Pundits believe Apple's Jony Ive no longer involved in iPhone, Mac product design [u]

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,801member
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?

    Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.

    And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?

    Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?

    Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?

    What do you think this means?:

    "Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
    Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand.  I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed.  Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility.  Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone.  And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it.  There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.

    You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs.  That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs.  If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?

    Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all.  The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like.  If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.

    My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.


    I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.

    You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.

    Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.

    In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).

    Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards. 

    You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends. 

    Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside. 

    If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.

    The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.

    Of course one of those problems is accessibility. 

    Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same. 

    So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.

    We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any  real justification.

    The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.

    Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, eApple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.

    As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.


    I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical.  The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC.  I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor.  I have changed the hard drive on one of them.  It was no big deal.  Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful.  No special dust kit needed or used.  

    Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be.  Who flipping cares?  Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.

    As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs.  I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals.  I don't know why they discarded that design.  Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else.  The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature.  That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design.  Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
    The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues. 

    Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.

    There is great design, good design, regular design,  poor design and hideous design.

    ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.

    Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.

    How did you reach your 10% by the way?
    Well then if you don't like the design tradeoff why did you buy an AIO?

    AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac. 

    Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops.  They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops.  Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts.  You can tack on tablets if you like.

    Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops.  It isn't going to start any time soon.

    Take a hike troll.
    You answered your own question.

    When I got the 27"' iMac (2009) I thought Apple wouldn't dump such shitty thermal management on us especially as they were offering i7s and the MacBook Air (released the year before) was overheating under light stress. It was only after purchase that people started to run into problems. Well, actually that is not true at all. That model came out-of -the-box with serious panel issues. The internet was alive with a number of deal breaking panel issues. Not subjective issues either but in your face issues and Apple didn't say a word and they took an absolute pounding online because of that too. Things have changed now. If the same product had been released now, Schiller would be giving daily interviews and promising information.

    After that came a couple of MBPs and an Air as a secondary computer.

    Why did I get an AIO? Well, as you state, Apple wasn't making regular desktops (stupid decision as they would be top sellers) and a 27" laptop hasn't happened yet, and at the time, just the LG panel alone would have set me back 1,400 euros so, as a Mac user since the Mac II, I went for the iMac.

    There is your answer.

    But you still haven't answered why a 27" desktop machine is using mobile parts (often low end). And I'm the troll. Not that I give a damn of course.

    The iMac is compromised because they want it to be thin. That's it. During 99% of its working life you will never be aware of that thinness. Not visually or even  in a practical manner, but during every second of use you will be paying the price of that compromise.

    First in the price. They are simply overpriced.

    Second in the level of components. You are not getting the power you could.

    Third in thermal design. These machines have poor thermal design.

    Fourth, age. But an iMac now you are wading into Apple's new future without USB-C but with all those ports that many here call 'legacy'. What? On a brand new machine. Not only that but when the line was released the components were already iffy. Now you will be going into 2017 with a seriously outdated machine that you want to cover you for the next few years.

    It's a pure and simple con.
    No, you haven't provided an answer to why you stay with a company that has "conned" you for 8 years and hasn't made a machine for you since 2004 and the PowerMac G4 MDD.

    As far as you "points" go those have always been the characteristic of the AIO: more expensive, lower power, etc.  You shouldn't have bought one in 2009 and you still shouldn't buy one now and if you were a normal person you would just move on.  

    The next iMac will come with USB-C and the current model is listed as "don't buy" on the websites that track refresh cycle.  If as a consumer you don't do any due diligence on a $2000+ purchase then you still get a very nice machine at a less than optimal price.

    You are a troll because Apple has been doing business the same way for a decade, the way AIOs are designed is well known and you still troll the forum with comments like the iMac is "a pure and simple con".

    Some Mac forum somewhere banned you for trolling and now you haunt AI.
    You are wrong - yet again

    Apple hasn't been doing business the same way for a decade.  What rubbish. I upgraded the RAM, disk and battery on my 2011 MBP. It's true that I couldn't get an Apple battery as that machine is too, ehem, old. But that is Apple now.

    Never been banned from anywhere and never had a MDD either.

    If you don't like to read negative opinions don't bother reading or replying to them. I'm only replying to you because you put incorrect facts on the table.
    elijahg
  • Reply 102 of 146
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,757member
    avon b7 said:
    spheric said:
    elijahg said:

    natural cooling ... more battery.
    Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
    macplusplus said: Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
    No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
    evilution said:
    Thinness is the function. 
    What was the function of thinning the iMac?
    Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently.
    I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
    The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...

    Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
    I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them. A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
    I thought the fans took the heat off the heatsink not blew air at it. Is my understanding wrong?
    The metal heatsinks take the heat off the CPU and GPU and spread it out over a large surface area, where the fans can blow air at it to help dissipate the heat.

    The fans do not blow at the processors, because air is WAY too inefficient at dissipating heat to do the job directly: that's why a metal heatsink is used.  

    And a large amount of heat is carried off through the metal case of the 'Book. If you don't believe this, place your laptop on a blanket or a pillow (without obstructing the vents) and use it for casual tasks. Watch the fans really take off after a short amount of time. 
  • Reply 103 of 146
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,757member
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?

    Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.

    And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?

    Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?

    Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?

    What do you think this means?:

    "Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
    Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand.  I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed.  Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility.  Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone.  And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it.  There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.

    You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs.  That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs.  If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?

    Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all.  The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like.  If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.

    My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.


    I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.

    You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.

    Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.

    In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).

    Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards. 

    You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends. 

    Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside. 

    If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.

    The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.

    Of course one of those problems is accessibility. 

    Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same. 

    So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.

    We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any  real justification.

    The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.

    Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, eApple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.

    As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.


    I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical.  The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC.  I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor.  I have changed the hard drive on one of them.  It was no big deal.  Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful.  No special dust kit needed or used.  

    Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be.  Who flipping cares?  Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.

    As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs.  I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals.  I don't know why they discarded that design.  Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else.  The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature.  That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design.  Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
    The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues. 

    Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.

    There is great design, good design, regular design,  poor design and hideous design.

    ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.

    Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.

    How did you reach your 10% by the way?
    Well then if you don't like the design tradeoff why did you buy an AIO?

    AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac. 

    Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops.  They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops.  Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts.  You can tack on tablets if you like.

    Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops.  It isn't going to start any time soon.

    Take a hike troll.
    You answered your own question.

    When I got the 27"' iMac (2009) I thought Apple wouldn't dump such shitty thermal management on us especially as they were offering i7s and the MacBook Air (released the year before) was overheating under light stress. It was only after purchase that people started to run into problems. Well, actually that is not true at all. That model came out-of -the-box with serious panel issues. The internet was alive with a number of deal breaking panel issues. Not subjective issues either but in your face issues and Apple didn't say a word and they took an absolute pounding online because of that too. Things have changed now. If the same product had been released now, Schiller would be giving daily interviews and promising information.

    After that came a couple of MBPs and an Air as a secondary computer.

    Why did I get an AIO? Well, as you state, Apple wasn't making regular desktops (stupid decision as they would be top sellers) and a 27" laptop hasn't happened yet, and at the time, just the LG panel alone would have set me back 1,400 euros so, as a Mac user since the Mac II, I went for the iMac.

    There is your answer.

    But you still haven't answered why a 27" desktop machine is using mobile parts (often low end). And I'm the troll. Not that I give a damn of course.

    The iMac is compromised because they want it to be thin. That's it. During 99% of its working life you will never be aware of that thinness. Not visually or even  in a practical manner, but during every second of use you will be paying the price of that compromise.

    First in the price. They are simply overpriced.

    Second in the level of components. You are not getting the power you could.

    Third in thermal design. These machines have poor thermal design.

    Fourth, age. But an iMac now you are wading into Apple's new future without USB-C but with all those ports that many here call 'legacy'. What? On a brand new machine. Not only that but when the line was released the components were already iffy. Now you will be going into 2017 with a seriously outdated machine that you want to cover you for the next few years.

    It's a pure and simple con.
    No, you haven't provided an answer to why you stay with a company that has "conned" you for 8 years and hasn't made a machine for you since 2004 and the PowerMac G4 MDD.

    As far as you "points" go those have always been the characteristic of the AIO: more expensive, lower power, etc.  You shouldn't have bought one in 2009 and you still shouldn't buy one now and if you were a normal person you would just move on.  

    The next iMac will come with USB-C and the current model is listed as "don't buy" on the websites that track refresh cycle.  If as a consumer you don't do any due diligence on a $2000+ purchase then you still get a very nice machine at a less than optimal price.

    You are a troll because Apple has been doing business the same way for a decade, the way AIOs are designed is well known and you still troll the forum with comments like the iMac is "a pure and simple con".

    Some Mac forum somewhere banned you for trolling and now you haunt AI.
    You are wrong - yet again

    Apple hasn't been doing business the same way for a decade.  What rubbish. I upgraded the RAM, disk and battery on my 2011 MBP. It's true that I couldn't get an Apple battery as that machine is too, ehem, old. But that is Apple now.
    Bullshit. 

    Apple offers battery replacement for the 2011 MBP for $129 plus taxes through their authorised service providers. 

    So much for "putting incorrect facts on the table".
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 104 of 146
    nhtnht Posts: 4,463member
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?

    Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.

    And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?

    Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?

    Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?

    What do you think this means?:

    "Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
    Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand.  I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed.  Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility.  Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone.  And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it.  There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.

    You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs.  That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs.  If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?

    Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all.  The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like.  If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.

    My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.


    I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.

    You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.

    Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.

    In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).

    Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards. 

    You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends. 

    Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside. 

    If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.

    The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.

    Of course one of those problems is accessibility. 

    Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same. 

    So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.

    We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any  real justification.

    The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.

    Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, eApple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.

    As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.


    I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical.  The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC.  I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor.  I have changed the hard drive on one of them.  It was no big deal.  Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful.  No special dust kit needed or used.  

    Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be.  Who flipping cares?  Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.

    As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs.  I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals.  I don't know why they discarded that design.  Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else.  The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature.  That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design.  Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
    The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues. 

    Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.

    There is great design, good design, regular design,  poor design and hideous design.

    ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.

    Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.

    How did you reach your 10% by the way?
    Well then if you don't like the design tradeoff why did you buy an AIO?

    AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac. 

    Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops.  They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops.  Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts.  You can tack on tablets if you like.

    Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops.  It isn't going to start any time soon.

    Take a hike troll.
    You answered your own question.

    When I got the 27"' iMac (2009) I thought Apple wouldn't dump such shitty thermal management on us especially as they were offering i7s and the MacBook Air (released the year before) was overheating under light stress. It was only after purchase that people started to run into problems. Well, actually that is not true at all. That model came out-of -the-box with serious panel issues. The internet was alive with a number of deal breaking panel issues. Not subjective issues either but in your face issues and Apple didn't say a word and they took an absolute pounding online because of that too. Things have changed now. If the same product had been released now, Schiller would be giving daily interviews and promising information.

    After that came a couple of MBPs and an Air as a secondary computer.

    Why did I get an AIO? Well, as you state, Apple wasn't making regular desktops (stupid decision as they would be top sellers) and a 27" laptop hasn't happened yet, and at the time, just the LG panel alone would have set me back 1,400 euros so, as a Mac user since the Mac II, I went for the iMac.

    There is your answer.

    But you still haven't answered why a 27" desktop machine is using mobile parts (often low end). And I'm the troll. Not that I give a damn of course.

    The iMac is compromised because they want it to be thin. That's it. During 99% of its working life you will never be aware of that thinness. Not visually or even  in a practical manner, but during every second of use you will be paying the price of that compromise.

    First in the price. They are simply overpriced.

    Second in the level of components. You are not getting the power you could.

    Third in thermal design. These machines have poor thermal design.

    Fourth, age. But an iMac now you are wading into Apple's new future without USB-C but with all those ports that many here call 'legacy'. What? On a brand new machine. Not only that but when the line was released the components were already iffy. Now you will be going into 2017 with a seriously outdated machine that you want to cover you for the next few years.

    It's a pure and simple con.
    No, you haven't provided an answer to why you stay with a company that has "conned" you for 8 years and hasn't made a machine for you since 2004 and the PowerMac G4 MDD.

    As far as you "points" go those have always been the characteristic of the AIO: more expensive, lower power, etc.  You shouldn't have bought one in 2009 and you still shouldn't buy one now and if you were a normal person you would just move on.  

    The next iMac will come with USB-C and the current model is listed as "don't buy" on the websites that track refresh cycle.  If as a consumer you don't do any due diligence on a $2000+ purchase then you still get a very nice machine at a less than optimal price.

    You are a troll because Apple has been doing business the same way for a decade, the way AIOs are designed is well known and you still troll the forum with comments like the iMac is "a pure and simple con".

    Some Mac forum somewhere banned you for trolling and now you haunt AI.
    You are wrong - yet again

    Apple hasn't been doing business the same way for a decade.  What rubbish. I upgraded the RAM, disk and battery on my 2011 MBP. It's true that I couldn't get an Apple battery as that machine is too, ehem, old. But that is Apple now.

    Never been banned from anywhere and never had a MDD either.

    If you don't like to read negative opinions don't bother reading or replying to them. I'm only replying to you because you put incorrect facts on the table.
    I reply to your BS because it's just that: BS and FUD.  Like being unable to get a new battery for the 2011.  You are lying.

     I reply to trolls like you because it amuses me and to avoid the "it must be true because no one proves otherwise".

    Fact: AIOs are designed to be more compact than desktops (aka towers)
    Fact: You are whining about an AIO being designed to be more compact. 
    Fact: Apple made it difficult to upgrade the first Mac.
    Fact: Apple regularly through its history have used different screws, hardware design, components and integrated parts to keep people from upgrading on their own. That some years are easier than others doesn't mean that Apple has a history of being "upgrade friendly".
    Fact: You are whining that Apple is making it difficult to upgrade Macs.

    Apple has been focused on weight and size since long before 2011. 

    Dont like it buy something else and go haunt their forums. Troll and I'll keep calling you on you BS.
  • Reply 105 of 146
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,740member
    nht said:
    Why don't you internet design geniuses answer me this:  If apple design and engineering sucks so much and Ive hugely overrated wtf don't you go to Microsoft, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony, Samsung, Google, etc instead?  Why stay and torment yourself with such substandard, over rated and over priced products that don't suit your uber "pro" needs?

    Windows and Android are perfectly functional operating systems and according to most of you guys Microsoft is "killing it" with the Surface Studio and how well they are serving creatives.

    Also according to you guys Tim Cook is incompetent and Ive is overrated and both should be fired.  That's not happening any decade soon.  So wtf?  Why are you guys still here?  It's just gear.  Gear is meant to be replaced with more functional gear that better suits your needs.  And yet we have post after repetitive post whining about the same things as if Apple suddenly changed how they designed and built things.  It's been this way since the first Macintosh.
    I stay because of iOS is much better than windows and still a little better than Android - although some of the Google services are better.
    Cue should be replaced or his duties split with someone else.   
    elijahg
  • Reply 106 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,801member
    spheric said:
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?

    Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.

    And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?

    Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?

    Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?

    What do you think this means?:

    "Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
    Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand.  I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed.  Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility.  Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone.  And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it.  There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.

    You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs.  That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs.  If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?

    Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all.  The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like.  If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.

    My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.


    I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.

    You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.

    Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.

    In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).

    Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards. 

    You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends. 

    Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside. 

    If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.

    The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.

    Of course one of those problems is accessibility. 

    Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same. 

    So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.

    We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any  real justification.

    The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.

    Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, eApple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.

    As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.


    I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical.  The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC.  I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor.  I have changed the hard drive on one of them.  It was no big deal.  Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful.  No special dust kit needed or used.  

    Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be.  Who flipping cares?  Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.

    As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs.  I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals.  I don't know why they discarded that design.  Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else.  The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature.  That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design.  Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
    The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues. 

    Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.

    There is great design, good design, regular design,  poor design and hideous design.

    ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.

    Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.

    How did you reach your 10% by the way?
    Well then if you don't like the design tradeoff why did you buy an AIO?

    AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac. 

    Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops.  They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops.  Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts.  You can tack on tablets if you like.

    Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops.  It isn't going to start any time soon.

    Take a hike troll.
    You answered your own question.

    When I got the 27"' iMac (2009) I thought Apple wouldn't dump such shitty thermal management on us especially as they were offering i7s and the MacBook Air (released the year before) was overheating under light stress. It was only after purchase that people started to run into problems. Well, actually that is not true at all. That model came out-of -the-box with serious panel issues. The internet was alive with a number of deal breaking panel issues. Not subjective issues either but in your face issues and Apple didn't say a word and they took an absolute pounding online because of that too. Things have changed now. If the same product had been released now, Schiller would be giving daily interviews and promising information.

    After that came a couple of MBPs and an Air as a secondary computer.

    Why did I get an AIO? Well, as you state, Apple wasn't making regular desktops (stupid decision as they would be top sellers) and a 27" laptop hasn't happened yet, and at the time, just the LG panel alone would have set me back 1,400 euros so, as a Mac user since the Mac II, I went for the iMac.

    There is your answer.

    But you still haven't answered why a 27" desktop machine is using mobile parts (often low end). And I'm the troll. Not that I give a damn of course.

    The iMac is compromised because they want it to be thin. That's it. During 99% of its working life you will never be aware of that thinness. Not visually or even  in a practical manner, but during every second of use you will be paying the price of that compromise.

    First in the price. They are simply overpriced.

    Second in the level of components. You are not getting the power you could.

    Third in thermal design. These machines have poor thermal design.

    Fourth, age. But an iMac now you are wading into Apple's new future without USB-C but with all those ports that many here call 'legacy'. What? On a brand new machine. Not only that but when the line was released the components were already iffy. Now you will be going into 2017 with a seriously outdated machine that you want to cover you for the next few years.

    It's a pure and simple con.
    No, you haven't provided an answer to why you stay with a company that has "conned" you for 8 years and hasn't made a machine for you since 2004 and the PowerMac G4 MDD.

    As far as you "points" go those have always been the characteristic of the AIO: more expensive, lower power, etc.  You shouldn't have bought one in 2009 and you still shouldn't buy one now and if you were a normal person you would just move on.  

    The next iMac will come with USB-C and the current model is listed as "don't buy" on the websites that track refresh cycle.  If as a consumer you don't do any due diligence on a $2000+ purchase then you still get a very nice machine at a less than optimal price.

    You are a troll because Apple has been doing business the same way for a decade, the way AIOs are designed is well known and you still troll the forum with comments like the iMac is "a pure and simple con".

    Some Mac forum somewhere banned you for trolling and now you haunt AI.
    You are wrong - yet again

    Apple hasn't been doing business the same way for a decade.  What rubbish. I upgraded the RAM, disk and battery on my 2011 MBP. It's true that I couldn't get an Apple battery as that machine is too, ehem, old. But that is Apple now.
    Bullshit. 

    Apple offers battery replacement for the 2011 MBP for $129 plus taxes through their authorised service providers. 

    So much for "putting incorrect facts on the table".
    Bullshit?

    Do you really think I would post something like that if I didn't have the information?

    I took the trouble of going to an AppleStore. They told me the battery wasn't available for purchase. They went even further and said this battery was even in production now. 

    I tried all my national Apple Certified Repair shops hoping they might have one in stock on the off chance. No go.

    I bought a Fleuron compatible one instead. Believe me I would have preferred the Apple battery, even at 129 dollars plus taxes.
    edited November 2016 elijahg
  • Reply 107 of 146
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,863member
    avon b7 said:
    spheric said:
    Bullshit. 

    Apple offers battery replacement for the 2011 MBP for $129 plus taxes through their authorised service providers. 

    So much for "putting incorrect facts on the table".
    Bullshit?


    Do you really think I would post something like that if I didn't have the information?

    I took the trouble of going to an AppleStore. They told me the battery wasn't available for purchase. They went even further and said this battery was even in production now. 

    I tried all my national Apple Certified Repair shops hoping they might have one in stock on the off chance. No go.

    I bought a Fleuron comptible one instead. Believe me I would have preferred the Apple battery, even at 129 dollars plus taxes.
    Plane as day for everyone to see, and searchable in under 5 seconds.

    edited November 2016 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 108 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,801member

    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?

    Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.

    And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?

    Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?

    Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?

    What do you think this means?:

    "Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
    Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand.  I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed.  Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility.  Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone.  And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it.  There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.

    You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs.  That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs.  If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?

    Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all.  The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like.  If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.

    My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.


    I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.

    You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.

    Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.

    In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).

    Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards. 

    You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends. 

    Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside. 

    If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.

    The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.

    Of course one of those problems is accessibility. 

    Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same. 

    So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.

    We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any  real justification.

    The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.

    Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, eApple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.

    As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.


    I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical.  The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC.  I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor.  I have changed the hard drive on one of them.  It was no big deal.  Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful.  No special dust kit needed or used.  

    Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be.  Who flipping cares?  Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.

    As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs.  I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals.  I don't know why they discarded that design.  Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else.  The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature.  That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design.  Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
    The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues. 

    Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.

    There is great design, good design, regular design,  poor design and hideous design.

    ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.

    Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.

    How did you reach your 10% by the way?
    Well then if you don't like the design tradeoff why did you buy an AIO?

    AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac. 

    Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops.  They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops.  Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts.  You can tack on tablets if you like.

    Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops.  It isn't going to start any time soon.

    Take a hike troll.
    You answered your own question.

    When I got the 27"' iMac (2009) I thought Apple wouldn't dump such shitty thermal management on us especially as they were offering i7s and the MacBook Air (released the year before) was overheating under light stress. It was only after purchase that people started to run into problems. Well, actually that is not true at all. That model came out-of -the-box with serious panel issues. The internet was alive with a number of deal breaking panel issues. Not subjective issues either but in your face issues and Apple didn't say a word and they took an absolute pounding online because of that too. Things have changed now. If the same product had been released now, Schiller would be giving daily interviews and promising information.

    After that came a couple of MBPs and an Air as a secondary computer.

    Why did I get an AIO? Well, as you state, Apple wasn't making regular desktops (stupid decision as they would be top sellers) and a 27" laptop hasn't happened yet, and at the time, just the LG panel alone would have set me back 1,400 euros so, as a Mac user since the Mac II, I went for the iMac.

    There is your answer.

    But you still haven't answered why a 27" desktop machine is using mobile parts (often low end). And I'm the troll. Not that I give a damn of course.

    The iMac is compromised because they want it to be thin. That's it. During 99% of its working life you will never be aware of that thinness. Not visually or even  in a practical manner, but during every second of use you will be paying the price of that compromise.

    First in the price. They are simply overpriced.

    Second in the level of components. You are not getting the power you could.

    Third in thermal design. These machines have poor thermal design.

    Fourth, age. But an iMac now you are wading into Apple's new future without USB-C but with all those ports that many here call 'legacy'. What? On a brand new machine. Not only that but when the line was released the components were already iffy. Now you will be going into 2017 with a seriously outdated machine that you want to cover you for the next few years.

    It's a pure and simple con.
    No, you haven't provided an answer to why you stay with a company that has "conned" you for 8 years and hasn't made a machine for you since 2004 and the PowerMac G4 MDD.

    As far as you "points" go those have always been the characteristic of the AIO: more expensive, lower power, etc.  You shouldn't have bought one in 2009 and you still shouldn't buy one now and if you were a normal person you would just move on.  

    The next iMac will come with USB-C and the current model is listed as "don't buy" on the websites that track refresh cycle.  If as a consumer you don't do any due diligence on a $2000+ purchase then you still get a very nice machine at a less than optimal price.

    You are a troll because Apple has been doing business the same way for a decade, the way AIOs are designed is well known and you still troll the forum with comments like the iMac is "a pure and simple con".

    Some Mac forum somewhere banned you for trolling and now you haunt AI.
    You are wrong - yet again

    Apple hasn't been doing business the same way for a decade.  What rubbish. I upgraded the RAM, disk and battery on my 2011 MBP. It's true that I couldn't get an Apple battery as that machine is too, ehem, old. But that is Apple now.

    Never been banned from anywhere and never had a MDD either.

    If you don't like to read negative opinions don't bother reading or replying to them. I'm only replying to you because you put incorrect facts on the table.
    I reply to your BS because it's just that: BS and FUD.  Like being unable to get a new battery for the 2011.  You are lying.

     I reply to trolls like you because it amuses me and to avoid the "it must be true because no one proves otherwise".

    Fact: AIOs are designed to be more compact than desktops (aka towers)
    Fact: You are whining about an AIO being designed to be more compact. 
    Fact: Apple made it difficult to upgrade the first Mac.
    Fact: Apple regularly through its history have used different screws, hardware design, components and integrated parts to keep people from upgrading on their own. That some years are easier than others doesn't mean that Apple has a history of being "upgrade friendly".
    Fact: You are whining that Apple is making it difficult to upgrade Macs.

    Apple has been focused on weight and size since long before 2011. 

    Dont like it buy something else and go haunt their forums. Troll and I'll keep calling you on you BS.
    Fact - No BS or FUD
    Fact - i never 'whine'
    Fact - I am complaining about Apple making it difficult to user upgrade certain compoments. I am not alone with this complaint.
    Fact - I made it completely clear that AIO were in a distinct category to TOWERS.
    Fact - Apple has a problem with screws. I asked if it was necessay to change the screw types/lengths. You didn't answer beyond Apple wants to keep us from upgrading. Yeah! Of course. Seeing as most of its screws can be tackled by a simple precision screwdriver set and the pentalobes can be picked up from almost any component bucket shop when they aren't included in the precision set or included with the component (for example battery) you have bought. For the Battery I picked up, it came with two screwdrivers to replace the existing battery.

    Our man Jonny really set himself a goal when he decided to fox us by using different screws! And you talk about BS?

    GLUE is the big impediment. Not screws. Screws are a pain because sometimes they have different heads or lengths and it's unnecessary. Nothing more.

    Before you fire off with more accusations, let me quote this guy from deep within Apple:

    "If user automation technologies are important to you, then now is the time for all good men and women to reach out, speak up and ask questions. The macOS user automation technologies include: UNIX CLI (shell, python, ruby, perl), System Services, Apple Events (JavaScript, AppleScript, AppleScriptObj-C, Scripting Bridge), Automator, Apple Configurator (AppleScript, Automator), and Application scripting support in Photos, iWork, Finder, Mail, and other Apple applications."

    Just change 'user automation' for any aspect of Apple or the Mac that use care to speak about. Yes. Make you voice heard.

    You don't have to share or even like those opinions but dont start throwing bullshit or FUD accusations around as I have defended absolutely everything I have posted without calling anyone an Apple Apologist, Fanboy or worse. I have even supported my reasoning.

    And you still haven't given a decent reason as to wny Apple is compromising its AIO designs with laptop parts. Power is definitely not one of them. The late 2009 i7 27" iMac was a monster in many respects but they screwed up thermal management and accessibility.
    edited November 2016 elijahg
  • Reply 109 of 146
    nhtnht Posts: 4,463member
    avon b7 said:
    Fact - No BS or FUD
    Lots and lots of BS and FUD.  FUD about battery replacement being a "nightmare".  FUD about MBP sales.  FUD about management change.  FUD about SSD lifetime.
    Our man Jonny really set himself a goal when he decided to fox us by using different screws! And you talk about BS?
    This was done by Steve Jobs on the original mac.
    You don't have to share or even like those opinions but dont start throwing bullshit or FUD accusations around as I have defended absolutely everything I have posted without calling anyone an Apple Apologist, Fanboy or worse. I have even supported my reasoning.
    Yes you have:
    avon b7 said:
    There is a whole lot of 100% pure fanboyism here but I haven't seen that word banded around by hardly any of the critics. On the other hand do a word count and see how many times you see 'bitcher, whiner, idiot' etc. thrown around gratuituiosly. You might wake up to a different reality but like I said, take your head out of the sand first and when you do it, get off of your high horse.
    You've been whining since 2004.  Like clockwork you reappear every few years to troll for forum about the same damned things.

    From June 2004:

    First off, no one accused of whining here is actually guilty of that crime.
    Whichever way you look at it Apple screwed up (AGAIN!!!). Was it entirely their fault? Certainly not, but they could have done so much more with just a little common sense in management/marketing.

    Apple announced the G5s at WWDC last year. To all intents and purposes that is one year ago. But, irrespective of dates, even June 2003 was WAY overdue for serious mac hardware improvements. Let's not forget that we were playing serious catchup on Mac desktop hardware. In many ways the dual 2GHz caught up and was competitive on pricing. Nice. The rest of the line was overpriced and underpowered. Not nice.

    Apple, unfortunately, has garnered an unenviable reputation for launching products and not actually shipping them until a much later date. This should be a crime punishable by law IMO . The G5 line was up and on sale at WWDC. Actual shipping of the product has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.
    ...
    Add to this the graphics cards problem. The current stock cards are an insult. What they are moving into the retail channel is a huge amount of ridiculously underpowered graphics hardware. It's severely underpowered now, let alone in four or five months when these machines will still (in theory) be live. These cards would be OK in eMacs (and only just!).
    ...
    Apple launched overpriced, underpowered second and third tier G5s without several key pro features. Namely a second optical bay, room for more than two hard drives and independent firewire busses.
    ...
    Given the current enormous size of the G5, do we really think that a couple of inches more for a second optical bay would have angered pro users more than not not having an extra bay at all?
    ...
    Some of the ultra 'Apple can do no wrong' brigade will tell me that I am mad and that these two complaints can be worked around via firewire. Just add a second optical external firewire disk and add as many external hard drives as you like.
    ...
    Not only are things now bad for the vast majority of users (those who won't be buying dual 2.5GHz G5s) but they will stay bad for the foreseable future. So what are we to do? Buy into this 're-configuration' knowing that we are being undersold or refuse to buy? I refuse to buy.
    ...
    If not a see a black Christmas this year.

    Same shit 12 fucking years ago.  349 negatives post about how Apple sucks, is too expensive, underpowered and always a couple inches too small and that the "Apple can do no wrong" brigade is unfairly calling you a whiner and troll.  Which you are.  In spades.

    Do yourself and us a favor...stop buying and whining about Apple this time.  Get a Surface, take your meds and finally be happy.

    SoliSpamSandwich
  • Reply 110 of 146
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,757member
    I think now is a great time to complain about how iPhones have non-removable batteries and no SD card slot. 
    SoliSpamSandwich
  • Reply 111 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,801member
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    Fact - No BS or FUD
    Lots and lots of BS and FUD.  FUD about battery replacement being a "nightmare".  FUD about MBP sales.  FUD about management change.  FUD about SSD lifetime.
    Our man Jonny really set himself a goal when he decided to fox us by using different screws! And you talk about BS?
    This was done by Steve Jobs on the original mac.
    You don't have to share or even like those opinions but dont start throwing bullshit or FUD accusations around as I have defended absolutely everything I have posted without calling anyone an Apple Apologist, Fanboy or worse. I have even supported my reasoning.
    Yes you have:
    avon b7 said:
    There is a whole lot of 100% pure fanboyism here but I haven't seen that word banded around by hardly any of the critics. On the other hand do a word count and see how many times you see 'bitcher, whiner, idiot' etc. thrown around gratuituiosly. You might wake up to a different reality but like I said, take your head out of the sand first and when you do it, get off of your high horse.
    You've been whining since 2004.  Like clockwork you reappear every few years to troll for forum about the same damned things.

    From June 2004:

    First off, no one accused of whining here is actually guilty of that crime.
    Whichever way you look at it Apple screwed up (AGAIN!!!). Was it entirely their fault? Certainly not, but they could have done so much more with just a little common sense in management/marketing.

    Apple announced the G5s at WWDC last year. To all intents and purposes that is one year ago. But, irrespective of dates, even June 2003 was WAY overdue for serious mac hardware improvements. Let's not forget that we were playing serious catchup on Mac desktop hardware. In many ways the dual 2GHz caught up and was competitive on pricing. Nice. The rest of the line was overpriced and underpowered. Not nice.

    Apple, unfortunately, has garnered an unenviable reputation for launching products and not actually shipping them until a much later date. This should be a crime punishable by law IMO . The G5 line was up and on sale at WWDC. Actual shipping of the product has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.
    ...
    Add to this the graphics cards problem. The current stock cards are an insult. What they are moving into the retail channel is a huge amount of ridiculously underpowered graphics hardware. It's severely underpowered now, let alone in four or five months when these machines will still (in theory) be live. These cards would be OK in eMacs (and only just!).
    ...
    Apple launched overpriced, underpowered second and third tier G5s without several key pro features. Namely a second optical bay, room for more than two hard drives and independent firewire busses.
    ...
    Given the current enormous size of the G5, do we really think that a couple of inches more for a second optical bay would have angered pro users more than not not having an extra bay at all?
    ...
    Some of the ultra 'Apple can do no wrong' brigade will tell me that I am mad and that these two complaints can be worked around via firewire. Just add a second optical external firewire disk and add as many external hard drives as you like.
    ...
    Not only are things now bad for the vast majority of users (those who won't be buying dual 2.5GHz G5s) but they will stay bad for the foreseable future. So what are we to do? Buy into this 're-configuration' knowing that we are being undersold or refuse to buy? I refuse to buy.
    ...
    If not a see a black Christmas this year.

    Same shit 12 fucking years ago.  349 negatives post about how Apple sucks, is too expensive, underpowered and always a couple inches too small and that the "Apple can do no wrong" brigade is unfairly calling you a whiner and troll.  Which you are.  In spades.

    Do yourself and us a favor...stop buying and whining about Apple this time.  Get a Surface, take your meds and finally be happy.

    You actually went digging through 12 year old posts to find one that was balanced and reasoned, although you didn't like it? Thank you!

    But then again what you are trying to do is misrepresent me. That's pretty lame. Pathetic even.

    I have the same opinion of that situation in 2004 as I do now. I reasoned my opinion then and I have done it now. I hope you feel better.

    Of course, as you conveniently fail to point out, I have bought many Macs between that post and now. Shock. Horror. I complained about that particular line of G5s. I said I would never buy one and I never did. Of course if you had actually reasoned things you would  be aware that out of those Macs, I have complained about ONE and on two issues (accessibility and thermal design).

    You seem to think it is somehow my fault that Apple is making similar mistakes now to the ones it made then. You seem to forget that this is a forum where all opinions fit.

    You have failed because you chose to label someone who has reasoned and defended his posts as a whiner, spreading BS and FUD, none of which is actually true.

    You have tried to misrepresent me. Take your last post for example. You just had to slip in the words 'fanboyism' and 'nightmare' any way you could.

    Perhaps repetition will help you understand. I said that there is a whole lot fanboyism here because they jump out and instantly label critical voices as whiners, bitchers, idiots, bullshitters etc. Yes, there you are, squarely in that group but very few of those critical voices have fired back with cheap accusations of fanboy, Apple apologist etc even though they are here.

    Would you care to put my comment 'nightmare' back into context? You stripped it of any context because it was convenient (but totally lame of you to do so) and labelled it FUD!

    I have seen many swollen batteries. I have had them myself. They can swell. They do swell. When they swell they swell upwards, straight through the trackpad. These new MBPs have the battery glued to the casing in such a way that even a professional repair shop with infinite experience in pulling all kinds of Macs apart, COULD NOT REMOVE IT. Believe me, if in four or five years (or less if you are unlucky) your battery begins to swell, you will want to get it out pronto. Trying to prise it off will be a nightmare, swapping it out will also be a nightmare because you will have to replace the casing it is glued to and you don't know if that part will even be available. Now, in a previous post someone tried to defend Apple's decision due to thermal considerations and I answered that issue too.

    I have reasoned my opinion and defended it clearly, even against the attempts to defend Apple. This potential (because nobody has said that every battery will swell, right?) battery nightmare is just one example and your only recourse is to label it FUD.

    You are making yourself look stupid.


    edited November 2016 elijahg
  • Reply 112 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,801member
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    spheric said:
    Bullshit. 

    Apple offers battery replacement for the 2011 MBP for $129 plus taxes through their authorised service providers. 

    So much for "putting incorrect facts on the table".
    Bullshit?


    Do you really think I would post something like that if I didn't have the information?

    I took the trouble of going to an AppleStore. They told me the battery wasn't available for purchase. They went even further and said this battery was even in production now. 

    I tried all my national Apple Certified Repair shops hoping they might have one in stock on the off chance. No go.

    I bought a Fleuron comptible one instead. Believe me I would have preferred the Apple battery, even at 129 dollars plus taxes.
    Plane as day for everyone to see, and searchable in under 5 seconds.

    Which part of 'Apple told me.directly that there was no battery available and they weren't even making them any longer, and no authorised dealer had them' did you fail to understand?

    Apple Mac notebook battery service pricing - United States


    Two little details. I'm not in the land of Trump and honey and that page doesn't link to anywhere to make the purchase. It does point to the Apple Store - which is exactly where I got the info from!

    Could the page be out of date? Either way, like I said. I cannot get one. 'Plane' or not.
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 113 of 146
    nhtnht Posts: 4,463member
    avon b7 said:

    You have failed because you chose to label someone who has reasoned and defended his posts as a whiner, spreading BS and FUD, none of which is actually true.
    ...
    Would you care to put my comment 'nightmare' back into context? You stripped it of any context because it was convenient (but totally lame of you to do so) and labelled it FUD!

    I have seen many swollen batteries. I have had them myself. They can swell. They do swell. When they swell they swell upwards, straight through the trackpad. These new MBPs have the battery glued to the casing in such a way that even a professional repair shop with infinite experience in pulling all kinds of Macs apart, COULD NOT REMOVE IT. Believe me, if in four or five years (or less if you are unlucky) your battery begins to swell, you will want to get it out pronto. Trying to prise it off will be a nightmare, swapping it out will also be a nightmare because you will have to replace the casing it is glued to and you don't know if that part will even be available. Now, in a previous post someone tried to defend Apple's decision due to thermal considerations and I answered that issue too.

    I have reasoned my opinion and defended it clearly, even against the attempts to defend Apple. This potential (because nobody has said that every battery will swell, right?) battery nightmare is just one example and your only recourse is to label it FUD.

    You are making yourself look stupid.
    Small numbers of batteries swell.  And it won't be a "nightmare" if mine does.  I'd take it in to Apple and for $199 it gets fixed. Sometimes the battery replacement is free even out of warranty. 

    If it think the bulging is unsafe I can still remove the cover to relieve the pressure before bringing it in.

    So more FUD on a post claiming you don't spread FUD.  Your "reasoning" is to take a scenario for which Apple has already provided the customer a simple and relatively inexpensive solution and claim it's a "nightmare" because iFixit can't pull batteries off because they aren't meant to be pulled off.

    You did the same thing regarding the SSD but there is a tool to pull off the data which is done for free for the user if a motherboard replacement is required.  Another non-issue you blew out of proportion with FUD.

    You're trolling.  Maybe 5-10% of your posts have something nice to say about Apple and usually in a backhanded way.  

    Most amusing is that the single CPU PowerMac you whined about in 2004 is the kind of machine you wished Apple built today.  A lower cost tower you claimed in 2004 was a huge mistake that didn't sell but in 2016 you think would sell really well.
    Soli
  • Reply 114 of 146
    nhtnht Posts: 4,463member

    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    spheric said:
    Bullshit. 

    Apple offers battery replacement for the 2011 MBP for $129 plus taxes through their authorised service providers. 

    So much for "putting incorrect facts on the table".
    Bullshit?


    Do you really think I would post something like that if I didn't have the information?

    I took the trouble of going to an AppleStore. They told me the battery wasn't available for purchase. They went even further and said this battery was even in production now. 

    I tried all my national Apple Certified Repair shops hoping they might have one in stock on the off chance. No go.

    I bought a Fleuron comptible one instead. Believe me I would have preferred the Apple battery, even at 129 dollars plus taxes.
    Plane as day for everyone to see, and searchable in under 5 seconds.

    Which part of 'Apple told me.directly that there was no battery available and they weren't even making them any longer, and no authorised dealer had them' did you fail to understand?

    Apple Mac notebook battery service pricing - United States


    Two little details. I'm not in the land of Trump and honey and that page doesn't link to anywhere to make the purchase. It does point to the Apple Store - which is exactly where I got the info from!

    Could the page be out of date? Either way, like I said. I cannot get one. 'Plane' or not.
    The part where we don't believe you because there are aftermarket batteries available and Apple certainly have batteries for the 2011 MBP.

    The 2011 MBP is not on the obsolete or vintage list for Apple so parts are still available. 

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
    Soli
  • Reply 115 of 146
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 228member
    Explains the fiasco with the Apple monitor - sorry icky Licky Lucky Gadget disgrace.
  • Reply 116 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,801member
    nht said:

    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    spheric said:
    Bullshit. 

    Apple offers battery replacement for the 2011 MBP for $129 plus taxes through their authorised service providers. 

    So much for "putting incorrect facts on the table".
    Bullshit?


    Do you really think I would post something like that if I didn't have the information?

    I took the trouble of going to an AppleStore. They told me the battery wasn't available for purchase. They went even further and said this battery was even in production now. 

    I tried all my national Apple Certified Repair shops hoping they might have one in stock on the off chance. No go.

    I bought a Fleuron comptible one instead. Believe me I would have preferred the Apple battery, even at 129 dollars plus taxes.
    Plane as day for everyone to see, and searchable in under 5 seconds.

    Which part of 'Apple told me.directly that there was no battery available and they weren't even making them any longer, and no authorised dealer had them' did you fail to understand?

    Apple Mac notebook battery service pricing - United States


    Two little details. I'm not in the land of Trump and honey and that page doesn't link to anywhere to make the purchase. It does point to the Apple Store - which is exactly where I got the info from!

    Could the page be out of date? Either way, like I said. I cannot get one. 'Plane' or not.
    The part where we don't believe you because there are aftermarket batteries available and Apple certainly have batteries for the 2011 MBP.

    The 2011 MBP is not on the obsolete or vintage list for Apple so parts are still available. 

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
    Like I said. I have an aftermarket battery!

    Like I said. I had to buy it because Apple (through a retail store) refused to serve me one claiming:

    1. They couldn't serve one

    2. Apple no longer made the batteries for these MBPs.

    That's what I was told.

    I will however contact Apple to verify the situation because if I bought a third party battery because they said one thing and the reality is another, I will not be a happy camper! And it wasn't any old store. It was a flagship store and they double checked on my insistence.

    That said, I couldn't source a battery in any of the authorised tech stores either, so I guess it's feasible that the battery isn't considered a spare part.

    EDIT:

    Just tried to go through the support option to get an answer (via Contact Us). Of course, after running my serial number through the system and explaining what I want, I am told I have no free support so if I want to open a chat, they want to charge me 29 euros for 'an incident' even though I just have a simple question. There are a pile of freephone numbers for sales but no way on earth to reach them to get info on a battery. Not in the store. Not via 'Contact Us'. Nothing. I will have to go back to a physical store just to get a stupid confirmation on an answer that they've already given me - twice! When your warranty runs out that's what you get. 

    Go Apple! Now if this were Amazon I'd have an after sales person on chat round the clock for an query I might have.
    edited November 2016 elijahg
  • Reply 117 of 146
    Gorecki said:
    2. Its the best place for occasional charging without spoiling the clean design. What is your (better) idea? Please, let us know.

    3. Again, the same argument. What is your (better) idea? Please, let us know.
    2. At the front of the damn thing so it can be used as a wired mouse while charging or otherwise.
    3. Literally anything else. For starters, a female Lightning port on the pencil itself.
    When you manage to brake the rules of physics, please, let us know.
    So make the damn thing thicker and the battery pack problem solves itself, too.
    elijahg
  • Reply 118 of 146
    spheric said:
    elijahg said:

    natural cooling ... more battery.
    Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
    macplusplus said: Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
    No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
    evilution said:
    Thinness is the function. 
    What was the function of thinning the iMac?
    Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently.
    I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
    The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...

    Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
    I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them. A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
    I never said it wasn't more effective, in fact I said "it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat". I didn't think I needed to specify the heat sinks are metal, not air. In any case, you need airflow to remove heat from the metal, no matter how big it is. A heatsink (or computer) in a vacuum would rapidly overheat as there's no air to remove the heat. And yes, unless you're referring to a 68000 or 80386 era CPU, they have fans blowing straight at them (and their heatsinks). You're correct the surface area to volume ratio is greater in a thin machine, but the heat production isn't related to the volume, the heat production is by the hot components which still produce just as much heat whether the machine is thin or thick. And in a smaller chassis, those components have less volume to heat, so it heats up more quickly. Which is why a small room heats more quickly than a large room. If it was the case that less volume means Apple could use hotter (read:desktop) components because of a thinner chassis, why are they on laptop CPUs still? And why do PC manufacturers have huge heatsinks on their CPUs/GPUs, with your logic surely a volumetrically tiny heatsink would be best?
  • Reply 119 of 146
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,757member
    elijahg said:
    spheric said:
    elijahg said:

    natural cooling ... more battery.
    Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
    macplusplus said: Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
    No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
    evilution said:
    Thinness is the function. 
    What was the function of thinning the iMac?
    Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently.
    I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
    The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...

    Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
    I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them. A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
    I never said it wasn't more effective, in fact I said "it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat". I didn't think I needed to specify the heat sinks are metal, not air. In any case, you need airflow to remove heat from the metal, no matter how big it is. A heatsink (or computer) in a vacuum would rapidly overheat as there's no air to remove the heat. And yes, unless you're referring to a 68000 or 80386 era CPU, they have fans blowing straight at them (and their heatsinks). You're correct the surface area to volume ratio is greater in a thin machine, but the heat production isn't related to the volume, the heat production is by the hot components which still produce just as much heat whether the machine is thin or thick. And in a smaller chassis, those components have less volume to heat, so it heats up more quickly. Which is why a small room heats more quickly than a large room. If it was the case that less volume means Apple could use hotter (read:desktop) components because of a thinner chassis, why are they on laptop CPUs still? And why do PC manufacturers have huge heatsinks on their CPUs/GPUs, with your logic surely a volumetrically tiny heatsink would be best?
    THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEATSINK.
  • Reply 120 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,801member
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:

    You have failed because you chose to label someone who has reasoned and defended his posts as a whiner, spreading BS and FUD, none of which is actually true.
    ...
    Would you care to put my comment 'nightmare' back into context? You stripped it of any context because it was convenient (but totally lame of you to do so) and labelled it FUD!

    I have seen many swollen batteries. I have had them myself. They can swell. They do swell. When they swell they swell upwards, straight through the trackpad. These new MBPs have the battery glued to the casing in such a way that even a professional repair shop with infinite experience in pulling all kinds of Macs apart, COULD NOT REMOVE IT. Believe me, if in four or five years (or less if you are unlucky) your battery begins to swell, you will want to get it out pronto. Trying to prise it off will be a nightmare, swapping it out will also be a nightmare because you will have to replace the casing it is glued to and you don't know if that part will even be available. Now, in a previous post someone tried to defend Apple's decision due to thermal considerations and I answered that issue too.

    I have reasoned my opinion and defended it clearly, even against the attempts to defend Apple. This potential (because nobody has said that every battery will swell, right?) battery nightmare is just one example and your only recourse is to label it FUD.

    You are making yourself look stupid.
    Small numbers of batteries swell.  And it won't be a "nightmare" if mine does.  I'd take it in to Apple and for $199 it gets fixed. Sometimes the battery replacement is free even out of warranty. 

    If it think the bulging is unsafe I can still remove the cover to relieve the pressure before bringing it in.

    So more FUD on a post claiming you don't spread FUD.  Your "reasoning" is to take a scenario for which Apple has already provided the customer a simple and relatively inexpensive solution and claim it's a "nightmare" because iFixit can't pull batteries off because they aren't meant to be pulled off.

    You did the same thing regarding the SSD but there is a tool to pull off the data which is done for free for the user if a motherboard replacement is required.  Another non-issue you blew out of proportion with FUD.

    You're trolling.  Maybe 5-10% of your posts have something nice to say about Apple and usually in a backhanded way.  

    Most amusing is that the single CPU PowerMac you whined about in 2004 is the kind of machine you wished Apple built today.  A lower cost tower you claimed in 2004 was a huge mistake that didn't sell but in 2016 you think would sell really well.
    Here we go again.

    'Small numbers of batteries swell'. 'Small' but you just don't know nor can you define 'small'. How convenient! But forget small. Forget the number. If it happens to you, you will be cursing not being able to remove it and continue working off the mains. You will be cursing having only ONE repair option and at Apple's pricing. You will be cursing the downtime if you don't have an Apple shop nearby.

    No. Sorry. YOU won't be cursng because you find the 'relatively inexpensive' price of 199 dollars to be acceptable, and sometimes Apple will even change the battery for free out of warranty. Yeah, but often -almost always - it WON'T. And you won't be cursing because you're fine with just removing the casing and stopping work altogether. That's YOU and your opinion and you're welcome to it. It isn't me or MY opinion. Just accept it. Get over it. Debate it like an adult, not like a child throwing stupid accusations around.

    SSD? There is a tool. Yes, an Apple tool that will attempt to get the data off the drive. Out of warranty you're back in the Apple corral, literally because out of warranty, you're going to have to visit an Apple shop just to get access to that tool, and possibly, your data. So they took a socket off but really they didn't. They put it inside the computer. That tool isn't needed for all the new line though. I wonder why? Oh yeah, some of the line has socketed SSDs. But hey, you conveniently just ignore that my complaints went beyond the accessibilty to my data in case of failure. Having very expensive pro machines shipping in 2017 with base 256GB, non-upgeadeable SSDs that have to be BTOd with your future needs at purchase time, was also on my list.

    Yep. That's a 0 on the FUD scale. Wasn't it you that wanted to ignore me? I've told you straight. If you don't like my opinion, fine but if you can't handle 'negative' opinions, don't read them. You are making a fool of yourself by throwing your stupid accusations around. 

    It doesn't matter what percentage of my posts are saying 'nice' thngs about Apple. This is a discussion board. I am a Mac user and my voice is just as valid as yours and any other mac user. 'Likes' and 'dislikes' are not representative of anything. Even bringing up the subject of ratios is childish. 


    singularityelijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.