Do you remember Steve Jobs had this to say regarding Pro users:
"We don’t think design is just how it looks. We think design is how it works. And we labored a lot on this because our pro customers want accessibility. There’s a lot of great technology inside, but they want access to that technology. To add memory, to add cards, to add drives. And so we think we’ve got the most incredible access story in the business."
I don't doubt that SJ said these exact words, but if I quoted someone I would put the date and publication or event where the quote was from. That certainly gives the inclusion of the quote more legitimacy.
Sounds like the recycling industry needs some innovation of its own.
Like discovering a glue-softening formula to separate glass from metal, as opposed to complaining that it can't figure it out. Does Apple have to do everything around here?
Apple created the problem, and it's Apple that gets graded on its products' recyclability. Perhaps they should indeed play a role in figuring out how their products can be recycled.
But those changes in cars made them last longer and run more efficiently and reliably. But soldering RAM to the motherboard, making up their own SATA interface, and gluing the battery to the case does none of those things. All it does it allow them to make it marginally smaller and drives repair costs through the roof. Personally, I'd rather have a machine that's slightly thicker and maybe even slightly heavier that I can upgrade and don't have to pay Apple prices for RAM.
You're just making things up here and exaggerating rather wildly to prove your point. The battery isn't glued, they didn't "make up their own SATA interface" and soldering RAM to the motherboard actually does increase efficiency and reliability.
The number of people who upgrade even their desktop computer RAM or HD has already dropped to almost zero. Even less likely in a laptop.
I don't doubt that SJ said these exact words, but if I quoted someone I would put the date and publication or event where the quote was from. That certainly gives the inclusion of the quote more legitimacy.
He was talking specifically about the MacPro, not laptops.
Also, just because you have a laptop doesn't make you a "pro user," in fact it makes you a very average user indeed.
Edit: Sorry, was replying to GatorGuy, got you instead.
Do you remember Steve Jobs had this to say regarding Pro users:
"We don’t think design is just how it looks. We think design is how it works. And we labored a lot on this because our pro customers want accessibility. There’s a lot of great technology inside, but they want access to that technology. To add memory, to add cards, to add drives. And so we think we’ve got the most incredible access story in the business."
Remember there were 3 new Macbook Pros released last week.
A lot of the reviewers have FAILED to recognize what the significance of Apple's new manufacturing process really is: they've traded serviceability for weight and the cost of manufacture.
There is NO WAY Apple could have put a 15" Retina display and this much power into 4.5 lbs without doing away with most of the housings, connectors and screws.
The display has much less glare because the glass is closer together and this makes it impossible to have a separate unit. Same with the batteries and other parts.
Each connector adds a point of failure, a gap and would add to the size.
>> I personally would PREFER To have some serviceable parts -- especially hard drive, Battery, RAM, keyboard and screen -- but for 95% of the customers they are never going to mess with this.
Apple's selling point is a "flawless experience." This type of glued together manufacturing means better connections, less damage and it's probably a lot quicker to assemble than with screws. Having taken apart an iTouch to repair it -- It's also no damn fun for a gear head.
LOL!!
Like the previous MacbookPro...
Do you remember Steve Jobs had this to say regarding Pro users:
<em style="border:0px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(68,68,68);line-height:21px;">"We don’t think design is just how it looks. We think design is how it works. And we labored a lot on this because our pro customers want accessibility. There’s a lot of great technology inside, but they want access to that technology. To add memory, to add cards, to add drives. And so we think we’ve got the most incredible access story in the business."</em>
Congratulations. Your record of ALWAYS missing the point is intact.
Jobs made that comment with respect to the original iMac - which was not an expandable computer in the traditional sense, nor was it accessible in the sense that you are claiming. http://www.tnl.net/blog/2012/06/16/missing-steve-jobs/
Clearly, when Jobs talked about accessing the technology (see the bolded), he's not talking about access to the internal components of the machine or ability to upgrade said components. Rather, he's clearly talking about access to the technology via applications and usability. His argument implies that pros want to USE the computer rather than having the computer get in the way.
So, to a very large degree, the lack of customer expandability in the MBP affirms what Jobs said rather than contradicts it.
Why are you assuming that because the parts aren't screwed in that a lot of this computer ISN'T recyclable?
Apple does a lot of process research -- at least wait for the Green reviews to let us know if this device is actually a disaster or not.
A battery without a housing and screws isn't more or less toxic -- you just don't have a housing or screws to recycle. They could add some paper and wood and that would provide MORE recyclable materials -- but that doesn't change how much computer material ends up in a landfill which is the REAL issue.
Each connector adds a point of failure, a gap and would add to the size.
Not to mention they took out the optical drive and HDD. There are now no moving parts except for the fans, so less chance of breaking down in the first place.
But those changes in cars made them last longer and run more efficiently and reliably. But soldering RAM to the motherboard, making up their own SATA interface, and gluing the battery to the case does none of those things. All it does it allow them to make it marginally smaller and drives repair costs through the roof. Personally, I'd rather have a machine that's slightly thicker and maybe even slightly heavier that I can upgrade and don't have to pay Apple prices for RAM.
1) You don't think soldered RAM adds efficiency and reliability? Correct me if i"m wrong but only their machines with soldered RAM are capable of a 30 day standby time.
2) What SATA interface? You mean the mini-PCIe interface of the non-soldered custom SSD card that any vendor can design for the RMBP?
3) Glue has a long history of reliability. It's purpose is specifically to adhere items so how does not a battery flopping around inside a PC chassis help with reliability. I assume you expect it to be bolted down or wedged in place with some trap door that allows for easy access but all that makes it less reliable as things can break more easily and make it less efficient as less Whrs can be had for the total space.
4) If you want a machine that is thicker and has more replaceable components, which I assure you is not what consumer want, then why complain when they have updated the previous MBP. Is it because you want all the benefits of the new one without any of the cons or without considering how there are tradeoffs with all designs? I think so.
Thinner laptops are all well and good, but there is a huge market segment that cares more about expandability than an extra 2 mm of thinness, and Apple fails to meet our needs.
What they are failing to meet is your elitist need for the flagship model to meet your specific needs. You know very well that they updated the old style MBPs but have completely ignored them in your post because they aren't the leading design type. If you don't feel those have ever met your needs then Apple is not a company you should be interested following.
I don't doubt that SJ said these exact words, but if I quoted someone I would put the date and publication or event where the quote was from. That certainly gives the inclusion of the quote more legitimacy.
I think he probably did state those specific words, but it doesn't address the point of design is how it works and that for the RMBP to work they had to do new things. It also doesn't address the context of those words. The article notes that the display and casing are marginally thicker than the previously model because of the effort needed to add 5x as many pixels. I can't recall ever spending an afternoon removing my display from its housing and can't imagine the normal customer doing so as well.
Congratulations. Your record of ALWAYS missing the point is intact.
Jobs made that comment with respect to the original iMac - which was not an expandable computer in the traditional sense, nor was it accessible in the sense that you are claiming.
Clearly, when Jobs talked about accessing the technology (see the bolded), he's not talking about access to the internal components of the machine or ability to upgrade said components. Rather, he's clearly talking about access to the technology via applications and usability.
Ummmm, no he isn't. You record of SOMETIMES ignoring inconvenient points is still intact. Just what does the sentence after your bolded one say? "To add memory, to add cards, to add drives." That ain't applications.
I don't doubt that SJ said these exact words, but if I quoted someone I would put the date and publication or event where the quote was from. That certainly gives the inclusion of the quote more legitimacy.
Especially since it seems to be about the Mac Pro and not the MacBook Pro.
Edit: via jragosta, it's about the 1999 iMac. That was a desktop machine with a handle on it that you could see through, with a CRT. A long time ago, and a very different machine, full of discrete parts, that you don't carry under your arm to the airport.
What they are after is a completly integrated, solid package with no moving or moveable parts, for max portability, like the iPad, only with one compromise, a physical keyboard that is covered by the screen.
Edit 2: At the 41 minute mark lin the video linked by Gatorguy, it's about the PowerMac G3, not the iMac.
I don't doubt that SJ said these exact words, but if I quoted someone I would put the date and publication or event where the quote was from. That certainly gives the inclusion of the quote more legitimacy.
To be clear, I'm in no way qualified to pass judgement of whether this is a good, bad or indifferent move for typical Pro users. The iFix-it CEO, who probably is, made a reasoned argument why he felt it wasn't in the best interests of Pro customers. The tone of this AI article, which relied on comments from the iFix-it teardown, sounded as tho he felt it was a great move, contrary to his statements to Wired.
Apple does not have any duty to make iFixit's job any easier. If you want something that is easy to repair, buy a cheap pc laptop cobbled together from off the shelf parts. If you want state of the art, but a Mac.
Ummmm, no he isn't. You record of SOMETIMES ignoring inconvenient points is still intact. Just what does the sentence after your bolded one say? "To add memory, to add cards, to add drives." That ain't applications.
Come on! Why are you ignoring that his statement came from 13 years ago. Back then notebooks were not even close to being the most common machine. A lot has changed and there is little said about a desktop then that carries over to notebooks today. That was stated more than 2 years before the iPod even debuted. If Pros really cared about adding cards then they never would have taken to notebooks in the first place which makes that antiquated and out-of-context quote null and void.
I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUZZ OF GLUEING of PARTS IS ALL ABOUT...
I've seen most of NATGEO's Ultimate Factories series and all of the exotic cars featured uses GLUE to hold the aluminum body to its chassis. We are talking about 200mph Ferraris and Porsches here how much more for a retina MACs that just sits on your lap @ 0MPH most of the time.
But those changes in cars made them last longer and run more efficiently and reliably. But soldering RAM to the motherboard, making up their own SATA interface, and gluing the battery to the case does none of those things. All it does it allow them to make it marginally smaller and drives repair costs through the roof. Personally, I'd rather have a machine that's slightly thicker and maybe even slightly heavier that I can upgrade and don't have to pay Apple prices for RAM.
I remember my dad, a radio ham, not liking transistors at first, he liked being able to tinker with the valves and all that good stuff. My point is over time many things will morph into new forms with more integration. One day your Mac will only have a couple of discernible parts ...
I'm not ignoring it. I'm replying to another flawed post by Jr.
With that said, wouldn't Steve Jobs general idea that Professional users have different needs and uses than typical consumer buyers still be appropriate, particularly to extend the life of your otherwise still functional and familiar device?
Apple created the problem, and it's Apple that gets graded on its products' recyclability. Perhaps they should indeed play a role in figuring out how their products can be recycled.
Grind it up and melt it down, same as everything else.
So how many of these things do you think will require recycling before they figure it out?
Keep jumping on those sour grapes, they release a lot of whine.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
LOL!!
Like the previous MacbookPro...
Do you remember Steve Jobs had this to say regarding Pro users:
"We don’t think design is just how it looks. We think design is how it works. And we labored a lot on this because our pro customers want accessibility. There’s a lot of great technology inside, but they want access to that technology. To add memory, to add cards, to add drives. And so we think we’ve got the most incredible access story in the business."
I don't doubt that SJ said these exact words, but if I quoted someone I would put the date and publication or event where the quote was from. That certainly gives the inclusion of the quote more legitimacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Sounds like the recycling industry needs some innovation of its own.
Like discovering a glue-softening formula to separate glass from metal, as opposed to complaining that it can't figure it out. Does Apple have to do everything around here?
Apple created the problem, and it's Apple that gets graded on its products' recyclability. Perhaps they should indeed play a role in figuring out how their products can be recycled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltz
But those changes in cars made them last longer and run more efficiently and reliably. But soldering RAM to the motherboard, making up their own SATA interface, and gluing the battery to the case does none of those things. All it does it allow them to make it marginally smaller and drives repair costs through the roof. Personally, I'd rather have a machine that's slightly thicker and maybe even slightly heavier that I can upgrade and don't have to pay Apple prices for RAM.
You're just making things up here and exaggerating rather wildly to prove your point. The battery isn't glued, they didn't "make up their own SATA interface" and soldering RAM to the motherboard actually does increase efficiency and reliability.
The number of people who upgrade even their desktop computer RAM or HD has already dropped to almost zero. Even less likely in a laptop.
Apple is just giving the people what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
I don't doubt that SJ said these exact words, but if I quoted someone I would put the date and publication or event where the quote was from. That certainly gives the inclusion of the quote more legitimacy.
He was talking specifically about the MacPro, not laptops.
Also, just because you have a laptop doesn't make you a "pro user," in fact it makes you a very average user indeed.
Edit: Sorry, was replying to GatorGuy, got you instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
LOL!!
Like the previous MacbookPro...
Do you remember Steve Jobs had this to say regarding Pro users:
"We don’t think design is just how it looks. We think design is how it works. And we labored a lot on this because our pro customers want accessibility. There’s a lot of great technology inside, but they want access to that technology. To add memory, to add cards, to add drives. And so we think we’ve got the most incredible access story in the business."
Remember there were 3 new Macbook Pros released last week.
A lot of the reviewers have FAILED to recognize what the significance of Apple's new manufacturing process really is: they've traded serviceability for weight and the cost of manufacture.
There is NO WAY Apple could have put a 15" Retina display and this much power into 4.5 lbs without doing away with most of the housings, connectors and screws.
The display has much less glare because the glass is closer together and this makes it impossible to have a separate unit. Same with the batteries and other parts.
Each connector adds a point of failure, a gap and would add to the size.
>> I personally would PREFER To have some serviceable parts -- especially hard drive, Battery, RAM, keyboard and screen -- but for 95% of the customers they are never going to mess with this.
Apple's selling point is a "flawless experience." This type of glued together manufacturing means better connections, less damage and it's probably a lot quicker to assemble than with screws. Having taken apart an iTouch to repair it -- It's also no damn fun for a gear head.
Congratulations. Your record of ALWAYS missing the point is intact.
Jobs made that comment with respect to the original iMac - which was not an expandable computer in the traditional sense, nor was it accessible in the sense that you are claiming.
http://www.tnl.net/blog/2012/06/16/missing-steve-jobs/
Clearly, when Jobs talked about accessing the technology (see the bolded), he's not talking about access to the internal components of the machine or ability to upgrade said components. Rather, he's clearly talking about access to the technology via applications and usability. His argument implies that pros want to USE the computer rather than having the computer get in the way.
So, to a very large degree, the lack of customer expandability in the MBP affirms what Jobs said rather than contradicts it.
Why are you assuming that because the parts aren't screwed in that a lot of this computer ISN'T recyclable?
Apple does a lot of process research -- at least wait for the Green reviews to let us know if this device is actually a disaster or not.
A battery without a housing and screws isn't more or less toxic -- you just don't have a housing or screws to recycle. They could add some paper and wood and that would provide MORE recyclable materials -- but that doesn't change how much computer material ends up in a landfill which is the REAL issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
Each connector adds a point of failure, a gap and would add to the size.
Not to mention they took out the optical drive and HDD. There are now no moving parts except for the fans, so less chance of breaking down in the first place.
2) What SATA interface? You mean the mini-PCIe interface of the non-soldered custom SSD card that any vendor can design for the RMBP?
3) Glue has a long history of reliability. It's purpose is specifically to adhere items so how does not a battery flopping around inside a PC chassis help with reliability. I assume you expect it to be bolted down or wedged in place with some trap door that allows for easy access but all that makes it less reliable as things can break more easily and make it less efficient as less Whrs can be had for the total space.
4) If you want a machine that is thicker and has more replaceable components, which I assure you is not what consumer want, then why complain when they have updated the previous MBP. Is it because you want all the benefits of the new one without any of the cons or without considering how there are tradeoffs with all designs? I think so.
What they are failing to meet is your elitist need for the flagship model to meet your specific needs. You know very well that they updated the old style MBPs but have completely ignored them in your post because they aren't the leading design type. If you don't feel those have ever met your needs then Apple is not a company you should be interested following.
I think he probably did state those specific words, but it doesn't address the point of design is how it works and that for the RMBP to work they had to do new things. It also doesn't address the context of those words. The article notes that the display and casing are marginally thicker than the previously model because of the effort needed to add 5x as many pixels. I can't recall ever spending an afternoon removing my display from its housing and can't imagine the normal customer doing so as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Congratulations. Your record of ALWAYS missing the point is intact.
Jobs made that comment with respect to the original iMac - which was not an expandable computer in the traditional sense, nor was it accessible in the sense that you are claiming.
http://www.tnl.net/blog/2012/06/16/missing-steve-jobs/
Clearly, when Jobs talked about accessing the technology (see the bolded), he's not talking about access to the internal components of the machine or ability to upgrade said components. Rather, he's clearly talking about access to the technology via applications and usability.
Ummmm, no he isn't. You record of SOMETIMES ignoring inconvenient points is still intact. Just what does the sentence after your bolded one say? "To add memory, to add cards, to add drives." That ain't applications.
Especially since it seems to be about the Mac Pro and not the MacBook Pro.
Edit: via jragosta, it's about the 1999 iMac. That was a desktop machine with a handle on it that you could see through, with a CRT. A long time ago, and a very different machine, full of discrete parts, that you don't carry under your arm to the airport.
What they are after is a completly integrated, solid package with no moving or moveable parts, for max portability, like the iPad, only with one compromise, a physical keyboard that is covered by the screen.
Edit 2: At the 41 minute mark lin the video linked by Gatorguy, it's about the PowerMac G3, not the iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
I don't doubt that SJ said these exact words, but if I quoted someone I would put the date and publication or event where the quote was from. That certainly gives the inclusion of the quote more legitimacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN2vxYnAZf0#t=2499s
Around the 41 minute mark.
To be clear, I'm in no way qualified to pass judgement of whether this is a good, bad or indifferent move for typical Pro users. The iFix-it CEO, who probably is, made a reasoned argument why he felt it wasn't in the best interests of Pro customers. The tone of this AI article, which relied on comments from the iFix-it teardown, sounded as tho he felt it was a great move, contrary to his statements to Wired.
I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUZZ OF GLUEING of PARTS IS ALL ABOUT...
I've seen most of NATGEO's Ultimate Factories series and all of the exotic cars featured uses GLUE to hold the aluminum body to its chassis. We are talking about 200mph Ferraris and Porsches here how much more for a retina MACs that just sits on your lap @ 0MPH most of the time.
I remember my dad, a radio ham, not liking transistors at first, he liked being able to tinker with the valves and all that good stuff. My point is over time many things will morph into new forms with more integration. One day your Mac will only have a couple of discernible parts ...
I'm not ignoring it. I'm replying to another flawed post by Jr.
With that said, wouldn't Steve Jobs general idea that Professional users have different needs and uses than typical consumer buyers still be appropriate, particularly to extend the life of your otherwise still functional and familiar device?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
One day your Mac will only have a couple of discernible parts ...
One day? Did you not see the rMBP release last week?? ... That day has come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
Apple created the problem, and it's Apple that gets graded on its products' recyclability. Perhaps they should indeed play a role in figuring out how their products can be recycled.
Grind it up and melt it down, same as everything else.
So how many of these things do you think will require recycling before they figure it out?
Keep jumping on those sour grapes, they release a lot of whine.