It's easy to over simplify things to the point of absurdity.
This is like saying that when you read "because science tells us" that you translate it to "because I believe anything that scientists say" as that is what is effectively happening.
If you want to sell your overpriced chocolates, you're better off selling at Whole Foods rather than Walmart. Just because Whole Foods is the market that the wealthy prefer doesn't make them antitrust.
Market power makes it an antitrust situation and since you can't run a profitable app business without going through Apple, that certainly makes this a hostage scenario.
We haven't seen the last antitrust case against them. I'm certainly looking forward to them getting knocked down a few pegs. Only a stool pigeon would defend their behavior.
How unnecessarily dramatic. They fixed so many things, on the balance this seems like a good deal for those of us that use MBPs. Implying that you’d reject all those changes over the notch seems quite silly to me.
Personally I think everyone will forget the notch in a few weeks. We got over it for phones, which have much less screen real estate to spare. If the extra space enables a permanently visible status bar in OSX, even when full screen with apps, then I personally will be thrilled with this change.
It's a plain analogy, any drama would be created by the reader's reaction.
People also stop complaining simply because they've complained enough. It's definitely not always the case that they "get over it". People that need a Mac will certainly rationalize since they have no choice.
But given a choice, people would absolutely not buy a laptop with a turd like this notch front and center.
Assuming you’re willing to buy a MBP personally, skipping it over the notch seems inexplicable to me. In every other way this seems like the best MBP delivered in a literal decade, assuming they didn’t mess up the keyboard. Much faster processor, faster display, better keyboard, better peripherals, and finally removing the 16GB memory cap. They even maintained compatibility for people like me who prefer single cable docks.
Of course if price is the reason, then that makes more sense. Apple seems to be returning to a wider (and more reasonable imho) price and performance gap between the pro and the air. If I was in the market for a laptop, and I’m not because I think laptops are silly in general[0], I’d go for an air. The pro is very much in the “work will buy one for me” price, and it offers performance I don’t really need out of a personal machine.
0 - As I’ve said before, laptops generally compromise too much for my tastes. Like many others I work entirely from a desk, so my personal mac is and always will be a mini. But since work will inevitably give me one of these, I’m thrilled that they’ve made it so much better, even if I wouldn’t buy one myself.
I wanted to get one personally cause I'm still on a 2014 but the design puts me off. It looks like one of those old school 2008 models. The notch is just ugly.
I'd get one but I need it to look premium if I'm dropping 4k and right now it looks like it's from 2008
It’s your money, but this mode of thinking is utterly alien to me.
The point of the MBP is that it’s for professionals. It’s a tool, not a fashion statement. The idea that it’s not worth the money because it looks outdated is utterly baffling to me; it’s worth the money because they’ve stuffed it full of the most performant components apple has ever put into a laptop ever. I want it to be a function over form machine, and worrying about its looks as part of the buying decision genuinely never crossed my mind.
If you want a fashion statement laptop and don’t need the performance, then don’t get a MBP. Again, your money; I don’t get it, but you do you. But the issue here isn’t that the laptop is bad per se, the issue is that that laptop wasn’t made for your use case.
Pffft, as if Apple didn't market every. single. one. of their products as a fashion statement.
Apple clearly has always chosen form over function and being different over function. That's the only reason why the ridiculously useless Dock exists at all - marketing loved it since it embodies both of those traits.
> Pffft, as if Apple didn't market every. single. one. of their products as a fashion statement.
Nonsense. The Mac Pro is clearly marketed as a professional took for professional use, always has been. Ditto with their high end displays. I don’t even think they had these objects in the last Apple Store I went into, actually.
Furthermore, every single ad I’ve ever seen for the MBP has been about artists, creatives, and programmers using it to make things. They have always presented it as the professional’s tool for creating stuff, even if at times that’s been a bit of a farce.
Now compare how they presented the MacBook, a laptop that they sold in gold color. That is a laptop they presented as a fashion choice, and interestingly it’s also the laptop they abandoned first.
> Apple clearly has always chosen form over function and being different over function
It’s only “always” been this way if you’re relatively young. In fact Apple’s turn towards form over function sometime after Job’s death caused quite a bit of angst here, both in terms of their hardware and software design. I’m old enough to remember when the MBP was unquestionably the best laptop a developer could buy, and I was very sad to watch it slowly lose ground to other laptops as Apple pursued thinness over user experience, hardware specs, upgradability, or durability.
If anything else, what I’m seeing today seems like a return to Apple from earlier in my career, when they made professional grade laptops that lead the pack. There are still some changes I’d love to see, such as more upgrade ability, but an Apple that’s willing to make its devices thicker if it improves user experience is very much a “function over form” move.
There are literally still so many comments just like that and plenty of people who simply won't buy a phone that has a notch. The comments never stopped.
The screenshots showing application menus almost hitting the notch are ugly af. I'm sure that there are applications that have even more menus than Photoshop or Premiere.
> There are literally still so many comments just like that and plenty of people who simply won't buy a phone that has a notch. The comments never stopped.
… and yet, sales have continued to be extremely high, which suggests that is a self-selected group of extremely vocal opponents rather than a real market trend.
I hate the notch, but I'll still buy iPhones all day long if my only other choice is to buy products with questionable privacy from an advertising company versus dealing with Apple's shitty designs.
That's their point, it's literally self selection: people who do not care about the notch are not going to write comments about it, and people who care are never going to shut up about it, giving an extremely poor window for understanding how much it actually matters or how it impacts real use. That complaints like this are self-selective is both well known and the OP's entire point; it's amazing how much effort all the replies seem to be going through to not understand this.
Sounds like the TERFs have a very reasonable position that doesn't involve the rest of society changing the definitions of words based on extremely questionable socially and politically motivated soft sciences.
"The metrics were compiled from publicly available sports federation databases and/or tournament/competition records."
"Although not an exhaustive list, examples of performance gaps in a range of sports with various durations, physiological performance determinants, skill components and force requirements are shown..." [0]
To clarify why I'm quoting these - I don't think they're trying to spin it one way or the other. Reading the report one can see that they say things like "which creates advantages in sports where levers influence force application, where longer limb/digit length is favorable", i.e. not all sports.
So, they're coming to the same conclusion. Either way - some small percentage of people are always going to be upset if they can't just do whatever they want.
> When comparing athletes who compete directly against one another, such as elite or comparable levels of school-aged athletes, the physiological advantages conferred by biological sex appear, on assessment of performance data, insurmountable.
The paper is missing that these differences are not insurmountable in all sports, and not even in all Olympic sports (they reference the IOC multiple times). It's an important distinction not addressed adequately in the chart or the paper IMO.
> In this review, we aim to assess whether evidence exists to support the assumption that testosterone suppression in transgender women removes these advantages.
If your study is designed to analyze the fairness of different testosterone levels in all Olympic sports (or a cross-section of all sports) in an un-biased way, then you should include data on all Olympic sports (curling, artistic gymnastics, artistic swimming, equestrian, fencing, figure skating, marathon swimming, rhythmic gymnastics, sailing, rock climbing, surfing, table tennis, etc.), or at least include varying types of sports like endurance sports, dexterity sports, artistic sports, equine sports, etc.
Maybe they just don't have data for those other sports, but then at least include a prominent caveat that this data is incomplete and is not a good representation of all sports or even all Olympic sports, or limit the scope of your paper to what your more narrow analysis actually is.
> Of course, different sports select for different physiological characteristics—an advantage in one discipline may be neutral or even a disadvantage in another—but examination of a variety of record and performance metrics in any discipline reveals there are few sporting disciplines where males do not possess performance advantage over females as a result of the physiological characteristics affected by testosterone.
Correct, but why not name those sports and include them in the chart? Apparently the authors know that these sports exist enough to acknowledge that they are "few" in number.
Just a little too much of an agenda wrapped in science for my taste. I don't think it's the best chart to be promoting, because it's incomplete and paints a picture that male sporting dominance over females is "insurmountable", when in fact "dominant in many areas, but comparable in a few areas" is a much more accurate conclusion.
That said, I don't think it's hate speech by any means, just a poor chart from a poor paper with incomplete data.
> "Solemn declaration" isn't exactly what you want to read in a paper that's free of bias.
You got that exactly wrong. No bias is being displayed by that quote because they're simply describing IOC criteria.
The full quote is:
"Accordingly, the IOC determined criteria by which transgender women may be eligible to compete in the female category. These include a solemn declaration that her gender identity is female and the maintenance of total serum testosterone levels below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to competing and during competition."
Sorry, I didn't continue reading the rest of your comment.
In the US their unit share is now greater than 50%.
It's too bad that they're taking all of our money and not exporting much.
And for a country that loves "freedom" so much, it's also too bad that we don't make Apple sell us devices that we can actually own and control, by simply voting with our dollars.
Yes this is more problem than importing phones (anyway actually we import from China mostly). Our freedom is censored by foreign US company because we buy Apple.
This is like saying that when you read "because science tells us" that you translate it to "because I believe anything that scientists say" as that is what is effectively happening.