Macrumors , an Apple fan site has become the most toxic Apple community I have seen and almost anti Apple

[turbineseaplane]

Also...don't like the AVP? Say it once or twice and move on. But if you enter almost every thread and repeat that opinion 10 or 20 times on the thread, that is trolling.

If there are new topics that come up and perhaps new angles to take, I don't think it's wrong to express additional criticism with more information and time. Same for praise.

If folks were limited to expressing one opinion, positive or negative, one single time or from one particular angle, forever -- we'd have a pretty dead forum - lol

I don't know if you and I will agree on this general point, so I'll agree to disagree and move on.
Cheers

 

[turbineseaplane]

Maybe too this will result in more posts being reported to Moderators which might improve things.
And maybe to understand better what not to report.

I don't know if "more reports" is good, hah! .. but, that said ...understanding better WHAT to report, for sure is.

Cheers

 

[B S Magnet]

I've seen the exact same sort of thing, but with overwhelming (almost unnatural) praise and exuberance for Apple and/or a given new product.

What came to mind with that particular subset of posts were their effusiveness, almost to the point of obsequiousness, for the company — even as only a handful had actually ordered the product, much less received it. For any product of service, those posts are not particularly constructive or meaningful.

Like, I used to get really excited for new stuff from the company, back in the 1999–2003 window, but even that was tempered to, “Oh neat!” and contemplating whether I actually needed it or would use it for years to come.

AVP, for instance, seemed to bring out absolute armies of "barely used, but somehow 10 years old" accounts.
It was really really weird.

How do, ahem, (zombie) macrumours newbie accounts stay active after ten-plus years of posting inactivity?

 

[Ifti]

Who said it was an ‘Apple Fan’ site??
Last time I checked it was ‘MacRumors’……..doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be an Apple fan in order to keep up with tech news…….

 

[picpicmac]

Drawing notice to the under-equipping of base models ... is a constructive criticism for their adoption of this merchandising practice.

How are they constructive?

Apple configures its machines as do other companies: to find a market.

Apple does what Lenovo, Dell, Microsoft, etc. all do.

"Under-equipping" is so relative as to not have meaning outside of context.

So when the usual toxic commentators cry "criminal" about Apple's base specs, what is "constructive"?

No one here determines what the world needs or what companies can deliver, outside of our own expenditures.

And I bet very, very few people here are institutional buyers who spend millions of dollars at a time.

Thus I do not see how constructive the never-ending whining can be.

 

[fatTribble]

Who said it was an ‘Apple Fan’ site??
Last time I checked it was ‘MacRumors’……..doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be an Apple fan in order to keep up with tech news…….

You’re making me think. So thanks for that.

Maybe I’ve been assuming (wrongly?) everyone who posts owns an Apple product and if you own an Apple product you must like Apple products.

So I’m trying to imagine the person posting with an Apple product who doesn’t like Apple.

Just speaking for myself, the only product I can think of that I had but didn’t like the company was my cable service.

I’ve only gone to sites/forums of products I like or am thinking about buying.

I understand keeping up with news about tech products and releases. But if I didn’t own the product I can’t imagine reading their forum. Everyone is different. That’s just me.

Apologies if this was painful to read. ☺️

 

[bousozoku]

I'm not certain that the rules, as currently crafted, are sufficient to tackle the problems I currently see on MacRumors.

For example, is there a rule about persistent overwhelming negativity toward Apple?

It's become predictable that no matter the topic, the first 100 posts on a new thread will be overwhelmingly negative. What rule is in place to try to balance that? So far as I'm aware, there is no rule. But this is my point; why would I want to continue to participate on a site dedicated to discussing a product I like and support if it is overwhelmingly populated by those who hate the product and the company?

Moderating for that, in my opinion, would be in MacRumors long-term best interest. But it would require "rules" that are subjective in nature. A rule like "persistent negativity" won't be allowed. And that would violate the idea of "all opinions are equal" that some seem to think are a law of the universe.

I've used this example before: what would happen if I went onto a Harley Davidson web site and persistently called the company evil, criminal, labeled those who like Harleys "fan boys" and generally tried to disrupt and criticize a product that Harley owners loved? First, it would be silly. And second, it would absolutely be labeled trolling on that board.

Same thing should happen here. Persistent, overwhelming negativity should be labeled trolling. And moderated heavily.

It was difficult to moderate the forums when it was mostly over-the-top positive comments until the new devices release when none of the devices met the dreams of the vocal.

Now, it has to be almost impossible to moderate by looking at a poster's history, but treading lightly, it could be done. However, as I've seen in real life, the pandemic let loose a lot of people to spread their negativity in person.

 

[B S Magnet]

So I’m trying to imagine the person posting with an Apple product who doesn’t like Apple.

From time to time, back in 2018–19 (when I was still newish around here), the occasional new post in the PowerPC forum, which at the time also welcomed and fielded posts on early Intel Macs, would ask about a work computer they used and asking for help to fix an issue they were having with it. They wouldn’t be aware of what constituted an “early” model, and we didn’t really have anything set in stone, either. (Moreover, they might not have clued in their Mac wasn’t a PowerPC model.)

Generally, the rule of thumb was a forum regular might try to help, except in cases which the Mac in question was, frankly, new enough to still be considered as “supported” or “vintage” by Apple. (A good case example: the 2012 13-inch unibody MBP, sold until October 2016.) In those cases, we would get a moderator to move it to one of the model-line forums where, hopefully, they found people who could help them out.

This is to say there will be the occasional Mac user who has a Mac because that is what they were assigned for their workspace or issued as their take-home/WFH laptop. At least with recent Intel Macs and the scant few Silicon Macs (able to boot into an ARM-based copy of Windows), they probably also use it to boot into Windows, with which they probably have greater familiarity.

They are not fans or even buyers of Macs, but nevertheless use them for compulsory, job-based reasons, and there will be times they post on here as newbies looking for community help.

 

[za9ra22]

...So I’m trying to imagine the person posting with an Apple product who doesn’t like Apple.....

I have to say, I own a fair amount of Apple product, but that reflects on my needs as a user and the tasks I want to get done, and not at all really on the company.

Where it comes to Apple itself, I don't exactly dislike the company, but I am disappointed in it. There's a whole bunch of reasons for that, which matter to me, but don't and wouldn't stop me buying Apple stuff if there was anything left that I needed. That said, I'm not critical of their drive to profit from what they make and sell, because that's their job, and I am not going to complain or criticize them for a product I bought of my own free will, knowing it wasn't upgradable (for example). I make my choices and it's only if I have been lied to that I have a reason to be critical of any but myself if those choices turn out to be bad ones.

I think, for me, they lost a great deal of what was 'right' when they matured into a grown up business instead of the 'think different' crowd. The products are at times breathtakingly good, but the company often shows a sparsity of design and user focus, which it rarely lacked before. Vague as that is, that's about as much as my opinion is worth.

 

[B S Magnet]

I think, for me, they lost a great deal of what was 'right' when they matured into a grown up business instead of the 'think different' crowd. The products are at times breathtakingly good, but the company often shows a sparsity of design and user focus, which it rarely lacked before.

This would be the Cookification effect: Tim Cook is, at the core, an M.B.A. Jobs did sales. Cook has skippered the premiumization of every Apple product and service. Premiumization is a popular, but abject repudiation by product makers (across nearly all sectors) of the reality that not everyone has premium budgets and, consequently, either get locked out or must carve themselves to the bone to allocate budgets to other products they need and use (which, inconveniently for consumers — but to the delight of manufacturers/producers/shareholders — are also premiumizing and commanding more, sometimes for less, without the possibility of more economical alternatives within the company line).

There is no longer a provision for non-premiumized products within any of the major Apple lines. We saw the end of this with the termination of a successor to the 2006–2010 window of MacBooks; the termination of non-glass iPods well before the iPod Touch was phased out; and in the elimination of all upgradeability across all lines which, from the consumer end, put them in the challenging position of having to pay a tremendous sum up front to Apple or pay a lot for a whole separate unit in the event they want to have higher RAM and storage capacity. But the means to make that upgrade comes with a much higher wall to climb than the wall of buying aftermarket NVMe SSD blades and SO-DIMMs/CAMMs (the latter, in the case of other computer makers like Dell).

Before Jobs’s return, Apple were still compact enough and, in ways both providential and sad, scrappy enough to warrant adoption and embracing of the “Think different.” brand campaign — with many staff still there from the days of Sculley, Frog Design’s Snow White design language, and development of both the AIM/PowerPC project as well as Newton, PowerBook (and even strong hints of it in the Twentieth Anniversary Mac). This scrappy epoch is now a definite, book-ended span of history, but one which many longtime Apple users look back on with respect and even some fondness.

It is completely possible to be a “grown-up” company without premiumizing the entire range of products which that company sells. IKEA, another major worldwide company and brand, still manage to do this, but for how much longer before/if they hop on the premiumization train (as their shareholders demand) is still unknown.

 

[KaliYoni]

IKEA, another major worldwide company and brand, still manage to do this, but for how much longer before/if they hop on the premiumization train (as their shareholders demand) is still unknown.

Ikea is not a publicly-held company, so any "demands" to change its corporate strategy would come from the founding Kamprad family.

----------
ETA: In my view, Apple has not ever followed a low-price product strategy or a mass-consumer marketing strategy with the exception of the brief period when a former consumer packaged goods executive led the company. Other than the Performa and Sears era, Apple has focused on elite, non-price sensitive market segments, such as hobbyists, desktop publishing and graphic arts professionals, and, currently, lifestyle focused, fashion conscious conspicuous consumers.

 

[B S Magnet]

Ikea is not a publicly-held company, so any "demands" to change its corporate strategy would come from the founding Kamprad family.

Fair.

Nevertheless, IKEA remain a worldwide brand marketing and selling a broad span of products across several pricing tiers. I also chose IKEA as a quick example owing to their shared, established commonality with Apple for prioritizing solid design and aesthetics.

The difference, only in recent years, is their departure on the balance of function with that design, in conjunction with pricing options: Apple premiumized; IKEA have added premium products, but still offer affordable, durable products for a wider gamut of customer budgets.

----------
ETA: In my view, Apple has not ever followed a low-price product strategy or a mass-consumer marketing strategy with the exception of the brief period when a former consumer packaged goods executive led the company. Other than the Performa and Sears era, Apple has focused on elite, non-price sensitive market segments, such as hobbyists, desktop publishing and graphic arts professionals, and, currently, lifestyle focused, fashion conscious conspicuous consumers.

On this discussion, there hasn’t been an argument presented — at least, not anything I’ve brought up — suggesting Apple have offered “low-price” (frequently, code for “bargain basement”) products. What Apple once delivered, post-Jobs’s invitation back, was a value proposition that even at the starting level iMac or iBook, the purchaser of these were getting quality components with means for growth as their needs expanded. They were getting, from 1999, the means to connect to networks wirelessly — something few professional-grade PC products provided.

We can look at pricing for the first iBook — USD$1,599 — and remember how in 1999, no major computer maker had broken the sub-USD$1,000 barrier for laptops (that would arrive in 2000), while price-equivalent Intel-based laptops around that price range offered passive-matrix displays, no wifi, limited audio cards, and under-clocked CPUs. (With those, the first Intel/AMD-based laptops falling below USD$1,599 happened in 1998). Prices were still falling across every aspect of computing assembly as economies of scale, coupled with a period of big jumps forward with smaller wafer processes using newer, reliable materials, were seeing prices falling, industry-wide, quickly.

Just a bit over two years earlier, Apple’s base-model laptop of 1996-97, the PowerBook 1400cs/117, with 11.3-inch passive-matrix display (thousands of colours) and 12MB RAM, was USD$2,599 (or, USD$2,760 in 1999 dollars).

That iBook? It came with a 12-inch, active-matrix (millions of colours) display; almost triple the clock speed; 32MB base RAM; both 10/100 Ethernet and option for AirPort; and was in a rugged case. That drop in pricing with such a boost in performance was a dramatic value proposition.

So that’s how I mean by Apple once accommodating and leading with a value-oriented product which didn’t skimp on features or put buyers in a penalty box for going with the entry-level laptop. And it was incredibly stylish. It wasn’t premiumization, but one could walk out of their Apple reseller with a tangerine iBook and not feel like they were scraping the barrel.

That kind of value proposition would still sell units — many, many more, in fact. But the margin for entry-level laptops isn’t what Apple shareholders — and only Apple shareholders — desire. Which is a shame, because a value proposition like that would open fresh markets for Macs where they haven’t seen much use, as-new. I am absolutely thinking of the growing markets of sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and Asia (outside of Japan, South Korea, the PRC, and Vietnam).

I apologize for this getting overlong.

 

[Technerd108]

It comes down to this when it comes to resentment of Apple. I think a lot of people feel Apple is riding it's success without really innovating anymore which is probably the biggest gripe within Apple community. R&D figures released just recently bear this out. Apple only spend 8% on R&D while Meta and Amazon are at 30%. Google is forecast to have a new AI engine for Gemini that is supposedly revolutionary while Apple is promising the best AI consumer laptop in the market with features already in notebooks like the Samsung GB4 Pro and others with circle to search and other AI features already integrated into the laptop with Intel's new processors with NPU. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra has a lot of AI features already as well as does the Pixel line up. Call screening for example is a really nice and important practical feature that should have been on a iPhone for at least since the 15 came out but nothing. In june I am sure there will be a lot of great features but will it be enough to wow people? So far AI hasn't done that on any device yet.

I think the quality if Apple products in terms of reliability and quality control have gone down with quality control being the worst issue. Ram upgrades beyond 8gb at $200 for each 8gb upgrade is insane no matter if we have unified ram. It is not that much better. iPads have been great with m series chips but the software can barely take advantage of m1 let alone m2 or m3 and there is not real change in sight. Who wants to pay over $1k for a large Pro tablet just to stream some movies? Yet if you want a decent screen then the Pro is best. Same with the entire line up with every part of the line trying to push you up the upgrade ladder to spend more.

And finally the locked down nature of the Apple ecosystem sucks for anyone who wants a Android phone and has a Mac and other Apple gear. It doesn't have to be that way but Apple does it on purpose to encourage or discourage people from buying anything other Apple devices. I think there is a growing market that resents this, myself included.

In terms of the general treatment and respect here from other members of the forum is rather poor. There is so much projection of self worth tied to Apple products it is insane. There is so much bias confirmation and cognitive dissonance from a group you would expect more of an open mind from. But this is also a huge societal problem and it can get amplified on the internet.

 

[B S Magnet]

It comes down to this when it comes to resentment of Apple. I think a lot of people feel Apple is riding it's success without really innovating anymore which is probably the biggest gripe within Apple community.

Apple stopped being hungry a long time ago. In areas where their rate of delivering breakthrough products at good value proposition, they have done what satiated companies have done bfore them: they have diversified far, far afield of their core remit as a company delivering hardware products, coupled with an OS one buys for it and one for which it is optimized. (Apple Card, anyone? The withdrawn Apple car?) Apple now manage just two of those three; they once were three of three.

Always pay especial care to the companies which are both hungry and quick on their feet, because those will be what an increasingly lumbering entity as Apple will have to contend with, much as Apple did in the 1980s with the heavy competition of the day. History may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes. At the moment, one to keep catching my eye is Frame.work. There are also others.

I think the quality if Apple products in terms of reliability and quality control have gone down with quality control being the worst issue. Ram upgrades beyond 8gb at $200 for each 8gb upgrade is insane no matter if we have unified ram. It is not that much better. iPads have been great with m series chips but the software can barely take advantage of m1 let alone m2 or m3 and there is not real change in sight. Who wants to pay over $1k for a large Pro tablet just to stream some movies?

Never underestimate the cachet of desire and possession. The premiumization of the brand under Cook have conditioned Apple’s return buyers to the notion that an iPad north of USD$1K is “reasonable” — especially at a time when high-end phones are now hitting the four-figure mark.

And finally the locked down nature of the Apple ecosystem sucks for anyone who wants a Android phone and has a Mac and other Apple gear.

It also sucks if you have pre-existing Macs and want to use a new Mac in the shared network of those older Macs. We discuss this regularly on the Early Intel Macs forum. A big issue is network file sharing with AFP and SMB/CIFS between Silicon Macs and predecessors. Also the locking down of system files from Catalina forward complicates advanced user tweaks to their own specific use-cases and needs.

It doesn't have to be that way but Apple does it on purpose to encourage or discourage people from buying anything other Apple devices. I think there is a growing market that resents this, myself included.

Yup.

In terms of the general treatment and respect here from other members of the forum is rather poor. There is so much projection of self worth tied to Apple products it is insane.

Yup².

There is so much bias confirmation and cognitive dissonance from a group you would expect more of an open mind from. But this is also a huge societal problem and it can get amplified on the internet.

Should you still have older Macs around your place you want to pull out for the weekend to try out stuff, you ought to stop by sometime to the Early Intel Macs and/or PowerPC Macs sub-forums. You’ll find a very different pace and tone. There are no egos to bruise over there, and it’s why I keep a MR forums tab open and pinned on all my browsers.

 

[KaliYoni]

We can look at pricing for the first iBook — USD$1,599

no major computer maker had broken the sub-USD$1,000 barrier for laptops

Intel/AMD-based laptops falling below USD$1,599 happened in 1998

he PowerBook 1400cs/117, with 11.3-inch passive-matrix display (thousands of colours) and 12MB RAM, was USD$2,599

Just a quick comment that price comparisons from the past are more relevant when adjusted for inflation to present day currency values and, when possible, compared to an indicator of other prices at the time (for example, the price of a car, median personal income, the cost of gasoline).

A good US dollar inflation calculator:

Inflation Calculator | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

What’s a dollar worth? How far does a past dollar stretch to equal the modern dollar? What would past prices be today?

www.minneapolisfed.org

A fun way to compare global Big Mac prices:

Big Mac Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

----------
The 128k Macintosh, when released in 1984, cost $2,495 (or 1,560 Big Macs). That is $7,318 in 2023 dollars. The least expensive iMac today is $1,300 (or 228 Big Macs).

Macintosh 128K - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

how much did a Big Mac cost in 1984 in the USA?

In 1984, a Big Mac in the USA cost $1.60.

www.perplexity.ai

how much does a big mac cost in the usa today?

The cost of a Big Mac in the USA today varies slightly depending on the state. On average, a Big Mac is priced around $5.69 in the U.S. . However, prices can differ significantly across states, with Hawaii having one of the most expensive Big Macs at $5.31. In contrast, some states like...

www.perplexity.ai

Buy iMac

Get a new iMac all-in-one computer from only $108.25 per month. Select a model or customise your own. Buy now at apple.com.

www.apple.com

 

[B S Magnet]

Just a quick comment that price comparisons from the past are more relevant when adjusted for inflation to current day currency values and, when possible, compared to a relevant indicator of other prices at the time (for example, the price of a car, median personal income, the cost of gasoline).

Yes. I am completely aware, and I deliberately chose to hone in on the 1996–2000 window for relative context of actual price drops at the same time features and performance of the entry-level Apple laptop escalated dramatically. I detail this following your next quote below.

Relatively speaking, the 1996–2000 window of pricing cannot really be contextualized in the same manner as, say, the window of 2019–2023. Actual prices did fall, inflation-adjusted, with the former. For the latter, they flattened.

What’s happened instead, to keep owners of Macs coming back to the stores, has been to hard-bake in features which preventing extended life use (and use-value) of their products by locking out the means to: a) DIY upgrade; and b) continue with macOS builds beyond what Apple arbitrarily capped for a particular model. (Thankfully and mercifully, we have dosdude1 and OCLP to shatter those synthetic caps.)

What changed was the pace of packing in more features and performance all the while prices either dropped and/or flat pricing could be maintained. As we’ve come to know, performances have improved, especially from the last Intel models compared against the first Silicon models, but the packing in of new features has not.

One of of two ain’t bad, yes? Except, frankly, it isn’t when the extant features, such as ports, are also being removed, confining instant extensibility. And the workarounds, such as buying costly, proprietary, add-on dongles and Thunderbolt docking hub extensions, is a net-negative when such levels of extensibility were, as recently as 2016, integrated with the laptop.

Further, the locking down of the OS (as T2 and cryptography go), in aggregate, has taken away even more features — namely, the feature of the end user being able to fine-tune tailor their system in granular ways we once took for granted with with Mac OS and Mac OS X through, say, Snow Leopard (though the first hints of pulling back from that began to show itself with Leopard).

This presents a dwindling value proposition, but the premiumization options of going up from the base model? Sure, but you will pay well and above for non-competitive RAM improvements and solid-state storage, as they’re soldered in. So does the company-driven imperative to compel existing customers to have to swap out whole machines if one wants to “““upgrade””” what they have currently.

We are led to believe these constitute an improvement of features. They are not.

A good US dollar inflation calculator:

Inflation Calculator | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

What’s a dollar worth? How far does a past dollar stretch to equal the modern dollar? What would past prices be today?

www.minneapolisfed.org

Uh, all due respect, but you probably didn’t look at what I wrote too closely. I did include one inflation-adjusted product price to compare it (the base model PowerBook 1400cs/117) with the 1999 price of the iBook G3, Rev A. And yes, I did use a U.S. inflation calculator to arrive at that inflation-adjusted figure to really drive home just how much prices fell in 30 months for a system which was maybe 2.5x or 3x a improvement in performance and features.

A fun way to compare global Big Mac prices:

Big Mac Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

----------
The 128k Macintosh, when released in 1984, cost $2,495 (or 1,560 Big Macs). That is $7,318 in 2023 dollars. The least expensive iMac today is $1,300 (or 228 Big Macs).

Yes, but this isn’t telling of anything profound.

We understand how fabrication techniques, transistor widths, and scaling up to manufacture many more units at lowered unit cost at that economy of scale ushered the tremendous drop in pricing — actual and relative — between, say, 1984’s Macintosh 128K and, say, the Mac mini G4 or even the eMac, ca. 2005. With that plummeting in prices over time (a downward vector on a line graph) came an escalation in both performance and also features integrated into the product (as two upward vectors on the same line graph).

These days, the first vector would be fairly flat for the base model. The second, performance, would be a gentle upward angle, post-M1, while the third, features, have slipped gently these last ten years as more ports and functions were removed and/or soldered; components became locked down via cryptographic matching; and base specs have, at best, held flat.

It’s… a disappoint. Not a disappointment, but a disappoint. :<

 

[Antoniosmalakia]

I have been reading the site quite a bit lately looking for thoughts about Vision Pro. I appreciated both the positive and the negative comments. What I didn’t appreciate were any of the comments about the people buying Vision Pro. I guess I don’t understand how that’s helpful to anyone or even interesting.

I ending up buying and keeping Vision Pro. I love it. I’m excited about it. As a retired software engineer I’m capable of understanding technology. However, I found no shortage of posts that would indicate I have too much money and I’m not very bright.

And on the other side of that we have comments suggesting that anyone that doesn't see the value of or excitement about the future of AVP are poor, jobless, in need of a better job and stupid, rather than just unexcited about it.

You (should be) free to spend your money, and I (should be) allowed to comment (even about my disinterest) without being insulted.

 

[Antoniosmalakia]

I think it's safe to say that there is an element of exaggeration going on here, because I don't see hundreds of negative comments on every post. There are very mixed opinions across all posts, and that is the nature of opinion on the internet.

Anyone that is upset by differing opinions are free to log out and not return.

I'm not certain that the rules, as currently crafted, are sufficient to tackle the problems I currently see on MacRumors.

For example, is there a rule about persistent overwhelming negativity toward Apple?

It's become predictable that no matter the topic, the first 100 posts on a new thread will be overwhelmingly negative. What rule is in place to try to balance that? So far as I'm aware, there is no rule. But this is my point; why would I want to continue to participate on a site dedicated to discussing a product I like and support if it is overwhelmingly populated by those who hate the product and the company?

Moderating for that, in my opinion, would be in MacRumors long-term best interest. But it would require "rules" that are subjective in nature. A rule like "persistent negativity" won't be allowed. And that would violate the idea of "all opinions are equal" that some seem to think are a law of the universe.

I've used this example before: what would happen if I went onto a Harley Davidson web site and persistently called the company evil, criminal, labeled those who like Harleys "fan boys" and generally tried to disrupt and criticize a product that Harley owners loved? First, it would be silly. And second, it would absolutely be labeled trolling on that board.

Same thing should happen here. Persistent, overwhelming negativity should be labeled trolling. And moderated heavily.

 

[Antoniosmalakia]

If there are new topics that come up and perhaps new angles to take, I don't think it's wrong to express additional criticism with more information and time. Same for praise.

If folks were limited to expressing one opinion, positive or negative, one single time or from one particular angle, forever -- we'd have a pretty dead forum - lol

I don't know if you and I will agree on this general point, so I'll agree to disagree and move on.
Cheers

I think we should push for the government to pass a law that states that anyone who repeats themselves more than once on MacRumors should be sent to prison, and the charge should be at least 7 life sentences, because nobody needs those kinds of conflicting opinions in their life.

/s

 

[fatTribble]

And on the other side of that we have comments suggesting that anyone that doesn't see the value of or excitement about the future of AVP are poor, jobless, in need of a better job and stupid, rather than just unexcited about it.

You (should be) free to spend your money, and I (should be) allowed to comment (even about my disinterest) without being insulted.

Absolutely. Product comments are fair game.

 

[theluggage]

So when the usual toxic commentators cry "criminal" about Apple's base specs, what is "constructive"?

I'm not defending people who embroider their posts by calling Apple criminals or making ad hom comments about Tim Cook - you can call those "toxic" if you like - but plenty of people post reasoned arguments criticising Apple's base specs without resorting to such tactics... Just because you disagree doesn't make those posts "toxic" or justify lumping them together with the obvious trolls.

...and when you do see an actual troll ignore it or, if you think it warrants it, report it. The last thing you want to do is "feed the troll" by taking the bait and reacting angrily. Trolls are attention seekers - they want to provoke extreme reactions, so a 'disagree' or 'angry' emoticon is a tasty snack. The only justification for replying to a troll is to correct any factual misinformation, not for the benefit of the troll, but for any other readers who may be uncertain on the subject but are still open to reason - and you can't do that with an emoticon or just saying "I disagree".

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Well...I've hit my limit. MacRumors has become a site that is unreasonably antagonistic toward Apple and neck-deep in trolls. I don't come here to "debate" products; I find such things silly. I don't have time to debate consumer products. I save those deeper discussions for issues that actually merit that style of discussion.

The idea that one can just ignore the trolls has become impossible; they have become the majority users here on a site that used to be populated by people who appreciate Apple and their products. This site has become a battle ground of silliness. I think MacRumors has mishandled the idea of appropriate moderation. They've allowed the trolls to overrun the site without adequate pushback.

I'll stop by to see the news, perhaps, but I'm going to take a nice, long break from participating on this site. I'll check back occasionally to see if MacRumors has done anything to reign in the trolls. But my guess is that in a short sighted effort to increase "clicks" MacRumors has sacrificed quality discussion. It used to be fun to be here, to interact, to share tips and tricks and to speculate about the future of tech.

Apple has just released one of their most innovative tech products ever, and the overwhelming response from this site has been increased disdain and mocking. The spirit of this site is dead.

 

[za9ra22]

I think the commentary on Apple is largely pointless, and some misses the point badly. There is nothing wrong with the company's 'hunger' or innovation at all, and you can't possibly mistake something like the transition to unified devices and operating systems, the move to Apple Silicon from Intel, the development of the Apple Vision Pro etc, for them sitting on their hands and waiting for an idea.

The company exists in a market, and it's the market that has matured from the days when it leapt and lurched from product to product with swings and roundabouts of design changes. We all now know what a computer looks like and where it fits in the home and the office, and the dynamism of innovation-gone has been replaced by the far more subtle creep and twitch of innovation-now.

When you add to that the huge disruptions on a global scale which were caused by the pandemic and the rise in global conflict, it is amazing any innovation in actual product is happening at all.

For Apple, the problem is doubly tough because much of the company's underpinning design language came from Jonny Ive, and in his absence now, they're not yet able to establish a new post-Ive metaphor, so what we see in the product is a 'rolling along', encompassing not much change or difference.

Which brings me to Steve Jobs, Ive, and Tim Cook, because dismissing Jobs as a salesman, and Cook as a profit-driven MBA is to ignore what is the greatest strength of the company itself, and that is 'perfectionism'. I'm not saying Apple is perfect - far from it. What I am saying is that Steve Jobs was not just a salesman who forever had soapbox and a megaphone, he was a product perfectionist. Largely on his vision, true, but he saw what he thought the product should be and how it would work, and down to the tiniest detail, would not accept 'good enough' instead.

Ive was a design perfectionist. I didn't much care for much of his later language in minimalism, and I think (personally) macOS lost much of its character and ease of use when he took over the role of it's look and feel, but he refined Apple products into things of astonishing beauty - which for boxes of electronics performing digital tasks takes some doing. In doing so, he also created products which constrain a great deal of the function we previously knew to be what these products ought to have - ports, expansion, disassembly and upgradability, for example.

And Tim Cook isn't just some bean counter who was fortune to be in the right place at the right time to become CEO. In Tim Cook, Jobs had the person who could make the product possible. He is one of the world's most acknowledged experts in the supply chain, and that's his perfectionism. Being able to plan, coordinate and manage hundreds of sources of thousands of items, into everything timed to almost a millisecond for one of the largest yet slickest just in time manufacturing processes the world has ever seen takes genius and talent.

Talking about 'profitizing' is a fragment of what Cook has done for and to Apple. He has also consolidated it into a far more structured and uniform organization which is better prepared for the future and its market. He's made it more professional and less (internally) abrasive. And he's aligned it far better as a grown up business with the matured marketplace it finds itself in. I don't like a lot of the choices Apple have made in the past few years, but I have huge respect for a chief executive who can get his mind and his arms around what it was, and turn it into what it is today.

Where Apple fails is that it needs, meaning we need it, to have the vision of a Steve Jobs. A 'thoughts guy' with the instincts of products as-yet unknown. Because it doesn't have one, what we get is a company that appears to be busy chasing MicroSoft to the bottom because it doesn't have a clear direction of its own in which to go. But the entire business right now is about consolidating and 'profitizing' - if for no reason other than that sales volumes are dropping in just about everything but smartphones and services, and there's no next thing on the horizon.

Apple lacks an instinctive Jobsian feel for the user experience. As far as I am concerned, it has everything else it needs.

 

[j26]

I've been having a chat in a thread that could easily have turned quite insulting, but we both took the jibes in good humour, agreed on the points we could agree on and yet still remain in fundamental disagreement on the main points.

More of this please!

...and remember, almost nobody changes their viewpoint because of an internet forum discussion. Don't play to win, play for the fun of the game.

 

[za9ra22]

Well...I've hit my limit. MacRumors has become a site that is unreasonably antagonistic toward Apple and neck-deep in trolls. I don't come here to "debate" products; I find such things silly. I don't have time to debate consumer products. I save those deeper discussions for issues that actually merit that style of discussion.

The idea that one can just ignore the trolls has become impossible; they have become the majority users here on a site that used to be populated by people who appreciate Apple and their products. This site has become a battle ground of silliness. I think MacRumors has mishandled the idea of appropriate moderation. They've allowed the trolls to overrun the site without adequate pushback.

I'll stop by to see the news, perhaps, but I'm going to take a nice, long break from participating on this site. I'll check back occasionally to see if MacRumors has done anything to reign in the trolls. But my guess is that in a short sighted effort to increase "clicks" MacRumors has sacrificed quality discussion. It used to be fun to be here, to interact, to share tips and tricks and to speculate about the future of tech.

Apple has just released one of their most innovative tech products ever, and the overwhelming response from this site has been increased disdain and mocking. The spirit of this site is dead.

Given the mods won't allow me to post a simple 'Me too', because it's frivolous apparently, and they should know, I will say that I will largely be sitting it out on the sidelines too. Having people post here about how those of us who buy and like our Apple products should just ignore the trolls, but not also recognize that those who don't buy Apple products because they don't like them or want to pay the price should also ignore us when we enthuse about them is quite ludicrous.

There's no merit in a discussion with someone who wants to picks a fight, and nothing to be gained from it.