In article , -hh
wrote:

the reality is that an iphone battery lasts many *years* with
minimal degradation.

That isn't reality.

A PSA "FYI" digression:
Next time you see an iOS with the old style (pre-lightning) plug,
be aware that those devices are all now more than 5 years old.

there's still a lot of those in use, along with plenty of 5/5c/5s,
which are now 3-5 years old.

there are also a *lot* of 3-5 year android devices in use, which use
the same battery technology.


a single desktop/laptop can *easily* saturate a gigabit link
without much effort, making gigabit the bottleneck.

If you're moving some rather large files around using multiple
computers, sure.

Even the latency will clobber you.

A single machine isn't that likely to saturate the
entire 1gigabit switchgear, though.

Gigabit Ethernet = 125 MB/sec
SATA-1 = 150 MB/sec

Oops!

yep.

and then there's sata ii (3gb/s) and sata iii (6 gb/s), along with usb
3.0 (5gb/s) and usb 3.1 gen 2 (10 gb/s), for an even bigger oops.

except that none of that compares with the ssd in the current macbook
pros, which benchmarks around 2.6 to 3 giga *byte*/sec. not
gigabits/sec. *gigabytes*/sec.

https://apple.insidercdn.com/gallery/18862-18409-Extended-l.jpg

that's so incredibly fast that even a 10 gig network connection becomes
a significant bottleneck, let alone gigabit, and that's from *one*
single computer, one that starts around $1200 (or less for savvy
shoppers).

now *that* is an oops.

benchmarks aren't real world usage patterns, but even if typical use is
just a fraction of its maximum speed, it will *still* saturate gigabit
without even trying.

And most home users are not going to move enough data from machine
to machine at one time to saturate a gigabit based LAN.

Where "most home users" is being defined as individuals who
employ DAS instead of NAS because a Gigabit Ethernet connected
NAS is more expensive and slower...right?

yep.

a das would be connected via usb 3.0 (5gb/s), possibly usb 3.1 gen 2
(10gb/s).

Many small businesses depending on the type of business won't
even do that.

Of course not, because the local data storage has been regularly
running on SATA-3 (600 MB/sec) for years now, which means that
Gigabit Ethernet has been a huge bottleneck for just as long.

yep.

also keep in mind that macs use pci-e nvme ssd because sata is much too
slow. see above for 3000 mbyte/s benchmarks, ~5x higher.

Digital movie production, serious photographic work, maybe. And the
latter is pushing it. I've setup audio recording studios that
wouldn't tax 1gigabit based LAN. And that's working with RAW audio
files.

Just because you've anecdotally not had bandwidth problems with GbE
doesn't mean that you can try to look down your nose at others.
For example, a circa 2010 technology "600x" CF card for still
photography was spec'ed at a 90 MB/sec read, which effectively pushed
Gigabit Ethernet to its practical limit...and the new stuff today
(such as Cfast) has specs of 510 MB/s reads, which is 4x the max
theoretical for GbE (and is already ~40% of the max capacity of 10GbE).

yep.

removing that bottleneck is generally a wise investment, one which
will pay for itself fairly quickly in increased productivity. it
might not matter that much for a home user, but it would for smb.

Of course it won't for a home user. A home user isn't going to have
multiple computers taxing a 1gigabit link.

Depends on the home user and their use case ... a single higher end
photo hobbyist can saturate a GbE link on but a single machine.
Contemplate making a 200GB transfer on GbE ... even if it was able
to run at theoretical max, its still a quick half hour time suck.

yep.

while 200 gig files may not be common, 5-10 gig files certainly are,
and even then, the difference is noticeable.

furthermore, few people actually upgrade anyway.

That's nothing more than your own personal opinion. One of which I do
not share, because the experience I have in the field doesn't support
your opinion. Apple users likely don't do much in the way of hardware
upgrades because they are rather limited in what upgrades they can
actually do. PC users are a different animal.

There's been industry studies which do indeed show that hardware
upgrades have become the exception, not the rule ... this isn't
the 1990s anymore.

yep.

And sure, IT-centric hobbyists tend to do more DIY upgrades,
although much of this is driven by economics: they're not able
to write off their expenses like a business does, even when
they had the free cash to spend on it, so there's different
motivations to their behaviors. This tendency tends to be strongest
amongst the Linux "l33t" stereotypes, which also tend to be those
who have the tightest discretionary budget too, so it becomes a
self-fulfilling positive feedback loop.

yep.