avon b7 said: Pro users do not buy machines (at these prices) because they look or feel nice. […] What matters is if the machine can cater to your needs adequately.
Followed by…
avon b7 said: ...the glowing Apple logo [was an] evolutionary move that enhanced the user experience.
Yeah, that glowing Apple logo on the other side of my Mac's display really "enhanced the user experience." Brilliant¡
Are the two mutually exclusive? Think about it. I explained it. All you have to do is understand it.
Yes, but it's especially hypocritical when you've been trying to argue that future-forward, high-speed, universal port interface in a lighter and more portal machine has no foundation in enhancing the usability and therefore the user experience of the Mac over its lifespan.
Maybe I should do it for you. As I said, there is a design element to the Mac. They should look like Macs. That includes the little details like the pulsating sleep lights and glowing logo. More importantly though, these elements sacrifice nothing in the overall design of the machine. In comparison, the new design simply looks stale.
Losing Magsafe on a laptop, though is a completely different story.
Ah! I get it now! That's why they removed the extension cord to the power brick. 'Stupid users kept tripping over the cables and we had to design Magsafe to resolve that one. Reducing the cord length leaves less room for the fools to trip over the thing and we could get rid of Magsafe. After all, all they ever did was complain about our inability to design a cable that didn't break'
MacRumors forum member, in the first comment after the announcement of new MacBook Pros:
Well, I’m sure I’ll be attacked for this, but I’m gonna say it anyway:
Tiny harddrive, barely enough RAM (and not upgradable to the “enough” level), no dedicated graphics, only dual-core processors. It certainly isn’t bad, but Apple just took the “pro” out of the 13-inch line. And come on - it’s freaking expensive. […]
The 13” is NOT a pro device in my opinion. It’s more like a beefed-up and slightly heavier MacBook Air. For that, it just costs way too much.
Again, I'm not making this stuff up. It's not just "some people in the AppleInsider forums" who are complaining. This is simply unlike anything I've seen with regard to the MacBook Pro. The media recognizes this as well...
avon b7 said: Pro users do not buy machines (at these prices) because they look or feel nice. […] What matters is if the machine can cater to your needs adequately.
Followed by…
avon b7 said: ...the glowing Apple logo [was an] evolutionary move that enhanced the user experience.
Yeah, that glowing Apple logo on the other side of my Mac's display really "enhanced the user experience." Brilliant¡
Are the two mutually exclusive? Think about it. I explained it. All you have to do is understand it.
Yes, but it's especially hypocritical when you've been trying to argue that future-forward, high-speed, universal port interface in a lighter and more portal machine has no foundation in enhancing the usability and therefore the user experience of the Mac over its lifespan.
Completely incorrect! Smaller and lighter isn't a problem per se unless it compromises other aspects of the machine. In this case it does and on multiple fronts. Go small and light but stop before you have to make usability sacrifices. Although I haven't even touched the version two of the butterfly keyboard I know it won't be as comfortable as the one it is replacing because the travel is too short and I don't like the original version which has the same travel. Wholesale elimination of ports people are still using and for which devices are still being made was simply unnecessary. The dongles were unnecessary. These machines didn't need to be any thinner than they already were (at least today). None of the flak Apple is receiving is unwarranted because they could have avoided almost all of the problems by designing a truly transitional machine or given the billions they have sitting around, by designing two models, one that breaks with the present (the new one) and one that doesn't make unnecessary compromises.
^^^ The view from the PC nerd retirement home. ". . . the vast majority . . . would tell you they prefer user Upgradability."
I think you have outlived your relevance here if you believe that laptops from Apple are going to return to user upgradability.
Thinness matters to people in ways that you are clearly immune to sensing. It IS a matter of the senses. It kicks in when you go to the store and you feel the thing in your hands, or when you see one in your friend's hands and it's passed to you. That's when the sale happens, and it will be happening in enough millions that Apple will win their bet on the future.
You summed up Apple's problems very well there. Pro users do not buy machines (at these prices) because they look or feel nice.
It's a Mac. It should look and feel nice anyway. What matters is if the machine can cater to your needs adequately.
Pro users do buy these machines because they feel nice. Linus Torvalds switched to a mac because he liked the hardware. Dunno what he uses today but he had a MBA a few years ago.
Many pro users like the thinness and lightness because they schlep these machines all over the world. Pros switched to the 12" MacBook from MBP.
So you are full of shit when you say that thinness and weight is not something pros want.
If that was true there would be no articles about editing 4K on a MacBook or MacBook Air. I wouldn't see surface books and MBAs at professional dev conferences. There wouldnt be folks doing pro work on iPads.
I believe Linus doesn't use a Mac now and when he had one it was because he had specific needs: thin and light, small and silent. The MacBook Air met those requirements.
MBP users don't have thin and light at the top of their requirements. If they get those qualities, great. But not at the expense of other features. Don't believe me? Take a look around you and read the unprecedented critiscm of these machines coming from pro users.
More and more I wonder if objectors actually understand what they're complaining about. Two experiences from yesterday:
A friend shared a negative article on Facebook that began by objecting to the new MBP using a Skylake CPU instead of Kaby Lake. I don't know how the author expected Apple to use processors that don't yet exist. How is the average buyer supposed to make informed decisions when popular media outlets create expectations of things that are impossible?
Later, a coworker mentioned how Apple had replaced all the ports. When I told him I consider it a good trade to lose single-use ports for universal ones, his response was "Oh, I didn't know THAT!" He thought Apple had just replaced all the ports with a new kind of single use port. Suddenly the idea of using an adapter to connect anything to any port struck him as a GOOD idea!
Obviously some of the objections are from informed buyers who want something other than what Apple is offering, but apparently some are coming from people who aren't clear about the details.
I believe Linus doesn't use a Mac now and when he had one it was because he had specific needs: thin and light, small and silent. The MacBook Air met those requirements.
MBP users don't have thin and light at the top of their requirements. If they get those qualities, great. But not at the expense of other features. Don't believe me? Take a look around you and read the unprecedented critiscm of these machines coming from pro users.
If you think that's full of shit, fine.
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary. So yes, your assertion that Pro buyers don't buy macs because how they feel is full of shit.
MBP buyers do value thin and light over pure performance or the 17" MBP would have sold better and it would still be around.
The current whining is not "unprecedented" as whining about the 2012 13" MBP show.
And you continue to ignore that pros buy MacBooks and MBA to do pro work so the 13" MBP is certainly a capable pro machine and if folks can trade up from a MBA to a thin and light MBP then they get more performance at the same general size and weight they desire
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary.
You misunderstand. They like thin and light so long as there is a glowing Apple logo on the back of the display to inform others in the coffee shop that they own a MBP¡
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary.
You misunderstand. They like thin and light so long as there is a glowing Apple logo on the back of the display to inform others in the coffee shop that they own a MBP¡
That goes without saying. It IS the primary reason to own any Apple product. /s
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary.
You misunderstand. They like thin and light so long as there is a glowing Apple logo on the back of the display to inform others in the coffee shop that they own a MBP¡
That goes without saying. It IS the primary reason to own any Apple product. /s
The backlit logo is an interesting topic. Is there a reason why using the backlight in the 12" MacBook for the glowing logo made it impossible to use the same way with the new display components and much thinner casing? It's great marketing for Apple so to not include it has to be for a reason.
I've heard that the more compact design would disallow for the opaque plastic to fit in the cut out. While that may be true with the old design, It seems pretty easy to find a new solution. Still, if there isn't, between the options of making it thinner and lighter with better components, or keeping a glowing logo you don't look at and doesn't affect your usability, the answer is clear.
One hypothesis I proffer is that Apple is planning to move to OLED now that the technology has matured. With OLED there is no backlight, and since Apple will have planned for how long this casing design will be used, it could be that they are expecting to make the move to OLED during this new design, hence the reason for excluding it now.
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary.
You misunderstand. They like thin and light so long as there is a glowing Apple logo on the back of the display to inform others in the coffee shop that they own a MBP¡
That goes without saying. It IS the primary reason to own any Apple product. /s
The backlit logo is an interesting topic. Is there a reason why using the backlight in the 12" MacBook for the glowing logo made it impossible to use the same way with the new display components and much thinner casing? It's great marketing for Apple so to not include it has to be for a reason.
I've heard that the more compact design would disallow for the opaque plastic to fit in the cut out. While that may be true with the old design, It seems pretty easy to find a new solution. Still, if there isn't, between the options of making it thinner and lighter with better components, or keeping a glowing logo you don't look at and doesn't affect your usability, the answer is clear.
One hypothesis I proffer is that Apple is planning to move to OLED now that the technology has matured. With OLED there is no backlight, and since Apple will have planned for how long this casing design will be used, it could be that they are expecting to make the move to OLED during this new design, hence the reason for excluding it now.
I believe the problem with the glowing logo is actually that the MacBook (and presumably the new MBP) has a different type of backlighting. From memory, the MacBook and MacBook Pro now use an array of lower power LEDs instead of a single bright LED in the older machines. So the logo wouldn't have been as bright or might have looked uneven. Or they just decided to get rid of it and move on to something else.
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary.
You misunderstand. They like thin and light so long as there is a glowing Apple logo on the back of the display to inform others in the coffee shop that they own a MBP¡
That goes without saying. It IS the primary reason to own any Apple product. /s
The backlit logo is an interesting topic. Is there a reason why using the backlight in the 12" MacBook for the glowing logo made it impossible to use the same way with the new display components and much thinner casing? It's great marketing for Apple so to not include it has to be for a reason.
I've heard that the more compact design would disallow for the opaque plastic to fit in the cut out. While that may be true with the old design, It seems pretty easy to find a new solution. Still, if there isn't, between the options of making it thinner and lighter with better components, or keeping a glowing logo you don't look at and doesn't affect your usability, the answer is clear.
One hypothesis I proffer is that Apple is planning to move to OLED now that the technology has matured. With OLED there is no backlight, and since Apple will have planned for how long this casing design will be used, it could be that they are expecting to make the move to OLED during this new design, hence the reason for excluding it now.
I believe the problem with the glowing logo is actually that the MacBook (and presumably the new MBP) has a different type of backlighting. From memory, the MacBook and MacBook Pro now use an array of lower power LEDs instead of a single bright LED in the older machines. So the logo wouldn't have been as bright or might have looked uneven. Or they just decided to get rid of it and move on to something else.
True, the backlight used for an oxide backplane can be reduced because of the greater transparency of the backplane's thinner "wiring." So the logo might be too dim and noticeably color-shifted. Or uneven, like you say.
Soli's theory that they're preparing for OLED is also possible. I also think that the era of advertising your Apple preference is over, and the logo is becoming too overbearing in public. Time to hunker down and avoid elitist winner backlash. Understatement if the future.
I believe Linus doesn't use a Mac now and when he had one it was because he had specific needs: thin and light, small and silent. The MacBook Air met those requirements.
MBP users don't have thin and light at the top of their requirements. If they get those qualities, great. But not at the expense of other features. Don't believe me? Take a look around you and read the unprecedented critiscm of these machines coming from pro users.
If you think that's full of shit, fine.
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary. So yes, your assertion that Pro buyers don't buy macs because how they feel is full of shit.
MBP buyers do value thin and light over pure performance or the 17" MBP would have sold better and it would still be around.
The current whining is not "unprecedented" as whining about the 2012 13" MBP show.
And you continue to ignore that pros buy MacBooks and MBA to do pro work so the 13" MBP is certainly a capable pro machine and if folks can trade up from a MBA to a thin and light MBP then they get more performance at the same general size and weight they desire
So I agree? I'm sorry but it seems you are unable or unwilling to contextualise my words.
Most, if not all, users value small and light. That isn't the issue. The issue is when small and light leads to unnecessary compromises. especially when these machines were already small and light enough for those users.
You might not agree with this. That's OK.
But let's take the new keyboard as an example. It is a direct compromise. Extract the keyboards from the previous MBP and the new model. Put them side by side and let a group of users type on them for long enough to get a feel for them.
Most, if not all, of them would prefer the old one. Now explain that the butterfly keyboard had to be used due to the thinness of the host machine. Now show them both host machines. How many of those users would consider the old machine too 'fat'? Then ask them if they would prefer a thinner machine but with the butterfly keyboard as a necessary compromise. It is, after all, where they will spend most of the time interfacing with the machine.
Ignore specs and the rest of the machine for a moment. How many users in your evaluation group do you think would jump on the butterfly keyboard as the preferred option?
Ok, now throw the specs in and tell them this has the fastest SSD etc. You might get some to.change their minds
Lastly, remind them what they answered to the earlier question. Was the previous.model too fat. Then explain that Apple could have kept the earlier keyboard and perhaps thinned down the machine to the limit to acommodate it (if it wasn't already on that limit) and included the exact same architecture that is in the new machine (SSD etc al).
This is just one area where Apple compromised unnecessarily. Think about the years you will spend using that keyboard which, in many people's eyes, represents a step back in usability.
As for using an Air for pro work. When you say 'pro' do you mean in the absolute sense? A professional writer could get by pretty well with an Air. Linus probably doesn't do a lot of compiling now but if he were compiling regularly when he had his Air, he wasn't using the Air for that task. The Air evolved into a handy little machine and was handy as a secondary machine for many pros. 'Pros' in the sense we are using the word in the context of the MBPs here. Pros do not use them as main machines most of the time..
Your reasoning on the 17" MBP is severely flawed. It was very expensive and the sweet spot (on many levels) for most users is the 15" model. That's why the 17"' wasn't the top seller. nothing to do with 'power' (at least when plugged in).
Lastly a foray into the TV world. High end design TVs. Manufacturers have been taking connectors off the set for years. None have gone down the dongle road. They have been implementing break out boxes and including them with the TVs.
^^^ I think eventually you may have to eat your words on the keyboard. It's faster and more comfortable to use because of the reduced travel and the lateral precision.
For loose and relaxed people, that is. Uptight pounders will be put off by it initially, but I predict they will grow into it despite themselves. Speed contests in a year or so will probably reveal a clear advantage for the butterfly.
I have no evidence for this beyond my own impression. It's a fantastic keyboard. My bias, though: I learned touchtyping on upright Underwoods and Remingtons in the late 50s and 60s, did newspaper work where speed on those machines was a matter of survival, did hired word processing on IBM PC keyboards in the 80s. I've never liked the clicky plastic box type of keyboard. This MacBook, which I've only tried in the store, feels like liberation to me, a tactile delight.
I don't think they engineered it as a compromise. They probably tested it to death and found it better for typing.
Afterthought: Jony Ive and team are taking very seriously the built-in mandate that applies to all tool and instrument design: do the job with the least material possible, and make it fit the hand and give joy to the user. As something new like the portable computer evolves, there will be room for tinkerers to get it and modify to suit their urges. As with cars, up until the last two decades. But now, as the technology tightens up with the shrinking electronics, the user is going to inevitably be shut out. Now we're at the stage where you'd have to be a particularly hard-headed philistine tinkerer to want to see a seam for a replaceable battery in the bottom of Apple's magnificent aluminum unibody chassis. We have to give up that urge-to-open for the sake of the integrity of the instrument. It's as tight as a geodesic drum now. There are no moving parts, except for a supremely efficient keyboard that still manages to be tactilely interesting — unless maybe there's a movement sensor in there somewhere.
I believe Linus doesn't use a Mac now and when he had one it was because he had specific needs: thin and light, small and silent. The MacBook Air met those requirements.
MBP users don't have thin and light at the top of their requirements. If they get those qualities, great. But not at the expense of other features. Don't believe me? Take a look around you and read the unprecedented critiscm of these machines coming from pro users.
If you think that's full of shit, fine.
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary. So yes, your assertion that Pro buyers don't buy macs because how they feel is full of shit.
MBP buyers do value thin and light over pure performance or the 17" MBP would have sold better and it would still be around.
The current whining is not "unprecedented" as whining about the 2012 13" MBP show.
And you continue to ignore that pros buy MacBooks and MBA to do pro work so the 13" MBP is certainly a capable pro machine and if folks can trade up from a MBA to a thin and light MBP then they get more performance at the same general size and weight they desire
So I agree? I'm sorry but it seems you are unable or unwilling to contextualise my words.
You wrote:
Pro users do not buy machines (at these prices) because they look or feel nice.
This is untrue and the context is an absolute statement of your opinion as fact. Pro users DO buy machines at these prices because they look and feel nice. Feel includes thinness and weight.
Something you now agree with.
Most, if not all, users value small and light. That isn't the issue. The issue is when small and light leads to unnecessary compromises. especially when these machines were already small and light enough for those users.
No, they were not small and light enough for many pro users. Or else they would not be buying MB and MBAs. Like Linus did.
For the vast majority of MBP users 16GB is enough. How do I know this? Because the existing MBP is limited to 16GB.
For users that need more they have desktops and laptops. Just like Linus did. Who DID compile the kernel on his MBA when on travel.
But let's take the new keyboard as an example. It is a direct compromise. Extract the keyboards from the previous MBP and the new model. Put them side by side and let a group of users type on them for long enough to get a feel for them. Most, if not all, of them would prefer the old one.
Given the number of MacBook users that now prefer the MacBook keyboard over their MBP keyboard this is an unfounded assertion. There are many MB threads on the keyboard.
Ignore specs and the rest of the machine for a moment. How many users in your evaluation group do you think would jump on the butterfly keyboard as the preferred option?
Based on the MacBook threads a large number will.
Lastly, remind them what they answered to the earlier question. Was the previous.model too fat. Then explain that Apple could have kept the earlier keyboard and perhaps thinned down the machine to the limit to acommodate it (if it wasn't already on that limit) and included the exact same architecture that is in the new machine (SSD etc al).
For pros that purchased MBA and MB over the MBP because of size and weight yes the previous model was too fat.
This is just one area where Apple compromised unnecessarily. Think about the years you will spend using that keyboard which, in many people's eyes, represents a step back in usability.
And in the eyes of many people who actually have used an earlier version of that keyboard it is not a step back in usability.
The ONLY time I use the keyboard on my 15" MBP, which is my primary machine, is on the road. Every other moment I use a wireless keyboard and it's hooked up to a large monitor. The amount of time I "spend using that keyboard" over the course of three years is easily measured in hours and not in days or weeks.
If I travelled as much as I used to I'd have a MBA instead of the MBP. If needed 32GB in the field I'd stuff an iMac into one of the pelican cases and ship it. I'd carry the MBA with me on the plane.
As for using an Air for pro work. When you say 'pro' do you mean in the absolute sense? A professional writer could get by pretty well with an Air. Linus probably doesn't do a lot of compiling now but if he were compiling regularly when he had his Air, he wasn't using the Air for that task. The Air evolved into a handy little machine and was handy as a secondary machine for many pros. 'Pros' in the sense we are using the word in the context of the MBPs here. Pros do not use them as main machines most of the time..
He absolutely compiled the kernel on his Air when on travel. You act as if the MBA is a slow machine. It is not. His current machine is a Dell XPS 13 with lower specs than the new MBP 13" and being able to compile and work while traveling is a requirement.
Video pros edit and grade 4K projects on the MBA and MB because it's easier to take with them to a client site. They have fully loaded desktop editing stations back home.
There are tons of pro developers, graphics, photo and video folks whos workflows are well suited for the 2016 15" MBP as their main machine. Pros with need for more RAM and GPU ALREADY have iMacs, Mac Pros or PCs. So a thinner and lighter MBP that can replace their MBA for mobile use is preferred to a fatter machine that was going to be a compromise anyway in comparison to the right tool for the job in the first place: a desktop system.
Your reasoning on the 17" MBP is severely flawed. It was very expensive and the sweet spot (on many levels) for most users is the 15" model. That's why the 17"' wasn't the top seller. nothing to do with 'power' (at least when plugged in).
Not flawed at all. The 17" MBP was the closest Apple ever made to a desktop replacement laptop. If pro users craved computational power and expansion over portability then the 17" MBP would have been the "sweet spot" for Pro users and not the far lighter and more portable 15" MBP.
Cost is a secondary issue for most pros. You buy the tools required to do the job and a large number of these machines will be cycled out within three years anyway.
Lastly a foray into the TV world. High end design TVs. Manufacturers have been taking connectors off the set for years. None have gone down the dongle road. They have been implementing break out boxes and including them with the TVs. Food for thought.
Never heard of Amazon Fire stick, Chromecast, Roku Express? These are all "dongles". Because the services provided by TV manufactures have sucked. And TVs do require the use of "dongles" for inputs they no longer support. Like how there was a Wii adapter for HDMI.
Every time Apple announces a product I'm interested in they find a way to spoil my excitement -- like, "Yay, the new mini has decent graphics! But they no longer offer the quad-core CPU I want." Or "Yay, the new Airs use SSD storage! But only up to 512GB and I can't add more."
I haven't yet found what the joy-killer will be on the latest MacBook Pro, but based on my past I figured there has to be SOMETHING. With all the talk about the keyboard, I thought that might be it. So tonight I popped into the Apple Store to try it out on the F-key 13".
I LOVE it! It feels great! No wiggle, enough travel to provide tactile feedback, and nice big keys.
Now I'm starting to worry that I must have missed something because I always find something to hate and it's so unlike me to sound like a gushing fanboy!
I believe Linus doesn't use a Mac now and when he had one it was because he had specific needs: thin and light, small and silent. The MacBook Air met those requirements.
MBP users don't have thin and light at the top of their requirements. If they get those qualities, great. But not at the expense of other features. Don't believe me? Take a look around you and read the unprecedented critiscm of these machines coming from pro users.
If you think that's full of shit, fine.
So you agree that pro buyers do value thin and light unlike your previous statements to the contrary. So yes, your assertion that Pro buyers don't buy macs because how they feel is full of shit.
MBP buyers do value thin and light over pure performance or the 17" MBP would have sold better and it would still be around.
The current whining is not "unprecedented" as whining about the 2012 13" MBP show.
And you continue to ignore that pros buy MacBooks and MBA to do pro work so the 13" MBP is certainly a capable pro machine and if folks can trade up from a MBA to a thin and light MBP then they get more performance at the same general size and weight they desire
So I agree? I'm sorry but it seems you are unable or unwilling to contextualise my words.
You wrote:
Pro users do not buy machines (at these prices) because they look or feel nice.
This is untrue and the context is an absolute statement of your opinion as fact. Pro users DO buy machines at these prices because they look and feel nice. Feel includes thinness and weight.
Something you now agree with.
Most, if not all, users value small and light. That isn't the issue. The issue is when small and light leads to unnecessary compromises. especially when these machines were already small and light enough for those users.
No, they were not small and light enough for many pro users. Or else they would not be buying MB and MBAs. Like Linus did.
For the vast majority of MBP users 16GB is enough. How do I know this? Because the existing MBP is limited to 16GB.
For users that need more they have desktops and laptops. Just like Linus did. Who DID compile the kernel on his MBA when on travel.
But let's take the new keyboard as an example. It is a direct compromise. Extract the keyboards from the previous MBP and the new model. Put them side by side and let a group of users type on them for long enough to get a feel for them. Most, if not all, of them would prefer the old one.
Given the number of MacBook users that now prefer the MacBook keyboard over their MBP keyboard this is an unfounded assertion. There are many MB threads on the keyboard.
Ignore specs and the rest of the machine for a moment. How many users in your evaluation group do you think would jump on the butterfly keyboard as the preferred option?
Based on the MacBook threads a large number will.
Lastly, remind them what they answered to the earlier question. Was the previous.model too fat. Then explain that Apple could have kept the earlier keyboard and perhaps thinned down the machine to the limit to acommodate it (if it wasn't already on that limit) and included the exact same architecture that is in the new machine (SSD etc al).
For pros that purchased MBA and MB over the MBP because of size and weight yes the previous model was too fat.
This is just one area where Apple compromised unnecessarily. Think about the years you will spend using that keyboard which, in many people's eyes, represents a step back in usability.
And in the eyes of many people who actually have used an earlier version of that keyboard it is not a step back in usability.
The ONLY time I use the keyboard on my 15" MBP, which is my primary machine, is on the road. Every other moment I use a wireless keyboard and it's hooked up to a large monitor. The amount of time I "spend using that keyboard" over the course of three years is easily measured in hours and not in days or weeks.
If I travelled as much as I used to I'd have a MBA instead of the MBP. If needed 32GB in the field I'd stuff an iMac into one of the pelican cases and ship it. I'd carry the MBA with me on the plane.
As for using an Air for pro work. When you say 'pro' do you mean in the absolute sense? A professional writer could get by pretty well with an Air. Linus probably doesn't do a lot of compiling now but if he were compiling regularly when he had his Air, he wasn't using the Air for that task. The Air evolved into a handy little machine and was handy as a secondary machine for many pros. 'Pros' in the sense we are using the word in the context of the MBPs here. Pros do not use them as main machines most of the time..
He absolutely compiled the kernel on his Air when on travel. You act as if the MBA is a slow machine. It is not. His current machine is a Dell XPS 13 with lower specs than the new MBP 13" and being able to compile and work while traveling is a requirement.
Video pros edit and grade 4K projects on the MBA and MB because it's easier to take with them to a client site. They have fully loaded desktop editing stations back home.
There are tons of pro developers, graphics, photo and video folks whos workflows are well suited for the 2016 15" MBP as their main machine. Pros with need for more RAM and GPU ALREADY have iMacs, Mac Pros or PCs. So a thinner and lighter MBP that can replace their MBA for mobile use is preferred to a fatter machine that was going to be a compromise anyway in comparison to the right tool for the job in the first place: a desktop system.
Your reasoning on the 17" MBP is severely flawed. It was very expensive and the sweet spot (on many levels) for most users is the 15" model. That's why the 17"' wasn't the top seller. nothing to do with 'power' (at least when plugged in).
Not flawed at all. The 17" MBP was the closest Apple ever made to a desktop replacement laptop. If pro users craved computational power and expansion over portability then the 17" MBP would have been the "sweet spot" for Pro users and not the far lighter and more portable 15" MBP.
Cost is a secondary issue for most pros. You buy the tools required to do the job and a large number of these machines will be cycled out within three years anyway.
Lastly a foray into the TV world. High end design TVs. Manufacturers have been taking connectors off the set for years. None have gone down the dongle road. They have been implementing break out boxes and including them with the TVs. Food for thought.
Never heard of Amazon Fire stick, Chromecast, Roku Express? These are all "dongles". Because the services provided by TV manufactures have sucked. And TVs do require the use of "dongles" for inputs they no longer support. Like how there was a Wii adapter for HDMI.
I hit the nail on the head when I said you were unable or unwilling to contextualise my words. I'm not sure which of the two it is but it is very much the case.
There is no point rehashing what I've said.
Just some points. Linus had a G5 too (for the pro work). Last time I heard, Linus wasn't really doing much programming/compiling. I'm talking three or four years ago. I read one interview where he said he was more of a manager than anything else. Checking code and trying to point the kernel in the direction he wanted.
As we have mentioned already, the word 'dongle' in the context of this thread means 'adapter'. Roku, Chromecast etc are not dongles in this context. Not by a very long shot.
I am not seeing the love you profess for the new keyboard shared in reviews of this model.
17"'MBP was a desktop replacement. so was the 15" MBP. So much so that the 17" was discontinued. I said 'sweet spot on many levels' and one of them was size and weight.
For most pros the MBA is a secondary machine
I said:
"Most, if not all, users value small and light. That isn't the issue. The issue is when small and light leads to unnecessary compromises. especially when these machines were already small and light enough for those ."
You replied:
"No, they were not small and light enough for many pro users. Or else they would not be buying MB and MBAs. Like Linus did."
You seem to be lost on this, mixing Apple's and oranges. I don't know why you are talking about MB and MBA, much less connecting it with years old events.
My first comment was a generalisation but included the MBP. The second comment was on the MBP.
As I have said, MBA and MB are not primary work machines for most. Much less for pros.
And for what it is worth Linus had a G5 and he didn't even buy it.He got it for free. I doubt he would buy a new MBP.
Comments
Losing Magsafe on a laptop, though is a completely different story.
Ah! I get it now! That's why they removed the extension cord to the power brick. 'Stupid users kept tripping over the cables and we had to design Magsafe to resolve that one. Reducing the cord length leaves less room for the fools to trip over the thing and we could get rid of Magsafe. After all, all they ever did was complain about our inability to design a cable that didn't break'
Sigh.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/7/13548052/the-macbook-pro-lie
Again, I'm not making this stuff up. It's not just "some people in the AppleInsider forums" who are complaining. This is simply unlike anything I've seen with regard to the MacBook Pro. The media recognizes this as well...
http://www.recode.net/2016/11/7/13512322/apple-macbook-pro-backlash-power-users
For those of you buying the new MBP, be sure to study up on USB-C cable compatibility. It would seem buying them outside Apple comes with big risk:
http://blog.fosketts.net/2016/10/29/total-nightmare-usb-c-thunderbolt-3/
Tidbits has a nice USB-C & TB3 guide here:
http://tidbits.com/article/16870
Many pro users like the thinness and lightness because they schlep these machines all over the world. Pros switched to the 12" MacBook from MBP.
So you are full of shit when you say that thinness and weight is not something pros want.
If that was true there would be no articles about editing 4K on a MacBook or MacBook Air. I wouldn't see surface books and MBAs at professional dev conferences. There wouldnt be folks doing pro work on iPads.
MBP users don't have thin and light at the top of their requirements. If they get those qualities, great. But not at the expense of other features. Don't believe me? Take a look around you and read the unprecedented critiscm of these machines coming from pro users.
If you think that's full of shit, fine.
A friend shared a negative article on Facebook that began by objecting to the new MBP using a Skylake CPU instead of Kaby Lake. I don't know how the author expected Apple to use processors that don't yet exist. How is the average buyer supposed to make informed decisions when popular media outlets create expectations of things that are impossible?
Later, a coworker mentioned how Apple had replaced all the ports. When I told him I consider it a good trade to lose single-use ports for universal ones, his response was "Oh, I didn't know THAT!" He thought Apple had just replaced all the ports with a new kind of single use port. Suddenly the idea of using an adapter to connect anything to any port struck him as a GOOD idea!
Obviously some of the objections are from informed buyers who want something other than what Apple is offering, but apparently some are coming from people who aren't clear about the details.
MBP buyers do value thin and light over pure performance or the 17" MBP would have sold better and it would still be around.
The current whining is not "unprecedented" as whining about the 2012 13" MBP show.
And you continue to ignore that pros buy MacBooks and MBA to do pro work so the 13" MBP is certainly a capable pro machine and if folks can trade up from a MBA to a thin and light MBP then they get more performance at the same general size and weight they desire
I've heard that the more compact design would disallow for the opaque plastic to fit in the cut out. While that may be true with the old design, It seems pretty easy to find a new solution. Still, if there isn't, between the options of making it thinner and lighter with better components, or keeping a glowing logo you don't look at and doesn't affect your usability, the answer is clear.
One hypothesis I proffer is that Apple is planning to move to OLED now that the technology has matured. With OLED there is no backlight, and since Apple will have planned for how long this casing design will be used, it could be that they are expecting to make the move to OLED during this new design, hence the reason for excluding it now.
I believe the problem with the glowing logo is actually that the MacBook (and presumably the new MBP) has a different type of backlighting. From memory, the MacBook and MacBook Pro now use an array of lower power LEDs instead of a single bright LED in the older machines. So the logo wouldn't have been as bright or might have looked uneven. Or they just decided to get rid of it and move on to something else.
Soli's theory that they're preparing for OLED is also possible. I also think that the era of advertising your Apple preference is over, and the logo is becoming too overbearing in public. Time to hunker down and avoid elitist winner backlash. Understatement if the future.
Most, if not all, users value small and light. That isn't the issue. The issue is when small and light leads to unnecessary compromises. especially when these machines were already small and light enough for those users.
You might not agree with this. That's OK.
But let's take the new keyboard as an example. It is a direct compromise. Extract the keyboards from the previous MBP and the new model. Put them side by side and let a group of users type on them for long enough to get a feel for them.
Most, if not all, of them would prefer the old one. Now explain that the butterfly keyboard had to be used due to the thinness of the host machine. Now show them both host machines. How many of those users would consider the old machine too 'fat'? Then ask them if they would prefer a thinner machine but with the butterfly keyboard as a necessary compromise. It is, after all, where they will spend most of the time interfacing with the machine.
Ignore specs and the rest of the machine for a moment. How many users in your evaluation group do you think would jump on the butterfly keyboard as the preferred option?
Ok, now throw the specs in and tell them this has the fastest SSD etc. You might get some to.change their minds
Lastly, remind them what they answered to the earlier question. Was the previous.model too fat. Then explain that Apple could have kept the earlier keyboard and perhaps thinned down the machine to the limit to acommodate it (if it wasn't already on that limit) and included the exact same architecture that is in the new machine (SSD etc al).
This is just one area where Apple compromised unnecessarily. Think about the years you will spend using that keyboard which, in many people's eyes, represents a step back in usability.
As for using an Air for pro work. When you say 'pro' do you mean in the absolute sense? A professional writer could get by pretty well with an Air. Linus probably doesn't do a lot of compiling now but if he were compiling regularly when he had his Air, he wasn't using the Air for that task. The Air evolved into a handy little machine and was handy as a secondary machine for many pros. 'Pros' in the sense we are using the word in the context of the MBPs here. Pros do not use them as main machines most of the time..
Your reasoning on the 17" MBP is severely flawed. It was very expensive and the sweet spot (on many levels) for most users is the 15" model. That's why the 17"' wasn't the top seller. nothing to do with 'power' (at least when plugged in).
Lastly a foray into the TV world. High end design TVs. Manufacturers have been taking connectors off the set for years. None have gone down the dongle road. They have been implementing break out boxes and including them with the TVs.
Food for thought.
For loose and relaxed people, that is. Uptight pounders will be put off by it initially, but I predict they will grow into it despite themselves. Speed contests in a year or so will probably reveal a clear advantage for the butterfly.
I have no evidence for this beyond my own impression. It's a fantastic keyboard. My bias, though: I learned touchtyping on upright Underwoods and Remingtons in the late 50s and 60s, did newspaper work where speed on those machines was a matter of survival, did hired word processing on IBM PC keyboards in the 80s. I've never liked the clicky plastic box type of keyboard. This MacBook, which I've only tried in the store, feels like liberation to me, a tactile delight.
I don't think they engineered it as a compromise. They probably tested it to death and found it better for typing.
Afterthought: Jony Ive and team are taking very seriously the built-in mandate that applies to all tool and instrument design: do the job with the least material possible, and make it fit the hand and give joy to the user. As something new like the portable computer evolves, there will be room for tinkerers to get it and modify to suit their urges. As with cars, up until the last two decades. But now, as the technology tightens up with the shrinking electronics, the user is going to inevitably be shut out. Now we're at the stage where you'd have to be a particularly hard-headed philistine tinkerer to want to see a seam for a replaceable battery in the bottom of Apple's magnificent aluminum unibody chassis. We have to give up that urge-to-open for the sake of the integrity of the instrument. It's as tight as a geodesic drum now. There are no moving parts, except for a supremely efficient keyboard that still manages to be tactilely interesting — unless maybe there's a movement sensor in there somewhere.
This is untrue and the context is an absolute statement of your opinion as fact. Pro users DO buy machines at these prices because they look and feel nice. Feel includes thinness and weight.
Something you now agree with.
No, they were not small and light enough for many pro users. Or else they would not be buying MB and MBAs. Like Linus did.
For the vast majority of MBP users 16GB is enough. How do I know this? Because the existing MBP is limited to 16GB.
For users that need more they have desktops and laptops. Just like Linus did. Who DID compile the kernel on his MBA when on travel.
Given the number of MacBook users that now prefer the MacBook keyboard over their MBP keyboard this is an unfounded assertion. There are many MB threads on the keyboard.
Based on the MacBook threads a large number will.
For pros that purchased MBA and MB over the MBP because of size and weight yes the previous model was too fat.
And in the eyes of many people who actually have used an earlier version of that keyboard it is not a step back in usability.
The ONLY time I use the keyboard on my 15" MBP, which is my primary machine, is on the road. Every other moment I use a wireless keyboard and it's hooked up to a large monitor. The amount of time I "spend using that keyboard" over the course of three years is easily measured in hours and not in days or weeks.
If I travelled as much as I used to I'd have a MBA instead of the MBP. If needed 32GB in the field I'd stuff an iMac into one of the pelican cases and ship it. I'd carry the MBA with me on the plane.
He absolutely compiled the kernel on his Air when on travel. You act as if the MBA is a slow machine. It is not. His current machine is a Dell XPS 13 with lower specs than the new MBP 13" and being able to compile and work while traveling is a requirement.
Video pros edit and grade 4K projects on the MBA and MB because it's easier to take with them to a client site. They have fully loaded desktop editing stations back home.
There are tons of pro developers, graphics, photo and video folks whos workflows are well suited for the 2016 15" MBP as their main machine.
Pros with need for more RAM and GPU ALREADY have iMacs, Mac Pros or PCs. So a thinner and lighter MBP that can replace their MBA for mobile use is preferred to a fatter machine that was going to be a compromise anyway in comparison to the right tool for the job in the first place: a desktop system.
Not flawed at all. The 17" MBP was the closest Apple ever made to a desktop replacement laptop. If pro users craved computational power and expansion over portability then the 17" MBP would have been the "sweet spot" for Pro users and not the far lighter and more portable 15" MBP.
Cost is a secondary issue for most pros. You buy the tools required to do the job and a large number of these machines will be cycled out within three years anyway.
Never heard of Amazon Fire stick, Chromecast, Roku Express? These are all "dongles". Because the services provided by TV manufactures have sucked. And TVs do require the use of "dongles" for inputs they no longer support. Like how there was a Wii adapter for HDMI.
I haven't yet found what the joy-killer will be on the latest MacBook Pro, but based on my past I figured there has to be SOMETHING. With all the talk about the keyboard, I thought that might be it. So tonight I popped into the Apple Store to try it out on the F-key 13".
I LOVE it! It feels great! No wiggle, enough travel to provide tactile feedback, and nice big keys.
Now I'm starting to worry that I must have missed something because I always find something to hate and it's so unlike me to sound like a gushing fanboy!
There is no point rehashing what I've said.
Just some points. Linus had a G5 too (for the pro work). Last time I heard, Linus wasn't really doing much programming/compiling. I'm talking three or four years ago. I read one interview where he said he was more of a manager than anything else. Checking code and trying to point the kernel in the direction he wanted.
As we have mentioned already, the word 'dongle' in the context of this thread means 'adapter'. Roku, Chromecast etc are not dongles in this context. Not by a very long shot.
I am not seeing the love you profess for the new keyboard shared in reviews of this model.
17"'MBP was a desktop replacement. so was the 15" MBP. So much so that the 17" was discontinued. I said 'sweet spot on many levels' and one of them was size and weight.
For most pros the MBA is a secondary machine
I said:
"Most, if not all, users value small and light. That isn't the issue. The issue is when small and light leads to unnecessary compromises. especially when these machines were already small and light enough for those ."
You replied:
"No, they were not small and light enough for many pro users. Or else they would not be buying MB and MBAs. Like Linus did."
You seem to be lost on this, mixing Apple's and oranges. I don't know why you are talking about MB and MBA, much less connecting it with years old events.
My first comment was a generalisation but included the MBP. The second comment was on the MBP.
As I have said, MBA and MB are not primary work machines for most. Much less for pros.
And for what it is worth Linus had a G5 and he didn't even buy it.He got it for free. I doubt he would buy a new MBP.