Well Mike, you can sugar coat this decision all you want: Even if it only is a small fraction of the market and the margin would be lower than for other models, Apple would still make a decent buck and -- for some companies even more important than margin alone -- keep or even gain a significant portion of the market and retain the loyalty of the user base. The last point is especially important; once Apple managed to piss of the remaining professionals because they only offer iPhones and iPads and other okay hardware for high end prices any more, Apple will end up in big shit once saturation for overpriced commodity devices kicks in (and we're already starting to see that with Apple trying to mitigate by heavily investing into China and India). Feel free to mark my words here: That time will come rather sooner than later.
PS Apple, since I am requesting stuff, please release an expandable MacBook Pro again. Have removable drives, upgradable memory, and a full array of ports. Basically a workstation class laptop. I dont need thin and light, I basically need a portable desktop. Dell, HP, and others have multiple models like this, including 17" screens! I really dont want to switch to Windows, but you are making this difficult!
I need thin and light in my portable. I don't want to lug around anything heavy when on the go. If I want a bigger display I plug one in. I don't need any legacy ports, nor do I need to upgrade anything.
Frankly, this is one of the main reasons why I won't buy a Mac -- planned obsolescence.
With "a 2.5 GHz or 2.7 GHz i7 processor, a 5 Gigatexels per second system bus, 4 GB of RAM, and a 750 GB hard drive", this machine was hardly obsolete. Well, OK, the memory needs upgraded, but otherwise, except for power users, this machine is still perfectly functional. So why did Apple obsolete it?
For myself: I'm typing this on a Thinkpad T410 with similar specs (except I upgraded the memory to 8Gb). It was manufactured a year prior to the MBP that Apple just obsoleted. And, I am perfectly happy with this machine -- it does everything I need and does it quite well -- and I have every reason to expect it to continue doing well for the next several years... (at some point I will wipe it and use it to replace my 11 year old IBM T60p that I use strictly to maintain my finances -- but currently, both the T60p and the T410 are working just fine.)
So, WHY did Apple obsolete this 6 year old MBP? While the machine needs more memory, otherwise it is a very functional machine. Is Apple obsoleting based on chronologic age rather than some legitimate functional or technologic reason?
Uh no this isn't planned obsolescence in common use of the word (designing to fail). This is normal apple policy on when to sunset support for old hardware. doesn't mean it suddenly stops working.
Frankly, this is one of the main reasons why I won't buy a Mac -- planned obsolescence.
With "a 2.5 GHz or 2.7 GHz i7 processor, a 5 Gigatexels per second system bus, 4 GB of RAM, and a 750 GB hard drive", this machine was hardly obsolete. Well, OK, the memory needs upgraded, but otherwise, except for power users, this machine is still perfectly functional. So why did Apple obsolete it?
For myself: I'm typing this on a Thinkpad T410 with similar specs (except I upgraded the memory to 8Gb). It was manufactured a year prior to the MBP that Apple just obsoleted. And, I am perfectly happy with this machine -- it does everything I need and does it quite well -- and I have every reason to expect it to continue doing well for the next several years... (at some point I will wipe it and use it to replace my 11 year old IBM T60p that I use strictly to maintain my finances -- but currently, both the T60p and the T410 are working just fine.)
So, WHY did Apple obsolete this 6 year old MBP? While the machine needs more memory, otherwise it is a very functional machine. Is Apple obsoleting based on chronologic age rather than some legitimate functional or technologic reason?
While Apple may support this with future macOS releases, its not Microsoft and supports 10+ year old hardware. Although, I think even Microsoft is getting away from that slowly. You may not see it this way but its what makes Apple better. They don't have to release something and worry that it won't work properly, or at all with something new. I don't know why people think when they buy something the manufacturer should support it forever. You can't move on with better products and also try and make everything work with old hardware.
Ok... Under your reasoning, the manufacturer should stop support of your new car in 5-6 years. Time to scrap it and buy a new one! Forced obsolescence is NOT a successful, long-term marketing strategy....
You cannot compare a $20,000 and up auto (Mercedes is triple that) to a fucking notebook computer. Sorry, but the computer just isn't comparable due to its much lower value.
But again, nobody is forcing anything. Do you expect to get parts for a 10 year old TV? DVD player? etc... no, you don't. Same thing.
Well Mike, you can sugar coat this decision all you want: Even if it only is a small fraction of the market and the margin would be lower than for other models, Apple would still make a decent buck and -- for some companies even more important than margin alone -- keep or even gain a significant portion of the market and retain the loyalty of the user base. The last point is especially important; once Apple managed to piss of the remaining professionals because they only offer iPhones and iPads and other okay hardware for high end prices any more, Apple will end up in big shit once saturation for overpriced commodity devices kicks in (and we're already starting to see that with Apple trying to mitigate by heavily investing into China and India). Feel free to mark my words here: That time will come rather sooner than later.
Same old crap arguments that have been peddled for decades -- "Apple will be doomed because COMMODITIZATION!!" any year now, Bueller....
Hes not sugar coating it he's just being a grown up. The numbers aren't there and Apple routinely sunsets support for old products. Nothing new to see here.
FYI i'm a professional enterprise software developer and i love my apple gear. Long gone are the days where i want to build or tinker with my tools. Light and fast, that's all i want. Clearly i'm not alone and am apple's target market.
I'm stopped at a low end restaurant in relatively high end area and there's a guy in here with a 17" PC reading something about German with the font increased to like 20px or something. He has Coke bottle glasses and a barcode haircut, too young to have bought a 15" PowerBook or MacBook with 17" matte display. No way is this an unpopular form factor just because Apple discontinued it. It's called myopia.
It's a bit different with the PC industry because they don't vary price a lot with display size, here's a 17" for under $500:
The above is the US, China prefers 14" laptops. With Apple, most of their sales are 12-13" because of the price points. Apple's 17" started at $2500. If they had a 17" at $1200 then it would sell way more units. They tend to tie specs in with screen size. It helps keep the number of SKUs down as well as drives people to the higher price points but there's no reason they couldn't make lower spec laptops with large displays. Given the popularity of the 15", it looks like they've used that desirability to push the higher price point. They have to put the 17" above this but the demand is <1/5th of the 15" so the demand for that size at that price reaches a point where it's just easier to drop it, especially when most of the people who want one would migrate to a 15" Mac than a 17" PC anyway.
Apple's split is 80:20 for laptop:desktop. It's about 14m laptops per year. Given their revenue, they can't be selling more than 4m of the 15" model as it starts at $2k. If demand for a 17" is <1/5th then that's already <800k units per year before they add $500.
There's always going to be some demand for different products but that demand doesn't always fit into Apple's business model. There's demand for a 15" Macbook, it's the most popular screen size so it makes sense to offer it in their highest volume laptop but it could draw a lot of users away from the 15" MBP line down to a lower price point. I would assume they've run the numbers on a lot of different products to see if they're worth doing.
Well Mike, you can sugar coat this decision all you want: Even if it only is a small fraction of the market and the margin would be lower than for other models, Apple would still make a decent buck and -- for some companies even more important than margin alone -- keep or even gain a significant portion of the market and retain the loyalty of the user base. The last point is especially important; once Apple managed to piss of the remaining professionals because they only offer iPhones and iPads and other okay hardware for high end prices any more, Apple will end up in big shit once saturation for overpriced commodity devices kicks in (and we're already starting to see that with Apple trying to mitigate by heavily investing into China and India). Feel free to mark my words here: That time will come rather sooner than later.
Where do you get sugar-coating? This is the harsh glare of reality.
I'd prefer a 17-inch Retina MacBook Pro, but I am vividly aware that I am no longer Apple's target market, and neither are you. Apple's got sufficient cash on hand to ride out any "saturation for overpriced commodity devices" scenario kicks in, and given humanity's predilections, that day will never come.
If AI could tap in to more than 1 percent of Apple's market, we'd have four times as many writers as we have on staff now. That should tell you a little about who Apple's customer base is, and what they appeal to.
Many comments on profit and 'target market' here - Jobs clarifies the role of profit as an enabler, not the primary goal in Apple zeitgeist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJKmnKbx-aE
Since he passed we have moved to annual OS cycles (vs feature ready), lost things like X-grid, 17" macbook pros, almost all ports, flexibility in drives, ram, pro cards, even vesa mount flexibility on iMacs, ease of repair, independent software management (app store), affordability choices (all storage is 2k MBs), etc... Do pros need to do more, not less with their computers...?
Many comments on profit and 'target market' here - Jobs clarifies the role of profit as an enabler, not the primary goal in Apple zeitgeist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJKmnKbx-aE
Since he passed we have moved to annual OS cycles (vs feature ready), lost things like X-grid, 17" macbook pros, almost all ports, flexibility in drives, ram, pro cards, even vesa mount flexibility on iMacs, ease of repair, independent software management (app store), affordability choices (all storage is 2k MBs), etc... Do pros need to do more, not less with their computers...?
Yup. you're right. Jobs is dead. He's never coming back, and his mindset isn't probably either. Jobs was very good at being the underdog.
Apple hasn't been the underdog in at least a decade. The company's success by definition changed it. It will never be the company that took chances like it did with Jobs, ever again.
Back to the Pro thing (more, not less), Pro complaints about Apple not feeding them is a very small, very vocal bunch. Apple's literal market now is "the rest of us," meaning the mass-market. Not just the computer nerds.
That’s a mobile 1080 for you. Better than Falcon Northwest, at least.
I stand corrected on my previous. It's $3700, but also over 7 pounds, loud, a three-hour battery life, and not shipping.
The powerbook 3400 wasn't even seven pounds.
Indeed the 17" Macbook pros were no lightweights either running ~6.6lbs, and in my experience also ramped up the fans over 4k just connecting a 27" display, vs the 2010.
In spaces with air supply and other ambient noise this may be less of an issue. Apple greatly improved the quad cooling issues in the 2012 15" design, and seems to have further improved this in the 2016 edition, which may suggest the graphics cards offered, which are still impressive. Apple's 17" spec of up to 7 hours battery life would need accurate comparison, as the settings and use parameters for the Razer seem different. In practice I usually budget about 3 hours of real world work time for a 2010 17" mbp, although Sierra seems to have downgraded the 'time remaining' indicator in favor of percentage only.
Suffice it to suggest proof of concept for some, garnering much review praise, and it will be interesting to watch what Razer does for a 3rd generation design, and how many pro mac users move to such for the 4K 17" screen, greater 'portable desktop' power and port/peripheral/memory flexibility...
Compare "durable goods" like cars to the computer industry at your peril. It's not a great analogy, as the classes of goods aren't even close to the same.
While Intel may be holding up the works a bit, connectivity, GPU solutions, and other aspects of the industry have marched forward moreso than any advancement in cars interfaces with roads. Also marching forward is contracts to supply parts for a dwindling machine supply, that they are seeing less and less of, as time goes on.
It's not like the computers light on fire because Apple has called them obsolete. Parts will be available through third parties and eBay for a long time. OS support for a few years too.
I think that the analogy to durable goods is becoming increasingly appropriate as computers of all shapes and sizes become increasingly commoditized - as have automobiles.
And, while it is true that the computer does not self destruct because Apple called them "Obsolete", that is more than just a descriptive term. It means Apple is dropping some measure of support for the product. And, support is one of the key factors in what makes Apple products great -- and it becomes even more critical when Apple limits that support to itself rather than making users and 3rd party vendors more independent.
That’s a mobile 1080 for you. Better than Falcon Northwest, at least.
I stand corrected on my previous. It's $3700, but also over 7 pounds, loud, a three-hour battery life, and not shipping.
The powerbook 3400 wasn't even seven pounds.
Indeed the 17" Macbook pros were no lightweights either running ~6.6lbs, and in my experience also ramped up the fans over 4k just connecting a 27" display, vs the 2010.
In spaces with air supply and other ambient noise this may be less of an issue. Apple greatly improved the quad cooling issues in the 2012 15" design, and seems to have further improved this in the 2016 edition, which may suggest the graphics cards offered, which are still impressive. Apple's 17" spec of up to 7 hours battery life would need accurate comparison, as the settings and use parameters for the Razer seem different. In practice I usually budget about 3 hours of real world work time for a 2010 17" mbp, although Sierra seems to have downgraded the 'time remaining' indicator in favor of percentage only.
Suffice it to suggest proof of concept for some, garnering much review praise, and it will be interesting to watch what Razer does for a 3rd generation design, and how many pro mac users move to such for the 4K 17" screen, greater 'portable desktop' power and port/peripheral/memory flexibility...
Yeah, I get what you're saying, and why, but comparing a 2010 computer with a 2017 one isn't a great comparison to make. Even the 15-inch had noise and short battery life. Seven years later, there are new standards, and Apple straight-out doesn't like loud machines. That's why when I do eGPU reviews, I talk about associated noise.
The Razer is a niche inside a niche. It appears to be a solid machine, but it is also clearly not one Apple will ever make.
Comments
Uh no this isn't planned obsolescence in common use of the word (designing to fail). This is normal apple policy on when to sunset support for old hardware. doesn't mean it suddenly stops working.
But again, nobody is forcing anything. Do you expect to get parts for a 10 year old TV? DVD player? etc... no, you don't. Same thing.
Hes not sugar coating it he's just being a grown up. The numbers aren't there and Apple routinely sunsets support for old products. Nothing new to see here.
FYI i'm a professional enterprise software developer and i love my apple gear. Long gone are the days where i want to build or tinker with my tools. Light and fast, that's all i want. Clearly i'm not alone and am apple's target market.
https://www.amazon.com/HP-17-Performance-17-3-inch-Processor/dp/B071XTQDL6
When you take price out of the equation, 17" sales are reasonable:
http://www.techspot.com/article/866-the-15-inch-tablet/
https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/11/5990695/chromebook-size-market-acer-c720-core-i3
The above is the US, China prefers 14" laptops. With Apple, most of their sales are 12-13" because of the price points. Apple's 17" started at $2500. If they had a 17" at $1200 then it would sell way more units. They tend to tie specs in with screen size. It helps keep the number of SKUs down as well as drives people to the higher price points but there's no reason they couldn't make lower spec laptops with large displays. Given the popularity of the 15", it looks like they've used that desirability to push the higher price point. They have to put the 17" above this but the demand is <1/5th of the 15" so the demand for that size at that price reaches a point where it's just easier to drop it, especially when most of the people who want one would migrate to a 15" Mac than a 17" PC anyway.
Apple's split is 80:20 for laptop:desktop. It's about 14m laptops per year. Given their revenue, they can't be selling more than 4m of the 15" model as it starts at $2k. If demand for a 17" is <1/5th then that's already <800k units per year before they add $500.
There's always going to be some demand for different products but that demand doesn't always fit into Apple's business model. There's demand for a 15" Macbook, it's the most popular screen size so it makes sense to offer it in their highest volume laptop but it could draw a lot of users away from the 15" MBP line down to a lower price point. I would assume they've run the numbers on a lot of different products to see if they're worth doing.
In other words, if the law requires Apple to keep supporting a model, they will. But just there. Anyone else gets the shaft.
Since he passed we have moved to annual OS cycles (vs feature ready), lost things like X-grid, 17" macbook pros, almost all ports, flexibility in drives, ram, pro cards, even vesa mount flexibility on iMacs, ease of repair, independent software management (app store), affordability choices (all storage is 2k MBs), etc... Do pros need to do more, not less with their computers...?
For consideration https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-visionary-ceos-never-have-visionary-successors
Apple hasn't been the underdog in at least a decade. The company's success by definition changed it. It will never be the company that took chances like it did with Jobs, ever again.
Back to the Pro thing (more, not less), Pro complaints about Apple not feeding them is a very small, very vocal bunch. Apple's literal market now is "the rest of us," meaning the mass-market. Not just the computer nerds.
Here's a fairly glowing review of the Razer 17" which seems to be production worthy, and arguably shares some design similarities:
http://www.computershopper.com/laptops/reviews/razer-blade-pro-2017-gtx-1080#review-body
"enthusiast-class performance, excellent usability, top-notch quality, and attention to detail in a beautifully designed package"
...and a video review including comparison graphs to 2016 mbp: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws7S5lXw7zk apparently starting @ $3,700...
The powerbook 3400 wasn't even seven pounds.
In spaces with air supply and other ambient noise this may be less of an issue. Apple greatly improved the quad cooling issues in the 2012 15" design, and seems to have further improved this in the 2016 edition, which may suggest the graphics cards offered, which are still impressive. Apple's 17" spec of up to 7 hours battery life would need accurate comparison, as the settings and use parameters for the Razer seem different. In practice I usually budget about 3 hours of real world work time for a 2010 17" mbp, although Sierra seems to have downgraded the 'time remaining' indicator in favor of percentage only.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-i7-2.5-17-late-2011-unibody-thunderbolt-specs.html
Suffice it to suggest proof of concept for some, garnering much review praise, and it will be interesting to watch what Razer does for a 3rd generation design, and how many pro mac users move to such for the 4K 17" screen, greater 'portable desktop' power and port/peripheral/memory flexibility...
And, while it is true that the computer does not self destruct because Apple called them "Obsolete", that is more than just a descriptive term. It means Apple is dropping some measure of support for the product. And, support is one of the key factors in what makes Apple products great -- and it becomes even more critical when Apple limits that support to itself rather than making users and 3rd party vendors more independent.