Unless I'm totally nuts I'm pretty sure Apple has made it aware that portable sales make up the majority of sales, even in the past 2 quarters. That being said, I doubt consumers are mostly buying MacBook Air's and 12" MacBooks to make up those sales. Nobody has hard numbers except Apple and as of many years ago, they don't break down sales numbers by model. I seriously doubt Apple is trying to pull the wool over our eyes on sales of the new MacBook Pro. That wouldn't be in their best interest for many reasons.
Of course were going to hear mostly whining and complaining in forums...very rarely does someone come into a forum (and possibly sign up for an account) just to praise their purchase. Its almost always to bitch and whine about something because Apple didn't create a Mac around their needs as if Apple needs to personally create a Mac for them. I've said this many times and I'll say it again...Apple knows its markets far better than anyone here and it knows how to run Apple 10,000%+ better than anyone here. Apple didn't get to where it is today by making stupid decisions. Apple has always been the one that makes the hard decisions for people. Apple is the company that always pushes the boundaries for new technologies...such as USB-C, Thunderbolt, high resolution displays, etc. They made the hard decisions to drop the optical drive, the floppy drive, etc. I think this is what makes Apple great...they're pushing forward instead of doing this half-ass deployment with new technology so nobody uses it until they absolutely have to and then they still panic and whine because they have to get equipment, or a new dongle.
First point, regarding Tim Cook: no, he's not a political activist for "a tiny and arguably 'insignificant' percentage of the population." He's a human rights advocate...
Second point, regarding Apple "owing": you're (willfully) misinterpreting what Mike has said. He's been clear in saying that Apple doesn't "owe" veteran customers machines that are exclusively geared to them...
Back in the 80s and early 90s when the majority of Mac buyers were "creative pros," Apple built machines that excelled at that. Today, that is a TINY percentage (well under 10 percent.
If Apple "owes" anyone, it's their shareholders...
No one can truly say what Tim Cook is other than Tim Cook himself, but the fact remains that he is a staunch defender of a small segment of the population because he himself is a part of that segment. It is a fact. Label it what you will, but I was speaking about specifics with regard to "percentages of the population" to make the point that numbers don't necessarily matter at Apple. Even Steve Jobs himself said that numerous times. It wasn't about being the biggest or making the most money. It was about a "core philosophy." Again, that is my point. My point was to steer us away from those cold, heartless "numbers," which don't always matter.
The person who started the use of the word "owe" was not me. That word was put into my mouth and I was merely trying to take it out. I did that by saying there are indeed times when Apple owes. If it is argued that I took words out of context, then I would argue my earlier words were taken out of context in that I never said "owe" in my opening post in this thread. End of story.
I already dealt with "creative pros" in my previous post, but based on your remarks I now should make it more clear. PEOPLE WITH THE MONEY AND DESIRE BUY MACS, EVEN MACS GEARED FOR AN AUDIENCE THAT WOULDN'T INCLUDE THEM.
It doesn't matter if you are a creative pro or a man on the moon. If you have cash and desire, you will buy whatever Mac you want. That was the point I was making in my previous post. It doesn't matter if Apple targets the Mac Pro at whom they deem "a pro." If I as a non-Pro want it and have the money, I shall buy it. Again, that is my point. So there is no reason to talk about creative pros or what Apple did in the past. My earlier post was about QUALITY and that transcends all the talk of creative pros and target audience. The fact remains Apple built their computers like tanks in the past and they lasted a very long time. It can be argued that has changed in recent years, for a variety of reasons, but that change is nevertheless a reality. (I speak of Macs, not iOS devices. In my experience, iOS devices are built rock solid.) But that doesn't mean we ought to throw up our hands and say, "Well, if they could make a better Mac in terms of quality, they would." Sometimes Apple needs a little prodding, and as I stated before, I do leave them such feedback on a regular basis. Yet others trying to force Apple to act using legal action, but I for one am staunchly against using the courts for that. And as to whether the removal of the SD card slot (which is used for supplementing storage too, BTW, not just for camera users), I stand by my earlier comments. Just because some of you, my highly respected fellow Mac users, don't need it doesn't mean no one needs it. And indeed, Apple thought people needed it for a very long time because it was in Apple notebooks for a long time. I could go on, but I spare you.
As to AAPL shareholders, I happen to be one. I first started buying AAPL in 1999 and have continued throughout they years, never selling a single share. As to what AAPL owes me, well, I lived a long time without dividends (prior to 2012), and you know what? I never though Apple owed me any dividends. Never. Again, I don't know where this "owing" thing came up, but let's dispense with it, please!
All I did is express disappointment with the 2016 and now 2017 rMBP 15", then spoke of quality citing two examples from my own Mac collection, and then I received a brow-beating by my fellow Apple/Mac lovers. (But despite that, I hold no animosity toward any of you. We can agree to disagree.) That is why I said "empathy" and "love of one's fellow man" is what we need the most. I stand by those words.
- - - -
Mike W., thanks for letting me know about the pork and brisket. Your post reminded me that I need fire up the BBQ this weekend.
The 'brow beating' is just a select few who, for some reason, feel the need to label people and if they think you are bad mouthing their baby, out come the pitchforks and torches but remember they have their opinions too so just be a little thick skinned and ride over it.
Likewise, it's your opinion. It's as valid as anyone else's, so voice it if you want and defend it if you have the energy but don't let negative comments get to you. There are far more people that read your comments than respond to them and many of them might agree with you although that's pretty irrelevant per se.
Feedback to Apple is all well and good but it is a one way street, a black hole and not public. Places like this and hundreds more are where you can get a real feel of opinion at street level. Apple actually keeps an eye on the internet and what people say and when it's said in public it resonates further so if you have an opinion, speak it and don't worry about what others think or say.
No, Apple doesn't design based on the forum posts on AI.
Just to be clear, I never said they did, but as usual, you already knew that.
That said, Apple does take some design decisions based on user opinions and it takes those opinions from a very wide selection of sources and they very likely include AI. It has a long history of doing this.
Only a fool would believe the, 'Apple knows what we want better than we do' line.
Apple listens. It often ignores too but it has its ear to the ground. In fact, the only reason they came out and spoke about the Mac Pro was precisely because of that. Public criticism. It's also the only reason Schiller came out to counter criticism of the latest MBPs. It's the only reason we know about the iMac Pro.
The only reason we got front ports was because people demanded them. Ditto the return of FireWire after it was removed without warning (not even to companies that had products in the pipeline), dual drive bays etc.
Apple also listens to the market. Do you think we would have got larger iPhone screens, iPad Minis and multi button mice, sticky pull down menus, LCs, Performas and the original iMac and music subscription, to name just a few if it weren't due to the market setting. The abandoning of the Cube, iPod Hi-Fi etc? Apple is stubborn too.
Or even Apple Stores. I campaigned for years for Apple Stores, long before even the first Apple Stores were even concept ideas. To the point of entering public debate with the head of Apple here. Apple Retail Stores were very probably the single biggest element in the modern success of the company. There were a whole heap of structural issues that were remedied with the opening of Apple Retail Stores. Apple was very much against the idea for years.
At the end of the day, the best way to get Apple to change is to not buy, but always better after giving an opinion. From there it is a question of numbers. The more who opt out, the more likely the change. The more people that buy into the deal, the less likely they will be to adopt change.
On top of all this you have executive Apple. Things like repairability, ugradeability, greenness etc are fundamentally executive issues.
And on top of everything you have legislation which, to give just a couple examples, is why warranties are higher in some countries and some manufacturing materials are not used.
What we have learned over the years is to take whatever Apple says with a pinch of salt.
Nothing is set in stone for as much as some people say Apple would never do this or that.
What I like most of Mac is macOS. The problem with Apple is that it is a monopoly internally. All these problems would go if there were Mac clones.
I'm so glad you weren't running Apple during the nineties otherwise there wouldn't have been an Apple today to make the great products we use now.
You forget that Apple makes money from selling hardware. Mac cloners won't have the same overhead R&D costs as Apple but will be chasing the same money in the same market as Apple.
Apple allowing Mac clones will be like carrying a competing runner for three quarters of a race only for them to leap off your back and cinch the gold medal.
I'm surprised to find all these "professionals" aggrieved at Apple lack of 32GB MacBook Pros have time to spare writing such long grumbling comments. Surely they don't have any spare time whilst struggling to get work done before deadline with 16GB?
I'm fortunate to have friends and family in creative, healthcare and financial industries. Our collective experience and observation is that it's much faster, and even safer, to have work on fast "centralised" storage than to be constantly backing up from or restoring to individual laptops, which can (for large enterprises will) be damaged or stolen. All professionals working with valuable data should be routinely backing it up as an insurance against loss or damage; those who don't aren't worthy of the title.
The industry-leading SSDs on the current MacBook Pros seem perfect for this style of working: the laptop's storage being a very fast temporary store and work area whilst "out in the field".
We have now had two earnings calls post MBP re-design, and very little reference to sales. Schiller came out beating his chest in the first week of release. Then he went silent. Cook described sales as simply 'strong' and now we have one of the fastest refreshes in living memory.
You are lying because this has been pointed out to you in the past:
"Next I'd like to talk about the Mac. Revenue was up 14% year over and set a new March quarter record. We sold 4.2 million Macs, up 4% over last year, compared to zero growth in the PC market, according to IDC's latest forecast. Demand for MacBook Pro was very strong, helping to drive overall portables growth of 10 %, twice the growth of the portables market. We ended the quarter at the low end of our four to five week target range for Mac channel inventory."
Judging by the successful sales increase, Apple got it right again.
Have you see the numbers broken down? If you have the new MBP sales figures for the last two quarters, please share.
If you are referring to the Q1 increase, the most notable reference on those sales was that most of them went to non-Mac users.
More BS FUD. Apple doesn't do model breakdowns but it's clear from their Q2 report that sales increased 4% and revenue 14% with much higher ASPs driven by the MBP which costs more. Given no other new models in Q2 to drive sales your continued FUD is both tiresome and idiotic.
The whole point of the 2017 MacBook Pro refresh was the addition of Kaby Lake. When the machine was originally designed and shipped, the quad-core processor suitable for the 15-inch MacBook Pro wasn't available.
It is now, and Apple has fulfilled what was heralded in 2006 as the big advantage to shifting to Intel -- the ability to update the hardware frequently.
In theory this is true. However, the MBP Late-2016 used a CPU launched 5 quarters earlier (i7-6700HQ).
Compare this to the original iMac (PowerPC G3). It was upgraded 4 times in the first 9 months. Including 2 CPU upgrades. Or the PowerBook - G3, G4/TiBook and early MBP received upgrades 2x/year. It kind of stopped in 2014. Obviously not related to Intel at all.
I have read all these comments about the Macbook Pro's redesign. Many like it. Many do not. Technically, it's a marvel but it is a limited machine. No way of upgrading the machine after purchase. I heard the MBP's design was based off of the Macbook which is a lower grade computer than the MBP. The Macbook "Pro" is just glorified Macbook with a "Pro" designation. That I feel is the incorrect thought process. The Macbook Pro should be based off of the Macbook Pro not a lower grade machine then tack on the "Pro" label on it. That is a misrepresentation of this computer. Basically a con job by Apple. This allows Apple to raise the prices because it has a "Pro" attached to it's name. "Pro" machines are machines that can be upgraded by it's owner if necessary. Professional computer users have a budget! Apple thinks the "pros" have an unlimited supply of money so it is okay for them to build the MBP as a throwaway appliance. An expensive appliance. Apple is actually taking it's customers for a ride. I am sorry I will not be taking that ride with the Apple zealots. I do not care what the Apple fanatics say or how they try to insult my point of view. I have owned Apple products for at least 20 years or so and I will not be anymore. Apple has changed too much. The pro market is not represented by them. Watch out for this iPad "Pro." It looks like the same formula as the MBP. Disappointing behavior Apple.
chasm said: [...] (as if there was consensus among "pros" and "veteran Mac users" as to what they want, which is another popular but unsupported fantasy), particularly at the expense of marketshare. Just because such groups are louder than the population in general doesn't mean they represent the majority
Bingo. I would have been LESS likely to buy this MacBook Pro if it had a variety of single-use ports. Universal/Mulit-use ports were at the very top of my wish list for this machine (once I learned that such a thing was even possible). Yet, if you were to talk only to those who post to forums (fora?), you might get the impression that no one wants what Apple is supplying now.
I have no idea if there are others who are pleased with the new approach and are just quietly working away without feeling any need to "defend" it, or if I'm in a tiny minority. I just know that I am really, really, pleased to be able to plug ANY device into any port that happens to be free, including power, and not having to worry about whether the particular one I need is free. I hate it when I go to connect something to my wife's MBP and the port I need is full while one I don't need sits empty.
We have now had two earnings calls post MBP re-design, and very little reference to sales. Schiller came out beating his chest in the first week of release. Then he went silent. Cook described sales as simply 'strong' and now we have one of the fastest refreshes in living memory.
You are lying because this has been pointed out to you in the past:
"Next I'd like to talk about the Mac. Revenue was up 14% year over and set a new March quarter record. We sold 4.2 million Macs, up 4% over last year, compared to zero growth in the PC market, according to IDC's latest forecast. Demand for MacBook Pro was very strong, helping to drive overall portables growth of 10 %, twice the growth of the portables market. We ended the quarter at the low end of our four to five week target range for Mac channel inventory."
Point out all you want but I still haven't seen any.numbers for the new MBP. When you actually have some, please feel free to post them. I said they probably didn't break any records and TC himself described sales as strong. Where is the lie?
The whole point of the 2017 MacBook Pro refresh was the addition of Kaby Lake. When the machine was originally designed and shipped, the quad-core processor suitable for the 15-inch MacBook Pro wasn't available.
It is now, and Apple has fulfilled what was heralded in 2006 as the big advantage to shifting to Intel -- the ability to update the hardware frequently.
In theory this is true. However, the MBP Late-2016 used a CPU launched 5 quarters earlier (i7-6700HQ).
Compare this to the original iMac (PowerPC G3). It was upgraded 4 times in the first 9 months. Including 2 CPU upgrades. Or the PowerBook - G3, G4/TiBook and early MBP received upgrades 2x/year. It kind of stopped in 2014. Obviously not related to Intel at all.
What changed at Apple?
First of all, apologies for typos, as I'm on the road.
You're not comparing like with like. Sure, the i7-6700HQ shipped five quarters earlier, but that's a red herring. Kaby Lake still wasn't available to put in the 2016 MBP when it launched. The i7 for Kaby Lake that Apple is using now shipped in January 2017.
Apple ditched Moto and IBM for PPC in 2006 because they were falling behind. Frequent upgrades in PPC didn't mean jack, as x86 was moving faster, and updating faster. The PPC vendors weren't keeping promises, and they weren't delivering on time.
This is ENTIRELY related to Intel, just as much as the unavailability of what Apple and Co. wanted for the PPC was Moto and IBM.
Nothing changed at Apple. It can't ship what doesn't exist.
I have read all these comments about the Macbook Pro's redesign. Many like it. Many do not. Technically, it's a marvel but it is a limited machine. No way of upgrading the machine after purchase. I heard the MBP's design was based off of the Macbook which is a lower grade computer than the MBP. The Macbook "Pro" is just glorified Macbook with a "Pro" designation. That I feel is the incorrect thought process. The Macbook Pro should be based off of the Macbook Pro not a lower grade machine then tack on the "Pro" label on it. That is a misrepresentation of this computer. Basically a con job by Apple. This allows Apple to raise the prices because it has a "Pro" attached to it's name. "Pro" machines are machines that can be upgraded by it's owner if necessary. Professional computer users have a budget! Apple thinks the "pros" have an unlimited supply of money so it is okay for them to build the MBP as a throwaway appliance. An expensive appliance. Apple is actually taking it's customers for a ride. I am sorry I will not be taking that ride with the Apple zealots. I do not care what the Apple fanatics say or how they try to insult my point of view. I have owned Apple products for at least 20 years or so and I will not be anymore. Apple has changed too much. The pro market is not represented by them. Watch out for this iPad "Pro." It looks like the same formula as the MBP. Disappointing behavior Apple.
You need to check your facts.
"I heard the MBP's design was based off of the Macbook which is a lower grade computer than the MBP." -- this is totally false. The chassis was engineered with techniques developed for the MacBook, but that's the beginning and end of it.
""Pro" machines are machines that can be upgraded by it's owner if necessary." -- It may be your definition, but it's not a good one.
By all means. If Apple isn't doing what you need it to do, then get what does. Your chain of thought is disjointed, though, and makes a lot of assumptions about intent that aren't accurate.
Judging by the successful sales increase, Apple got it right again.
Have you see the numbers broken down? If you have the new MBP sales figures for the last two quarters, please share.
If you are referring to the Q1 increase, the most notable reference on those sales was that most of them went to non-Mac users.
More BS FUD. Apple doesn't do model breakdowns but it's clear from their Q2 report that sales increased 4% and revenue 14% with much higher ASPs driven by the MBP which costs more. Given no other new models in Q2 to drive sales your continued FUD is both tiresome and idiotic.
BS? FUD?
No.
A simple opinion. Live with it and if you actually have any numbers, provide them.
Apple doesn't do model breakdowns? Wow ! Ever wondered why all this is speculation?
First point, regarding Tim Cook: no, he's not a political activist for "a tiny and arguably 'insignificant' percentage of the population." He's a human rights advocate...
Second point, regarding Apple "owing": you're (willfully) misinterpreting what Mike has said. He's been clear in saying that Apple doesn't "owe" veteran customers machines that are exclusively geared to them...
Back in the 80s and early 90s when the majority of Mac buyers were "creative pros," Apple built machines that excelled at that. Today, that is a TINY percentage (well under 10 percent.
If Apple "owes" anyone, it's their shareholders...
No one can truly say what Tim Cook is other than Tim Cook himself, but the fact remains that he is a staunch defender of a small segment of the population because he himself is a part of that segment. It is a fact. Label it what you will, but I was speaking about specifics with regard to "percentages of the population" to make the point that numbers don't necessarily matter at Apple. Even Steve Jobs himself said that numerous times. It wasn't about being the biggest or making the most money. It was about a "core philosophy." Again, that is my point. My point was to steer us away from those cold, heartless "numbers," which don't always matter.
The person who started the use of the word "owe" was not me. That word was put into my mouth and I was merely trying to take it out. I did that by saying there are indeed times when Apple owes. If it is argued that I took words out of context, then I would argue my earlier words were taken out of context in that I never said "owe" in my opening post in this thread. End of story.
I already dealt with "creative pros" in my previous post, but based on your remarks I now should make it more clear. PEOPLE WITH THE MONEY AND DESIRE BUY MACS, EVEN MACS GEARED FOR AN AUDIENCE THAT WOULDN'T INCLUDE THEM.
It doesn't matter if you are a creative pro or a man on the moon. If you have cash and desire, you will buy whatever Mac you want. That was the point I was making in my previous post. It doesn't matter if Apple targets the Mac Pro at whom they deem "a pro." If I as a non-Pro want it and have the money, I shall buy it. Again, that is my point. So there is no reason to talk about creative pros or what Apple did in the past. My earlier post was about QUALITY and that transcends all the talk of creative pros and target audience. The fact remains Apple built their computers like tanks in the past and they lasted a very long time. It can be argued that has changed in recent years, for a variety of reasons, but that change is nevertheless a reality. (I speak of Macs, not iOS devices. In my experience, iOS devices are built rock solid.) But that doesn't mean we ought to throw up our hands and say, "Well, if they could make a better Mac in terms of quality, they would." Sometimes Apple needs a little prodding, and as I stated before, I do leave them such feedback on a regular basis. Yet others trying to force Apple to act using legal action, but I for one am staunchly against using the courts for that. And as to whether the removal of the SD card slot (which is used for supplementing storage too, BTW, not just for camera users), I stand by my earlier comments. Just because some of you, my highly respected fellow Mac users, don't need it doesn't mean no one needs it. And indeed, Apple thought people needed it for a very long time because it was in Apple notebooks for a long time. I could go on, but I spare you.
As to AAPL shareholders, I happen to be one. I first started buying AAPL in 1999 and have continued throughout they years, never selling a single share. As to what AAPL owes me, well, I lived a long time without dividends (prior to 2012), and you know what? I never though Apple owed me any dividends. Never. Again, I don't know where this "owing" thing came up, but let's dispense with it, please!
All I did is express disappointment with the 2016 and now 2017 rMBP 15", then spoke of quality citing two examples from my own Mac collection, and then I received a brow-beating by my fellow Apple/Mac lovers. (But despite that, I hold no animosity toward any of you. We can agree to disagree.) That is why I said "empathy" and "love of one's fellow man" is what we need the most. I stand by those words.
- - - -
Mike W., thanks for letting me know about the pork and brisket. Your post reminded me that I need fire up the BBQ this weekend.
The 'brow beating' is just a select few who, for some reason, feel the need to label people and if they think you are bad mouthing their baby, out come the pitchforks and torches but remember they have their opinions too so just be a little thick skinned and ride over it.
Likewise, it's your opinion. It's as valid as anyone else's, so voice it if you want and defend it if you have the energy but don't let negative comments get to you. There are far more people that read your comments than respond to them and many of them might agree with you although that's pretty irrelevant per se.
Feedback to Apple is all well and good but it is a one way street, a black hole and not public. Places like this and hundreds more are where you can get a real feel of opinion at street level. Apple actually keeps an eye on the internet and what people say and when it's said in public it resonates further so if you have an opinion, speak it and don't worry about what others think or say.
No, Apple doesn't design based on the forum posts on AI.
Just to be clear, I never said they did, but as usual, you already knew that.
That said, Apple does take some design decisions based on user opinions and it takes those opinions from a very wide selection of sources and they very likely include AI. It has a long history of doing this.
Only a fool would believe the, 'Apple knows what we want better than we do' line.
Apple listens. It often ignores too but it has its ear to the ground. In fact, the only reason they came out and spoke about the Mac Pro was precisely because of that. Public criticism. It's also the only reason Schiller came out to counter criticism of the latest MBPs. It's the only reason we know about the iMac Pro.
The only reason we got front ports was because people demanded them. Ditto the return of FireWire after it was removed without warning (not even to companies that had products in the pipeline), dual drive bays etc.
Apple also listens to the market. Do you think we would have got larger iPhone screens, iPad Minis and multi button mice, sticky pull down menus, LCs, Performas and the original iMac and music subscription, to name just a few if it weren't due to the market setting. The abandoning of the Cube, iPod Hi-Fi etc? Apple is stubborn too.
Or even Apple Stores. I campaigned for years for Apple Stores, long before even the first Apple Stores were even concept ideas. To the point of entering public debate with the head of Apple here. Apple Retail Stores were very probably the single biggest element in the modern success of the company. There were a whole heap of structural issues that were remedied with the opening of Apple Retail Stores. Apple was very much against the idea for years.
At the end of the day, the best way to get Apple to change is to not buy, but always better after giving an opinion. From there it is a question of numbers. The more who opt out, the more likely the change. The more people that buy into the deal, the less likely they will be to adopt change.
On top of all this you have executive Apple. Things like repairability, ugradeability, greenness etc are fundamentally executive issues.
And on top of everything you have legislation which, to give just a couple examples, is why warranties are higher in some countries and some manufacturing materials are not used.
What we have learned over the years is to take whatever Apple says with a pinch of salt.
Nothing is set in stone for as much as some people say Apple would never do this or that.
Sorry, no, Apple still isn’t designing or changing its designs based on any posts on this forum, ever. That isn’t how their team works.
Well, FWIW I did run Geekbench 4 on my 2016 MacBook Pro and came to 15,503 multi core (4646 single) so I wonder what they really tested that yielded 13,000 odd points. I think it's misleading.
Mine is a late 2016 2.9GHz ("toppest" end BTO) 15inch
You're not comparing like with like. Sure, the i7-6700HQ shipped five quarters earlier, but that's a red herring.
Kaby Lake still wasn't available to put in the 2016 MBP when it launched. The i7 for Kaby Lake that Apple is using now shipped in January 2017.
Nothing changed at Apple. It can't ship what doesn't exist.
I fully agree that the move to Intel was much needed. It shut down the megahertz gap. It made it easier to let PCI boards to work with the Mac, improved battery life, etc. etc.
However... in the past Apple didn't stop upgrading their computers years before they launched an update. The switch from Pismo/G3 to TiBook/G4 was swift, and iMac G5 got an update just 3 months before the iMac with Intel. Keeping the product range fresh used to be the norm.
The switch to Intel did solve a lot of issues. Hardware upgrades were not one of them.
”There’s absolutely no reason Apple couldn’t make the battery, SSD, or RAM user replaceable except greed.”
Oh really, Einstein?
Have you looked into the specs for how these high-speed components integrate? Because there are no other options. Have you looked into the physical forces exerted on a laptop that would necessitate repair due to socket failure? How about the electrical components that create heat and consume more power? What about thermal design inside of the space?
Oh and if the battery wasn’t the entire insides of the laptop, it would have like 2-3 hours of battery life. Battery technology has improved to a point where the battery will continue to operate in the machines foreseeable useful lifecycle. There’s no need to make it replaceable. None. Just get an external battery pack with USB-C and charge up.
The fact is that Apple employees thousands of people who figure out what the market wants and designs to those specs. You’re a tiny fraction of the market. They’ve determined (as well as other companies) that people want a laptop that is portable (surprise) and gets certain levels of battery life. They want a great screen.
Now many of the gripes I’ve seen have more to do with modern PC architecture (Intel) than Apple. No you can’t have socketed RAM in these newer designs and achieve the same power/performance ratio. Oh and USB-C? That’s a standard and it’s a wonderful port. You should get onboard. Yes I have one single and use one every now and then, but the future of a single interconnect that is almost unlimited in its power and speed is worth the temporary inconvenience.
"Battery technology has improved to a point where the battery will
continue to operate in the machines foreseeable useful lifecycle."
And that's part of the trouble with the "Glued and soldered together" design: Planned Obsolescence. If the product's expected life is short enough (use it 3-5 years then discard and buy new), then yes, a battery can perform for the life of the unit.
Some of us expect and demand a longer life out of our electronics. I am currently using a 10-12 year old IBM Thinkpad that, after a number of upgrades (including a battery), functions perfectly. Why should I not expect the same performance out of a Mac?
For me, everything starts with price. It doesn't matter how great something is if I can't afford it. One of the most absurd comments I've heard on the subject is to save for longer. Sigh.
Next problem is what you get for the price. Again, it doesn't matter how great something is if you don't really need it. Some people love retina screens but I could get by easily with non retina. Same for soldered RAM/SSD. Once again, I could get by without the fastest options if flexibility were factored into the offer. The option to upgrade down the line is something I have always taken advantage of.
Thinness? This is probably a Jony Ive obsession which I can easily live without if accessibility and longer battery life are the end result. The previous line was already thin. Having the battery glued to the upper casing is something I could also do without and after repeated use in different stores I still dislike the keyboard.
Touch Bar and Touch ID? For the added cost that comes with it, I could easily do without both. At the end of the day they are convenience items. Nothing more.
So what we have is an expensive (no other word for it) base system that could easily cost far less and which you have to BTO at current Apple pricing pushing the price even higher.
I haven't bought a laptop for a few years now and my current upgraded Macs have new blood in them. I will not be buying into this line until prices come down and/or ugradeability is looked at with a new corporate perspective.
People will say something stupid like 'Apple doesn't cater to me'. That is irrelevant. Apple caters to sales. It seems clear that new MBP sales didn't fly off the charts. There was pent up demand and that was quenched. We will see what Apple does in the future if sales flatten out. After many people claiming the MBA was eol, that wasn't the case. Just as it wasn't the case that anything not USB-C was 'legacy'.
Apple put itself into a pigeon hole. If people are willing to buy into the sealed up, glued in, BTO at purchase, short warranty, expensive laptop, that's their decision. Mine is to pass.
The question is how many others pass or not.
Good that you pass you would not be happy with a Mac so go on to a different computer that won't last as long as a Apple computer. With Apple you get your money's worth.
You could have stopped reading when he mentioned price as his main driver, above quality. What you're dealing with here is someone who is outside Apple's demographic and so would be much happier buying a Dell machine. For some people, a superficial short-term saving is more important than longevity and build quality.
I've had one for a few months and I've noticed cracks around the keyboard housing. But it was much cheaper than the MacBook Pro that'll be replacing it as my main development machine.
Longevity? Being non-upgradable because its all glued & soldered together, MBPs are very short on longevity. Actually, they fall more into the "planned obsolescence" realm...
While they offer some great features -- particularly power combined with portability, longevity is a weak point rather than a strong point.
Nonsense. You're pretending as if if non user upgradble means not serviceable. It doesn't. You'll be able to get it repaired for years to come if need be.
Apple gear has the longest useful lifespan with the highest resale values. That's the opposite of planned obsolescence inspires you theory nonsense.
You're dreaming... Apple generally cuts off service and support for both hardware and software after 4-5 years.... ... Sorry, next?
Well, FWIW I did run Geekbench 4 on my 2016 MacBook Pro and came to 15,503 multi core (4646 single) so I wonder what they really tested that yielded 13,000 odd points. I think it's misleading.
Mine is a late 2016 2.9GHz ("toppest" end BTO) 15inch
I'll take it up with the reviewer, but our number is closer to the consensus than yours is for the model. A screenshot of the benchmark is available on the 2016 review page.
What I like most of Mac is macOS. The problem with Apple is that it is a monopoly internally. All these problems would go if there were Mac clones.
I'm so glad you weren't running Apple during the nineties otherwise there wouldn't have been an Apple today to make the great products we use now.
You forget that Apple makes money from selling hardware. Mac cloners won't have the same overhead R&D costs as Apple but will be chasing the same money in the same market as Apple.
Apple allowing Mac clones will be like carrying a competing runner for three quarters of a race only for them to leap off your back and cinch the gold medal.
"Apple makes money from selling hardware."
True, the hardware is part the of the Apple product you can touch and feel. Tangible. But every product Apple sells is a collection of hardware, software and services that are integrated into a tight, cohesive symbiotic package. You need all three to make it an Apple product.
Comments
Of course were going to hear mostly whining and complaining in forums...very rarely does someone come into a forum (and possibly sign up for an account) just to praise their purchase. Its almost always to bitch and whine about something because Apple didn't create a Mac around their needs as if Apple needs to personally create a Mac for them. I've said this many times and I'll say it again...Apple knows its markets far better than anyone here and it knows how to run Apple 10,000%+ better than anyone here. Apple didn't get to where it is today by making stupid decisions. Apple has always been the one that makes the hard decisions for people. Apple is the company that always pushes the boundaries for new technologies...such as USB-C, Thunderbolt, high resolution displays, etc. They made the hard decisions to drop the optical drive, the floppy drive, etc. I think this is what makes Apple great...they're pushing forward instead of doing this half-ass deployment with new technology so nobody uses it until they absolutely have to and then they still panic and whine because they have to get equipment, or a new dongle.
That said, Apple does take some design decisions based on user opinions and it takes those opinions from a very wide selection of sources and they very likely include AI. It has a long history of doing this.
Only a fool would believe the, 'Apple knows what we want better than we do' line.
Apple listens. It often ignores too but it has its ear to the ground. In fact, the only reason they came out and spoke about the Mac Pro was precisely because of that. Public criticism. It's also the only reason Schiller came out to counter criticism of the latest MBPs. It's the only reason we know about the iMac Pro.
The only reason we got front ports was because people demanded them. Ditto the return of FireWire after it was removed without warning (not even to companies that had products in the pipeline), dual drive bays etc.
Apple also listens to the market. Do you think we would have got larger iPhone screens, iPad Minis and multi button mice, sticky pull down menus, LCs, Performas and the original iMac and music subscription, to name just a few if it weren't due to the market setting. The abandoning of the Cube, iPod Hi-Fi etc? Apple is stubborn too.
Or even Apple Stores. I campaigned for years for Apple Stores, long before even the first Apple Stores were even concept ideas. To the point of entering public debate with the head of Apple here. Apple Retail Stores were very probably the single biggest element in the modern success of the company. There were a whole heap of structural issues that were remedied with the opening of Apple Retail Stores. Apple was very much against the idea for years.
At the end of the day, the best way to get Apple to change is to not buy, but always better after giving an opinion. From there it is a question of numbers. The more who opt out, the more likely the change. The more people that buy into the deal, the less likely they will be to adopt change.
On top of all this you have executive Apple. Things like repairability, ugradeability, greenness etc are fundamentally executive issues.
And on top of everything you have legislation which, to give just a couple examples, is why warranties are higher in some countries and some manufacturing materials are not used.
What we have learned over the years is to take whatever Apple says with a pinch of salt.
Nothing is set in stone for as much as some people say Apple would never do this or that.
You forget that Apple makes money from selling hardware. Mac cloners won't have the same overhead R&D costs as Apple but will be chasing the same money in the same market as Apple.
Apple allowing Mac clones will be like carrying a competing runner for three quarters of a race only for them to leap off your back and cinch the gold medal.
I'm fortunate to have friends and family in creative, healthcare and financial industries. Our collective experience and observation is that it's much faster, and even safer, to have work on fast "centralised" storage than to be constantly backing up from or restoring to individual laptops, which can (for large enterprises will) be damaged or stolen.
All professionals working with valuable data should be routinely backing it up as an insurance against loss or damage; those who don't aren't worthy of the title.
The industry-leading SSDs on the current MacBook Pros seem perfect for this style of working: the laptop's storage being a very fast temporary store and work area whilst "out in the field".
"Next I'd like to talk about the Mac. Revenue was up 14% year over and set a new March quarter record. We sold 4.2 million Macs, up 4% over last year, compared to zero growth in the PC market, according to IDC's latest forecast. Demand for MacBook Pro was very strong, helping to drive overall portables growth of 10 %, twice the growth of the portables market. We ended the quarter at the low end of our four to five week target range for Mac channel inventory."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4068153-apple-aapl-q2-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript
Compare this to the original iMac (PowerPC G3). It was upgraded 4 times in the first 9 months. Including 2 CPU upgrades.
Or the PowerBook - G3, G4/TiBook and early MBP received upgrades 2x/year. It kind of stopped in 2014. Obviously not related to Intel at all.
What changed at Apple?
I have no idea if there are others who are pleased with the new approach and are just quietly working away without feeling any need to "defend" it, or if I'm in a tiny minority. I just know that I am really, really, pleased to be able to plug ANY device into any port that happens to be free, including power, and not having to worry about whether the particular one I need is free. I hate it when I go to connect something to my wife's MBP and the port I need is full while one I don't need sits empty.
Point out all you want but I still haven't seen any.numbers for the new MBP. When you actually have some, please feel free to post them. I said they probably didn't break any records and TC himself described sales as strong. Where is the lie?
You're not comparing like with like. Sure, the i7-6700HQ shipped five quarters earlier, but that's a red herring. Kaby Lake still wasn't available to put in the 2016 MBP when it launched. The i7 for Kaby Lake that Apple is using now shipped in January 2017.
You need to check your facts.
By all means. If Apple isn't doing what you need it to do, then get what does. Your chain of thought is disjointed, though, and makes a lot of assumptions about intent that aren't accurate.
FUD?
No.
A simple opinion. Live with it and if you actually have any numbers, provide them.
Apple doesn't do model breakdowns? Wow ! Ever wondered why all this is speculation?
Mine is a late 2016 2.9GHz ("toppest" end BTO) 15inch
However... in the past Apple didn't stop upgrading their computers years before they launched an update. The switch from Pismo/G3 to TiBook/G4 was swift, and iMac G5 got an update just 3 months before the iMac with Intel. Keeping the product range fresh used to be the norm.
The switch to Intel did solve a lot of issues. Hardware upgrades were not one of them.
And that's part of the trouble with the "Glued and soldered together" design: Planned Obsolescence.
If the product's expected life is short enough (use it 3-5 years then discard and buy new), then yes, a battery can perform for the life of the unit.
Some of us expect and demand a longer life out of our electronics. I am currently using a 10-12 year old IBM Thinkpad that, after a number of upgrades (including a battery), functions perfectly. Why should I not expect the same performance out of a Mac?
Apple generally cuts off service and support for both hardware and software after 4-5 years....
... Sorry, next?
https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks/
True, the hardware is part the of the Apple product you can touch and feel. Tangible. But every product Apple sells is a collection of hardware, software and services that are integrated into a tight, cohesive symbiotic package. You need all three to make it an Apple product.