429
Masimo — the company that got the Apple Watch banned — has unveiled its new smartwatch
(www.tomsguide.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
429 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
3125 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which apple product doesn't have a chaper alternative?
All of them. Every cheaper alternative is just a crappier product that cheaper because it’s simply not as good.
I'll take my Garmin over you apple toys any day
Can a Garmin even run apps? It’s a completely different product.
There's been a Garmin app store for twice as long as Apple has been making watches.
https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/
It's not at all a different product. It's a direct competitor who makes a superior product.
Again -- I've had a smart watch that does all the shit apple watch does, for half a decade before apple even thought about it. And mine can go a month without charging.
Define superior. Only Apple makes Smartwatch SoCs with any kind of decent performance, other manufacturers like Qualcomm don’t put a lot of effort into the market segment and just put an old CPU core in a low power package and call it a day. It’s simply not profitable enough for them.
I don't give a shit about any of that. It's what the watch DOES, and Garmin does WAY more, for WAY longer.
Garmin does not do way more. Most of their "apps" are just replacement watch faces. Garmin doesn't even try to compete on features, their selling points are battery life, price, and integration with other Garmin fitness accessories. Apple/Google/Samsung watches are so capable they're basically tiny phones.
LOL wrong. go play with your apple toys.
Pictured: a couple of my "apple toys"
Garmin seems to be doing fairly well targeting people who want a simpler smartwatch with a focus on fitness and battery life. I don't don't know who you think you're benefitting by lying about their capabilities, but anyone who buys one on your recommendation expecting a feature rich device is going to be sorely disappointed.
It's not my fault you can't use technology. 🤷 Enjoy your toys.
I literally work at Garmin lmao. We don't need your help. You're not helping by lying about us.
He's full of shit, and the people upvoting him don't know anything about Garmin watches. Garmin doesn't compete with apple. They don't want to compete with apple. Garmin doesn't take the kitchen sink approach that apple/Google/Samsung do. They focus on fitness and battery life, they're competing with Fitbit. This liar is pulling the old "I like it, therefore it's the best at everything" trope. He's a child. Ignore him.
Like the thousand dollar basic monitor stand?
Or comparing similarly specced macs vs PCs (I bet that's why they moved away from x86 again, because it was too obvious how overpriced they were when the specs could be compared 1:1).
The thousand dollar monitor stand is not a consumer product and simply sold separately because not a lot of people are going to need it. The monitor it’s meant for is actually a lot cheaper than comparable monitors.
In the x86 era similarly specced PCs had similar prices or were even more expensive. The thing about Mac’s is that while you can get a PC that has some better specs for less, you couldn’t get anything that matched all the specs. It may have had a faster CPU, but would come in a crappy plastic case, weigh a ton and run out of battery in 30 seconds. Or it ran forever on a single charge but had a CPU that was slow as molasses.
No, it’s because x86 is an overcomplicated mess with terrible performance/watt. x86 CPUs run hot, drain your battery and still don’t perform great. Apple’s M series SoC’s are amazing. A clean, modern ISA, high IPC, low power usage, low heat. It doesn’t matter if my MacBook Pro (M1 Max )runs on battery or wall power, it’s always blazing fast. It has insane battery life, does not get hot and is completely silent.
I was referring to the desktop space. Apple is a lot more competitive in the laptop space (unless you're a gamer), but their desktop specs always made me laugh at the price they ask for it. Granted, I haven't looked recently, but any time I've looked in the past, their price seems about 1k too high for what they are offering.
But yeah, x86 laptops are generally a shitshow. I had a decent personal one, though that was used more like a very portable desktop than a true laptop. That one just stopped charging one day (though its timing was impeccable because I was already in the process of moving my files to a new desktop I had just built, just had to pull the drives out to get the rest of it). And a cheap one I threw Linux on for school that did the job. But my first work laptop at my current job was garbage and the current one is relatively better, but also has a bunch of issues, enough that I don't think very highly of HP even ignoring their printer bs.
Is that still even a thing? Between hybrid working and flex desking, who still uses desktop PC’s?
Gamers and custom builders. We also got some desktops at work to give our team some dedicated compute resources when our central system wasn't able to keep up with the company's needs.
The very top of personal computing is still desktops. And even in the high end where laptops can compete, there's a premium you pay for the smaller package. Custom laptops are becoming more common but the size still limits choices you can make.
Tiny niche market.
We just run all that stuff in the cloud, much easier to scale up and down.
Yeah, but does it matter? You can get a decked out MacBook Pro for less than €5k, that’s peanuts in the grand scheme of things. You can’t bring a desktop computer into a meeting, or to a customer, or home for a work from home day.
For the same price as a decked out MacBook m3, you can get a laptop with a i9-13980hx. That beats the m3 max in single core cinebench by 12% and in multi core cinebench by 29%.
Also, the laptops at that price point have a dedicated gpu.
And that laptop has a similar size, weight build quality, battery life, display resolution/peak brightness,etc ? Or is it a plastic fantastic 'luggable' behemoth that runs out in less than 2 hours and throttles almost immediately under load? Link to that mythical laptop please.
You say that like it's a good thing. Discrete GPUs suck, especially for GPGPU tasks. Not having unified memory is killing for performance in anything but games. Copying data to/from VRAM is slow and discrete GPUs have very limited VRAM. Even a 4090 only has 24GB. Meanwhile you can spec out an M2 MacBook with 96GB RAM and have almost all of that available to the GPU.
There definitely are good build quality laptops out there, like the Zephyrus lineup. Don't know about their latest releases, it would require a bit more research.
My own laptop is a 2022 model of zephyrus g15. It was released a few months before m2 released. The CPU is a Ryzen 9 6900HS, that is just 4-5% slower in cinebench, and a 3070-ti gpu. The GPU is 20% slower than m2 max, but the laptop also cost only 2.4k, compared to 3.1k of M2 max. The battery lasts around 4-5h during video playback on the dedicated GPU.
Haven't tested the energy saving method as I use it for work and I have locked it to max power settings.
Yes, the mac is more power efficient, but at the same time, if I wanted a power efficient, light laptop, I wouldn't buy a powerhouse.
Edit: oh, and the zephyrus laptop is actually lighter than 16" MacBook pro
Sure there are. That was not my point. My point was that when you buy an x86 laptop that ticks all the boxes that a MacBook does, you pay a similar or higher price.
Let's compare it. Your laptop is a little cheaper, but it also has a 2560x1440 display with a peak brightness of 300 nits, compared to 3546x2234 with a peak of 1600 nits on a 16" MBPro. The MacBook has over twice the number of pixels and is over 5 times as bright. You get 4-5h video playback, the 16" MBPro gets 22 hours of video playback. The MBPro has 3 40Gbit Thunderbolt ports, yours has zero.
I'm not saying it's a bad machine, but the higher price of the MBPro is justified by what you get.
Yet another thing I don't have to waste any thoughts on, there is no such setting on the MBPro, it's fast and power efficient. It also never throttles and is always silent. Can you say the same?
I have a 14" M1 Max, it's driving 2 external displays (4k and a 5k2k) and is used as a development machine. I regularly run big compile jobs that really puts load on the system. I'm not sure if the fans even run, because I've never heard them.
Sure, it's 200 grams lighter but it's also a smaller laptop. 15.6" screen vs. 16.2" screen. The 14" model is lighter than the zephyrus with the exact same performance as the 16" model, just with a smaller screen and 'only' 17 hours of video playback on battery.
Ah, okay then. Have a nice day :)