You aren't going to be able to fully power all 4 ports with the dual core processor in the 13" MBP. Sorry folks. They are simply not powerful enough. They won't be for awhile because of heat, battery life and other concerns that would take more precedent over a slightly less powerful USBC port on the right hand side of a machine. I guess they probably could've just had 1 port on the right side instead but people would've complained then too is my guess.
I think an interesting approach would be to keep two of the full Thunderbolt ports and keep legacy USB on the other side. Then you'd have a lot more people interested in this device as a transition.
Apple has, for years, offered tiered options for MacBooks and desktops. But at one time, by selecting one tier, you could select an option or two and get what you want without going to the next tier.
Apple has eliminated this by deliberately offering only certain features with certain configurations, and limiting available options for each tier.
Overall, they've limited the BTO/CTO builds which simplifies supply for them, and builds in margin since many people will have to get much more than they want to get what they need.
If Apple can/could get an i7 CPU into a 13" MBP, I doubt we'd see it as an option. Apple wants definite tiers as it's a big source of revenue. The 13" will always be the little brother of the 15" MBP, and we won't see one kitted the same, even if possible. Doing so would cut into the 15" sales.
The practice makes money and it makes the upper tier 'special'. They don't want a Mini-Me in any product category, if they can help it.
I will acknowledge that as a long time Apple user they seems to move a little too fast for me too right now. Transferring to all USB-C is a bold move that will most certainly help push along a universal standard that can shrink the amount of needed ports It feels silly that current iPhone and iPad users need to use a dongle to hook their Apple devices up with their Apple laptops. Removing the SD-card slot is also a bold move as it already is a standard for the photography world that has so closely aligned itself with Apple machines because of their color fidelity. Wireless alternatives are really crappy right now (It is about time they improved though), and I personally have not seen USB-C style connectors for my Cannon yet. The last oddity for me is that if Apple plans to retain the lightning port on their smaller devices I would have liked to see one on the Macbook so users who prefer wired audio could use the same pair of headphones for their iDevices and their Apple computers without the need for a dongle.
Again, this is all from an armchair CEO perspective but the current setup really misses the mark of 'It just works' for me.
Apple sells a USB-C to Lightning Cable that even charges the 12.9" iPad Pro more quickly. No dongles required. It amazes me how many people listen to music on a computer. It seems easier to use a phone than to be tethered to a larger computer. I'm guessing Apple retained the audio port because DJs use notebook computers. Lightning has always been exclusive to iOS devices. And AirPods will pair with Macs. Apple sees the future as mostly wireless. But Thunderbolt 3 is so versatile it allows Apple to drop all the legacy ports while retaining backward compatibility through adapters and hubs.
Sure they sell a separate cable that you could buy to connect your iDevice with your MacBook without the need for a dongle. But if I go into a store and buy a pair I would need to remember to buy one of those cables since it doesn't work right out of the box. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling doom and despair but it seems like one of those tiny details Apple seemed to have massive OCD tendencies for since they released the first iMac but it seems that is less and less the case.
For the same reason I am not bashing the existence of the audio port but am wondering why they never introduced lightning to the macbook line. It opens up the entire iDevice accessory market for use with the MacBooks enabling you to just seamlessly connect things to whatever apple product you own.
Now if Apple truly believes in a wireless future then why did they not go all the way on the iPhone? why still keep the lightning port and not just ditch it in favour of wireless charging? If they are still waiting for wireless charging to become better then why not wait a bit longer instead of having to go through two waves of people screaming about the removal of I/O ports? The timing just seems off on so many levels, the product lines seem out of synch.
Apple has, for years, offered tiered options for MacBooks and desktops. But at one time, by selecting one tier, you could select an option or two and get what you want without going to the next tier.
Apple has eliminated this by deliberately offering only certain features with certain configurations, and limiting available options for each tier.
Overall, they've limited the BTO/CTO builds which simplifies supply for them, and builds in margin since many people will have to get much more than they want to get what they need.
If Apple can/could get an i7 CPU into a 13" MBP, I doubt we'd see it as an option. Apple wants definite tiers as it's a big source of revenue. The 13" will always be the little brother of the 15" MBP, and we won't see one kitted the same, even if possible. Doing so would cut into the 15" sales.
The practice makes money and it makes the upper tier 'special'. They don't want a Mini-Me in any product category, if they can help it.
The 13" MacBook Pro is available with an i7 option.
Unless you're actually talking about quad processors: there is indeed no way Apple could fit those into the 13" case.
But you're right that they artificially limit options to a few basic configurations with limit options. It is known that giving customers FEWER options results in happier customers.
Customers tend to be more satisfied with choices between options they understand, and the simple rule that smaller machines are less powerful, and larger machines are more powerful, is very easy to understand. Which benefits the customer, and it benefits Apple in two ways: First, it makes an easier upsell, as people might buy the more powerful (and more expensive) machine despite only wanting the bigger screen, or (as in my case), they buy the bigger machine with the bigger screen despite only wanting the horsepower.
Second, it means that more powerful (and energy-consuming/heat-generating) options tend to be built into larger enclosures, which greatly eases thermal design and makes for quieter machines (in turn, a consumer benefit).
Apple has, for years, offered tiered options for MacBooks and desktops. But at one time, by selecting one tier, you could select an option or two and get what you want without going to the next tier.
Apple has eliminated this by deliberately offering only certain features with certain configurations, and limiting available options for each tier.
Overall, they've limited the BTO/CTO builds which simplifies supply for them, and builds in margin since many people will have to get much more than they want to get what they need.
If Apple can/could get an i7 CPU into a 13" MBP, I doubt we'd see it as an option. Apple wants definite tiers as it's a big source of revenue. The 13" will always be the little brother of the 15" MBP, and we won't see one kitted the same, even if possible. Doing so would cut into the 15" sales.
The practice makes money and it makes the upper tier 'special'. They don't want a Mini-Me in any product category, if they can help it.
The 13" MacBook Pro is available with an i7 option.
Unless you're actually talking about quad processors: there is indeed no way Apple could fit those into the 13" case.
But you're right that they artificially limit options to a few basic configurations with limit options. It is known that giving customers FEWER options results in happier customers.
Customers tend to be more satisfied with choices between options they understand, and the simple rule that smaller machines are less powerful, and larger machines are more powerful, is very easy to understand. Which benefits the customer, and it benefits Apple in two ways: First, it makes an easier upsell, as people might buy the more powerful (and more expensive) machine despite only wanting the bigger screen, or (as in my case), they buy the bigger machine with the bigger screen despite only wanting the horsepower.
Second, it means that more powerful (and energy-consuming/heat-generating) options tend to be built into larger enclosures, which greatly eases thermal design and makes for quieter machines (in turn, a consumer benefit).
It also simplifies inventory management, manufacturing, and most importantly, support.
1) Can they be swapped? Either the 2TB SSD uses double density NAND or they used twice as many as the 1TB SSD. If the former, then it would likely be nearly twice as long. We don't even know the SSD card lengths between the 13" and 15" models.
2) You say it's "unnecessarily limiting" for the customer, but if there's a chance they could make $800 in revenue and whatever profit that yields, I'd think they'd do it. Because of that, I think it behooves us to think about a more rational reason why Apple isn't offering an extra TB of storage in the smaller of the two MBPs.
you are missing the point some professionals want the smaller format with the largest storage space. its about options.
this is why we have stuck with the pre-retina display 13", where we can throw in Samsung 2.5" 2TB & 4TB SSD with no problem! we haven't stuck with a stock Apple drive for our higher-ups for the past 3 years.
they have been excellent drives, as have the OWC SSD.
For whatever reason, Apple doesn't offer that option. It's reasonable to wish that they did offer it, and you can even hypothesize as to why they don't, but it doesn't make sense to get upset that they don't or make assertions as to why they are purposely screwing over the customer. (I don't know what you've said to that point, I'm simply replying as to the general reasons I'm seeing about how Apple is screwing them over.)
we will disagree with the reasonable nature of the lack of high-end storage options.
knowing that we alter the machines at the office to meet the storage specs we need, and having been doing so successfully for a few years now & letting out Apple Business liaison know this as well, is the data behind my hypothesis.
Honestly, we are professionals, we use this computers hard, we have our Apple Business people we deal with for these orders, we tell them our needs, they apologize for not being able to meet them. yes it is only a dozen or so computers a year, but we have always let our position known.
Comments
Where's that Kermit the Frog meme at...
Apple has eliminated this by deliberately offering only certain features with certain configurations, and limiting available options for each tier.
Overall, they've limited the BTO/CTO builds which simplifies supply for them, and builds in margin since many people will have to get much more than they want to get what they need.
If Apple can/could get an i7 CPU into a 13" MBP, I doubt we'd see it as an option. Apple wants definite tiers as it's a big source of revenue. The 13" will always be the little brother of the 15" MBP, and we won't see one kitted the same, even if possible. Doing so would cut into the 15" sales.
The practice makes money and it makes the upper tier 'special'. They don't want a Mini-Me in any product category, if they can help it.
For the same reason I am not bashing the existence of the audio port but am wondering why they never introduced lightning to the macbook line. It opens up the entire iDevice accessory market for use with the MacBooks enabling you to just seamlessly connect things to whatever apple product you own.
Now if Apple truly believes in a wireless future then why did they not go all the way on the iPhone? why still keep the lightning port and not just ditch it in favour of wireless charging? If they are still waiting for wireless charging to become better then why not wait a bit longer instead of having to go through two waves of people screaming about the removal of I/O ports? The timing just seems off on so many levels, the product lines seem out of synch.
Unless you're actually talking about quad processors: there is indeed no way Apple could fit those into the 13" case.
But you're right that they artificially limit options to a few basic configurations with limit options. It is known that giving customers FEWER options results in happier customers.
Customers tend to be more satisfied with choices between options they understand, and the simple rule that smaller machines are less powerful, and larger machines are more powerful, is very easy to understand. Which benefits the customer, and it benefits Apple in two ways:
First, it makes an easier upsell, as people might buy the more powerful (and more expensive) machine despite only wanting the bigger screen, or (as in my case), they buy the bigger machine with the bigger screen despite only wanting the horsepower.
Second, it means that more powerful (and energy-consuming/heat-generating) options tend to be built into larger enclosures, which greatly eases thermal design and makes for quieter machines (in turn, a consumer benefit).
we will disagree with the reasonable nature of the lack of high-end storage options.
knowing that we alter the machines at the office to meet the storage specs we need, and having been doing so successfully for a few years now & letting out Apple Business liaison know this as well, is the data behind my hypothesis.
Honestly, we are professionals, we use this computers hard, we have our Apple Business people we deal with for these orders, we tell them our needs, they apologize for not being able to meet them. yes it is only a dozen or so computers a year, but we have always let our position known.
my own old laptop - 2011 Pro, i7, 3 TB internal.