Apple isn't doomed because it didn't release new Macs and iPads at WWDC

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 127
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,353member
    elijahg said:
    In reply to people claiming Intel hasn't pushed out CPUs with major speed bumps as the reason for a stale Mac line, that's not the point. The point is Apple's Mac lineup is chock full of old, overpriced hardware. For some reason - be it a possible ARM transition or Cook's obvious lack of interest in the Mac - they just don't update the Mac line anywhere near enough. Even if an ARM Mac was on the way, there's been ample time to produce updated Intel Macs. Have all internal combustion car manufacturers stopped because electric is on the way? Of course not. Just look at the Mini, not updated since 2014 and even back then it wasn't cheap. Now it's just extortionate. I fear Cook will use "lack of sales" to knock the lesser-sold Macs on the head, when the reason for lack of sales is how out of date and overpriced the hardware is. There's no excuse, Macs are too expensive. I've said this many-a-time before; in the mid to late 2000s they were really becoming excellent value and the sales were growing significantly, bucking the PC market trend. Now people are defending Apple's single-digit or even negative Mac growth. 


    It just shows Apple has no idea of the value of things when they price a phone at £1000+. I have bought a new iPhone every two years prior to the X, but I'm just not paying out that much for a phone. It's ridiculous. Despite being a shareholder, I wish the X had flopped. Perhaps that would have knocked some sense into Apple's pricing, and they would have realised they are charging too much. Troll fanboys bleat on about profit margins, but profit margins are no good if developers begin leaving your platform. That happened in the mid-90's. Apple's profit margin was still reasonable but they were selling barely anything. The Macs then were outdated and expensive. Just as they are now. It's unfortunate the iPhone seems to be such a huge distraction for Apple. Where are all the billions Apple's spending on R&D actually going?

    I know this has become a bit of a meme, but I really do feel Cook needs to go. Yes sales have grown under him, and he's obviously a very good businessman. But he is not a very good CEO. 
    You’re quite high.

    The fact that it’s been their best selling handset, a first in Apple history, proves that they’re not charging enough. 

    iOS is the strongest app platform and nobody has left it. It’s an iphone-first world, knockoffs second. 

    Cook has killed it as a CEO. Firing Cook would be completely idiotic, which is why it’s only discussed by armchair nobodies on websites like these. Not by anyone remotely related to Apple and the business of making money. 

    ...you’re not a shareholder. Nice try. 

    I think there is some truth that more frequent updates to the MacMini and MacPro would result in more sales, but probably only a few percent of mac sales overall. I think Macs are worth the price when they are relatively new but not when more than 2 years old. I used to buy Dell's because we use Microsoft at work, but their quality went bad and were as about as expensive as macs.

    Apple has a lot of work on its plate advancing the iPhone, iPad, appleWatch, macComputers, appleTV, mac Computers, and now the HomePod. Creating more common code between iOS and macOS will make it easier to support the Mac. I think that next year Apple will deliver some great stuff with Marzipan.
  • Reply 102 of 127
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,218member
    Rayz2016 said:
    k2kw said:

    Portent of the future

    Speaking about telling developers what to expect in the future, Apple previewed the fruits of project "Marzipan" at WWDC. Instead of a straight emulation layer, it turned out to be a framework and API for porting over iPad apps to the Mac.

    While I'm certain that this can be used for good or evil, skillfully or poorly, it isn't a regression. I also believe that it is an early step for migrating at least some of the Mac line to ARM, as the porting friction reduces even further as the technology is finally released to developers in full in 2019.

    But, like we said on the AppleInsider Podcast on Friday, this reveal of what is rumored to be called Marzipan is about step two of a twenty step process.

    "Marzipan is about step two of a twenty step process." - best description of what I believe will be an evolution of both iOS and macOS to create new and enhanced versions of both over many years. Now I believe that way down the road macComputers will support Touch and the iPad will support the mouse. It's like when Job's said "Stylus. yuck" but apple came out with a Pencil that is better. When the "merger" is done it will be without compromises and the experience on both will be better.

    Of course! Of course! I didn't see it at first, but now it's perfectly clear.

    For weeks, I've been wondering why AppleInsider has insisted that Apple was planning an emulation layer so that iOS apps can run on Macs, when the initial report they cribbed from, seasoned developers, experienced journalists, and just about everyone in between said that Apple was coming up with an API to make it easier for themselves and developers to port applications between iOS and MacOS. AI was getting it so badly wrong, I was starting to wonder if they were just saying it to generate page clicks. No they weren't; they really did just get it badly wrong.

    It made no sense at all to me (and I suspect it had @StrangeDays shaking his head in wonder too).

    But as it turns out, AppleInsider simply made the classic mistake of the inexperienced journalist and rookie police detective: they started with what they wanted to believe, and then worked in reverse to find evidence to make it fact.

    In this case, AppleInsider (and you) want to believe that Apple will merge the Mac and the iPad into some sort of bastardised hybrid FrankenMacPad. The reason that you want this is the same reason that is behind every odd request that shows up here: price. Rather than caring if this would actually work, what folk are thinking is "if Apple made such a machine, then I wouldn't have to buy two machines". Any compromises such a device would suffer would be complained about endlessly of course, but at least you got it for a cheaper outlay than buying a Mac and an iPad.

    But back to the original point: this pattern of thinking leads to two strange phenomena that are unique to the Mac world:

    1. X-Files Case Number 7737228728: The Internal Reality Twist. When a senior Apple exec goes on stage and drops a twenty-foot on-screen "NO" to the question of merging MacOS and iOS, what folk here think is "Well, it was an on-screen "NO", rather than a real, touchable "NO" pressed from Apple-crafted ceramic and honed smooth with lasers and a Jony Ive talkover explaining, in soothing British tones, how the massive "NO" was made. Since it's not a tangible "NO" then it's not a real "NO", so that means that they're planning on merging iOS and MacOS two years from now!"
    2. X-Files Case Number 7737228729: The Historical Reality Twist. When Steve Jobs said Apple won't do something; then years later, Apple does it, then this is proof that they can change their minds. 

    Actually, I'm going to stop there, because point #2 is perfectly reasonable: if Apple didn't change their minds when they've taken the wrong path, then the company would never have survived this long, and that is an indisputable fact. The problem is the Historical Twist part. In this case, folk tend to make up their own words for what was actually said, so that it can reinforce what they're actually wishing for. Here's a video:



    Jobs did not say "Stylus … yuk!"

    What Jobs actually said was, "If you need a stylus then you've already failed."

    The difference is subtle, but if you don't get it then you don't really understand why the iPad succeeded where so many before it did not. Jobs did not say that they would never have a stylus; what he actually said was that from day one the iPad was designed so that it wouldn't need one. This requirement shaped how the tablet was built, how iOS was designed, how apps would look and how folk would interact with them. Thanks to Jobs's insistence that Apple's designers would not assume a stylus would ever be available, they came up with a system that could happily work with a finger or a stylus.

    The whole premise that Apple will make a FrankenMacPad because they once said they wouldn't make a stylus is flawed – because Apple didn't say they wouldn't make a stylus. In fact, if anything, Jobs statement about the stylus proves he believes that the best devices have to be designed from the ground up to support one overall style of interaction for the best possible user experience, so if anything, the stylus quote (the real one) actually points to a future without a FrankenMacPad

    So, does this mean that Apple will never make a hybrid? No, of course not. As I've said, Apple can and does change its mind. But as things stand, they've already made prototypes; the ergonomics over long periods of use don't work. From my own experience, when I work with hybrids, I tend to just use them as laptops, and most of the folk around me tend to do the same thing. So is there is no current plan to make on? Nope. Sorry, there isn't. This Marzipan is not the first step to a hybrid, it's just another step along an endless road to make iOS and MacOS work better together, without compromising devices running either.

    "But if Apple doesn't think touchscreens belong on the Mac, then what about the Touch Bar huh? Yeah, clever clogs! What about that??"

    That is not a touch screen, it is a touch keyboard, and we know that Apple has loved touch keyboards for years.


    One other thing: Jobs's statement on the need for a stylus bears greater weight when you remember that the iPad was actually conceived before the iPhone.
    You're making a few assumptions here.

    1) That I believe that a hybrid device is coming. I have never said that. ARM-powered Macs != hybrid Mac and iPad. It's just a Mac, running macOS, with an ARM processor. The Intel Macs were no longer PowerPC Macs, they were Intel Macs.

    2) I am on record for well over a year saying that Marzipan isn't an emulation framework. Not just in multiple editorials, but on the AI podcast, and my own. AI is not some monolithic agency with planning meetings on common opinions and interpretations.

    Those two make the rest of your assumptions about this editorial problematic.

    My assumptions are fine, thanks.

    I didn't point to any particular writer, but for months, AI has been going on about iOS apps running on the Mac. AI  said it, a number of people tried to correct it, and it turned out that AI was wrong.

    I'm not bothered who said it or how AI works. AI's name was on it. 

  • Reply 103 of 127
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,218member
    Koll3man said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    ascii said:
    I blame Intel for the lack of Mac updates. I have been a fan of chipzilla for a while now, but lately they've been behaving very badly. They've gone from simply producing slow updates to outright misleading people (with the 28-core CPU nonsense at Computex). 

    And watch their Computex presenation as well, was there ever such a collection of improperly prepared, condescending, fake ass douches in one presentation? The sooner Mac moves to AMD x64 or ARM the better.
    A fair point, but it's not quite as simple as that. As folk love to point out, Intel has made some small incremental improvements over the years of stagnation, but Apple hasn't always picked them up.

    The root of the problem is that ninety per cent of the Wintel machines out there are pretty much the same. You can even find machines with identical cases, parts and specs sold by different third-party resellers. Windows box builders rarely offer anything unique across their offerings, but in many ways this lack of any real differentiation is an advantage: it means that testing new configurations is easy.

    Because Apple's OS doesn't conform to the WinTel spec (the spec that describes how hardware drivers interact with the Windows plumbing) then all that testing has to be done by Apple, and they also need to do all the testing and development of the drivers to make Bootcamp work with their hardware (bear in mind the increasing number of components that are going into Apple kit that is designed and built by Apple itself).

    So this is probably why Apple doesn't jump on every tiny spec bump to the Intel chips; it wouldn't be cost effective for the Mac unit.

    That's what they would tell you if you ask. The main reason is a bit more simple.

    If a PC user discovers that his machine has a better spec a week after he bought it, he'll just say, "Oh well, I had to jump sometime" and get on with his life.

    The kind of Mac user (especially round here) who complains that Apple doesn't update often enough, is most probably the same sort of Mac user who will complain if Apple updates at the same rate that Intel makes incremental improvements. This kind of Mac user doesn't like to feel that his Mac is out-of-date less than a year after he bought it. In fact, he's the probably the sort of Mac user who will come here and demand a class action because Apple has "obsoleted" his machine when it less than a year old.  
    You are ignoring the simple fact that a Mac user that wants to upgrade his device to a newer Mac he has to settle for Intel's last gen for a very high price while the rest of the industry has moved to Intel's latest hardware.
    Apple's lack of competitiveness can't be ignored by a normal consumer.
    Well, in that case, no one will buy Macs because they're not competitive.

    Except that people still seem to be buying Macs.
  • Reply 104 of 127
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,323administrator
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    k2kw said:

    Portent of the future

    Speaking about telling developers what to expect in the future, Apple previewed the fruits of project "Marzipan" at WWDC. Instead of a straight emulation layer, it turned out to be a framework and API for porting over iPad apps to the Mac.

    While I'm certain that this can be used for good or evil, skillfully or poorly, it isn't a regression. I also believe that it is an early step for migrating at least some of the Mac line to ARM, as the porting friction reduces even further as the technology is finally released to developers in full in 2019.

    But, like we said on the AppleInsider Podcast on Friday, this reveal of what is rumored to be called Marzipan is about step two of a twenty step process.

    "Marzipan is about step two of a twenty step process." - best description of what I believe will be an evolution of both iOS and macOS to create new and enhanced versions of both over many years. Now I believe that way down the road macComputers will support Touch and the iPad will support the mouse. It's like when Job's said "Stylus. yuck" but apple came out with a Pencil that is better. When the "merger" is done it will be without compromises and the experience on both will be better.

    Of course! Of course! I didn't see it at first, but now it's perfectly clear.

    For weeks, I've been wondering why AppleInsider has insisted that Apple was planning an emulation layer so that iOS apps can run on Macs, when the initial report they cribbed from, seasoned developers, experienced journalists, and just about everyone in between said that Apple was coming up with an API to make it easier for themselves and developers to port applications between iOS and MacOS. AI was getting it so badly wrong, I was starting to wonder if they were just saying it to generate page clicks. No they weren't; they really did just get it badly wrong.

    It made no sense at all to me (and I suspect it had @StrangeDays shaking his head in wonder too).

    But as it turns out, AppleInsider simply made the classic mistake of the inexperienced journalist and rookie police detective: they started with what they wanted to believe, and then worked in reverse to find evidence to make it fact.

    In this case, AppleInsider (and you) want to believe that Apple will merge the Mac and the iPad into some sort of bastardised hybrid FrankenMacPad. The reason that you want this is the same reason that is behind every odd request that shows up here: price. Rather than caring if this would actually work, what folk are thinking is "if Apple made such a machine, then I wouldn't have to buy two machines". Any compromises such a device would suffer would be complained about endlessly of course, but at least you got it for a cheaper outlay than buying a Mac and an iPad.

    But back to the original point: this pattern of thinking leads to two strange phenomena that are unique to the Mac world:

    1. X-Files Case Number 7737228728: The Internal Reality Twist. When a senior Apple exec goes on stage and drops a twenty-foot on-screen "NO" to the question of merging MacOS and iOS, what folk here think is "Well, it was an on-screen "NO", rather than a real, touchable "NO" pressed from Apple-crafted ceramic and honed smooth with lasers and a Jony Ive talkover explaining, in soothing British tones, how the massive "NO" was made. Since it's not a tangible "NO" then it's not a real "NO", so that means that they're planning on merging iOS and MacOS two years from now!"
    2. X-Files Case Number 7737228729: The Historical Reality Twist. When Steve Jobs said Apple won't do something; then years later, Apple does it, then this is proof that they can change their minds. 

    Actually, I'm going to stop there, because point #2 is perfectly reasonable: if Apple didn't change their minds when they've taken the wrong path, then the company would never have survived this long, and that is an indisputable fact. The problem is the Historical Twist part. In this case, folk tend to make up their own words for what was actually said, so that it can reinforce what they're actually wishing for. Here's a video:



    Jobs did not say "Stylus … yuk!"

    What Jobs actually said was, "If you need a stylus then you've already failed."

    The difference is subtle, but if you don't get it then you don't really understand why the iPad succeeded where so many before it did not. Jobs did not say that they would never have a stylus; what he actually said was that from day one the iPad was designed so that it wouldn't need one. This requirement shaped how the tablet was built, how iOS was designed, how apps would look and how folk would interact with them. Thanks to Jobs's insistence that Apple's designers would not assume a stylus would ever be available, they came up with a system that could happily work with a finger or a stylus.

    The whole premise that Apple will make a FrankenMacPad because they once said they wouldn't make a stylus is flawed – because Apple didn't say they wouldn't make a stylus. In fact, if anything, Jobs statement about the stylus proves he believes that the best devices have to be designed from the ground up to support one overall style of interaction for the best possible user experience, so if anything, the stylus quote (the real one) actually points to a future without a FrankenMacPad

    So, does this mean that Apple will never make a hybrid? No, of course not. As I've said, Apple can and does change its mind. But as things stand, they've already made prototypes; the ergonomics over long periods of use don't work. From my own experience, when I work with hybrids, I tend to just use them as laptops, and most of the folk around me tend to do the same thing. So is there is no current plan to make on? Nope. Sorry, there isn't. This Marzipan is not the first step to a hybrid, it's just another step along an endless road to make iOS and MacOS work better together, without compromising devices running either.

    "But if Apple doesn't think touchscreens belong on the Mac, then what about the Touch Bar huh? Yeah, clever clogs! What about that??"

    That is not a touch screen, it is a touch keyboard, and we know that Apple has loved touch keyboards for years.


    One other thing: Jobs's statement on the need for a stylus bears greater weight when you remember that the iPad was actually conceived before the iPhone.
    You're making a few assumptions here.

    1) That I believe that a hybrid device is coming. I have never said that. ARM-powered Macs != hybrid Mac and iPad. It's just a Mac, running macOS, with an ARM processor. The Intel Macs were no longer PowerPC Macs, they were Intel Macs.

    2) I am on record for well over a year saying that Marzipan isn't an emulation framework. Not just in multiple editorials, but on the AI podcast, and my own. AI is not some monolithic agency with planning meetings on common opinions and interpretations.

    Those two make the rest of your assumptions about this editorial problematic.

    My assumptions are fine, thanks.

    I didn't point to any particular writer, but for months, AI has been going on about iOS apps running on the Mac. AI  said it, a number of people tried to correct it, and it turned out that AI was wrong.

    I'm not bothered who said it or how AI works. AI's name was on it. 

    Your victory-trumpeting would be fine, if this was a news piece. 

    it is not a news piece. It is an editorial, with my byline on it.
    muthuk_vanalingamfastasleep
  • Reply 105 of 127
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,353member

    Rayz2016 said:
    k2kw said:

    Portent of the future

    Speaking about telling developers what to expect in the future, Apple previewed the fruits of project "Marzipan" at WWDC. Instead of a straight emulation layer, it turned out to be a framework and API for porting over iPad apps to the Mac.

    While I'm certain that this can be used for good or evil, skillfully or poorly, it isn't a regression. I also believe that it is an early step for migrating at least some of the Mac line to ARM, as the porting friction reduces even further as the technology is finally released to developers in full in 2019.

    But, like we said on the AppleInsider Podcast on Friday, this reveal of what is rumored to be called Marzipan is about step two of a twenty step process.

    "Marzipan is about step two of a twenty step process." - best description of what I believe will be an evolution of both iOS and macOS to create new and enhanced versions of both over many years. Now I believe that way down the road macComputers will support Touch and the iPad will support the mouse. It's like when Job's said "Stylus. yuck" but apple came out with a Pencil that is better. When the "merger" is done it will be without compromises and the experience on both will be better.

    Of course! Of course! I didn't see it at first, but now it's perfectly clear.

    For weeks, I've been wondering why AppleInsider has insisted that Apple was planning an emulation layer so that iOS apps can run on Macs, when the initial report they cribbed from, seasoned developers, experienced journalists, and just about everyone in between said that Apple was coming up with an API to make it easier for themselves and developers to port applications between iOS and MacOS. AI was getting it so badly wrong, I was starting to wonder if they were just saying it to generate page clicks. No they weren't; they really did just get it badly wrong.

    It made no sense at all to me (and I suspect it had @StrangeDays shaking his head in wonder too).

    But as it turns out, AppleInsider simply made the classic mistake of the inexperienced journalist and rookie police detective: they started with what they wanted to believe, and then worked in reverse to find evidence to make it fact.

    In this case, AppleInsider (and you) want to believe that Apple will merge the Mac and the iPad into some sort of bastardised hybrid FrankenMacPad. The reason that you want this is the same reason that is behind every odd request that shows up here: price. Rather than caring if this would actually work, what folk are thinking is "if Apple made such a machine, then I wouldn't have to buy two machines". Any compromises such a device would suffer would be complained about endlessly of course, but at least you got it for a cheaper outlay than buying a Mac and an iPad.

    But back to the original point: this pattern of thinking leads to two strange phenomena that are unique to the Mac world:

    1. X-Files Case Number 7737228728: The Internal Reality Twist. When a senior Apple exec goes on stage and drops a twenty-foot on-screen "NO" to the question of merging MacOS and iOS, what folk here think is "Well, it was an on-screen "NO", rather than a real, touchable "NO" pressed from Apple-crafted ceramic and honed smooth with lasers and a Jony Ive talkover explaining, in soothing British tones, how the massive "NO" was made. Since it's not a tangible "NO" then it's not a real "NO", so that means that they're planning on merging iOS and MacOS two years from now!"
    2. X-Files Case Number 7737228729: The Historical Reality Twist. When Steve Jobs said Apple won't do something; then years later, Apple does it, then this is proof that they can change their minds. 

    Actually, I'm going to stop there, because point #2 is perfectly reasonable: if Apple didn't change their minds when they've taken the wrong path, then the company would never have survived this long, and that is an indisputable fact. The problem is the Historical Twist part. In this case, folk tend to make up their own words for what was actually said, so that it can reinforce what they're actually wishing for. Here's a video:



    Jobs did not say "Stylus … yuk!"

    What Jobs actually said was, "If you need a stylus then you've already failed."

    The difference is subtle, but if you don't get it then you don't really understand why the iPad succeeded where so many before it did not. Jobs did not say that they would never have a stylus; what he actually said was that from day one the iPad was designed so that it wouldn't need one. This requirement shaped how the tablet was built, how iOS was designed, how apps would look and how folk would interact with them. Thanks to Jobs's insistence that Apple's designers would not assume a stylus would ever be available, they came up with a system that could happily work with a finger or a stylus.

    The whole premise that Apple will make a FrankenMacPad because they once said they wouldn't make a stylus is flawed – because Apple didn't say they wouldn't make a stylus. In fact, if anything, Jobs statement about the stylus proves he believes that the best devices have to be designed from the ground up to support one overall style of interaction for the best possible user experience, so if anything, the stylus quote (the real one) actually points to a future without a FrankenMacPad

    So, does this mean that Apple will never make a hybrid? No, of course not. As I've said, Apple can and does change its mind. But as things stand, they've already made prototypes; the ergonomics over long periods of use don't work. From my own experience, when I work with hybrids, I tend to just use them as laptops, and most of the folk around me tend to do the same thing. So is there is no current plan to make on? Nope. Sorry, there isn't. This Marzipan is not the first step to a hybrid, it's just another step along an endless road to make iOS and MacOS work better together, without compromising devices running either.

    "But if Apple doesn't think touchscreens belong on the Mac, then what about the Touch Bar huh? Yeah, clever clogs! What about that??"

    That is not a touch screen, it is a touch keyboard, and we know that Apple has loved touch keyboards for years.


    One other thing: Jobs's statement on the need for a stylus bears greater weight when you remember that the iPad was actually conceived before the iPhone.
    You're making a few assumptions here.

    1) That I believe that a hybrid device is coming. I have never said that. ARM-powered Macs != hybrid Mac and iPad. It's just a Mac, running macOS, with an ARM processor. The Intel Macs were no longer PowerPC Macs, they were Intel Macs.

    2) I am on record for well over a year saying that Marzipan isn't an emulation framework. Not just in multiple editorials, but on the AI podcast, and my own. AI is not some monolithic agency with planning meetings on common opinions and interpretations.

    Those two make the rest of your assumptions about this editorial problematic.
    on 2, this doesn’t change the fact that AI’s coverage of Marizpan has been completely wrong, as we politely pointed out in the comments of Marzipan stories, going so far as to provide helpful links to the details on why, such as the John Gruber posts and insight...an actual dev and a guy who talks to Phil Schiller and is way closer to the sources than the AI writer who kept saying it was (and i quote) about “iOS apps running on Mac”. No. We explained why that was wrong. Provided links. But still more articles about “iOS apps running on Mac”. Wuuut. 

    Maybe you had your own personal take and maybe AI doesn’t have editorial meetings to figure out what it thinks, but maybe as a news org it should. We did in the paper I worked for and my local paper does too. It makes sense to weight the opinions of those who understand the subject material heavier than those who do not.
    Well it looks like it will be “UI apps on the Mac”.  That’s really a  distinction without a difference in my book.   Does anyone believe that companies will start building or significantly enhancing a APPKIT application till next year?   People will be building IOS Apps for the iPad with the look to adapt it next year to MacOS.
  • Reply 106 of 127
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,218member
    ascii said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    ascii said:
    I blame Intel for the lack of Mac updates. I have been a fan of chipzilla for a while now, but lately they've been behaving very badly. They've gone from simply producing slow updates to outright misleading people (with the 28-core CPU nonsense at Computex). 

    And watch their Computex presenation as well, was there ever such a collection of improperly prepared, condescending, fake ass douches in one presentation? The sooner Mac moves to AMD x64 or ARM the better.
    A fair point, but it's not quite as simple as that. As folk love to point out, Intel has made some small incremental improvements over the years of stagnation, but Apple hasn't always picked them up.

    The root of the problem is that ninety per cent of the Wintel machines out there are pretty much the same. You can even find machines with identical cases, parts and specs sold by different third-party resellers. Windows box builders rarely offer anything unique across their offerings, but in many ways this lack of any real differentiation is an advantage: it means that testing new configurations is easy.

    Because Apple's OS doesn't conform to the WinTel spec (the spec that describes how hardware drivers interact with the Windows plumbing) then all that testing has to be done by Apple, and they also need to do all the testing and development of the drivers to make Bootcamp work with their hardware (bear in mind the increasing number of components that are going into Apple kit that is designed and built by Apple itself).

    So this is probably why Apple doesn't jump on every tiny spec bump to the Intel chips; it wouldn't be cost effective for the Mac unit.

    That's what they would tell you if you ask. The main reason is a bit more simple.

    If a PC user discovers that his machine has a better spec a week after he bought it, he'll just say, "Oh well, I had to jump sometime" and get on with his life.

    The kind of Mac user (especially round here) who complains that Apple doesn't update often enough, is most probably the same sort of Mac user who will complain if Apple updates at the same rate that Intel makes incremental improvements. This kind of Mac user doesn't like to feel that his Mac is out-of-date less than a year after he bought it. In fact, he's the probably the sort of Mac user who will come here and demand a class action because Apple has "obsoleted" his machine when it less than a year old.  
    I don't think Mac users are the irrational (suing over upgrades) whiners you make them sound like. A lot of them are video editors, an application that is heavy on the processor, and having the latest CPU or GPU can make a real difference in their daily workflow. 


    My mistake. I should have separated the real Mac professionals from the kind of whiners who demand that Apple build to allow their phones to crash rather than temporarily slow them down. The kind of upgrades that Intel has made over the past two years haven’t done much to increase the speed of the computers using them. It’s little more than bragging rights. 
  • Reply 107 of 127
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,218member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Jobs did not say "Stylus … yuk!"
    Uh…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY3MSaUqMg
    Jobs did not say that they would never have a stylus… ...Apple didn't say they wouldn't make a stylus.
    “No one wants a stylus, so let’s not use a stylus.”

    Good Googling. But that just proves that Jobs changed his mind, and as I pointed out in my original post, so does Apple. They reject a lot of things (even bad mouthing them) until the technology gets to a stage where they can get it done. Now if anyone make a working hybrid then it’s probably Apple. in this case, technology isn’t the problem: it’s ergonomics. The technology improved so that Apple could make a stylus they were happy with. What Apple can’t do is make tapping at the screen with your finger for lengthy periods of time a comfortable experience. 

    So I reckon this is going to be a lot like the multi button mouse: years of “no” until Apple comes up with their own variation. In this case, the hybrid will be a second screen where the keyboard used to be, which gets round the ergonomics. 
  • Reply 108 of 127
    mitchelljdmitchelljd Posts: 152member
    I can only hope the entire mac line gets a solid refresh and update. 

    Its sad sad but it's like entire line is behind the chipsets and times.   Not like we can't hope products come soon,  but it's always at a sacrifice.   A nice laptop but can't user upgrade ram, and limits to 16gb,  and an super efficient rebranded late model adapted graphics chip.

    i can't be alone in wishing this company awash in billions of profits to reinvest and release refreshed models frequently, when new chipsets come out and not skip years of refresh updates.

    update the motherboards and do updates when the other competing computer companies do.   Don't let things like the Mac mini,  MacBook Air, Mac Pro languish neglected.

    bring it on Apple,   Time to do a full refresh and keep it up.   
  • Reply 109 of 127
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,635member
    Was this a click-bait article for me, Mike? :)

    No, Apple is doomed (some day far into the future... assuming they don't course-correct) because they are no longer prioritizing what made them successful in the first place.

    No hardware when there should be hardware is just a symptom.
  • Reply 110 of 127
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,323administrator
    cgWerks said:
    Was this a click-bait article for me, Mike? :)

    No, Apple is doomed (some day far into the future... assuming they don't course-correct) because they are no longer prioritizing what made them successful in the first place.

    No hardware when there should be hardware is just a symptom.
    Yup, aimed squarely at your forehead :)

    In all seriousness, we got a pile of email and commentary saying that because there was no hardware at WWDC that it was a major, major problem. As you're well aware, other than 2017, WWDC has never been about a pile of consumer hardware, and been more about what developers need to think about going forward. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 111 of 127
    BigDannBigDann Posts: 23member
    nht said:
    BigDann said:
    ascii said:
    The current Macbook Pro is not a bad design. It looks good and is snappy. There has been a lot of fuss made about the keyboard but the butterfly switches really do stabilise the keys and make them less splashy, they just needed to add more travel to make it more comfortable to type on. Once it gets 6 cores and Vega it will be simply amazing.
    It's technically a MacBook mis-marked !! A REAL MacBook Pro would have the ports.

    Yes, it's an OK design for a jet-setter who needs a light weight system. But, it really doesn't serve the heavy weight pro market. If Apple were to bring out an updated Unibody MacBook Pro 2011/12 design with the i9, retina or better display, serviceable RAM & storage it would be a winner. I know a lot of people would buy it!

    Apple has never made real desktop replacement/workstation laptop. The 17” was borderline in this class but not as powerful HP or Dell.

    So go buy a Dell and stop whining.  The MBP is for pros that actually travel.  The iMac Pro is for pros that don’t. 
    You missed the point here! We lost ports and serviceability. I don't want a 2k throw away computer! I'm not expecting a workstation laptop (I wouldn't mind one either)

    I just want a REAL MacBook Pro! It gets back to the basics 'Function over Form' Other PC makers seem to be able to meet the different markets whereas Apple still is floundering meeting the heavy weight pro market - Where's the Mac Pro? Or, a true replacement for the MacBook Unibody? Yes the ultra-thin market is well stocked with products in the line up the Pro market is deathly thin!

    I've had a Mac since day one and still have a few today. My options are to stay pat with what I have or jump ship which I would rather not do. If I where to jump to a new laptop it would more likely be a HP system running MacOS !! I don't like MS Windows!
    edited June 12
  • Reply 112 of 127
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,105member


    However moving to ARM is also potentially high risk in many ways as well which go well beyond the processor itself. I can see them trying to close off the Mac in the same way they have closed off the iPhone where all apps have to be purchased through the app store, etc. This would be very tempting for them given their focus on services and security but to my mind it would be the end of the Mac platform and its viability. Yes Apple is producing a ton of cash and is extraordinarily profitable and successful and this all down to the iPhone leading the growth. If they went this route I am sure there could be a short term lift from the Mac. However everything goes in cycles and at some point the smartphone market will slow, just as the PC market has done because there will be the next big thing. History is littered with companies who don't make the switch quickly enough (IBM is one) but what often what is necessary to avoid this is a relatively open platform for your customers to experiment with and provide creative solutions around. This won't happen if they go the iOS route for the Mac. A lot of the software developers I know love Macs but hate iPhones and use Android because its more open. I would be concerned that over time the quality of talent using the Mac would degrade if this happens.
    There is no chance apple will close the Mac like that. It may default to only launching App Store applications, but it wont enforce that. A setting will change that.

    Lots of devs use iPhones. There are a minority who care about openness, whatever that means. ( Conversely only a minority care about privacy too). 
  • Reply 113 of 127
    nhtnht Posts: 4,228member
    BigDann said:
    nht said:
    BigDann said:
    ascii said:
    The current Macbook Pro is not a bad design. It looks good and is snappy. There has been a lot of fuss made about the keyboard but the butterfly switches really do stabilise the keys and make them less splashy, they just needed to add more travel to make it more comfortable to type on. Once it gets 6 cores and Vega it will be simply amazing.
    It's technically a MacBook mis-marked !! A REAL MacBook Pro would have the ports.

    Yes, it's an OK design for a jet-setter who needs a light weight system. But, it really doesn't serve the heavy weight pro market. If Apple were to bring out an updated Unibody MacBook Pro 2011/12 design with the i9, retina or better display, serviceable RAM & storage it would be a winner. I know a lot of people would buy it!

    Apple has never made real desktop replacement/workstation laptop. The 17” was borderline in this class but not as powerful HP or Dell.

    So go buy a Dell and stop whining.  The MBP is for pros that actually travel.  The iMac Pro is for pros that don’t. 
    You missed the point here! We lost ports and serviceability. I don't want a 2k throw away computer! I'm not expecting a workstation laptop (I wouldn't mind one either)

    I just want a REAL MacBook Pro! It gets back to the basics 'Function over Form' Other PC makers seem to be able to meet the different markets whereas Apple still is floundering meeting the heavy weight pro market - Where's the Mac Pro? Or, a true replacement for the MacBook Unibody? Yes the ultra-thin market is well stocked with products in the line up the Pro market is deathly thin!

    I've had a Mac since day one and still have a few today. My options are to stay pat with what I have or jump ship which I would rather not do. If I where to jump to a new laptop it would more likely be a HP system running MacOS !! I don't like MS Windows!
    There are more USEFUL ports today than before AND I only need to attach one to my docking station for video, power, ethernet and accessories.  That true for both travel and at the office.  One dongle for travel with HDMI, ethernet and USB-A with power delivery.  Connects to hotel HDTV, USB drive and power.  On the plane the power comes from a USB-C battery.

    There was zero impact on serviceability for pros.  Once AppleCare is over most IT departments will do a refresh.  If there is a problem you get issued a spare and the broken MBP goes into service.

    Which heavyweight pros can't use the iMac Pro?  The current MBP is better than the unibody.

    fastasleep
  • Reply 114 of 127
    asdasd said:

    There is no chance apple will close the Mac like that. It may default to only launching App Store applications, but it wont enforce that. A setting will change that.

    Lots of devs use iPhones. There are a minority who care about openness, whatever that means. ( Conversely only a minority care about privacy too). 
    And I would have said there was no chance that Apple would fail to introduce any Macs in the whole 1st half of this year! ;)

    I hope you are right however my gut feeling is that this is definitely the way they are thinking given the path they have taken in the past and the precedent set by what they have done with iOS where they created a new product family which was only accessible to apps from their own app store. There is no doubt in my mind that they will introduce some kind of Apple processor for non iOS type machines (whether it is MacOs or a new variant we shall see). The move to their own graphics and recent story about the Oregon facility are examples that this is what they are thinking. Using their own processor family in MacOs will allow them to redefine the Mac in ways which are both good and bad. The general direction they have taken with the Mac is to begin to restrict how apps can be used and with their focus on services and security I can only see this trend continuing.

    Regarding developers using Android vs. iPhones I can only tell you what I have experienced. We are involved with a lot of development work outside of iOS / MacOs, mainly for html type interfaces and big data back end systems. With the different developers we work with I would say its 75% use Mac and 25% Windows (this used to be less but has grown recently). Of the same developers its 85% Android phones and 15% iOS phones. I was surprised and when I asked why, the common response was that iOS is a closed platform.

    My general point was that if Apple wish to survive future cycles then closing themselves off will not work but only hasten the long term problems. The only reason Apple is around today is that SJ bet the farm on the iPhone which was a risky but brilliant move. I don't see Apple being risky on anything right now and reducing hardware intros to a couple a year is reducing their risk not playing with it to see what sticks. They are terrified to try anything new that doesn't involve thinner, lighter and less ports and seemingly they are terrified to even think of failing occasionally..... even for the right reasons.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 115 of 127
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,793member
    As far as price, I can accept the base price.  I don't like it, but I can accept it.  The premium price for storage and other features, however, is very difficult for me to accept.  As a result, I make do with what I have despite some pain.  I realize that Apple doesn't really need me or my demographic, but as an owner of the first b&w 9 inch (?) screen mac, it makes me a little sad.
    WTF? The first Macintosh was over $5,000 in adjusted dollars.
  • Reply 116 of 127
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,793member
    BigDann said:
    Even the title of this piece made me laugh at the ridiculousness of AI. I haven't seen any press stories that Apple is doomed. That's just one of those fake news approaches which does nothing to create a productive dialog.

    What I have seen is lots of press stories and user comments with concerns and intense frustration (from customers) that Apple's approach to hardware is plain wrong. We're in June and there has been no Mac hardware introductions this year and now it looks like we will wait until September / October until the next event for this to happen. At the same time the Mac Mini hasn't had an update for 4 years and the Mac Pro refresh is still a long way off. How can this be a good thing? There is no regular update cycle going on here to keep Apple's customers competitive with other platforms but a schedule driven around another set of priorities. 

    Has Intel been slow to introduce new chips... yes. Have Apple been even slower at introducing new computers..... yes! Gen 8 Intel chips are out and have been since October of last year and we haven't seen any iMac or laptop updates. My teenage son finds it hysterical that I would even think that Macs are competitive in the market for computers nowadays, given the 6 core mobile chip in his laptop. This is in essence Apple's problem. They believe their own marketing but less and less people, including the next generation of customers do.
    They dropped the heavy pro market in the MacBook Pro line. Will they recover? Starting to wonder...

    We need the old Unibody back with updated insides! Aimed for the Pro's who need ports and MagSafe.
    Oh great, another "Pro". 

    Most pros are pretty fucking happy with four 40Gbps do-everything ports. Not sure what your problem is.
  • Reply 117 of 127
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,793member
    Since I do not upgrade my iOS on my mobile devices, there is no interest in it for me!  Apple WWDC was a failure to me since no products were release. 
    That's a pretty stupid policy to have with regard to security, not to mention the first major highlight of the keynote was performance of iOS 12 on older devices is greatly improved.
  • Reply 118 of 127
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,635member
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    In all seriousness, we got a pile of email and commentary saying that because there was no hardware at WWDC that it was a major, major problem. As you're well aware, other than 2017, WWDC has never been about a pile of consumer hardware, and been more about what developers need to think about going forward. 
    Maybe not a *pile*, and maybe the conference as a whole... but the keynote portion (that we all get to see) seems to be about whatever they want to introduce or get out to the world. Yes, with an emphasis on developers and the OSs, but not necessarily every part of the keynote.

    Not having hardware at WWDC isn't necessarily a major, major problem, but being as behind as they are on some models is a problem (so, it would have been a perfect time to catch up, and communicate that to developers and the world).

    nht said:
    The current MBP is better than the unibody.
    If it were, I'd have one on my desk.

    And, as I told someone recently in another forum... I'm not anti-USB-C. I'm just anti-USB-C only when 99% of the world is still USB-A. If I'm on a plane or in a coffee shop and someone hands me a thumb drive, why should I have to dig out the adapter cable (I have to bring along), when Apple could have just included a USB-A (along with USB-C). It isn't like there isn't room. They are trying to push the market... I get that. But they are doing it at the expense of user convenience. It's not a horrible, can't life with it, kind of thing. It is an inconvenience.

    nht said:
    There was zero impact on serviceability for pros.  Once AppleCare is over most IT departments will do a refresh.  If there is a problem you get issued a spare and the broken MBP goes into service.
    I wonder what percentage of MBP sales are to people who have extras to swap out? (Is that the target market?)

    fastasleep said:
    Most pros are pretty fucking happy with four 40Gbps do-everything ports. Not sure what your problem is.
    What would be the problem with also having a few other ports, especially on the 15"? Pros only want ports that work with docking stations? And, the ports aren't the only complaint. (A really interesting experiment would be to take the previous 15" design, add/swap some TB3 ports in and update the CPU/GPU... and see which sells better.)

    Since I do not upgrade my iOS on my mobile devices, there is no interest in it for me!  Apple WWDC was a failure to me since no products were release. 
    That's a pretty stupid policy to have with regard to security, not to mention the first major highlight of the keynote was performance of iOS 12 on older devices is greatly improved.
    Yeah, it just isn't a realistic option not to upgrade anymore... but that also means we're stuck with both the good and bad of each update.
  • Reply 119 of 127
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,793member
    cgWerks said:
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    In all seriousness, we got a pile of email and commentary saying that because there was no hardware at WWDC that it was a major, major problem. As you're well aware, other than 2017, WWDC has never been about a pile of consumer hardware, and been more about what developers need to think about going forward. 
    Maybe not a *pile*, and maybe the conference as a whole... but the keynote portion (that we all get to see) seems to be about whatever they want to introduce or get out to the world. Yes, with an emphasis on developers and the OSs, but not necessarily every part of the keynote.

    Not having hardware at WWDC isn't necessarily a major, major problem, but being as behind as they are on some models is a problem (so, it would have been a perfect time to catch up, and communicate that to developers and the world).

    So, the Mac mini then. We already know the Pro is 2019. The only other Mac lacking an update is the mini.
    fastasleep said:
    Most pros are pretty fucking happy with four 40Gbps do-everything ports. Not sure what your problem is.
    What would be the problem with also having a few other ports, especially on the 15"? Pros only want ports that work with docking stations? And, the ports aren't the only complaint. (A really interesting experiment would be to take the previous 15" design, add/swap some TB3 ports in and update the CPU/GPU... and see which sells better.)
    Look, I get that they could’ve given everyone training wheels, but at some point they have to come off and people would bitch regardless of when that happened. In a year or three this will all be water under the bridge as people move on to better technology. USB-A sucks and am in favor of ripping the band aid off in hopes it accelerates the industry to move away from it, which is what will happen sooner than later. Carry a double ended USB-A/C drive if you have a proclivity for accepting files over USB from people, or an adapter. Increasingly people don’t need those. 

    Any Pro worth their salt will have whatever cable or adapter to get the job done. Most people don’t need built-in HDMI and SD slots.

  • Reply 120 of 127
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,635member
    fastasleep said:
    So, the Mac mini then. We already know the Pro is 2019. The only other Mac lacking an update is the mini.
    Well, yea, the Mac mini is obscenely behind. But, the iMacs could use SSD minimally, and processor updates wouldn't hurt. The MacBook Pro is a whole other story (and could certainly use CPU updates). Sure, we know the Pro is coming next year, but I'm not sure that's a valid excuse for not having anything to fill in the hole until then. There are many things they could do, relatively easily, if they wanted to.
Sign In or Register to comment.