pink fish media

Go Back   pink fish media > discussion > off topic

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #121  
Old 14-09-17, 02:40 AM
matthewr matthewr is online now
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 16,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony L View Post
I'd argue the reverse. The current MacBook/MacBook Pro are eye-wateringly expensive if you need a serious amount of onboard storage, e.g. 1TB or more. It is why I am slumming it with a 2012 pre-Retina model. I want my music collection with me, not in the cloud, not on a NAS at home and not on an external USB drive.
I don't understand this at all. It's like arguing against not getting mains electricity and taking a diesel generator everywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 14-09-17, 02:43 AM
matthewr matthewr is online now
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 16,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlin View Post
I'm not in the industry anymore Matthew but there don't appear to be many non smart phones around these days.
There are loads of non-smart phones and if you just want a phone, phone then you are looking at about 40.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 14-09-17, 02:45 AM
merlin merlin is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,769
OK. So a hell of a lot cheaper than they were in 2007?
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 14-09-17, 02:51 AM
matthewr matthewr is online now
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 16,252
Yeah it's almost as if there has been loads of technical progress in the last decade of something.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 14-09-17, 02:52 AM
merlin merlin is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony L View Post
I'd argue the reverse. The current MacBook/MacBook Pro are eye-wateringly expensive if you need a serious amount of onboard storage, e.g. 1TB or more. It is why I am slumming it with a 2012 pre-Retina model. I want my music collection with me, not in the cloud, not on a NAS at home and not on an external USB drive.

PS I find it rather odd that someone with a stereo that cost more than a luxury family car is arguing about 1k for a state of the art smartphone!


I get more pleasure from the stereo and it should not have a built in obsolescence Tony.

With Macbooks I'm comparing a top spec model from 2007 with the closest today.

2007

2.16 GHz/1 GB RAM/160 GB HD/$1499 U.S.

2017

1.2GHz dual-core 7th-generation Intel Core m3 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.0GHz)/ 8GB 1866MHz LPDDR3 memory/ 256GB SSD storage/$1299 U.S.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 14-09-17, 02:53 AM
Seeker_UK Seeker_UK is offline
>^..^< *Meow*
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony L View Post
I want my music collection with me, not in the cloud, not on a NAS at home and not on an external USB drive.
We all have to hit our limit of acceptable progress at some point.

I gave up when a mobile 'phone went north of 100 for a load of s**t I don't need like anything that I don't need to call or text someone.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 14-09-17, 02:54 AM
merlin merlin is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthewr View Post
Yeah it's almost as if there has been loads of technical progress in the last decade of something.
What? Between basic phones and those of yesteryear?

What exactly?

Nokia 150 is indeed better than anything on PLAC from 2007. Then a basic phone on that service was 99, Now just 15
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 14-09-17, 02:58 AM
Tony L Tony L is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 58,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthewr View Post
I don't understand this at all. It's like arguing against not getting mains electricity and taking a diesel generator everywhere.
I really don't want a desktop computer. I've not used one for almost 20 years now, so that means my laptop needs to be in what always used to be described as the 'desktop replacement/power-user' class. To get that from Apple these days is very, very expensive as their priority of 'thinness' over performance or usability has relegated all but the top-end models to little more than netbooks IMO. I've just had a look at the Apple Store and to get a 13" MBP of the same spec as my upgraded five year old model (16GB/1TB SSD) is 2.7k! Ok, it has a nicer screen and just so much 'thinness', but I'd have to f*** about with an external optical drive to rip CDs etc, i.e. it is actually less practical.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 14-09-17, 03:01 AM
Joe Hutch Joe Hutch is offline
Can you hear Talvin Singh?
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlin View Post
Define "Mountain Bike" Joe.

It's a bit like asking a fair price for "a car" these days
Exactly. So, I could pick up a non-smart mobile for under a tenner. It wouldn't do much, but it would meet my limited requirements. Similarly, you could pick up a bike secondhand for about 50, and it would get you from A to B. If either of us wanted 'more' (more functionality, better design/build, more pride of ownership), then we'd move up the product tree till we reached a point where our ability to afford met the specification set we desired. The price of any consumer good is based on what the market will bear, not on any production cost + profit model.

Obviously some people will stretch beyond what they can afford, but compared to say, those who gamble or drink beyond their means, I would say the number likely to do so wrt the new Apple phone would be vanishingly small.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 14-09-17, 03:05 AM
merlin merlin is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,769
Joe, what I am saying is that, with bicycles for instance, the price increase has not remotely matched that of the iPhone and yet we have similar advances. The MacBook there is an example of that.

With the bikes I gave an example of the Colnago frameset prices over the past decade. Having said that, the American brands in particular are taking the proverbial with their new TOTR bikes and get similar reactions from me. I would not buy from them on principle.

The inflation on many of these prices is effectively negative. The rise in the cost of the iPhone is shocking in comparison. Another example is the reduction in the price of non smart phones over that period as shown - again despite advances.

If there is a market I agree, corporations will profit from it. Indeed they will seek to create that market through marketing as much as anything else. A bit like drug dealers.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 14-09-17, 03:11 AM
Joe Hutch Joe Hutch is offline
Can you hear Talvin Singh?
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,855
If Apple have over-priced the new iPhone, it won't sell. They've made similar mistakes in the past.

I find it hard to get worked up over one consumer item when there are so many others that are priced to confer a mythical status on them. It's especially so, given the context of a hifi forum!
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 14-09-17, 03:16 AM
merlin merlin is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,769
Granted Joe.

I can't remember paying retail price or buying anything new from an audio POV in decades.

It's really difficult to find old price lists on the web it seems. What's happened to audio electronics prices over the years out of interest Joe?

I see the B&W 683 was 900 in 2007. Now the S2 is 1150. The same price adjusted for inflation.

Last edited by merlin; 14-09-17 at 06:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 14-09-17, 05:38 AM
vuk vuk is offline
\o/ c h o o s e a n a r c h y
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony L View Post
I really don't want a desktop computer. .
i don't think that what he's saying. you could place your "extra" storage on a web server (cloud is just a silly marketing term for that), or, as i have suggested before, on a tiny external drive that you plug in when necessary.

also, i'm not one to question people's personal computing choices, but i do find it odd that a person with a big music collection is opposed to the notion of a NAS device.



vuk.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 14-09-17, 05:43 AM
vuk vuk is offline
\o/ c h o o s e a n a r c h y
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,898
p.s. is there such a thin as a "sock" of some kind that one can connect one of these phones to and be able to use a proper keyboard and monitor? if not, maybe tones can help us get a patent.

i don't understand how anyone can actually get any proper work done on a tiny device -- unless he is a gossip columnist or retails clerk.


vuk.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 14-09-17, 05:57 AM
Tony L Tony L is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 58,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by vuk View Post
i don't think that what he's saying. you could place your "extra" storage on a web server (cloud is just a silly marketing term for that), or, as i have suggested before, on a tiny external drive that you plug in when necessary.

also, i'm not one to question people's personal computing choices, but i do find it odd that a person with a big music collection is opposed to the notion of a NAS device.
Upload speeds in the UK are pretty much third-world at any reasonable monthly rate, shifting best part of a TB up would be a nightmare. A NAS needs to be at home, a portable HD is just more clutter, something else to f*** about backing up. I'm not asking for the moon on a stick here, a 1 or 2 TB drive really is not an unusual thing, I've had a 1TB SSD drive in my MBP for about 3 years now! My complaint is modern Apple computers come with daft little HDs as standard, and for typical home consumers that may be adequate, but they always used to cater for the high-end musician/studio market, and that is the sort of kit I buy. I realise as someone who runs a high-end audio forum for a living and is a part-time muso my usage may not be typical, but it should still be catered for, just as it should were I a high-end photographer, video editor, graphic designer etc etc. This was always Apple's key marketplace. It was where they existed as a company.

PS I guess Apple think everyone lives in California or South Korea where cloud computing actually works. Here in the UK most people don't even get 512mbps upload (I get twice that, but it is still crap).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
pink fish media