7 (released in '91) to Windows 3.1 (released in '92), and there is no contest. Windows was shit. This was generally true up until the 2000s, when the first few versions of OS X were half-baked and Apple was only just exiting its “beleaguered” period, and the mainstream press kept ringing the death knell. Windows lagged behind its competition by at least a few years up until Microsoft successfully killed or sufficiently hampered all that competition. I don’t think you can make an honest argument in favor of Windows compared to any of its contemporaries in the 90s (e.g. Macintosh, OS/2, BeOS) that doesn’t boil down to “we’re used to it” or “we’re locked in”.
Windows did a few vital things that Apple failed miserably on in the 90’s.
Mac dropped support for legacy software and hardware on every new OS in the 90’s. Microsoft maintained backwards capability. It was a major reason windows was more resource intensive and had more bugs. It was a smart move because windows OS was able to handle more software and hardware than Macs. This is the top reason why windows demolished Mac in sales.
Microsoft’s business model allowed greater range of pricepoints. Most users in business or at home do not need the capabilities of the lowest priced Mac model. You don’t need much to check e-mail, browse the web, and do some basic word processing. Apple did not service this largest section of the market at all.
Windows benefited by not being tied to the hardware. So if you could slap together a bunch of parts and swap out a few dozen floppies you could get a Windows machine. Which meant there were a ton of companies making Windows machines for cheaper than Apple could make Macs.
Apple tried to allow clones, but ran into the same problem because the clone makers could make cheaper machines by slapping together parts.
It’s a shame that they won’t just release macOS as a standalone product, even if it requires specific hardware to run. I would pay for it in a heartbeat.
I was actively into the Hackintosh scene in the early 10s. You could have an insanely powerful build (albeit the parts had to be compatible), and it would still be half the price of a lower end Mac Pro.
Apple tried to allow clones, but ran into the same problem because the clone makers could make cheaper machines by slapping together parts.
Yeah, this is exactly what happened, although some of the clone brands were perfectly high-quality (Power Computing in particular made great machines, usually the fastest on the market). In the Mac community at the time, a lot of people (myself included) wished Apple would just exit the hardware business and focus on what they were good at: software.
Then Steve Jobs came back and did exactly the opposite of that. First order of business was to kill cloning. Then came the iPod.
To be fair, the next generation of Power Macs after that were about half the price of the previous gen.
Does a small handful of things extremely well, is otherwise stupidly limited by choice and costs way too much.
Think different, even if it means thinking worse.
- Best trackpads. By far. Gaming? Use a controller. I will die on this hill.
- All of their OSes are a great user experience. They’re stable, they’re intuitive, and–most importantly–they’re aesthetically pleasing.
- Logic Pro.
- Actually, basically every app that Apple makes is pretty good. I would swap out the majority of the software on my Pixel for Apple apps if it wasn’t proprietary and exclusive.
- iPhone videos are outstanding. My Pixel can’t match my old 13 Pro’s video, and it’s a newer phone. Photos are also slightly worse here, but not after some editing.
- Objectively better build quality
if you ignore planned obscelecense. My MacBook just feels well built. It feels sturdy and durableeven if a speck of dust can kill the display, and every factor of the build is just better than anything else available. Phones are mostly up to spec, but my Pixel just doesn’t feel as nice as my old iPhone, especially the objectively worse button and camera layout.
Mostly everything else? No. I can’t install cool FOSS projects on my phone, or know what’s running on it. I prefer Linux as an OS, but not any DE compared to macOS. I’ve also had some periods where stuff doesn’t just work, such as iCloud fucking my free space and wiping almost my entire system when I try to fix the issue as per instructions I was given by an employee. Then, there’s just that Apple is gross. I don’t need to explain that, or anything about repair. Else… the closed source software is excellent closed source software. The unrepairable, proprietary hardware is excellent hardware.
They’re just a few steps from being better than any other company or project… a couple of several thousand mile long steps.
Number one is because they’ve patented the trackpad sol noone else can use the newer style. Number 6 is madecompletely moot by the high price and the fact that many other vendors have laptops with BETTER build quality. Especially if you factor in all the engineering missteps they seem to constantly make.
Doubt me? Just look up Luis Rossman teardown videos. He’ll show you actual macs from customers, that he takes appart onscreen, and shows you exactly how Apple makes extremely basic engineering mistakes.
Don’t like him? Look up anyone else that gets under the hood of Apple products without being in Apple’s cultish parts program.
Excellent summation, mate. I would have agreed with 2 even five years ago. Sadly not anymore.
Macs are like uncannily good at real-time audio processing, also audio and MIDI routing in general has less friction. Less tinkering in general when connecting external synths
Like with anything you can find tons of people online who have no issues with their windows based production setup, YMMV. But macs are ubiquitous in the music space, from my experience I think it’s deserved
Apple’s had good audio processing since their first computers. In fact, they were sued a few times by The Beatles’ label - Apple Corp - for making an Apple computer that could play music.
My Linux nerd friend swore by Intel Macs for recording/mixing music for years.
He hasn’t tried the Apple silicon macs at all though.
I’ve been in the unix and Linux world for 10 years now, with forays into administering windows when necessary.
I currently write software for Linux hosts, I have tux tattooed on my chest, literally.
Today the only laptop I’d purchase is an Apple silicon machine.
The only thing I miss is i3.
You know, it’s not always, but apple does sell things that are price-competitive with similarly performing competing products.
Some iterations of the Mac Mini have been hard to beat with a tiny PC with similar performance.
The M1 MacBooks had some surprisingly cheap options for the relatively premium laptops they were.
Samsung’s Ultra phones tend to cost more or less the same as the Apple Pro Max phones.
The main difference is sometimes just that Apple doesn’t make low-end or low-mid-range, or sometimes not even anything below “relatively high-end” products in a particular category.
Can confirm on the MacBook side. My girlfriend got a m series macbook and it’s better than anything in it’s price range. That device is so snappy while having a battery life that’s incomparable to anything with windows
I’ve owned 4 MacBooks. A white plastic one, a 13" MBP, a 15" MBP, and now a 15" M2 Air.
I’ve had the Air for a year and I still can’t wrap my head around how it’s technically in a class below the fully specced 15" 2015 MBP, but outperforms it in literally every way. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that, even without Apple Silicon, computer tech jumped on in leaps and bounds in the 8 years between my last two, but the performance difference is astonishing.
Sure, it’s a lot of money for an ‘entry level’ laptop, but this fucker is going to last me ten years or more. When Apple no doubt drop OS support for it in a few years, Asahi Linux will almost certainly be rock solid enough to fully replace macOS.
