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.
WTF are you reading into my writing?
Apple builds closed systems with limited configurations in part because it forces developers to work within those imposed limits, which is good for the consumers using the machines.
How you you go from that to "Apple has it in for developers" is your own, very personal problem and not my fight.
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.
I doubt you know Steve Jobs a billionth as well as Andy and that's his quote so you're still full of it.
Arguing that Apple has changed in its regard to product obsolescence completely disregards both history and statements made by people with direct knowledge on the matter.
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.
I doubt you know Steve Jobs a billionth as well as Andy and that's his quote so you're still full of it.
Arguing that Apple has changed in its regard to product obsolescence completely disregards both history and statements made by people with direct knowledge on the matter.
It doesn't matter if "the quote" was from Steve Jobs himself -- since you obviously don't understand it.
Yes! Jobs DID block 3rd parties as well as users themselves from tinkering with his "insanely great" products. That part is true.
The part that isn't true is the motivation that you lay on him through your own bias and lack of knowledge....
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.
I doubt you know Steve Jobs a billionth as well as Andy and that's his quote so you're still full of it.
Arguing that Apple has changed in its regard to product obsolescence completely disregards both history and statements made by people with direct knowledge on the matter.
It doesn't matter if "the quote" was from Steve Jobs himself -- since you obviously don't understand it.
Yes! Jobs DID block 3rd parties as well as users themselves from tinkering with his "insanely great" products. That part is true.
The part that isn't true is the motivation that you lay on him through your own bias and lack of knowledge....
So it doesn't matter if Steve Jobs said he would rather you buy a new machine over upgrading your 128K Mac to 512K? That isn't intent for "planned obsolescence". LOL.
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.
I doubt you know Steve Jobs a billionth as well as Andy and that's his quote so you're still full of it.
Arguing that Apple has changed in its regard to product obsolescence completely disregards both history and statements made by people with direct knowledge on the matter.
It doesn't matter if "the quote" was from Steve Jobs himself -- since you obviously don't understand it.
Yes! Jobs DID block 3rd parties as well as users themselves from tinkering with his "insanely great" products. That part is true.
The part that isn't true is the motivation that you lay on him through your own bias and lack of knowledge....
So it doesn't matter if Steve Jobs said he would rather you buy a new machine over upgrading your 128K Mac to 512K? That isn't intent for "planned obsolescence". LOL.
Nice trolling.
You're making a wild assumption. A salesman obviously wants to sell you as many products as possible and as often as possible, but do you think its in his or the company's best interest to make products that are designed to fail as soon as the new ones come out? That's how your stating "planned obsolescence" when it's really just a roadmap, just as right now Apple probably knows exactly when they'll stop supporting iOS 10 even though there are likely at least 2 more point updates for that OS.
If Apple and Steve really didn't want you upgrading then they wouldn't be the one fucking CE company that supports their products with SW upgrades the longest and for free. It takes a lot of resources to make sure an OS going back 3-5 years worth of incremental HW changes are going to work, but they do this because it helps them sell more products.
We can even see this with the latest warnings for High Sierra beta 2 update 1 where there are still issues with APFS yet Apple was so certain of APFS being used for the boot drive in the iPhone and iPad that they pushed it out already. Because of the closed HW and controlled SW environment this becomes a much easier job, I'd imagine, which sounds like a reasonable, logistical reason for Jobs' statement, if you don't want to apply anything a reasonable sales argument to it.
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.
I doubt you know Steve Jobs a billionth as well as Andy and that's his quote so you're still full of it.
Arguing that Apple has changed in its regard to product obsolescence completely disregards both history and statements made by people with direct knowledge on the matter.
It doesn't matter if "the quote" was from Steve Jobs himself -- since you obviously don't understand it.
Yes! Jobs DID block 3rd parties as well as users themselves from tinkering with his "insanely great" products. That part is true.
The part that isn't true is the motivation that you lay on him through your own bias and lack of knowledge....
So it doesn't matter if Steve Jobs said he would rather you buy a new machine over upgrading your 128K Mac to 512K? That isn't intent for "planned obsolescence". LOL.
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.
I doubt you know Steve Jobs a billionth as well as Andy and that's his quote so you're still full of it.
Arguing that Apple has changed in its regard to product obsolescence completely disregards both history and statements made by people with direct knowledge on the matter.
It doesn't matter if "the quote" was from Steve Jobs himself -- since you obviously don't understand it.
Yes! Jobs DID block 3rd parties as well as users themselves from tinkering with his "insanely great" products. That part is true.
The part that isn't true is the motivation that you lay on him through your own bias and lack of knowledge....
So it doesn't matter if Steve Jobs said he would rather you buy a new machine over upgrading your 128K Mac to 512K? That isn't intent for "planned obsolescence". LOL.
Nice trolling.
Nice cherry picking.... The best way to lie...
Lol. It's a direct quote on the subject from someone that was there. Keep ignoring any facts that interfere with your weird little world view.
The fact remains that from day 1 Jobs wanted closed machines and a direct quote states that part of the reason was to get you to buy the next machines over simply adding memory to keep your current one up to date. It is also fact that Macs today will last years and years even though there are no user upgradable parts inside so the idiotic fallacy that Apple now builds for a short lifetime as implied by the trollish "planned obsolescence" stupidity is false.
Jobs design goal from day 1 was external expansion via ports and the current iMac with TB3 is the best implementation of that goal thus far. There has been no design change and the Mac has been amazingly consistent and successful when under Jobs and now Cook.
I own a 2016 MBP 13" and overall it's a bit disappointing, especially for the money. It is thin and light and has great audio but it could/should be much better.
- The touch bar is a step backward from physical keys for people who touch type like me, especially as there's no compelling use case for having the touch bar there yet.
- There is minimal TB3 support among monitors and docks (pretty much nothing reliable/stable anyways)
- Battery life is poor for a MBP historically. I get about 4-5 hours of typical (web surfing) use.
- Lack of magsafe
- Small SSD/RAM for the price. At $1800 starting, it should be sporting 16GB RAM.
I don't regret buying it. I was upgrading from a 2010 15" MBP. It's mostly better than that machine. But I don't think I'd consider it much of an upgrade from a 2014 or more recent MBP.
I have the 15" laptop, I hate the new keyboard (after 4 months of using it, I still don't get used to the flat design of the keyboard and the feedback it provides, i keep finding myself wanting to hits the keys harder to ensure it hit registered), always miss hit the arrow keys, hate the fact that the arrow keys are condensed into a smaller area.
I still have not found a use for touch-bar and hate the fact that shortcuts was highly available to quickly change are not hidden.
Lot of times my fingers by mistake or accident touch the top area (Esc key for example or Siri pops in) causing something unwanted to happen! A few times so far I got so upset I nearly grab the $3000 laptop to toss it out of the window!!!
For pro use, I have found the Touch Bar to be increasingly useful (changing cursor modes in Logic, programmable functions in Mainstage). Also for direct access to formatting and other such details. I’m still learning to look there to see what’s offered, as 30 years of habit on non-changing keyboards are slow to break.
For pro use, I have found the Touch Bar to be increasingly useful (changing cursor modes in Logic, programmable functions in Mainstage). Also for direct access to formatting and other such details. I’m still learning to look there to see what’s offered, as 30 years of habit on non-changing keyboards are slow to break.
Love the keyboard.
I'm so far pretty much agnostic about the Touch Bar. I don't hate it (at least since I removed the Siri key so I don't keep accidentally invoking it when reaching for the Delete key) but I haven't found it a particularly compelling addition. That kind of surprises me to be honest, because I expected to really love it. In theory it seems like a life changer, but so far I haven't found myself using it much. I don't dislike it, but I get the feeling that if I woke up tomorrow and it had been replaced with conventional function keys it would take me a while to notice.
I have the 15" laptop, I hate the new keyboard (after 4 months of using it, I still don't get used to the flat design of the keyboard and the feedback it provides, i keep finding myself wanting to hits the keys harder to ensure it hit registered), always miss hit the arrow keys, hate the fact that the arrow keys are condensed into a smaller area.
I still have not found a use for touch-bar and hate the fact that shortcuts was highly available to quickly change are not hidden.
Lot of times my fingers by mistake or accident touch the top area (Esc key for example or Siri pops in) causing something unwanted to happen! A few times so far I got so upset I nearly grab the $3000 laptop to toss it out of the window!!!
I felt negative about the keyboard after a few months with mine. Then one day I was working on my wife's older MacBook Pro with the previous generation keyboard. After a few minutes of what felt like pushing towers into basements, I decided that I might actually prefer the short-throw keys. I definitely prefer the larger key caps of the new version. Even though they increase the incidence of mistakenly pressing an adjacent key, for some reason they feel better to me.
The bottom line is that the new keyboard made for a much more compact chassis, and to me that is worth making the adjustment to the new feel.
I have the 15" laptop, I hate the new keyboard (after 4 months of using it, I still don't get used to the flat design of the keyboard and the feedback it provides, i keep finding myself wanting to hits the keys harder to ensure it hit registered), always miss hit the arrow keys, hate the fact that the arrow keys are condensed into a smaller area.
I still have not found a use for touch-bar and hate the fact that shortcuts was highly available to quickly change are not hidden.
Lot of times my fingers by mistake or accident touch the top area (Esc key for example or Siri pops in) causing something unwanted to happen! A few times so far I got so upset I nearly grab the $3000 laptop to toss it out of the window!!!
Yea, I spent 15 minutes the other day at the store monkeying around with one of the new MBPs, and while I'm sure more time would help me get used to that keyboard, I'm not sure I'd ever end up liking it. Also, I worry about the durability of it from some reports I keep hearing. I also hear this same story from industry figures who use their computers a ton on other Apple podcasts I follow.
lorin schultz said: The bottom line is that the new keyboard made for a much more compact chassis, and to me that is worth making the adjustment to the new feel.
Yes, and this is the problem I have with it. They targeted a design they wanted, and then put in, arguably inferior, components to make the design work... on a PRO product! I'm sure they decided that the majority of the users plug into external keyboards and input devices anyway the majority of the time (as do I). But, I'm still not sure that I'm happy with the tradeoff, overall. I like smaller and lighter in laptops as much as the next person. But, too small and too light obviously seem to have introduced a number of problems that on the whole, just weren't necessary.
(As an aside, as I just wrote a response to it in another thread... this is a good example of the 'new' Apple's priority of $ over product, IMO. They didn't set out to build the best possible pro laptop. They looked at market segments and majority of laptop use, and then set out to design what they thought would best fit that market-segment.)
I have the 15" laptop, I hate the new keyboard (after 4 months of using it, I still don't get used to the flat design of the keyboard and the feedback it provides, i keep finding myself wanting to hits the keys harder to ensure it hit registered), always miss hit the arrow keys, hate the fact that the arrow keys are condensed into a smaller area.
I still have not found a use for touch-bar and hate the fact that shortcuts was highly available to quickly change are not hidden.
Lot of times my fingers by mistake or accident touch the top area (Esc key for example or Siri pops in) causing something unwanted to happen! A few times so far I got so upset I nearly grab the $3000 laptop to toss it out of the window!!!
Yea, I spent 15 minutes the other day at the store monkeying around with one of the new MBPs, and while I'm sure more time would help me get used to that keyboard, I'm not sure I'd ever end up liking it. Also, I worry about the durability of it from some reports I keep hearing. I also hear this same story from industry figures who use their computers a ton on other Apple podcasts I follow.
lorin schultz said: The bottom line is that the new keyboard made for a much more compact chassis, and to me that is worth making the adjustment to the new feel.
Yes, and this is the problem I have with it. They targeted a design they wanted, and then put in, arguably inferior, components to make the design work... on a PRO product! I'm sure they decided that the majority of the users plug into external keyboards and input devices anyway the majority of the time (as do I). But, I'm still not sure that I'm happy with the tradeoff, overall. I like smaller and lighter in laptops as much as the next person. But, too small and too light obviously seem to have introduced a number of problems that on the whole, just weren't necessary.
(As an aside, as I just wrote a response to it in another thread... this is a good example of the 'new' Apple's priority of $ over product, IMO. They didn't set out to build the best possible pro laptop. They looked at market segments and majority of laptop use, and then set out to design what they thought would best fit that market-segment.)
You guys bitching about thin and light arent traveling. The15" MBP is really nice to travel with.
nht said: You guys bitching about thin and light arent traveling. The15" MBP is really nice to travel with.
That's what the MacBook is for. Like I said, I'm all for thin and light laptops, but only to the extent that they serve their purpose well. Maybe it's time for Apple to expand the laptop line to have a real MBP again and then a MBspT (MacBook semi-pro Travel).
Comments
Apple builds closed systems with limited configurations in part because it forces developers to work within those imposed limits, which is good for the consumers using the machines.
How you you go from that to "Apple has it in for developers" is your own, very personal problem and not my fight.
Arguing that Apple has changed in its regard to product obsolescence completely disregards both history and statements made by people with direct knowledge on the matter.
Nice trolling.
If Apple and Steve really didn't want you upgrading then they wouldn't be the one fucking CE company that supports their products with SW upgrades the longest and for free. It takes a lot of resources to make sure an OS going back 3-5 years worth of incremental HW changes are going to work, but they do this because it helps them sell more products.
We can even see this with the latest warnings for High Sierra beta 2 update 1 where there are still issues with APFS yet Apple was so certain of APFS being used for the boot drive in the iPhone and iPad that they pushed it out already. Because of the closed HW and controlled SW environment this becomes a much easier job, I'd imagine, which sounds like a reasonable, logistical reason for Jobs' statement, if you don't want to apply anything a reasonable sales argument to it.
LOL. Indeed. I've read this entire painful thread and this was the best comment. Enjoy. It's all about doing things in moderation.
The fact remains that from day 1 Jobs wanted closed machines and a direct quote states that part of the reason was to get you to buy the next machines over simply adding memory to keep your current one up to date. It is also fact that Macs today will last years and years even though there are no user upgradable parts inside so the idiotic fallacy that Apple now builds for a short lifetime as implied by the trollish "planned obsolescence" stupidity is false.
Jobs design goal from day 1 was external expansion via ports and the current iMac with TB3 is the best implementation of that goal thus far. There has been no design change and the Mac has been amazingly consistent and successful when under Jobs and now Cook.
I'm reasonably confident that I'm not in immediate peril from my lunches last week.
It isn't the poison, it's the dose.
- The touch bar is a step backward from physical keys for people who touch type like me, especially as there's no compelling use case for having the touch bar there yet.
- There is minimal TB3 support among monitors and docks (pretty much nothing reliable/stable anyways)
- Battery life is poor for a MBP historically. I get about 4-5 hours of typical (web surfing) use.
- Lack of magsafe
- Small SSD/RAM for the price. At $1800 starting, it should be sporting 16GB RAM.
I don't regret buying it. I was upgrading from a 2010 15" MBP. It's mostly better than that machine. But I don't think I'd consider it much of an upgrade from a 2014 or more recent MBP.
Love the keyboard.
I felt negative about the keyboard after a few months with mine. Then one day I was working on my wife's older MacBook Pro with the previous generation keyboard. After a few minutes of what felt like pushing towers into basements, I decided that I might actually prefer the short-throw keys. I definitely prefer the larger key caps of the new version. Even though they increase the incidence of mistakenly pressing an adjacent key, for some reason they feel better to me.
The bottom line is that the new keyboard made for a much more compact chassis, and to me that is worth making the adjustment to the new feel.
Yes, and this is the problem I have with it. They targeted a design they wanted, and then put in, arguably inferior, components to make the design work... on a PRO product! I'm sure they decided that the majority of the users plug into external keyboards and input devices anyway the majority of the time (as do I). But, I'm still not sure that I'm happy with the tradeoff, overall. I like smaller and lighter in laptops as much as the next person. But, too small and too light obviously seem to have introduced a number of problems that on the whole, just weren't necessary.
(As an aside, as I just wrote a response to it in another thread... this is a good example of the 'new' Apple's priority of $ over product, IMO. They didn't set out to build the best possible pro laptop. They looked at market segments and majority of laptop use, and then set out to design what they thought would best fit that market-segment.)
Like I said, I'm all for thin and light laptops, but only to the extent that they serve their purpose well.
Maybe it's time for Apple to expand the laptop line to have a real MBP again and then a MBspT (MacBook semi-pro Travel).