swingerofbirch
Aug 26, 07:39 PM
I hope they use Conroe in the iMac over Merom. Conroe is faster than Merom at cheaper prices. But it would mean more hardware tweaking that plopping a Merom in there.
Moyank24
Feb 28, 09:08 PM
Well, it's certainly sweeping drama based on fiction. Like so many Oscar winners, it's also a bit of vapid fluff that people will view and quickly forget. Frankly, I didn't mean to imply any excellence other than at making completely unfounded generalizations.
Are you saying you think people program themselves to be gay? Or is it based on what cartoons they watch as a kid? Maybe lack of a father figure? Tell us more, Doc!
I'm pretty sure I figured it out.
I watched Wonder Woman too much as a kid! :eek:
Are you saying you think people program themselves to be gay? Or is it based on what cartoons they watch as a kid? Maybe lack of a father figure? Tell us more, Doc!
I'm pretty sure I figured it out.
I watched Wonder Woman too much as a kid! :eek:
AngryCorgi
Apr 6, 04:16 PM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
I'll give you some insight into their potential. The desktop i7-2600k has been benchmarked to be roughly equivalent to a 9400m in performance (assuming similar CPU).
i7-2600k GPU clock = 850/1350 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2410m (13" Mac Pro base) GPU clock = 650/1200 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2620m (13" Mac Pro upg) GPU clock = 650/1300 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2537m (theorized 11/13 MBA) GPU clock = 350/900 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2649m (theorized 13 MBA upg) GPU clock = 500/1100 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
As you can see, none of the mobile GPUs run quite as fast as the desktop, but the 13" 2.7GHz upg cpu's comes fairly close. Now, the 2.13 GHz MBA + 320m combo matched or beat out the i7-2620m in 75% of the tests (and only narrowly was defeated in 25%). There is going to be some random inconcistancy regardless, due to driver variances in different apps. The issue here is (and this can be shown in core2 vs. i5/i7 testing on the alienware m11x) the core2 duo really very rarely gets beat by the i5/i7 in gaming/video playback. This is because not many games are single-threaded anymore, and if using 2+ threads, the i5/i7 ULV won't jump the clock speed any. Further, the 2.13GHz was keeping up with and beating a 2.7GHz (27% higher clock!) in that test, because graphics are the bottleneck, not the CPU. Take into account that NONE of the ULV core-i options match the MBP 13" 2.7GHz upg GPU speed and its pretty clear that for graphics-intensive apps, the older 320m would be the way to go. Now for most everything else, the i7-2649m would overtake the core2 2.13GHz. This includes a lot of non-accelerated video playback (high-CPU-overhead).
Something you guys need to be wary of is the 1333MHz memory topic. Likely, Apple will choose to run it down at 1066MHz to conserve battery life. Memory speed hikes = gratuitous battery drain.
I for one am happy Apple is growing with the modern tech, but I hold no illusions as to the benefits/drawbacks of either system.
I'll give you some insight into their potential. The desktop i7-2600k has been benchmarked to be roughly equivalent to a 9400m in performance (assuming similar CPU).
i7-2600k GPU clock = 850/1350 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2410m (13" Mac Pro base) GPU clock = 650/1200 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2620m (13" Mac Pro upg) GPU clock = 650/1300 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2537m (theorized 11/13 MBA) GPU clock = 350/900 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2649m (theorized 13 MBA upg) GPU clock = 500/1100 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
As you can see, none of the mobile GPUs run quite as fast as the desktop, but the 13" 2.7GHz upg cpu's comes fairly close. Now, the 2.13 GHz MBA + 320m combo matched or beat out the i7-2620m in 75% of the tests (and only narrowly was defeated in 25%). There is going to be some random inconcistancy regardless, due to driver variances in different apps. The issue here is (and this can be shown in core2 vs. i5/i7 testing on the alienware m11x) the core2 duo really very rarely gets beat by the i5/i7 in gaming/video playback. This is because not many games are single-threaded anymore, and if using 2+ threads, the i5/i7 ULV won't jump the clock speed any. Further, the 2.13GHz was keeping up with and beating a 2.7GHz (27% higher clock!) in that test, because graphics are the bottleneck, not the CPU. Take into account that NONE of the ULV core-i options match the MBP 13" 2.7GHz upg GPU speed and its pretty clear that for graphics-intensive apps, the older 320m would be the way to go. Now for most everything else, the i7-2649m would overtake the core2 2.13GHz. This includes a lot of non-accelerated video playback (high-CPU-overhead).
Something you guys need to be wary of is the 1333MHz memory topic. Likely, Apple will choose to run it down at 1066MHz to conserve battery life. Memory speed hikes = gratuitous battery drain.
I for one am happy Apple is growing with the modern tech, but I hold no illusions as to the benefits/drawbacks of either system.
jp102235
Apr 25, 03:06 PM
I could have sworn that the fed govt is barred from spying on us, but private citizens can do this all day long.
cait-sith
Aug 11, 10:10 AM
Apple may or may not have a phone. It may launch this month, or a year from now.
Gee... :confused:
Gee... :confused:
Thinine
Apr 10, 01:21 AM
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
dezeinstein
Jun 8, 06:46 PM
You've got questions. We've got transistors.
leekohler
Apr 27, 12:29 PM
I suspected it was a copy, I've never trusted the president, and I probably never will.
Why? What has he done to make you not trust him? IMO, he's done a decent job so far, and actually gotten quite a bit of good things done.
Why? What has he done to make you not trust him? IMO, he's done a decent job so far, and actually gotten quite a bit of good things done.
Chakotay
Apr 6, 02:17 PM
I guess it wouldn't hurt their future sales to announce international release dates. Several people I know have ordered or bought an iPad 2 simply because it is available (even with order backlogs) compared to Honeycomb tablets.
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
whatever
Jul 20, 12:10 PM
Hmm, would make for an awesome rev b. MacPro on or around MWSF (probably "around" as MWSF is really a big consumer event).
Bring on the serious grunt!!
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Bring on the serious grunt!!
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
dernhelm
Aug 7, 03:53 PM
I am not entirely clear on what all CoreAnimation does and does not do, but I'm wondering if it and RIUI are not related at some level....
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
I voted Time Machine. I'm not even sure I'd really use it. But it's a neat idea, and the implementation looks to be nothing less than stunning.
These were my top two as well. I just didn't have quite enough information on how Core Animation is actually set up to vote for it. It's also hard to get real excited about a developer-enabling feature, but it could certainly lead to some cool apps. It's also great that they're eating their own dogfood and using it to code Time Machine.
Time machine was my vote mostly because of its wide appeal. This looks awesome, and if it is as effortless as it sounds, may even be a reason to buy some NAS storage and hook it up at home. The demo I saw was simply amazing.
Great work apple. Now get those Core 2 Duo chips in the iMac and I'll be all set. :)
Popeye206
Mar 31, 03:33 PM
Good. I hope they take one of the last strengths of the iPad ecosystem away from it.
Ya got to love this guy.... Mr Gloom and doom!
Glad to see the hot selling iPad 2 only has "one" advantage against the non-selling Android tablets. :rolleyes:
Ya got to love this guy.... Mr Gloom and doom!
Glad to see the hot selling iPad 2 only has "one" advantage against the non-selling Android tablets. :rolleyes:
mdavis
Mar 26, 08:23 PM
What? this seems hard to believe... Already done on development? :confused:
it's not a particularly large release
it's not a particularly large release
Multimedia
Jul 27, 04:22 PM
Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.Wow. Apple is going to abandon soldering the processor directly to the printed circuit board (PCB) and add a socket to the MBP PCB? If so they must redesign the case as well since it will have to be thicker. I do want a layout redesign so the HDs can be easily swapped out like they can in the MB. And why wouldn't Apple know this long ago and be ready with the next version? Waiting past September seems too long for the refresh. :eek:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.Wow. Apple is going to abandon soldering the processor directly to the printed circuit board (PCB) and add a socket to the MBP PCB? If so they must redesign the case as well since it will have to be thicker. I do want a layout redesign so the HDs can be easily swapped out like they can in the MB. And why wouldn't Apple know this long ago and be ready with the next version? Waiting past September seems too long for the refresh. :eek:
Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
funkyT80
Apr 6, 03:18 PM
Nice to see those small Mom and Pop tablet companies make there play too. :D
Durendal
Apr 5, 07:10 PM
About time. FCP is aging poorly. The engine is still Carbon and based around the old QT, which means that a lot of functions only use two cores at the most. I think we'll finally see Apple seriously leveraging GCD, OpenCL, etc here, although don't expect video compression to use OpenCL if the lousy quality of CUDA encodes is any indicator. Maybe Apple will add support for QuickSync on Sandy Bridge.
Also, Compressor is a damned joke. When your "Pro" software encoder gives you less options and lower quality with longer render times than free alternatives, you really need to go back to the drawing board. Yes, a lot of folks use hardware encoders, but really, if you're going to include a software encoder, at least make it as good as free software...
Also, Compressor is a damned joke. When your "Pro" software encoder gives you less options and lower quality with longer render times than free alternatives, you really need to go back to the drawing board. Yes, a lot of folks use hardware encoders, but really, if you're going to include a software encoder, at least make it as good as free software...
fivepoint
Apr 27, 03:00 PM
Really guys? We're going to argue it may be a forgery now. :rolleyes:
Can you name ONE person here who suggested its a forgery? Please provide the quote assuming of course you're not simply making crap up for the sake of argument... attempting to label people instead of discussing the actual issues. NAWWW!!!
BTW- just opened the same file- no layers. So you tell me what I'm missing here.
Am I a liar? I have no idea if you're doing it right, or if you are even using Illustrator, or if the PDF was replaced with a single-layer/object one. Just do a Google search for 'obama birth certificate layers' and you'll see that I'm not the only one who downloaded a file with multiple layers or objects or whatever.
Can you name ONE person here who suggested its a forgery? Please provide the quote assuming of course you're not simply making crap up for the sake of argument... attempting to label people instead of discussing the actual issues. NAWWW!!!
BTW- just opened the same file- no layers. So you tell me what I'm missing here.
Am I a liar? I have no idea if you're doing it right, or if you are even using Illustrator, or if the PDF was replaced with a single-layer/object one. Just do a Google search for 'obama birth certificate layers' and you'll see that I'm not the only one who downloaded a file with multiple layers or objects or whatever.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:31 PM
First, what makes you think the cellusage is similar to internet????? Mind blowing step here.
Secondly, Europa has 291 million internet users; North america US&Canada 227 milion; Rest of the world 500 million
Hence europe would be close to 30% of the total market???? What about india??? Japan??? china??? come on you cant say jack *** from this statistics
So how many people in the world do you think have cell phones? Everyone?!?! Just doing a quick Google search, there were about 1.1billion cell users in the world in 2004. So, maybe it's up to 1.5 - 1.75bil now?
Now if there's ~700mil people in the EU with a workforce just under 400mil strong and internet usage is about 300mil. Ya, it would seem reasonable that roughly the same number of people use cell phones. Do you have a better estimate? I'm sure there's a lot of elderly, children, and poor in the 700mil that use cell phones, eh?
What about India, Japan, China? First of all, India and China have median incomes that are FAR less than the US or EU... so I doubt they have a relatively large cellular user base.
And oh, let me check with my cubemate.... yep, CDMA is used in parts of China.
Secondly, Europa has 291 million internet users; North america US&Canada 227 milion; Rest of the world 500 million
Hence europe would be close to 30% of the total market???? What about india??? Japan??? china??? come on you cant say jack *** from this statistics
So how many people in the world do you think have cell phones? Everyone?!?! Just doing a quick Google search, there were about 1.1billion cell users in the world in 2004. So, maybe it's up to 1.5 - 1.75bil now?
Now if there's ~700mil people in the EU with a workforce just under 400mil strong and internet usage is about 300mil. Ya, it would seem reasonable that roughly the same number of people use cell phones. Do you have a better estimate? I'm sure there's a lot of elderly, children, and poor in the 700mil that use cell phones, eh?
What about India, Japan, China? First of all, India and China have median incomes that are FAR less than the US or EU... so I doubt they have a relatively large cellular user base.
And oh, let me check with my cubemate.... yep, CDMA is used in parts of China.
snouter
Apr 6, 11:07 AM
My 17" has backlit keys and I like them. Is that so wrong?
Vercingetorix
Mar 31, 10:33 PM
I completely disagree.
Going open sounded like a great idea in the beginning. Fast forward to today, and manufacturers have used the openness against the platform by creating custom versions of android that aren't readily upgradable.
This has hurt the platform more than 'being open' helped it and google is right to start regulating what can and cannot be done.
I think we're all pretty lucky to have experienced both sides of the spectrum to be honest :)
Whether they're right to start regulating or not, they're still shamless hypocrites. What happened to all the principles that they waved around in the air? Andy Rubin himself said that the "definition of open" was that anyone could download the Android source and do whatever they wanted to it. Now people have to kiss his ring?
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
Going open sounded like a great idea in the beginning. Fast forward to today, and manufacturers have used the openness against the platform by creating custom versions of android that aren't readily upgradable.
This has hurt the platform more than 'being open' helped it and google is right to start regulating what can and cannot be done.
I think we're all pretty lucky to have experienced both sides of the spectrum to be honest :)
Whether they're right to start regulating or not, they're still shamless hypocrites. What happened to all the principles that they waved around in the air? Andy Rubin himself said that the "definition of open" was that anyone could download the Android source and do whatever they wanted to it. Now people have to kiss his ring?
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
63dot
Aug 17, 10:44 AM
Check it out!
http://barefeats.com/quad06.html
The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!
when cs 3 comes out, which will be sometime in the spring of 2007 according to macworld magazine, the mac pro will be "hands down" the best machine across the board on "all" benchmarks concerning adobe software
let's hope we get cs 3 sooner rather than later in 2007 because i would hate to wait until late march
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)
but for now, apple has the best pro desktop machine dollar for dollar that i have seen and with cs 3 next year, it will be a designer's dream machine better than anything out there in its price range...at least for a few months ;)
http://barefeats.com/quad06.html
The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!
when cs 3 comes out, which will be sometime in the spring of 2007 according to macworld magazine, the mac pro will be "hands down" the best machine across the board on "all" benchmarks concerning adobe software
let's hope we get cs 3 sooner rather than later in 2007 because i would hate to wait until late march
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)
but for now, apple has the best pro desktop machine dollar for dollar that i have seen and with cs 3 next year, it will be a designer's dream machine better than anything out there in its price range...at least for a few months ;)
shamino
Jul 21, 12:45 PM
I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
~Shard~
Aug 25, 03:00 PM
Apple needs to address this situation appropriately. As their products gain higher profile, as their customer base increases and they gain market share, it's only logical to think that there will be a greater need for support. If nothing else, it's simple math - more Macs out there = more problems! Esepcially with how well the Intel Macs have been selling, I think Apple would be foolish to think that what was good enough a few years ago is still good enough today in terms of support.
Apple must also realize the importance of first impressions. Now more than ever new switchers are coming on board to the Intel platform, and if they have problems right off the bat and poor customer service and support, that's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth, and perhaps they may just get fed up and switch back.
Apple is so good at so many things - let's hope they ensure this is the case for their Support services as well.
Apple must also realize the importance of first impressions. Now more than ever new switchers are coming on board to the Intel platform, and if they have problems right off the bat and poor customer service and support, that's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth, and perhaps they may just get fed up and switch back.
Apple is so good at so many things - let's hope they ensure this is the case for their Support services as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment