Review: 2017 MacBook Pro fulfills the promise of the line's redesign

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 175
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,712member
    We are talking about the company that gave us the rotary volume dial on the brushed-metal QuickTime player, yes? 

    I agree that they took it a bit too far in the iOS 7 redesign - especially making text indistinguishable from buttons is a problem. But the pendulum has been steadily swinging back since then, and iOS 11 certainly isn't any worse than iOS 6 or Mac OS ever was. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 122 of 175
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    spheric said:
    We are talking about the company that gave us the rotary volume dial on the brushed-metal QuickTime player, yes? 

    I agree that they took it a bit too far in the iOS 7 redesign - especially making text indistinguishable from buttons is a problem. But the pendulum has been steadily swinging back since then, and iOS 11 certainly isn't any worse than iOS 6 or Mac OS ever was. 
    Agreed, somewhat. But, why did they ever go there in the first place? To be 'fresh'? To copy Microsoft? If they'd bothered to read their own UI research or listen to some good UX designers, they not have had to course-correct.

    I'm not saying we have to go skeuomorphic. I think that can be useful to some extent, but maybe went to far. And, I get the argument that people are not familiar enough with technology to drop having to be overly-reliant on analogy. But, good UI principles haven't suddenly become irrelevant either. Proper feedback. As you say, recognizing something is a button. Enough familiarity to anticipate what action will result (i.e.: What is that symbol? What happens if I press it? Oh, it deleted my database? Oops!) Or, the almost stupid simple recognition that you can more quickly identify and navigate to items that include color over B&W.

    MacOS didn't escape either. There were a number of UI aspects that were better a decade ago... of course, along with many improvements. For example, the way Spotlight now works is brain-dead. Or, the way 'Tags' are applied to files and folds compared with the past shading. What about the the whole save-as debacle? That's *still* confusing, how many years later? And, of course, many macOS buttons and icons got the 'flat' treatment as well.

    I'm not saying I want to go back to iOS 6 or Snow Leopard in total. But, I'd love it if they'd bring back the good from there that they diverged from.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 123 of 175
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    cgWerks said:
    [...] Things like RAM and storage generally get bigger and cheaper at a fairly rapid rate. So, even not taking Apple's sometimes outrageous pricing into account, a RAM chip that costs $400 today might cost $50 in a year or two. So, if you BTO with top-spec parts, you'll spend a lot of extra money that will quickly become not worth as much.
    Sure, just like if you wait two years instead of buying the latest model when it's released you save a bunch of money. Of course, for the duration of the wait you live without the benefits of what that money buys. In order to get RAM cheaper, one has to live with less RAM for some period of time. I may pay more for RAM by buying it earlier, but I get to be USING it while you're waiting for the price to drop. You save $250 by waiting two years, I pay what works out to $10 a month by getting it on Day One.

    That's not to say one approach is any more or less valid than the other, just that it's not simply a question of economy. It's economy vs. utility.

    Besides, the people arguing that "pro" equals "user upgradable" aren't complaining about the cost, they're saying it's an operational imperative. I consider having as much RAM as possible as soon as possible to be the most "pro" approach.


    cgWerks said:
    Or, for something like storage, it might not even be available. Say the top storage option is 512GB, but next year, there are 1TB or stuff like that. And, in general, file sizes have gotten bigger and bigger. So, maybe when you buy the machine, you're working with 1080p video and after a couple of years, you're working with 4k video, etc. Suddenly, the storage that was ample when you bought it is tiny for current needs.
    On this we agree. Storage is an exception. First, capacity is increasing with time, and second, what the user has available decreases with time as one accumulates files. It's not really an issue with desktop computers because adding external storage to a device that never moves is no big deal, but for portable devices external is a pain. I'd like to be able to add storage to my MacBook Pro in the future.
    spheric
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 124 of 175
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    lorin schultz said:
    Besides, the people arguing that "pro" equals "user upgradable" aren't complaining about the cost, they're saying it's an operational imperative. I consider having as much RAM as possible as soon as possible to be the most "pro" approach.
    ...
    On this we agree. Storage is an exception. First, capacity is increasing with time, and second, what the user has available decreases with time as one accumulates files. It's not really an issue with desktop computers because adding external storage to a device that never moves is no big deal, but for portable devices external is a pain. I'd like to be able to add storage to my MacBook Pro in the future.
    Yea, I think it depends on the pros. Those who work for big companies or very successful smaller operations might not be as worried about costs, and could probably just buy new machines, too, once bigger RAM options become available or if they bought too small to begin with. I'm not necessarily arguing with you, just trying to defend why some would desire upgradability.

    From my Fortune 100 days, upgrading wasn't an issue... we just bought new machines and passed down. And, since saving money when budget amounts are at stake, budgets are often over-estimated and then quickly spent near the end of the fiscal year. I was often involved in conversations about what we're going to buy up with that extra $50k we've got before year-end. It was often... new laptops all around and the pass-down routine, or a few xServes added to the server rack. :)

    re: storage - That, and my previous MBP had a 1TB HD drive (maybe 2?) and my current MBA has 128GB, which was a huge workflow adjustment. Now, I could have bought 256GB, or possibly 512GB in a top-of-the-line MBP? But, that's still an adjustment and really impacted the way I used Dropbox. If money were no object, yes, *now* I could match the level of portable storage I was previously used to.

    Either way, I don't care that much about upgrading. I'm pretty happy with these new sealed devices, on the whole.

    It's really more in the desktop line where I feel Apple has a huge hole (and were upgradability was more desired). For the pros, I think it was primarily GPU where the biggest outcry was heard. It looks like Apple is fixing that now, and then there are eGPUs. But, they don't have much for prosumers besides the iMac. The mini is too little (potential), the iMac too constrained, the upcoming Mac Pro too expensive. If they were to put what's in the iMac into a container like a big-mini or the Mac Pro cylinder with a reasonable GPU or a real slot, they'd have an incredible seller, IMO. (Or, I might be OK with the current iMacs if they had an HDMI in... but I'm probably a real minority there.)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 125 of 175
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    cgWerks said:
    [..] I'm not necessarily arguing with you, just trying to defend why some would desire upgradability.
    I didn't take your remarks as argumentative. We're just "discussing." I'm also "disgusting" but I don't know if that's particularly relevant to the conversation. In fact, I'm not even really sure why you brought it up in the first place.
    edited June 2017
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 126 of 175
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    lorin schultz said:
    I didn't take your remarks as argumentative. We're just "discussing."
    Heh, that's good. I was just making it clear. I use argue more in the sense of a lawyer or my side gig, Christian apologetics. It doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation, but a lot of people take it that way. :smile: 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 127 of 175
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    To the moderator who edited my last comment:

    What you you cut out was a Monty Python reference. You should check out the French taunting bit from Holy Grail. It's hilarious.
    spheric
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 128 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'

    p.s.  And, equating memory and harddrive upgrades to slots is a false equivalency.   Additional memory and bigger faster harddrives do not change the basic functionality of the device.   Slots, by their very nature are designed to do that.   They don't ALWAYS do that.  But, by their design, they make that an option.  THAT is what Jobs was opposed to because it threatened the integrity of his perfect, integrated system of software and hardware.
    edited June 2017
    avon b7
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 129 of 175
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'
    Nice editing to remove the bolded relevant quote:
    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. 
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.
    edited June 2017
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 130 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member



    GeorgeBMac said:
    It sounds like you are following propaganda from the meat and dairy industries rather than the latest science.   The latest science is examined by the AHA, USDA and the WHO and they all agree to avoid saturated fats, dietary cholesterol and red and processed meats in favor of whole plant based foods.

    40 years ago the tobacco industry did the same thing:  muddy the scientific waters with misinformation.  The meat, dairy and processed food industries are following the same model of "Alternative Facts"
    .

    Please, take some time to educate yourself on this. Your life, quite literally, depends on it.


    I have...  Quite a bit of time actually...  Aside from the hardcore science, the proof is that the healthiest and longest lived peoples on the planet simply don't eat the crap that you suggest they should be eating.  It all points in one direction:  Avoid animal products, processed and refined foods and instead eat a variety of whole plant foods without added salt, sugar and fat...

    I suggest you follow your own advice and look outside of the meat and dairy industry propaganda to find the truth...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 131 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    nht said:
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'
    Nice editing to remove the bolded relevant quote:
    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. 
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.
    "He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. "
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.

    From what I know of Jobs, that was not his motivation.   He was focused on making a great product.   He couldn't do that if people could tinker with it and modify it - for ANY reason.  Then it was not his product and quality would invariably suffer.

    Picture your scenario today:   Somebody buys an MBP, and "improves it" by swapping out the hard drive & memory with third party junk and then installs say Unix on it.  That is no longer an Apple product.   It no longer carries the assurance of quality that Apple bestowed on it.

    But a product built on planned obsolescence is obviously not a quality product and was outside of Job's universe.  He didn't design his products to become obsolete.  He just didn't want hacks "improving" them.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 132 of 175
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,712member
    nht said:
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'
    Nice editing to remove the bolded relevant quote:
    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. 
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.
    "He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. "
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.

    From what I know of Jobs, that was not his motivation.   He was focused on making a great product.   He couldn't do that if people could tinker with it and modify it - for ANY reason.  Then it was not his product and quality would invariably suffer.

    Picture your scenario today:   Somebody buys an MBP, and "improves it" by swapping out the hard drive & memory with third party junk and then installs say Unix on it.  That is no longer an Apple product.   It no longer carries the assurance of quality that Apple bestowed on it.

    But a product built on planned obsolescence is obviously not a quality product and was outside of Job's universe.  He didn't design his products to become obsolete.  He just didn't want hacks "improving" them.

    The motivation wasn't to discourage hacks — he never cared much about them. 

    By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs. 

    Geeks and nerds were railing for AGES why Apple wouldn't add more RAM to their iPads, but the result was that the iPad 1 was supported by virtually all apps for the longest time (and the iPad 2 for even longer than that). 

    Also, if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades. And then you have users wondering about whether to upgrade their device or whether anything they could do would make something work that was broken, when they really should just be using the thing and not worrying about anything else.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 133 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    spheric said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'
    Nice editing to remove the bolded relevant quote:
    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. 
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.
    "He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. "
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.

    From what I know of Jobs, that was not his motivation.   He was focused on making a great product.   He couldn't do that if people could tinker with it and modify it - for ANY reason.  Then it was not his product and quality would invariably suffer.

    Picture your scenario today:   Somebody buys an MBP, and "improves it" by swapping out the hard drive & memory with third party junk and then installs say Unix on it.  That is no longer an Apple product.   It no longer carries the assurance of quality that Apple bestowed on it.

    But a product built on planned obsolescence is obviously not a quality product and was outside of Job's universe.  He didn't design his products to become obsolete.  He just didn't want hacks "improving" them.

    The motivation wasn't to discourage hacks — he never cared much about them. 

    By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs. 

    Geeks and nerds were railing for AGES why Apple wouldn't add more RAM to their iPads, but the result was that the iPad 1 was supported by virtually all apps for the longest time (and the iPad 2 for even longer than that). 

    Also, if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades. And then you have users wondering about whether to upgrade their device or whether anything they could do would make something work that was broken, when they really should just be using the thing and not worrying about anything else.
    Jobs never cared much about hacks?   Really?   You sure about that?  Is that why he sealed his unit with proprietary screws?

    And the motivation for a closed system was to achieve synergy through the integration of hardware and software where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts -- which has set Apple apart from all competition.   An extreme example of that was with the creation of the iTunes music store:   it even went so far as the integration of different product lines:   The integration of iMacs, iPods and iTunes enabled Jobs to generate the security required by music companies combined with the user friendliness required by the user community.   It had NOTHING to do with concern for developers.

    As for "making things upgradeable":  Apple already does that for developers.  The users just throw away their old machines and buy new ones...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 134 of 175
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,712member
    spheric said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'
    Nice editing to remove the bolded relevant quote:
    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. 
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.
    "He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. "
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.

    From what I know of Jobs, that was not his motivation.   He was focused on making a great product.   He couldn't do that if people could tinker with it and modify it - for ANY reason.  Then it was not his product and quality would invariably suffer.

    Picture your scenario today:   Somebody buys an MBP, and "improves it" by swapping out the hard drive & memory with third party junk and then installs say Unix on it.  That is no longer an Apple product.   It no longer carries the assurance of quality that Apple bestowed on it.

    But a product built on planned obsolescence is obviously not a quality product and was outside of Job's universe.  He didn't design his products to become obsolete.  He just didn't want hacks "improving" them.

    The motivation wasn't to discourage hacks — he never cared much about them. 

    By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs. 

    Geeks and nerds were railing for AGES why Apple wouldn't add more RAM to their iPads, but the result was that the iPad 1 was supported by virtually all apps for the longest time (and the iPad 2 for even longer than that). 

    Also, if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades. And then you have users wondering about whether to upgrade their device or whether anything they could do would make something work that was broken, when they really should just be using the thing and not worrying about anything else.
    Jobs never cared much about hacks?   Really?   You sure about that?  Is that why he sealed his unit with proprietary screws?

    And the motivation for a closed system was to achieve synergy through the integration of hardware and software where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts -- which has set Apple apart from all competition.   An extreme example of that was with the creation of the iTunes music store:   it even went so far as the integration of different product lines:   The integration of iMacs, iPods and iTunes enabled Jobs to generate the security required by music companies combined with the user friendliness required by the user community.   It had NOTHING to do with concern for developers.

    As for "making things upgradeable":  Apple already does that for developers.  The users just throw away their old machines and buy new ones...
    You think my post was about developers? 

    Read again. 

    We're not disagreeing. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 135 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    spheric said:
    spheric said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'
    Nice editing to remove the bolded relevant quote:
    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. 
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.
    "He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. "
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.

    From what I know of Jobs, that was not his motivation.   He was focused on making a great product.   He couldn't do that if people could tinker with it and modify it - for ANY reason.  Then it was not his product and quality would invariably suffer.

    Picture your scenario today:   Somebody buys an MBP, and "improves it" by swapping out the hard drive & memory with third party junk and then installs say Unix on it.  That is no longer an Apple product.   It no longer carries the assurance of quality that Apple bestowed on it.

    But a product built on planned obsolescence is obviously not a quality product and was outside of Job's universe.  He didn't design his products to become obsolete.  He just didn't want hacks "improving" them.

    The motivation wasn't to discourage hacks — he never cared much about them. 

    By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs. 

    Geeks and nerds were railing for AGES why Apple wouldn't add more RAM to their iPads, but the result was that the iPad 1 was supported by virtually all apps for the longest time (and the iPad 2 for even longer than that). 

    Also, if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades. And then you have users wondering about whether to upgrade their device or whether anything they could do would make something work that was broken, when they really should just be using the thing and not worrying about anything else.
    Jobs never cared much about hacks?   Really?   You sure about that?  Is that why he sealed his unit with proprietary screws?

    And the motivation for a closed system was to achieve synergy through the integration of hardware and software where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts -- which has set Apple apart from all competition.   An extreme example of that was with the creation of the iTunes music store:   it even went so far as the integration of different product lines:   The integration of iMacs, iPods and iTunes enabled Jobs to generate the security required by music companies combined with the user friendliness required by the user community.   It had NOTHING to do with concern for developers.

    As for "making things upgradeable":  Apple already does that for developers.  The users just throw away their old machines and buy new ones...
    You think my post was about developers? 

    Read again. 

    We're not disagreeing. 
    "By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs."
    "if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades"
    <shrug>

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 136 of 175
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    GeorgeBMac said:
    I have...  Quite a bit of time actually...  Aside from the hardcore science, the proof is that the healthiest and longest lived peoples on the planet simply don't eat the crap that you suggest they should be eating.  It all points in one direction:  Avoid animal products, processed and refined foods and instead eat a variety of whole plant foods without added salt, sugar and fat...

    I suggest you follow your own advice and look outside of the meat and dairy industry propaganda to find the truth...

    Well, I think we're mostly in agreement there, aside from fat of the right kinds. The whole 'avoid fat' thing was based off of our insane consumption of bad fats, and some bad science. Also, there are other factors involved in the longest and healthiest lived people.

    But, I don't think I'm looking at the propaganda of the meat and dairy industry. And, where did I suggest that people eat all kinds of crap? I'm just trying to correct the bad information regarding fats. If you disagree, can you explain to me why consuming fats would be bad?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 137 of 175
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,712member
    spheric said:
    spheric said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'
    Nice editing to remove the bolded relevant quote:
    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. 
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.
    "He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. "
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.

    From what I know of Jobs, that was not his motivation.   He was focused on making a great product.   He couldn't do that if people could tinker with it and modify it - for ANY reason.  Then it was not his product and quality would invariably suffer.

    Picture your scenario today:   Somebody buys an MBP, and "improves it" by swapping out the hard drive & memory with third party junk and then installs say Unix on it.  That is no longer an Apple product.   It no longer carries the assurance of quality that Apple bestowed on it.

    But a product built on planned obsolescence is obviously not a quality product and was outside of Job's universe.  He didn't design his products to become obsolete.  He just didn't want hacks "improving" them.

    The motivation wasn't to discourage hacks — he never cared much about them. 

    By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs. 

    Geeks and nerds were railing for AGES why Apple wouldn't add more RAM to their iPads, but the result was that the iPad 1 was supported by virtually all apps for the longest time (and the iPad 2 for even longer than that). 

    Also, if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades. And then you have users wondering about whether to upgrade their device or whether anything they could do would make something work that was broken, when they really should just be using the thing and not worrying about anything else.
    Jobs never cared much about hacks?   Really?   You sure about that?  Is that why he sealed his unit with proprietary screws?

    And the motivation for a closed system was to achieve synergy through the integration of hardware and software where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts -- which has set Apple apart from all competition.   An extreme example of that was with the creation of the iTunes music store:   it even went so far as the integration of different product lines:   The integration of iMacs, iPods and iTunes enabled Jobs to generate the security required by music companies combined with the user friendliness required by the user community.   It had NOTHING to do with concern for developers.

    As for "making things upgradeable":  Apple already does that for developers.  The users just throw away their old machines and buy new ones...
    You think my post was about developers? 

    Read again. 

    We're not disagreeing. 
    "By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs."
    "if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades"
    <shrug>

    Yes, but WHY they would impose these restrictions on developers - certainly not for the developers' sake. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 138 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    spheric said:
    spheric said:
    spheric said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    ....

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    I never said that he was... 
     
    What I DID say is:
    "Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades."

    The difference is motivation and intent.  Jobs motivation was to insure the integrity of his integrated system rather than to force needless product obsolescence after a few years for marketing reasons. 

    In 1984 product obsolescence in a few years was a moot point because it was unavoidable.  But, it is no longer 1984.  Laptop and desktop technology has moved on and matured -- it no longer experiences the exponential technologic turnover of the 80's.   The times they are a-changin'
    Nice editing to remove the bolded relevant quote:
    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. 
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.
    "He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. "
    "Blocking ongoing upgrades" was very much part of the motivation and intent from day 1.

    From what I know of Jobs, that was not his motivation.   He was focused on making a great product.   He couldn't do that if people could tinker with it and modify it - for ANY reason.  Then it was not his product and quality would invariably suffer.

    Picture your scenario today:   Somebody buys an MBP, and "improves it" by swapping out the hard drive & memory with third party junk and then installs say Unix on it.  That is no longer an Apple product.   It no longer carries the assurance of quality that Apple bestowed on it.

    But a product built on planned obsolescence is obviously not a quality product and was outside of Job's universe.  He didn't design his products to become obsolete.  He just didn't want hacks "improving" them.

    The motivation wasn't to discourage hacks — he never cared much about them. 

    By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs. 

    Geeks and nerds were railing for AGES why Apple wouldn't add more RAM to their iPads, but the result was that the iPad 1 was supported by virtually all apps for the longest time (and the iPad 2 for even longer than that). 

    Also, if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades. And then you have users wondering about whether to upgrade their device or whether anything they could do would make something work that was broken, when they really should just be using the thing and not worrying about anything else.
    Jobs never cared much about hacks?   Really?   You sure about that?  Is that why he sealed his unit with proprietary screws?

    And the motivation for a closed system was to achieve synergy through the integration of hardware and software where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts -- which has set Apple apart from all competition.   An extreme example of that was with the creation of the iTunes music store:   it even went so far as the integration of different product lines:   The integration of iMacs, iPods and iTunes enabled Jobs to generate the security required by music companies combined with the user friendliness required by the user community.   It had NOTHING to do with concern for developers.

    As for "making things upgradeable":  Apple already does that for developers.  The users just throw away their old machines and buy new ones...
    You think my post was about developers? 

    Read again. 

    We're not disagreeing. 
    "By designing a closed system, you force all developers to design for those exact initial specs."
    "if you make stuff upgradeable, pretty soon software is going to start expecting or requiring those upgrades"
    <shrug>

    Yes, but WHY they would impose these restrictions on developers - certainly not for the developers' sake. 
    Oh my...   You seem obsessed with your perceived notion that Apple has it in for its developers...  That everything it does is aimed at them...  Sorry, developers are a big part of the Apple world, but they exist merely by feeding off of the Apple ecosystem.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 139 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    cgWerks said:
    GeorgeBMac said:
    I have...  Quite a bit of time actually...  Aside from the hardcore science, the proof is that the healthiest and longest lived peoples on the planet simply don't eat the crap that you suggest they should be eating.  It all points in one direction:  Avoid animal products, processed and refined foods and instead eat a variety of whole plant foods without added salt, sugar and fat...

    I suggest you follow your own advice and look outside of the meat and dairy industry propaganda to find the truth...

    Well, I think we're mostly in agreement there, aside from fat of the right kinds. The whole 'avoid fat' thing was based off of our insane consumption of bad fats, and some bad science. Also, there are other factors involved in the longest and healthiest lived people.

    But, I don't think I'm looking at the propaganda of the meat and dairy industry. And, where did I suggest that people eat all kinds of crap? I'm just trying to correct the bad information regarding fats. If you disagree, can you explain to me why consuming fats would be bad?
    1)  The fat the health organizations are talking about is saturated fat -- which has been proven through 40 years of research to promote heart disease.  While its not the ONLY thing that promotes heart disease, it's a biggy.   Plus, it and its packaging (aka chunks of dead animal flesh) is implicated in a number of other chronic diseases such as certain cancers and insulin resistance which is the root cause of type 2 diabetes.

    2)  Any kind of fat makes you fat because it is so calorically dense. And obesity is at the heart of many of America's chronic diseases as, aside from impairing physical activity,  it promotes inflammation which is associated with heart disease, cancer and dementia.  Even the so called healthy fats will promote obesity:  putting even a bit of olive oil on a salad effectively doubles its calories (which is the best way to get fat:  eating three 1,000 calorie meals a day or three 500 calorie meals?)...  Those societies that avoid our high fat, meat based diets along with avoiding our processed foods tend to thin, trim and healthy.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 140 of 175
    Mike Wuerthelemike wuerthele Posts: 6,956administrator
    cgWerks said:
    GeorgeBMac said:
    I have...  Quite a bit of time actually...  Aside from the hardcore science, the proof is that the healthiest and longest lived peoples on the planet simply don't eat the crap that you suggest they should be eating.  It all points in one direction:  Avoid animal products, processed and refined foods and instead eat a variety of whole plant foods without added salt, sugar and fat...

    I suggest you follow your own advice and look outside of the meat and dairy industry propaganda to find the truth...

    Well, I think we're mostly in agreement there, aside from fat of the right kinds. The whole 'avoid fat' thing was based off of our insane consumption of bad fats, and some bad science. Also, there are other factors involved in the longest and healthiest lived people.

    But, I don't think I'm looking at the propaganda of the meat and dairy industry. And, where did I suggest that people eat all kinds of crap? I'm just trying to correct the bad information regarding fats. If you disagree, can you explain to me why consuming fats would be bad?
    1)  The fat the health organizations are talking about is saturated fat -- which has been proven through 40 years of research to promote heart disease.  While its not the ONLY thing that promotes heart disease, it's a biggy.   Plus, it and its packaging (aka chunks of dead animal flesh) is implicated in a number of other chronic diseases such as certain cancers and insulin resistance which is the root cause of type 2 diabetes.

    2)  Any kind of fat makes you fat because it is so calorically dense. And obesity is at the heart of many of America's chronic diseases as, aside from impairing physical activity,  it promotes inflammation which is associated with heart disease, cancer and dementia.  Even the so called healthy fats will promote obesity:  putting even a bit of olive oil on a salad effectively doubles its calories (which is the best way to get fat:  eating three 1,000 calorie meals a day or three 500 calorie meals?)...  Those societies that avoid our high fat, meat based diets along with avoiding our processed foods tend to thin, trim and healthy.
    You guys may have missed the plot entirely. SMOKED meat. That'll probably kill you faster than the fats.
    GeorgeBMac
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.