Cook: US-built Mac will be refreshed version of existing product

13468912

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 223
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 512ke View Post


    I think it's great Apple is bringing manufacturing back to the USA.  Kudos.


     


    I rip on Apple for a lack of new products and services when compared to Google and Android over the past year or so.



     


    Why when Apple has gone through such a major management change would you not expect a slowing of new products? People have to get into place, get everyone working on their ideas which was different from the previous managers idea. I'm actually very pleasantly surprised that Cook will be able to get anything new out the door this year. 


     


    Furthermore, with such a big change in management and direction, I am quite happy for Cook to take his time and make sure everything is done correctly. 

  • Reply 102 of 223
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member


    Mac Pro > Mac Mini > Apple TV > iPod

  • Reply 103 of 223
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    But with Thunderbolt, that's less of an issue. You can easily add a second hard drive that's every bit as fast as the internal one.


     


    At twice the price, using a thirty-dollar cable, increasing the amount of bulk, and possibly requiring an additional power outlet. There goes the supposed "elegance" of the so-thin-you-can't-repair-it-but-gee-isn't-it-pretty Mac.


     


    I don't understand why you're so vehemently opposed to Apple making computers that allow access to the internal drive without the need for specialized tools and shop materials.

  • Reply 104 of 223
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Radar View Post



    I'll buy one, whatever it is.


     


    I have never before seen written anything that more perfectly encapsulates the discrimination, evaluation and critical comparison so many Apple buyers bring to the selection process and buying experience.


     


     


    Edit: Forgot the image.

  • Reply 105 of 223
    scprofessorscprofessor Posts: 218member


    God this is a Ford v. Chevy debate of the 1970's. Can anyone give me the IMEI of the device I'm currently using? Were you able to read the message? Did the extra 50 pixels psi stop you or made it better? Can the mind even sense the difference in different wireless cards? BUT can I open the back of mine and get to something?


     


    At any rate, please for the 99.999% most are quality machines that will find their way tucked in a drawer within about 4 years. If you hate HP, I'll paypal you $50 for it it. If you hate Mac, I'll paypal you $50 for it. If you hate Dell, I'll paypal you for it unless it's Alienware and I have enough to pay on as such. 

  • Reply 106 of 223
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    philboogie wrote: »

    2. Hmm, a separate product line, with ARM. Something to think about.
    It is something I think about from time to time. Once they go 64 bit I could see this happening though it may be an iOS derived device. Apple has been making massive investments in processor tech so I suspect a bigger goal that iPads and pocket devices.

    So I'm thinking an iOS device with a keyboard. That would be a highly updated version of iOS that deals with the significant short comings in iOS making more useful for demanding use. The possibilities are most interesting.
  • Reply 107 of 223
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    eji wrote: »
    It's not a good point. It's a poorly argued point you happen to agree with. The Mac Pro is not a suitable alternative to a user-repairable (or even third-party-repairable) iMac in terms of cost and footprint.
    That people don't grasp this is beyond me.

    A Mac mini actually comes slightly closer to that ideal, but the lack of a dedicated graphics card is tough.
    Sadly they took a step backwards there. Has well may change that a bit for some people but the Mini currently has other limitations.

    Kind of hard to believe that a basic desire to see improved repairability in a USA-made iMac is such a taboo topic among some forum members.
    Apparently some see the iMac as deity to be prayed to and promoted endlessly.
    The need to split glued-together parts and dis- and reassembly in a hermetically sealed environment to rectify common wear and tear (i.e., dust buildup, replacing a dead HDD) would seem to be just a tad bit impractical for a company that is known for its attention to detail.
    Giving people or repair organizations easy access to the disk drive ought to be easy to do without impacting the iMacs size significantly. So not doing so just demonstrates ignorance on Apples part or contempt for the user or both. A simple repair capability for know failure points isn't a huge engineer task.
  • Reply 108 of 223
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    v5v wrote: »
    At twice the price, using a thirty-dollar cable, increasing the amount of bulk, and possibly requiring an additional power outlet. There goes the supposed "elegance" of the so-thin-you-can't-repair-it-but-gee-isn't-it-pretty Mac.
    The thing that kills me is this could have been addressed within the basic foot print of the current iMacs design. At least from the standpoint of the high failure rate items.
    I don't understand why you're so vehemently opposed to Apple making computers that allow access to the internal drive without the need for specialized tools and shop materials.
    Why did so many drink the Kool-Aide?
  • Reply 109 of 223
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    v5v wrote: »
    At twice the price, using a thirty-dollar cable, increasing the amount of bulk, and possibly requiring an additional power outlet. There goes the supposed "elegance" of the so-thin-you-can't-repair-it-but-gee-isn't-it-pretty Mac.

    For the 0.01% of iMac users who need it, that is.

    The overwhelming majority of iMac users never open their computers.
    v5v wrote: »
    I don't understand why you're so vehemently opposed to Apple making computers that allow access to the internal drive without the need for specialized tools and shop materials.

    I'm not. I'm simply opposed to people with no design experience and no experience in manufacturing sophisticated products and who don't understand that their are tradeoffs thinking that they get to dictate to Apple how they should build computers.

    Once again, if you're so much smarter than Apple, go build your own.
  • Reply 110 of 223
    smallwheelssmallwheels Posts: 584member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 512ke View Post


    I think it's great Apple is bringing manufacturing back to the USA.  Kudos.


     


    I rip on Apple for a lack of new products and services when compared to Google and Android over the past year or so.





    If Apple never made a revolutionary product again I would be OK with it. What I'm annoyed at about Apple is that they don't even lead the pack with processors and new things all of the time. Yet they always charge premium


    prices. They do come up with new standards every once in a while but they leave older processors in their machines far too long. They should be updating their processors immediately as they become available. Instead they leave their machines with the older ones for at least a year before upgrading them. In 2007 they let the Mini sit for a year and a half without an update. The Mac Pro is taking forever to be updated.


     


    When HP and Dell offer newer chips half a year or more before Apple it just takes the shine off of the Apple brand. Apple should lead all of the time, not just some of the time.

  • Reply 111 of 223
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member


    Humans not robots!

     

  • Reply 112 of 223
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    I'm having difficulty differentiating between "built completely in the U.S." with "assembled in the U.S. using foreign made parts." It would seem the latter would be more appropriate terminology for Cook to use. I have the same problem with basement nerds blathering on about how they "build" their own computers when they do no such thing. They cobble together pre-manufactured parts.
    I really think you are being dense here. For example some hobbiest work with metal, if they weld something up in the basement or cast some metal to make an object does it really matter where the metal came from? Considering the SoC industry it is actually very possible to build a a computer in ones basement these days, PCB and all.

    As to Cook, who knows at this moment what he actually has up his sleeves. However to slap a made in the USA sticker on the device he needs to comply with the law. Further he has already stated that they are trying to do more than the average manufacture.

    And yes, this U.S. "made" Mac will probably be the Mac Pro. Let's wait to see the price and how it compares to previous models.
    I'm actually a bit excited about this. I'm split between the Mac Pro and the Mini though. The one thing the Mini has going for it is enough volume to keep the line running efficiently.
    Since the Mac Pro is a relatively low volume seller it will be interesting to see the profit margin on this. I'm guessing they will be low margin to keep the price in line, sort of a loss-leader for the PR value.
    That depends on the final design of the Machine. The current Mac Pro leaves a lot to be desired manufacturing wise. The actual assembly cost, even so, aren't that big a proportion of the final cost with a little effort that cost could be lowered even with USA assembly. This would require refactoring the machine but I've been pushing for that a very long time. Design for assembly should be the mantra of the engineering group involved. I really don't believe they need to loose their margins entirely, they do need to get smart about the product though.
  • Reply 113 of 223
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member

    If Apple never made a revolutionary product again I would be OK with it.
    I really don't that.
    What I'm annoyed at about Apple is that they don't even lead the pack with processors and new things all of the time. Yet they always charge premium
    prices.
    I have to agree with this one. Sometimes it just looks like they don't have a grip on their product development cycles.
    They do come up with new standards every once in a while but they leave older processors in their machines far too long. They should be updating their processors immediately as they become available. Instead they leave their machines with the older ones for at least a year before upgrading them. In 2007 they let the Mini sit for a year and a half without an update. The Mac Pro is taking forever to be updated.
    It isn't just the CPU chip that they fail to update, GPUs are often treated even more poorly. Even when they focus on the GPUs they screw it up, consider the last Mini to come with a discreet GPU.
    When HP and Dell offer newer chips half a year or more before Apple it just takes the shine off of the Apple brand. Apple should lead all of the time, not just some of the time.

    Well nobody can lead all the time! You are right however, over the last few years there have been to any lapses in the desktop rev cycles to be acceptable. I'm really hoping that with Haswell, the Macs all get revved within a month or so. Waiting six months for a simple chip upgrade is beyond stupid as is tying Mini updates to iMac updates.
  • Reply 114 of 223
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    marvfox wrote: »
    Humans not robots!

     

    Screw humans. Any rational manufacture will strive to minimize the number of humans on a manufacturing line. We can't go back to the days of the Univac and assemble machines by hand, it would put our computers into Mini computer class prices that where common decades ago. Further there is not a realistic way for a PCB to be assembled with out robots these days. Without the use of pick and place machines and other robots the error rate and quality measures would be so bad that most lots would be rejected by any rational QC program.

    Think about this, even electronic hobbiest these days build their own pick and place machines or use other jigs and fixtures to assemble their PCB. The parts are so small that it is very difficult at this level to complete a project without some aids for placing parts.
  • Reply 115 of 223
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Screw humans. Any rational manufacture will strive to minimize the number of humans on a manufacturing line. We can't go back to the days of the Univac and assemble machines by hand, it would put our computers into Mini computer class prices that where common decades ago. Further there is not a realistic way for a PCB to be assembled with out robots these days. Without the use of pick and place machines and other robots the error rate and quality measures would be so bad that most lots would be rejected by any rational QC program.



    Think about this, even electronic hobbiest these days build their own pick and place machines or use other jigs and fixtures to assemble their PCB. The parts are so small that it is very difficult at this level to complete a project without some aids for placing parts.


    Yep there's no point wasting human effort on something a machine can do. I look forward to the day when I have a 3D printer on my desk that prints my new Macbook Air bought from iTunes. Don't worry about jobs, there's an infinite amount of work to be done, improving the human condition.

  • Reply 116 of 223
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Even when they focus on the GPUs they screw it up, consider the last Mini to come with a discreet GPU.

    Maybe they went with the on board GPU because it's fast enough, and differentiates the iMac by using a lower type? With the MP going 1 step further by making it user replaceable?

    I have a mini, but only use it to watch some video's on the big screen in the living. YMMV, and perhaps you need a discreet GPU? Usually Apple does fine tune and tinkers a lot on which parts go into which model. From what I can tell, they deliver to the largest part of their clientele.
  • Reply 117 of 223
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    I have to wonder if you read your own posts.
    jragosta wrote: »
    For the 0.01% of iMac users who need it, that is.
    Just because you, in your limited view of the world, only see 0.01% of the users plugging in external components doesn't mean that that number reflects the real world.
    The overwhelming majority of iMac users never open their computers.
    And just why is that? Might it be the fact that you need special tools to pop the machines open, that is on the machines that can be popped open.

    Even if the user doesn't pop the unit open somebody has to service it. The extra effort greatly increases the cost of that repair. The fact that users don't open the machine has zip to do with the design being a bad idea.
    I'm not. I'm simply opposed to people with no design experience and no experience in manufacturing sophisticated products and who don't understand that their are tradeoffs thinking that they get to dictate to Apple how they should build computers.
    Like you have any sort of design experience! It isn't that difficult to make the iMacs accessible especially for the high failure rate parts. You try to paint this as an impossibility, but clearly it isn't.
    Once again, if you're so much smarter than Apple, go build your own.
    That is an irrational statement that you have repeated often. Frankly you don't seem to realize that customers have the right to express their opinions about how a machine should be built and its feature set. Obviously Apple can't satisfy everybody, but they need to be made aware of the fact that they are rubbing the customer base in the wrong direction.

    Right now it is Apples choice to design a machine properly. A machine that is glued together like the iMac is not one that is designed properly. In the end it may come down to Apple not having a choice as the government may have to step in. The reality is that this approach is very very bad for the environment. It leads to premature scrapping of machines due to high repair costs for parts that can be expected to fail. You can try to defend Apple all you want but the fact is glued together machines are bad for the environment and correcting the problem isn't a big deal engineering wise.

    In any event it isn't a question of being smarter than Apple, it is rather a question of why they are being so stupid. Companies acting like this is often what leads to the overbearing government regulation that causes our country so many problems. Apple has the ability to do the right thing here and everyone of us should encourage them to do so. In any event I wouldn't be half as concerned as I am if it wasn't for the fact that I've had all sorts of issues with hard drives and power supplies. These are known failure modes in all PCs and that is no different in an iMac. To make these things hard to get to is a bit of idiocy that has caused me to not even consider iMacs for my self nor as a recommendation for others.
  • Reply 118 of 223
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Maybe they went with the on board GPU because it's fast enough, and differentiates the iMac by using a lower type?
    I'm not talking about the integrated GPU but rather the screw up of a discrete GPU they put in that Mini a model or two ago. They went to all the trouble of designing in a discrete GPU and then didn't give it enough RAM to really be able to do the job. It is like the engineers or marketers at Apple don't grasp what the software out there demands of the hardware. My point is if you are going to design in a discrete GOU it has to have enough RAM to do its job.

    Beyond that there is no need what so ever to differentiate the iMac from the rest of the line up. People stupid enough to buy an iMac won't be swayed by the configurations of the other machines Apple markets.
    With the MP going 1 step further by making it user replaceable?

    I have a mini, but only use it to watch some video's on the big screen in the living. YMMV, and perhaps you need a discreet GPU?
    Actually I thought about implementing a Mini for that use. If I did that a discrete GPU wouldn't be needed well except for the short comings in Intels decoding hardware. The problem is that isn't my immediate need. Rather I'm looking for a midrange system to use at my desk that can handle CAD type work without bogging down on the simpler 3D work I do, Haswell in the Mini might do the trick but we have to wait and see how it actually performs in Apples hardware with Apples drivers.
    Usually Apple does fine tune and tinkers a lot on which parts go into which model. From what I can tell, they deliver to the largest part of their clientele.
    Not at all from what I can see. They seem particularly oriented to organizing the hardware line up to push customers to the iMacs or laptops. Neither the Mini nor the Mac Pro are really customer orient products any more. The dwindling sales highlight the abandonment buy the customer base.
  • Reply 119 of 223
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

    Not so true anymore, is it?


     


    Yeah. It is.

  • Reply 120 of 223
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member

    If Apple never made a revolutionary product again I would be OK with it. What I'm annoyed at about Apple is that they don't even lead the pack with processors and new things all of the time. Yet they always charge premium
    prices. They do come up with new standards every once in a while but they leave older processors in their machines far too long. They should be updating their processors immediately as they become available. Instead they leave their machines with the older ones for at least a year before upgrading them. In 2007 they let the Mini sit for a year and a half without an update. The Mac Pro is taking forever to be updated.

    When HP and Dell offer newer chips half a year or more before Apple it just takes the shine off of the Apple brand. Apple should lead all of the time, not just some of the time.

    Why should Apple be the only company to make revolutionary products? Apple rarely is on the bleeding edge of spec tech. Apple charges a "premium" because it controls all the widgets. It designs the products so the software integrates with the hardware than most (if not all) inefficiencies are removed. In addition, changing products for every new processor isn't cost effective or efficient. HP and Dell have done this but look at those guys now. Dell is going private and HP thought about selling its PC division.
Sign In or Register to comment.