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?
I wouldn't buy that machine.
I pack my MBP into my gig bag every morning and take it to a client site. Sometimes I don't even need it—I use a client Mac. Sometimes I need it for a few tasks. Sometimes I use it heavily. Then I bring it to my home office and plug it into a giant Eizo display, external disks and an NAS.
Given that I bring the MBP with me everywhere, I ALWAYS appreciate when it gets smaller an lighter. My bag has little pockets for adapters that are necessary. When I get home I have specialty cables (Thunderbolt to Full Size DisplayPort, for example) that are required for the prior MBP design and will be required with the new MBP as well.
I guess the adapters and special cables cost a few bucks…maybe I'm just super-fortunate that this seems like a small expense. I just can't get worked up about needing some new cables to permit me entry to the .5 lb lighter, smaller footprint new MBP club.
I trust Apple to change whatever they deem necessary in the interest of innovation.
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.
Another advantage to waiting a year is the fancy Kaby Lake (or whatever) chips all the gear heads have been crying about will likely be in next year's MBP.
I'll likely be waiting until next year myself, my MBP is last year's model and it will suit me fine for another year.
You can't take the macOS version of Pages and run it on iOS. It's a completely different app, running on a completely different architecture. Apple's previous processor jumps have been to processors sufficiently more powerful that the software for the old architecture could be emulated reasonably during the transition period. That's not possible with ARM, at least not right now.
I have two words for you. Fat Binary. Discounting any low-level assembly support, it would be entirely feasible to recompile Pages using a version of Xcode with macOS ARM support.
In fact, iOS apps ALREADY compile various versions of the app to support 32bit ARM, 64bit ARM, and so on.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the Intel chip supports up to 64GB DRAM. The number of PCI express lanes has no bearing on the amount of DRAM.
Yes, those Skylake chips can support up to 64GiB of DDR4 RAM. What they can't support is LPDDR4 RAM which means Apple is forced to use LPDDR3 RAM which maxes out at 16GiB.
You can't take the macOS version of Pages and run it on iOS. It's a completely different app, running on a completely different architecture. Apple's previous processor jumps have been to processors sufficiently more powerful that the software for the old architecture could be emulated reasonably during the transition period. That's not possible with ARM, at least not right now.
I have two words for you. Fat Binary. Discounting any low-level assembly support, it would be entirely feasible to recompile Pages using a version of Xcode with macOS ARM support.
In fact, iOS apps ALREADY compile various versions of the app to support 32bit ARM, 64bit ARM, and so on.
They might lose thunderbolt in the process. Intel owns it or at least they own key parts of it.
: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.
Technically, Apple could design a laptop running on the 68030 processor if they wanted to. We're not talking about what's possible. We're talking about what wouldactually be a good idea.
However, among the operating systems that Apple owns, iOS is the one with the existing ARM-based architecture and software library.
Again, you're wrong.
What part of that statement is wrong, that iOS's existing infrastructure and its app library run on ARM or that macOS and its apps don't?
You can't take the macOS version of Pages and run it on iOS. It's a completely different app, running on a completely different architecture. Apple's previous processor jumps have been to processors sufficiently more powerful that the software for the old architecture could be emulated reasonably during the transition period. That's not possible with ARM, at least not right now.
I have two words for you. Fat Binary. Discounting any low-level assembly support, it would be entirely feasible to recompile Pages using a version of Xcode with macOS ARM support.
In fact, iOS apps ALREADY compile various versions of the app to support 32bit ARM, 64bit ARM, and so on.
You're forgetting backward compatibility, which is important. If Apple were to design a macOS machine running on a non-Intel platform, exactly zero software that currently exists in 2016 would run on it. Nothing would work until it was recompiled, and lots of important software would take forever before a fat binary version came out (how long did Photoshop take to release a universal binary again?). And if the new architecture was ARM, there wouldn't be a way to emulate the old architecture during the transition period, unlike all of Apple's previous transitions, because ARM isn't powerful enough to do that. That's a problem. Will ARM become more powerful than Intel sometime in the far future? Who knows. But for right now, it's not anywhere near as powerful as what Intel offers. So what's being proposed is to go through another giant transition headache, breaking all existing software and losing key features such as Boot Camp in the process, all to switch to a processor that's less powerful than the one you started with. What's the compelling reason to do this? What's the benefit to the user? Currently, all I'm seeing is people arguing that they can. That's all well and good, but why?
However, among the operating systems that Apple owns, iOS is the one with the existing ARM-based architecture and software library.
Again, you're wrong.
What part of that statement is wrong, that iOS's existing infrastructure and its app library run on ARM or that macOS and its apps don't?
1) You have no idea what architecture Apple has for macOS yet you made an absolute statement without considering Apple's long history of building their OSes to work with other archtiectures in-house.
2) You made another absolute statement that iOS is "the one" ARM-based OS they have when they have many that are in shipping products right now.
You're forgetting backward compatibility, which is important.
Based on that statement Apple should never have moved from Motorola, never have moved from PPC, and never should have stripped macOS down and built it up to make iOS (on ARM), and never should have adopted 64-bit on macOS or iOS. Yet, in all those cases they not only succeeded but have continued to make the transitions even smoother by building their OSes and developer tools that make easy work for both Apple's in-house apps and 3rd-party apps.
But, hey, let's ignore Apple's history, let's ignore that Apple's notebook and desktop user base is considerably higher now, let's ignore advancements like App Thinning and Bitcode, and let's ignore that Intel is plateauing in their chip performance and power efficiency, let's ignore that Intel's roadmap is hindering Apple's Mac sales, let's ignore Intel's chip costs are keeping Apple from accessing millions more Mac users at a less-expensive end of the PC market, and let's ignore that Apple's A-series chips are already outperforming Intel's Core-M processors (used in the MacBook) while using only 60% of its power.
Two points: 1: iOS is iOS and macOS is macOS, completely independently of what architecture they run on. You can bet your panties that they have both OSen running on prototype hardware based both off Intel's iron and ARM designs (and probably others, as well). They'd be stupid not to be exploring this.
2: The difference between iOS and macOS (and tvOS and watchOS) is NOT what processor architecture they run on, but how we interact with them. "Adding a mouse pointer to iOS" is not a trivial thing; it requires pretty much exactly the kind of redesign and rethinking that would turn it into...macOS.
Two points: 1: iOS is iOS and macOS is macOS, completely independently of what architecture they run on. You can bet your panties that they have both OSen running on prototype hardware based both off Intel's iron and ARM designs (and probably others, as well). They'd be stupid not to be exploring this.
2: The difference between iOS and macOS (and tvOS and watchOS) is NOT what processor architecture they run on, but how we interact with them. "Adding a mouse pointer to iOS" is not a trivial thing; it requires pretty much exactly the kind of redesign and rethinking that would turn it into...macOS.
It is staggering just how many people who are in the tech field believe that if Apple made macOS a fat binary with x86_64 and AArch64 support, that it would then be exactly like and called iOS.
Two points: 1: iOS is iOS and macOS is macOS, completely independently of what architecture they run on. You can bet your panties that they have both OSen running on prototype hardware based both off Intel's iron and ARM designs (and probably others, as well). They'd be stupid not to be exploring this.
2: The difference between iOS and macOS (and tvOS and watchOS) is NOT what processor architecture they run on, but how we interact with them. "Adding a mouse pointer to iOS" is not a trivial thing; it requires pretty much exactly the kind of redesign and rethinking that would turn it into...macOS.
It is staggering just how many people who are in the tech field because that if Apple made macOS a fat binary with x86_64 and AArch64 support, that it would then be exactly like and called iOS.
I'm not parsing that sentence, so I'm not sure how to respond to it.
Two points: 1: iOS is iOS and macOS is macOS, completely independently of what architecture they run on. You can bet your panties that they have both OSen running on prototype hardware based both off Intel's iron and ARM designs (and probably others, as well). They'd be stupid not to be exploring this.
2: The difference between iOS and macOS (and tvOS and watchOS) is NOT what processor architecture they run on, but how we interact with them. "Adding a mouse pointer to iOS" is not a trivial thing; it requires pretty much exactly the kind of redesign and rethinking that would turn it into...macOS.
It is staggering just how many people who are in the tech field because that if Apple made macOS a fat binary with x86_64 and AArch64 support, that it would then be exactly like and called iOS.
I'm not parsing that sentence, so I'm not sure how to respond to it.
Two points: 1: iOS is iOS and macOS is macOS, completely independently of what architecture they run on. You can bet your panties that they have both OSen running on prototype hardware based both off Intel's iron and ARM designs (and probably others, as well). They'd be stupid not to be exploring this.
2: The difference between iOS and macOS (and tvOS and watchOS) is NOT what processor architecture they run on, but how we interact with them. "Adding a mouse pointer to iOS" is not a trivial thing; it requires pretty much exactly the kind of redesign and rethinking that would turn it into...macOS.
It is staggering just how many people who are in the tech field believe that if Apple made macOS a fat binary with x86_64 and AArch64 support, that it would then be exactly like and called iOS.
I'm not parsing that sentence, so I'm not sure how to respond to it.
You can't take the macOS version of Pages and run it on iOS. It's a completely different app, running on a completely different architecture. Apple's previous processor jumps have been to processors sufficiently more powerful that the software for the old architecture could be emulated reasonably during the transition period. That's not possible with ARM, at least not right now.
I have two words for you. Fat Binary. Discounting any low-level assembly support, it would be entirely feasible to recompile Pages using a version of Xcode with macOS ARM support.
In fact, iOS apps ALREADY compile various versions of the app to support 32bit ARM, 64bit ARM, and so on.
You're forgetting backward compatibility, which is important. If Apple were to design a macOS machine running on a non-Intel platform, exactly zero software that currently exists in 2016 would run on it. Nothing would work until it was recompiled, and lots of important software would take forever before a fat binary version came out (how long did Photoshop take to release a universal binary again?). And if the new architecture was ARM, there wouldn't be a way to emulate the old architecture during the transition period, unlike all of Apple's previous transitions, because ARM isn't powerful enough to do that. That's a problem. Will ARM become more powerful than Intel sometime in the far future? Who knows. But for right now, it's not anywhere near as powerful as what Intel offers. So what's being proposed is to go through another giant transition headache, breaking all existing software and losing key features such as Boot Camp in the process, all to switch to a processor that's less powerful than the one you started with. What's the compelling reason to do this? What's the benefit to the user? Currently, all I'm seeing is people arguing that they can. That's all well and good, but why?
No one making a case for an "Apple laptop" product that runs on ARM is forgetting backward compatibility. It can be solved in a few ways - here are two: 1) Make a big transition. Like PPC to Intel. Apple develops tools to enable devs to make ARM compatible s/w as easy as possible, works with major vendors in advance, develops emulation tools, utilizes their custom silicon chops to build specific support to enable said emulation or provide extra chips for the tasks (an Apple Ax is likely close to an order of magnitude less than Intel cost, so multiple SOCs are possible, provided enough board space). I don't see this as viable for many years.
2) Make a new product line targeted at the "non-pros" to address the $700-$1000 market. Call it the Apple Book. Don't worry too much about legacy with this approach. Apple's own applications (including all of their own developer apps and tools) + a few major s/w vendors provide the basis for launch (and others via App Store could join soon). How many students, office workers, home users, etc. only use a small set of applications (mail, browser, photos, videos, music, messaging)? All you need is to get MS and Adobe onboard at the beginning. This machine could be a performance champ in areas like video, music, photo manipulation (see iPad Pro). The "macOS" s/w would finally have the customized H/W to match.
People will say that this is what the iPad is for, and maybe Apple has this view, but there are many, who do any level of typing, that will prefer a laptop form factor over a tablet. Most are still buying Windows PC's today in these markets.
Clearly #2 is easier technically and has less risk, but must have a very clear market segmentation strategy vs. the pro users. Why would Apple do it? To vastly increase their laptop sales, to really allow macOS to flourish, to better evolve all of their platforms forward.
I believe if it happens, they'll wait until ARM is powerful enough to emulate intel processors in a way that doesn't kill all legacy software by molasses.
However, among the operating systems that Apple owns, iOS is the one with the existing ARM-based architecture and software library.
Again, you're wrong.
What part of that statement is wrong, that iOS's existing infrastructure and its app library run on ARM or that macOS and its apps don't?
1) You have no idea what architecture Apple has for macOS yet you made an absolute statement without considering Apple's long history of building their OSes to work with other archtiectures in-house.
Well, I was referring to actual, working, shipping code, not secret prototypes, but aside from that, you're leaving out the "and" in that sentence. Where is the existing software library for macOS on ARM?
2) You made another absolute statement that iOS is "the one" ARM-based OS they have when they have many that are in shipping products right now.
Are we really going to be pedantic enough to bring clearly irrelevant things like watchOS and tvOS into this? I think it's pretty clear what I meant.
Comments
I pack my MBP into my gig bag every morning and take it to a client site. Sometimes I don't even need it—I use a client Mac. Sometimes I need it for a few tasks. Sometimes I use it heavily. Then I bring it to my home office and plug it into a giant Eizo display, external disks and an NAS.
Given that I bring the MBP with me everywhere, I ALWAYS appreciate when it gets smaller an lighter. My bag has little pockets for adapters that are necessary. When I get home I have specialty cables (Thunderbolt to Full Size DisplayPort, for example) that are required for the prior MBP design and will be required with the new MBP as well.
I guess the adapters and special cables cost a few bucks…maybe I'm just super-fortunate that this seems like a small expense. I just can't get worked up about needing some new cables to permit me entry to the .5 lb lighter, smaller footprint new MBP club.
I trust Apple to change whatever they deem necessary in the interest of innovation.
Another advantage to waiting a year is the fancy Kaby Lake (or whatever) chips all the gear heads have been crying about will likely be in next year's MBP.
I'll likely be waiting until next year myself, my MBP is last year's model and it will suit me fine for another year.
In fact, iOS apps ALREADY compile various versions of the app to support 32bit ARM, 64bit ARM, and so on.
Technically, Apple could design a laptop running on the 68030 processor if they wanted to. We're not talking about what's possible. We're talking about what would actually be a good idea.
What part of that statement is wrong, that iOS's existing infrastructure and its app library run on ARM or that macOS and its apps don't?
2) You made another absolute statement that iOS is "the one" ARM-based OS they have when they have many that are in shipping products right now.
Based on that statement Apple should never have moved from Motorola, never have moved from PPC, and never should have stripped macOS down and built it up to make iOS (on ARM), and never should have adopted 64-bit on macOS or iOS. Yet, in all those cases they not only succeeded but have continued to make the transitions even smoother by building their OSes and developer tools that make easy work for both Apple's in-house apps and 3rd-party apps.
But, hey, let's ignore Apple's history, let's ignore that Apple's notebook and desktop user base is considerably higher now, let's ignore advancements like App Thinning and Bitcode, and let's ignore that Intel is plateauing in their chip performance and power efficiency, let's ignore that Intel's roadmap is hindering Apple's Mac sales, let's ignore Intel's chip costs are keeping Apple from accessing millions more Mac users at a less-expensive end of the PC market, and let's ignore that Apple's A-series chips are already outperforming Intel's Core-M processors (used in the MacBook) while using only 60% of its power.
1: iOS is iOS and macOS is macOS, completely independently of what architecture they run on. You can bet your panties that they have both OSen running on prototype hardware based both off Intel's iron and ARM designs (and probably others, as well). They'd be stupid not to be exploring this.
2: The difference between iOS and macOS (and tvOS and watchOS) is NOT what processor architecture they run on, but how we interact with them. "Adding a mouse pointer to iOS" is not a trivial thing; it requires pretty much exactly the kind of redesign and rethinking that would turn it into...macOS.
1) Make a big transition. Like PPC to Intel. Apple develops tools to enable devs to make ARM compatible s/w as easy as possible, works with major vendors in advance, develops emulation tools, utilizes their custom silicon chops to build specific support to enable said emulation or provide extra chips for the tasks (an Apple Ax is likely close to an order of magnitude less than Intel cost, so multiple SOCs are possible, provided enough board space). I don't see this as viable for many years.
2) Make a new product line targeted at the "non-pros" to address the $700-$1000 market. Call it the Apple Book. Don't worry too much about legacy with this approach. Apple's own applications (including all of their own developer apps and tools) + a few major s/w vendors provide the basis for launch (and others via App Store could join soon). How many students, office workers, home users, etc. only use a small set of applications (mail, browser, photos, videos, music, messaging)? All you need is to get MS and Adobe onboard at the beginning. This machine could be a performance champ in areas like video, music, photo manipulation (see iPad Pro). The "macOS" s/w would finally have the customized H/W to match.
People will say that this is what the iPad is for, and maybe Apple has this view, but there are many, who do any level of typing, that will prefer a laptop form factor over a tablet. Most are still buying Windows PC's today in these markets.
Clearly #2 is easier technically and has less risk, but must have a very clear market segmentation strategy vs. the pro users. Why would Apple do it? To vastly increase their laptop sales, to really allow macOS to flourish, to better evolve all of their platforms forward.
Are we really going to be pedantic enough to bring clearly irrelevant things like watchOS and tvOS into this? I think it's pretty clear what I meant.