More likely it's just a tiny minority that's very vocal right now and the tech echo chamber amplifies everything. Btw it's Jony not Johnny and I think people assign him way more power than he has. If the rest of the executive team said we need a desktop class notebook with 32GB RAM and the biggest battery possible that's what the engineers and designers would be producing. To me this freakout after every Apple hardware release is getting old and boring. iPhone 7 has been on the market for over a month now and the freakout over the lack of headphone jack is pretty much non existent. It would be easier to accept some of these criticisms if they were made after extensive use of these new machines. But not one person bitching has spent any time with them. It's all based on a spec sheet and freakouts on social media.
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I think this quote from John Gruber sums it up "Rather astounding how much backlash last week’s event has generated. I can’t recall an Apple event that generated such a negative reaction from hard-core Mac users.". With respect this isn't about removing a headphone jack so you can't listen to music. People have invested significantly in the Mac platform in Hardware, peripherals and software. When Apple makes these kinds of crazy moves (like moving to USB C when there are very few peripherals that support it) then it gets people crazy because they could do it differently, and have done so in the past. I have an older MB Pro that has an Ethernet port, Firewire port, Thunderbolt, 2 x USBs, An SD slot and a mag safe power socket. It was clear over time that Firewire was being killed off and USB would replace it and it gave people time to adapt. Yes in 3 years USB C will likely be a good option but if I want to go there now I have to trash all of my monitors, keyboards, etc that are wired and move to the "new" standard. It doesn't need to be like that, but Apple is arrogant enough to believe it should be, whatever the inconvenience or expense to its customers. The reality is that they could have provided MB Pros earlier this year that had Skylake, USB A and USB C, Thunderbolt, etc but obviously chose not to. They had a way of bridging their customers from one set of tech standards to another but didn't take that option. Bad move on their part. BTW You should read up on how much power Sir Jony Ive has in the Apple hierarchy and I think you would be shocked...... This is from Appleinsider but there is plenty more out there.......http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/21/steve_jobs_left_designer_jony_ive_more_power_than_anyone_at_apple
They might have had a way of bridging, but that's a crazy expectation for this round.
Apparently few people are able to recognize an evolutionary breakthrough when it happens right in front of them. This latest shrinkage of the form factor was determined — compelled — made absolutely necessary — by the long-awaited availability of the oxide-backed display, plus the slightly less obvious benefit of the latest USB/Thunderbolt standard.
The savings in thickness, energy and heat from the IGZO backplane and the lower profile of the USB C port, both combined to force the engineers to arrive at this dramatically smaller and lighter design.
Why "force"? Because in the design of mobile or portable electronics, there is no greater imperative that shrinking things to their smallest possible size. Thus, for example, Moore's law. Too bad Intel can't keep up with Apple and give us the missing RAM this year, but the new MacBook Pro package is ready for next year or whenver it gets done.
Anyway, while development of this new form factor was going on, not to mention the effort to get the Touch Bar ready, there cannot have been time or engineering resources to redesign the legacy MacBook to serve as a "bridge" workhorse for the few who feel they want to carry a 4K video editor around with them. No business should be run in such a way, least of all Apple. They would be competing against their own evolutionary impulses.
Is funny. I dont know why people are crying over it. This is really like iMac 4K all over again. There is no Kaby Lake with Quad Core, you could argue Apple could have launch this earlier, but as many stated it is likely delayed by Touch Bar. Kabylake Dual Core has issues with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP2.2 which will be fixed into later batch, along side with Quad core Kaby Lake.
There are people pointing out that a similar spec system on System78 with Ubuntu cost only $1800, compared to $2400 of Macbook Pro 15"!
These, exactly these, are the people who dont understand Apple in the first place. And likely be the people who will switch over to other Android. They just DONT care about the details!.
The $1800 doesn't come with Retina, or HiRes Display. And this is not ordinary HiRes, it is calibrated, DCI-P3, IGZO Display with 500nit brightness. You will properly have to add additional $150 to get this.
The SSD is way faster, Apple have the fastest SSD in any laptop, Read 3.1GB/s and Write 2.2/GBs compared to Read: 2.2GB/S Write 1.1GB/S , not to mention the quality selection of NAND. You will properly have to add additional $100 to get this.
The 4 Port Thunderbolt 3. Four !! This is 2 Alpine Ridge Chip. They aren't cheap. At least a $50 dollar option.
This is total of $2100 already. You also get a much better trackpad, touch bar and touch ID. MUCH lighter and thinner design. And along with MacOSX.
Apple has never had a cheap machine. You are always expected to pay a premium even if it only had a Apple logo on it. But if you do factor in everything. It is just the usual Apple.
Is it expensive? Heck of coz it is, Will you get 32GB Ram if Apple had Kaby Lake? Sorry no. Apple decided thinness, and compact, battery life is more important then the possible extra 16GB of Ram which only less then 5% of buyers cares about.
Is it expensive? Heck of coz it is, Will you get 32GB Ram if Apple had Kaby Lake? Sorry no. Apple decided thinness, and compact, battery life is more important then the possible extra 16GB of Ram which only less then 5% of buyers cares about.
Is it expensive? Heck of coz it is, Will you get 32GB Ram if Apple had Kaby Lake? Sorry no. Apple decided thinness, and compact, battery life is more important then the possible extra 16GB of Ram which only less then 5% of buyers cares about.
Less than 5%? I'd say more like 1%.
1% genuinely care and another 4% screaming because they like to feel like they belong…
Intel Cannonlake CPU by 2017 features 15-25% less power consumption of LPDDR 44, versus the existing LPDDR 3.
Cannonlake LAUNCHING at some point in 2017 will feature these things. That doesn't mean that quad-core or MacBook Pro-suitable chips will be available at launch. See also: Kaby Lake that still doesn't have quad-core laptop chips announced.
The Surface Book is limited to the same 16GB, but is MS catching heat for that?
I'm not pinning everything on Intel - but Intel is responsible for a large part of the heat that Apple is getting because of it. The quad-core chips in the 15-inch model didn't ship in capacity until April, and there is no Kaby Lake quad core even sampling yet, well past Intel's guesstimates on when they would ship it.
I consider the Surface Pro 4 to be competitor to the MacBookAirs because of the weight factor. Microsoft had plenty of trouble last year when they went to Skylake and got a lot of negative press on it. They probably released the SurfacePro4 and MacBook six months early. Surface Book is a step up but it doesn't represent the top performance laptop of all Microsoft Manufactures - just MS itself. The Pro and the Book represent MS view of Laptops that can also be used as tablets (I still believe that the iPad is a better tablet). This year MS smartly decided to not release an updated SP5 (that will be next year) and SurfaceBook 2 - they did add a new option at the top for power users in the SB1. When MS finally does release the SP5 it will probably be a better Air than the Air and may be as good as the MBP. Hopefully they are smart enough not to rush it because of last years problems. I just don't think that what Apple is calling a MacBookPro is really what a lot of people expect as their pro laptop (The top of the line MBP would be a good place to begin for a pro lineup).
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I want Apple to move to their own A-series chip as well, but not on the MacBook Pro. I think we will see them move to an A11 on a MacBook. For now, we will have to live with the limitations set up by Intel. The only way around that is to wait for Kaby Lake. People were whining because Apple wasn't updating... well maybe that's because Intel didn't have a great solution anyway. So they did the best with what they had and people are still whining. If you need 32 GB of RAM, then you'll have to wait for Kaby Lake next year. Don't blame Apple, blame Intel.
Funny we were just talking about this before this article popped up( I posted late because I was busy yesterday ). I said the weakest link in MacBooks are third-party manufactures not Apple. I can't wait for Apples A-series to catch up to Intel. I don't care if they have to change the entire infrastructure in exchange for yearly Updates and being years beyond the competition
More likely it's just a tiny minority that's very vocal right now and the tech echo chamber amplifies everything. Btw it's Jony not Johnny and I think people assign him way more power than he has. If the rest of the executive team said we need a desktop class notebook with 32GB RAM and the biggest battery possible that's what the engineers and designers would be producing. To me this freakout after every Apple hardware release is getting old and boring. iPhone 7 has been on the market for over a month now and the freakout over the lack of headphone jack is pretty much non existent. It would be easier to accept some of these criticisms if they were made after extensive use of these new machines. But not one person bitching has spent any time with them. It's all based on a spec sheet and freakouts on social media.
.. Yes in 3 years USB C will likely be a good option but if I want to go there now I have to trash all of my monitors, keyboards, etc that are wired and move to the "new" standard. It doesn't need to be like that, but Apple is arrogant enough to believe it should be, whatever the inconvenience or expense to its customers....
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, what you wrote in that section above is complete hyperbole. Adapters are not ideal, but they are the typical transition approach, and only cost a few 10s of $ for most. When a peripheral is wired already, putting a short adapter (basically an extended wire with a different connector) onto that wire is not that big of a deal. I am assuming you don't carry your monitor and keyboard with you, so it is a one time type change an inconvenience. For those mobile warriors who utilized all of the ports on the previous version on the go - say a photographer using SD card slot, USB portable disks - then carrying more than a couple adapters would be an annoyance.
My opinion is based on how I work where I have two offices and a home all with Mac Thunderbolt Displays and wired keyboards. That would mean for each location there would be one Thunderbolt to USB C adapter ($49). I doubt you will be able to get power from the Thunderbolt display to the new MB Pro so that would be an additional $88 in each location because the new power adapter apparently doesn't come with a USB C cord. I have no idea whether the USB C to thunderbolt connection will be able to handle the Ethernet networking provided in the display, if not that is another $35 per location. And yes I do frequently use my SD card slot so that is another $50 for an adapter. I give presentations from my mac about 3 times a month and that means connecting into either HDMI or VGA ports on projectors or TV's, ($110 for 2 adapters). Without even thinking about it I am now at about $500 in dongles just to get back to the functionality I have now!!!!! $500! So my opinion is not about tens of dollars but probably about paying about 20% of the cost of the computer in buying adapters to deal with the changes Apple are making....... I think most people would look at that and say it was a reasonable opinion! And it didn't need to be this way. There has been no transition to USB C but an all or nothing approach which means I have no desire to upgrade my computer at this time and when I do, who knows what will be in the market.
:sigh: You can't fucking add a piece of HW to the iPad and make it work like a windowed OS or have the same functionality as a traditional PC. If and when Apple moves to an ARM-based traditional PC it'll be based on macOS, not iOS.
You can quite easily make the mouse work; you just add the software to draw a cursor on the screen, add support for Bluetooth mice to control said cursor, and simulate "tap" actions via mouse clicks. A mouse interface is literally already implemented via the iOS simulator; they would just need to port this to the actual mobile OS. It also exists already in Android and Windows Mobile, so this is not some crazy out-there idea.
Adding a trackpad to the iPad Pro's keyboard cover would make content creation easier on it; when typing up a document, for instance, it would make selecting small amounts of text to fix typos much easier. Now that apps such as iMovie, Photoshop, and other creative apps are on iOS, it's not too hard to imagine cases in which pixel-precise actions would be helpful there as well. This would probably address about 95% of what people want in a cheap ARM-based laptop, TBH.
You're missing the point. There's no need to shoehorn anything when macOS is the OS that is ideal for a traditional PC design. Just try to get it out of your head that iOS is the only way that you can have an ARM-base system and you'll finally understand just how wrong you are about trying to make a notebook or desktop that runs iOS over macOS.
iOS is not "the only way" that you can have an ARM-based system, and I'm in no way saying that it is.
That's exactly what you said when you disagreed with me.
However, among the operating systems that Apple owns, iOS is the one with the existing ARM-based architecture and software library.
My opinion is based on how I work where I have two offices and a home all with Mac Thunderbolt Displays and wired keyboards. That would mean for each location there would be one Thunderbolt to USB C adapter ($49). I doubt you will be able to get power from the Thunderbolt display to the new MB Pro so that would be an additional $88 in each location because the new power adapter apparently doesn't come with a USB C cord. I have no idea whether the USB C to thunderbolt connection will be able to handle the Ethernet networking provided in the display, if not that is another $35 per location. And yes I do frequently use my SD card slot so that is another $50 for an adapter. I give presentations from my mac about 3 times a month and that means connecting into either HDMI or VGA ports on projectors or TV's, ($110 for 2 adapters). Without even thinking about it I am now at about $500 in dongles just to get back to the functionality I have now!!!!! $500! So my opinion is not about tens of dollars but probably about paying about 20% of the cost of the computer in buying adapters to deal with the changes Apple are making....... I think most people would look at that and say it was a reasonable opinion! And it didn't need to be this way. There has been no transition to USB C but an all or nothing approach which means I have no desire to upgrade my computer at this time and when I do, who knows what will be in the market.
Why don't you use the Thunderbolt 2 peripheral to Thunderbolt 3 adapter ($50)? It'll carry everything you need to the computer from the Thunderbolt display, minus power. That covers your wired USB needs, as well as Ethernet.
A USB-C to HDMI cable is $11 on Amazon from a reputable manufacturer.
Not no expense for sure, but also not $500, not by a long shot.
My opinion is based on how I work where I have two offices and a home all with Mac Thunderbolt Displays and wired keyboards. That would mean for each location there would be one Thunderbolt to USB C adapter ($49). I doubt you will be able to get power from the Thunderbolt display to the new MB Pro so that would be an additional $88 in each location because the new power adapter apparently doesn't come with a USB C cord. I have no idea whether the USB C to thunderbolt connection will be able to handle the Ethernet networking provided in the display, if not that is another $35 per location. And yes I do frequently use my SD card slot so that is another $50 for an adapter. I give presentations from my mac about 3 times a month and that means connecting into either HDMI or VGA ports on projectors or TV's, ($110 for 2 adapters). Without even thinking about it I am now at about $500 in dongles just to get back to the functionality I have now!!!!! $500! So my opinion is not about tens of dollars but probably about paying about 20% of the cost of the computer in buying adapters to deal with the changes Apple are making....... I think most people would look at that and say it was a reasonable opinion! And it didn't need to be this way. There has been no transition to USB C but an all or nothing approach which means I have no desire to upgrade my computer at this time and when I do, who knows what will be in the market.
So much BS, but none of that matters. If you think USB-C is a personal slight designed by Apple to cause you anxiety, that USB-C is proof that the world is ending, or you simply think that Apple is stupid for considering adopting a single, universal, high-speed, universal port interface that is OEM-idenepetnant, then you can you don't have to buy this fucking Mac.
To all those who would trade back the touch bar, smaller sizes and wide gamut displays for a marginally faster processor, I say: don't do it.
Id rather have apple doing their thing, pushing new concepts, making formerly-rare features mainstream.
I am am happy that I can finally run my 30" Eizo 10-bit per channel in full 10 bit mode on an Apple laptop. Had they ignored the deep color in an effort to chase higher raw GPU scores, I'd have a faster GPU that still wouldn't support the features of my high end display.
The hardcore nerds here are strutting their stuff, saying they'd trade all the ergonomics and new interface tech for faster hardware. I say they are wrong. This upgrade is a good balance of hardware improvement AND big-picture strategic design improvement.
I like it.
I was in line with the ergonomic issues a few computer releases ago. Then the 2013 Mac Pro failed to include retina graphics (its own Apple display), failed to be updated in three years, the iPhone's kept getting thinner and larger (harder to operate with one hand), and the new MacBook PROs were aligned with consumer use. I prefer small and QUIET machines but Apple has more than accomplished this by now. Their changes are less about usability and more about squeezing more and more profit out of fewer advancements. Still obsessing over thinness at the expense of professional usability (and outright ignoring the pro machine after their own self-inflicted injury of making it undesirable to pros) is now turning me against Apple.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance.
Apple's fastest A10 CPU is about as fast as Intel's slowest Core m.
The A10 trounces the Core M. The A10 operates in a power envelope of 3 watts. The Core M operates at 5 watts. The integrated GPU in the A10 trounces ALL Intel integrated GPUs regardless of class.
In terms of pure integer performance, Intel wins if one does not need to worry about the power requirements.
The portable Core i5s and i7s are 15 watt parts. The fact that a 3 watt part is even performance competitive is huge. And with better GPU performance. The A10 does not throttle either, unlike the Core M. So for sustained performance, maximizing the capabilities of each processor, the A10 will maintain its level while the Core M drops off as it heats up at maximal performance levels.
Apple's design prowess is far better than Intel and it isn't even a contest at this point.
This is the real point. Apple has designed a mobile SoC that Intel cannot touch. Even with massive monetary resources and a huge contra revenue budget to drive marketshare, Intel failed miserably.
If Apple decides to move into high performance processing at higher TDP envelopes using ARM cores, does anyone really think that Intel will retain its performance crown?
I am curious as to why the A10X hasn't been released. At the same TDP as the Core M, I suspect even the highest performing Core M will be seriously outclassed. And the GPU in the iPad Pro will seriously outperform the integrated units in the MacBook Pros. It will take a discrete GPU to give the MacBook Pro better Graphics performance.
That is a very serious problem for the MacBook Pro. And a serious problem for Apple as their consumer line of devices encroaches upon the performance of their high level machines.
If Intel cannot deliver 10 nm soon and with good yields, Apple may be forced to build laptop and even desktop class ARM processors. TSMC will be releasing 7 nm in 2017 and with InFO that will seriously outclass Intel. TSMC is also building a high performance 7 nm node for desktop class chips.
It is going to be very interesting to see how things play out.
My opinion is based on how I work where I have two offices and a home all with Mac Thunderbolt Displays and wired keyboards. That would mean for each location there would be one Thunderbolt to USB C adapter ($49). I doubt you will be able to get power from the Thunderbolt display to the new MB Pro so that would be an additional $88 in each location because the new power adapter apparently doesn't come with a USB C cord. I have no idea whether the USB C to thunderbolt connection will be able to handle the Ethernet networking provided in the display, if not that is another $35 per location. And yes I do frequently use my SD card slot so that is another $50 for an adapter. I give presentations from my mac about 3 times a month and that means connecting into either HDMI or VGA ports on projectors or TV's, ($110 for 2 adapters). Without even thinking about it I am now at about $500 in dongles just to get back to the functionality I have now!!!!! $500! So my opinion is not about tens of dollars but probably about paying about 20% of the cost of the computer in buying adapters to deal with the changes Apple are making....... I think most people would look at that and say it was a reasonable opinion! And it didn't need to be this way. There has been no transition to USB C but an all or nothing approach which means I have no desire to upgrade my computer at this time and when I do, who knows what will be in the market.
So much BS, but none of that matters. If you think USB-C is a personal slight designed by Apple to cause you anxiety, that USB-C is proof that the world is ending, or you simply think that Apple is stupid for considering adopting a single, universal, high-speed, universal port interface that is OEM-idenepetnant, then you can you don't have to buy this fucking Mac.
Wow! Interesting perspective.... in response maybe the reality that the initial demand for these machines is below expectations should alert you to the reality that the comments I am making are being shared by others....... http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/31/kuo-demand-for-new-macbook-pro-models-tepid-due-to-high-prices-disappointing-specs. Here is the most interesting quote which is pertinent "In addition to high customer costs, Kuo believes key design changes are a major disappointment to core users. Specifically, the analyst cites Apple's switch to USB-C, the removal of the standard SD card reader and lack of support for higher memory allotments." So thank you for pointing out that I "don't have to buy this fu***ng Mac." Apparently a lot of other people feel that they don't either!
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
It could go that way, but I don't think it has to.
I think it could actually go in the exact opposite direction -- start at the Mac Pro, and then work down. That might sound crazy, but there could be some advantages to starting with a low volume niche machine like the Mac Pro. First, if Apple screws up then they don't end up alienating too many people (and Mac Pro users are already about as alienated as you can get). Second, Mac Pro users are mostly video production people at this point, so it's a more limited range of software that needs to be targeted. Apple could literally design the SOC with heavy input from the FCP team. The result could be a killer FCP machine that really highlights the advantages of controlling the full stack.
If the Mac Pro experiment succeeds, then Apple could move down market.
I would say that the last machine to go ARM should be the Mac Mini -- it could be the last hold out for people who need Intel.
I'm amazed at how disconnected from practical usage people are who are calling for ARM to replace Intel CPU. I can only presume you're not in a studio doing a workload requiring heavy lifting to deal with that pesky "time is money" problem. Your plan above would create a "Pro" machine that would be the exact OPPOSITE of what the people asking for professional Macs actually WANT. It would be the surest way to kill Apple's board of directors' interest in selling a professional computer for studios, if the 2013 Mac Pro didn't already do that job.
That whole bit code App Store thing... It's probably irrelevant to most content-creator tools in use by actual studios. In fact, I'd like to see actual stats on that in use. But then, there's never been an example of it used has there?
But that's besides the point of many studios having abandoned Apple hardware in the first place, thanks to Apple's refusal to sell what studios want. Had the 2013 Mac Pro come with a Retina display, I'd have bought one at the time, and been content connecting external drives and audio devices. But instead, Apple left us with no high-PPI on the desktop until the retina iMac (with its eventually disposable display and laptop components, I wasn't interested).
If Apple starts presenting Macs with ARM CPUs, the low-power consumer is the right place to start. But we saw how badly that exact situation turned out for Microsoft Surface...
The "real" problem is that Apple's mobile chips are now approaching the performance of Intel's high end laptop parts. What happens when the A11 or A12 outclasses the highest performance Core i7? At Apple's and TSMC's pace of development, it could very easily happen. Intel doesn't have a competitive GPU at any level. Even with Apple pushing Intel hard on GPU development.
How long will the professional market tolerate that situation? If one has to go to the Mac Pro for better performance than an iPad Pro, it will be a big problem. But that may be the scenario in a short time.
Apple's design team is far better than Intel's. Intel's process lead has also nearly vanished.
And with Apple's own advantages, why would they stay Intel over the long term? It makes no sense. Especially for the prices that Apple can build its own chips compared with Intel's prices. Perhaps Intel will provide contra revenue to Apple to keep x86 CPUs in the product line. It would seem highly unlikely that Intel would do this. They still need to make a profit on their chips. Apple isn't going to abandon ARM even if Intel subsidizes the sales of their Core CPUs.
I have no inside info or data. But I do see a day when Apple moves all of their hardware to ARM. For those that need legacy x86, perhaps an Intel or AMD chip could be installed in a slot like the old orange PC Cards that allowed one to run Windows 95/98/NT on the old Mac Performas.
Perhaps the iPad Pro will be developed into far more than the tablet form factor. But let's analyze the situation objectively. Intel isn't keeping up. And there's no evidence that they are going to either. It means that ARM is going to displace x86 at some point. Not a matter of if but when if the current trends continue. Nothing that Intel is doing, is going to reverse it either with the ever changing roadmap and the continuing delays.
To quote a line by Chuq Von Rospach highlighted on Daring Fireball: "A lot of it boils down to this concept: We demand Apple innovate, but we insist they don’t change anything."
Basically, what the majority of those with negative feedback seem to have wanted Apple to produce: - A thicker & heavier product (perhaps a bit more than the previous model) with more power hungry RAM to achieve at least 32GB - Desktop CPUs - Half or less battery life - All current ports + likely one or two TB3 ports (so increase of ports) - all essentially dedicated ports - Too keep costs contained to offer at previous prices, likely need to drop majority of other improvements that Apple demonstrated (Touch Bar, Touch ID, and screen improvements) - lets assume it can keep the faster SSD.
In other words, spec improvements (but that take redesign to address). A nice luggable machine.
Do you guys really think this will sell in any numbers? Compared with what Apple did offer?
My opinion is based on how I work where I have two offices and a home all with Mac Thunderbolt Displays and wired keyboards. That would mean for each location there would be one Thunderbolt to USB C adapter ($49). I doubt you will be able to get power from the Thunderbolt display to the new MB Pro so that would be an additional $88 in each location because the new power adapter apparently doesn't come with a USB C cord. I have no idea whether the USB C to thunderbolt connection will be able to handle the Ethernet networking provided in the display, if not that is another $35 per location. And yes I do frequently use my SD card slot so that is another $50 for an adapter. I give presentations from my mac about 3 times a month and that means connecting into either HDMI or VGA ports on projectors or TV's, ($110 for 2 adapters). Without even thinking about it I am now at about $500 in dongles just to get back to the functionality I have now!!!!! $500! So my opinion is not about tens of dollars but probably about paying about 20% of the cost of the computer in buying adapters to deal with the changes Apple are making....... I think most people would look at that and say it was a reasonable opinion! And it didn't need to be this way. There has been no transition to USB C but an all or nothing approach which means I have no desire to upgrade my computer at this time and when I do, who knows what will be in the market.
Why don't you use the Thunderbolt 2 peripheral to Thunderbolt 3 adapter ($50)? It'll carry everything you need to the computer from the Thunderbolt display, minus power. That covers your wired USB needs, as well as Ethernet.
A USB-C to HDMI cable is $11 on Amazon from a reputable manufacturer.
Not no expense for sure, but also not $500, not by a long shot.
Mike, thanks for the suggestion on using the Thunderbolt 3 adapter for Ethernet as well, I was not sure what it covered. My look at the costs was just looking at what Apple were selling on their web site and thanks for the USB / HDMI cable on Amazon, a good suggestion. My situation is unique simply because of how I work and the places I work in and the amounts calculated ($574) were based on providing adapters and power in the 3 locations plus the other dongles needed to carry around. My take on it is happy to wait for USB C to be popularized before making the change. I have no need to upgrade my machine and getting another year out of it will mean ability to buy cheaper screens, etc when I do make the move.
John Gruber posted a link to a <a href="http://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/27/new-macbook-pros-and-the-state-of-the-mac/">blog</a> by Michael Tsai (not exactly sure who that is). Gruber says he can't remember an Apple event that had such negative reaction from the Mac community. I can understand being upset about the state of the Mac Pro but I don't get the venom directed towards the MacBook Pro. It's a better machine in pretty much every way. This whole temper tantrum over 32GB RAM. I could maybe understand it if it was something Apple previously had but now took away. But that's not the case. There were absolutely no rumors that these new MacBook Pro's would even offer that option. And people are losing their minds yet they haven't spent one minute with these machines nor have there been any reviews.
Frankly I think it's ridiculous and seems a bit like herd mentality sort of like when Marco Arment posted that article about Apple's software using a clickbait headline and then everyone in the tech community was freaking out over Apple's software. Now Phil Schiller responds to why there isn't a 32GB option for the MBP and everyone in the tech world loses their mind. Ridiculous.
That's a very long list of disgruntled and unhappy potential customers and it shows that Apple is not in touch with what it's current user base wants. If you look at the comments there are a litany of issues there, not just about the amount of RAM. Everything from the reality that these units have gone up in price for the same spec, to the failure to update the rest of the Mac line up with modern chips, to the fact that to use ANY peripheral you now need a bag of expensive dongles. It's obvious that there is a lot of pent up frustration at how Apple is managing the Mac product line and not listening to their customers. My own take on it is that Apple is so enamored with it's iOS devices and the dictats of Johnny Ive that no one is standing up and saying what needs to be said. Pretty sad but also pretty true when you look at the reality. Yes, please make a thin, light laptop but why not make a bigger unit that includes backwards compatibility but allows the use of more RAM, bigger battery, etc so that the end users can decide which one they want to use and what is more important for them. If Apple is convinced that the MB Pro is so good what is the harm in creating some differentiation?
Yep. The emperor has no clothes.
This chip seems better suited to an updated MacBookAir, but I think Apple is more concerned about maintaining profit margins even if there are fewer sales. They should have done an update to the Airs with 2 or 3 TypeC connectors and waited on refreshing the Pro. Apple has said that they expect the future to be one where users have just laptops. So I do think that Apple's Pro should start at 16 GB and go to at least 32 GB RAM. (Also keep magsafe on the Pro).
People should not be surprised that Apple raised the price on the MBP after they also raised the price on the iPad Pro's over the Air. It's a gamble that only Apple could do. The touch bar looks nice but really not compelling for me. Although I love the touch ID button.
You suggest that the strategy Apple has used since the original iMac should be abandoned? Apple has made billions and increased their Mac business for almost 20 years by leaving a wake of abandoned legacy ports, oversized cases & batteries as well as other outdated features.
they have pushed an impeccable fit & finish, innovative materials & manufacturing, elevating formerly pedestrian components to impressive design achievements. I feel they should continue this strategy.
You really sound brainwashed. The only thing that's insanely great at the moment is the price point.
I own a bit of AAPL stock, so if they can sell Macs for a good margin, I'm happy at dividend-time
Fortunately, my business does well enough that the cost of a new Mac every couple years isn't a hardship.
Comments
Apparently few people are able to recognize an evolutionary breakthrough when it happens right in front of them. This latest shrinkage of the form factor was determined — compelled — made absolutely necessary — by the long-awaited availability of the oxide-backed display, plus the slightly less obvious benefit of the latest USB/Thunderbolt standard.
The savings in thickness, energy and heat from the IGZO backplane and the lower profile of the USB C port, both combined to force the engineers to arrive at this dramatically smaller and lighter design.
Why "force"? Because in the design of mobile or portable electronics, there is no greater imperative that shrinking things to their smallest possible size. Thus, for example, Moore's law. Too bad Intel can't keep up with Apple and give us the missing RAM this year, but the new MacBook Pro package is ready for next year or whenver it gets done.
Anyway, while development of this new form factor was going on, not to mention the effort to get the Touch Bar ready, there cannot have been time or engineering resources to redesign the legacy MacBook to serve as a "bridge" workhorse for the few who feel they want to carry a 4K video editor around with them. No business should be run in such a way, least of all Apple. They would be competing against their own evolutionary impulses.
Dell would do it, but Apple wouldn't.
There is no Kaby Lake with Quad Core, you could argue Apple could have launch this earlier, but as many stated it is likely delayed by Touch Bar.
Kabylake Dual Core has issues with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP2.2 which will be fixed into later batch, along side with Quad core Kaby Lake.
There are people pointing out that a similar spec system on System78 with Ubuntu cost only $1800, compared to $2400 of Macbook Pro 15"!
These, exactly these, are the people who dont understand Apple in the first place. And likely be the people who will switch over to other Android. They just DONT care about the details!.
The $1800 doesn't come with Retina, or HiRes Display. And this is not ordinary HiRes, it is calibrated, DCI-P3, IGZO Display with 500nit brightness. You will properly have to add additional $150 to get this.
The SSD is way faster, Apple have the fastest SSD in any laptop, Read 3.1GB/s and Write 2.2/GBs compared to Read: 2.2GB/S Write 1.1GB/S , not to mention the quality selection of NAND. You will properly have to add additional $100 to get this.
The 4 Port Thunderbolt 3. Four !! This is 2 Alpine Ridge Chip. They aren't cheap. At least a $50 dollar option.
This is total of $2100 already. You also get a much better trackpad, touch bar and touch ID. MUCH lighter and thinner design. And along with MacOSX.
Apple has never had a cheap machine. You are always expected to pay a premium even if it only had a Apple logo on it. But if you do factor in everything. It is just the usual Apple.
Is it expensive? Heck of coz it is, Will you get 32GB Ram if Apple had Kaby Lake? Sorry no. Apple decided thinness, and compact, battery life is more important then the possible extra 16GB of Ram which only less then 5% of buyers cares about.
Again, you're wrong.
In terms of pure integer performance, Intel wins if one does not need to worry about the power requirements.
The portable Core i5s and i7s are 15 watt parts. The fact that a 3 watt part is even performance competitive is huge. And with better GPU performance. The A10 does not throttle either, unlike the Core M. So for sustained performance, maximizing the capabilities of each processor, the A10 will maintain its level while the Core M drops off as it heats up at maximal performance levels.
Apple's design prowess is far better than Intel and it isn't even a contest at this point.
This is the real point. Apple has designed a mobile SoC that Intel cannot touch. Even with massive monetary resources and a huge contra revenue budget to drive marketshare, Intel failed miserably.
If Apple decides to move into high performance processing at higher TDP envelopes using ARM cores, does anyone really think that Intel will retain its performance crown?
I am curious as to why the A10X hasn't been released. At the same TDP as the Core M, I suspect even the highest performing Core M will be seriously outclassed. And the GPU in the iPad Pro will seriously outperform the integrated units in the MacBook Pros. It will take a discrete GPU to give the MacBook Pro better Graphics performance.
That is a very serious problem for the MacBook Pro. And a serious problem for Apple as their consumer line of devices encroaches upon the performance of their high level machines.
If Intel cannot deliver 10 nm soon and with good yields, Apple may be forced to build laptop and even desktop class ARM processors. TSMC will be releasing 7 nm in 2017 and with InFO that will seriously outclass Intel. TSMC is also building a high performance 7 nm node for desktop class chips.
It is going to be very interesting to see how things play out.
How long will the professional market tolerate that situation? If one has to go to the Mac Pro for better performance than an iPad Pro, it will be a big problem. But that may be the scenario in a short time.
Apple's design team is far better than Intel's. Intel's process lead has also nearly vanished.
And with Apple's own advantages, why would they stay Intel over the long term? It makes no sense. Especially for the prices that Apple can build its own chips compared with Intel's prices. Perhaps Intel will provide contra revenue to Apple to keep x86 CPUs in the product line. It would seem highly unlikely that Intel would do this. They still need to make a profit on their chips. Apple isn't going to abandon ARM even if Intel subsidizes the sales of their Core CPUs.
I have no inside info or data. But I do see a day when Apple moves all of their hardware to ARM. For those that need legacy x86, perhaps an Intel or AMD chip could be installed in a slot like the old orange PC Cards that allowed one to run Windows 95/98/NT on the old Mac Performas.
Perhaps the iPad Pro will be developed into far more than the tablet form factor. But let's analyze the situation objectively. Intel isn't keeping up. And there's no evidence that they are going to either. It means that ARM is going to displace x86 at some point. Not a matter of if but when if the current trends continue. Nothing that Intel is doing, is going to reverse it either with the ever changing roadmap and the continuing delays.
"A lot of it boils down to this concept: We demand Apple innovate, but we insist they don’t change anything."
Basically, what the majority of those with negative feedback seem to have wanted Apple to produce:
- A thicker & heavier product (perhaps a bit more than the previous model) with more power hungry RAM to achieve at least 32GB
- Desktop CPUs
- Half or less battery life
- All current ports + likely one or two TB3 ports (so increase of ports) - all essentially dedicated ports
- Too keep costs contained to offer at previous prices, likely need to drop majority of other improvements that Apple demonstrated (Touch Bar, Touch ID, and screen improvements) - lets assume it can keep the faster SSD.
In other words, spec improvements (but that take redesign to address). A nice luggable machine.
Do you guys really think this will sell in any numbers? Compared with what Apple did offer?
Fortunately, my business does well enough that the cost of a new Mac every couple years isn't a hardship.