A year with MacBook Pro: reviewing Apple's 2017 pro laptop models

178101213

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 241
    danvmdanvm Posts: 707member
    tmay said:
    danvm said:
    tmay said:
    danvm said:
    Rayz2016 said:

    danvm said:
    tmay said:

    danvm said:
    Soli said:
    danvm said:
    tmay said:
    danvm said:
    tmay said:
    cropr said:
    Soli said:
    cropr said:

    In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
    If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
    Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
    That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
    Battery life is kind of a big deal for the particular market that the MacBookPro is designed to, so yeah, the choice of LPDDR4 memory is an especially relevant technical detail. 

    More to the point, you seem to be quite happy buying Dells and running Linux, with a mix of MacBookPro's. Why the sad?
    And what's the particular market the Macbook Pro is designed for?  Would be nice to hear that response from Apple, so people can make the right choice.  And still, it's obvious that just one model is not enough to cover all professional users needs.  They even lack a discreet GPU in the MBP 13".  Compare that to Lenovo and HP mobile workstations, that have a low end (4-core processors, 32GB of RAM, thinner + lighter) and high end models (6-core processors, 64GB of RAM, larger + heavier) .  Wouldn't be nice if Apple could do the same?
    Easy.

    It's the market niche that makes the bulk of the profit in the PC business.

    Hence, why MS is so keen to compete against Apple with it's Surface product line; that's where the money is.
    It's always sad when company goes for the profit instead for the customers.  That's when you start to see lack of upgrades and bad keyboards, among other things.  As you said, MS it's in the same business, but at least, if they don't give Windows customers what they need, they can go to HP, Dell or Lenovo.  Different from macOS users, that have no options a part from Apple. 
    Putting in 32GB of DDR RAM into a laptop because foolish customers only know that 32 is higher than 16 without any consideration for actual need or how it affects the rest of the machine is the epitome of of going after profit instead focusing on the customer base. We see the same thing in countless other areas of CE, like when people talk about pixel count without the slightest consideration for the quality and accuracy of each pixel because it's easy for Dell to sell an ignorant customer on "more is better" but getting the customer to pay more for an actual better display experience isn't. So, yeah, I agree with you that it's sad when companies dupe people like you into thinking you're getting more because you can only understand the most superficial aspects of the machine.
    If you noticed, I posted examples of mobile workstations.  Most of the customers that have these devices know the benefits of 32GB of RAM, and there are cases where it's what they need for their workflow.  I prefer to call them "high end users" or "professionals" instead of  "foolish customers". 
    Fair enough, but Apple doesn't build those, albeit that having TB 3 does give you a pretty good go at running an eGPU, or other external hardware, which certainly looks to give a lot of "mobile workstation" benefits, while not actually requiring that Apple produce such a niche device.
    Have you seen the size of an eGPU?  One of the reasons to have a Macbook Pro is size, weight and mobility.  All of three disappear as soon as you a a eGPU in your bag.  It's good to know that eGPU can solve the lack of discreet GPU in MBP 13", but wouldn't better if Apple offered it, maybe as an option, like MS, Lenovo, HP and Dell does in their notebooks?
    Wouldn't it be better if you … y'know … bought an MS, Lenovo, HP or Dell? The choice is there. Apple has always said it won't chase every market.
    The sad thing is that macOS users that need those specs have no option, since Apple don't offer them. 
    I get the impression that you aren't a Mac user. T/F?
     I own a MBP 13" 2017, that I consider a very nice notebook, and not excellent, because of the keyboard. 
    So, should I assume that you are satisfied with the integrated graphics performance?
    Yes, for my needs the Intel GPU works very nice.
  • Reply 182 of 241
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,309member
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    danvm said:
    tmay said:
    cropr said:
    Soli said:
    cropr said:

    In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
    If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
    Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
    That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
    Battery life is kind of a big deal for the particular market that the MacBookPro is designed to, so yeah, the choice of LPDDR4 memory is an especially relevant technical detail. 

    More to the point, you seem to be quite happy buying Dells and running Linux, with a mix of MacBookPro's. Why the sad?
    And what's the particular market the Macbook Pro is designed for?  Would be nice to hear that response from Apple, so people can make the right choice.  

    Why do you need Apple to make the choice for you? Look at the machines, check the specs, see if it fits what you want to do. If it doesn't then buy something else.

    I just can't understand folk who's self-esteem is so tied to the Apple brand that they'll forgo a machine that will suit them better, and just wait for years for a machine that may not ever show up. There's a machine built for you out there, right now. What are you waiting for?

    No doubt a 32GB machine will turn up, but then you'll want USB-A ports, and Firewire Ports and SCSI ports, and so you'll still be here complaining and waiting for Apple to build a machine that doesn't fit their core customer base as it is now.


    You make it sound so easy!

    If you have decades on the platform and decades of documents to manage it isn't so easy, although its doable of course.

    Apple's Mac division isn't competitive (in the classic sense) anymore. That should be enough to get up Schiller's nose even if unit sales are healthy. I hope he does something about it or steps aside. Personally I might end up with a Windows machine but that will be down to Apple.

    Pretending everything is fine won't do anyone any good.

    If Apple is now the computer maker for hipsters perhaps they should come out and make some clarifying statements.

    I thought seeing the exact same iMac presented for TWO years running was a one-off. Maybe it wasn't.



    Well, that's just it. In the amount of time you've been whining about it, anyone else would have already done it!


    In the amount of time that you have been complaining here, harking back to the good old days of parallel ports, putting up specs of your ideal machines, anyone else could have carried out a complete Fortune 50 IT migration. 


    Instead of turning a blind eye to all the issues currently surrounding the platform (Macs left to rot, others promised for who knows when, keyboard issues, repairability issues etc) I think its far better to make your feelings known than to quietly shrug your shoulders and abandon.

    And you've done that. And in response, Apple has carried on selling machines in either greater numbers, so why would they listen to you? Simple. They won't, and then you have to do what a proper manager would do, and simply cut their losses and move on. You being stuck where you are is not Apple's fault; it's entirely your own. You've made the decision to stamp your feet and hold your breath until Apple comes round to your way of thinking. Everyone else adapted or moved on. It's just business. 

    In the time you've been here, Macs have got slimmer, the number of different ports has continued to shrink. They have been steadily been moving in the opposite direction you want them to go, and in the same amount of time, they've picked up a whole new generation of users and sales have kept pace with or gone beyond the rest of the PC market where you will find your idea machine.

    Apple's Mac division isn't competitive (in the classic sense) anymore.

    'in the classic sense' meaning 'the sense that matters to me which is my ideal view of computers from the time that Blakes7 was still on the telly.'


    That should be enough to get up Schiller's nose even if unit sales are healthy.

    Why should it if unit sales are healthy? What should keep him awake at night is making sure the Mac stays on the bleeding edge, rather than falling back to cater for people who refuse to accept they're no longer in Apple's core demographic.


    Personally I might end up with a Windows machine but that will be down to Apple.

    By George! I think he's got it! Yes, you need a Windows machine. You are a Windows user! Embrace it! There's no shame in it.  Will it be down to Apple? Depends on your point of view. They refused to make the machine you want, but by the same token, you refused to adapt.

    Pretending everything is fine won't do anyone any good.
    Well, it's fine for me.

    Y'see, what's not fine for you may be perfect for someone else. The problem is that the 'someone else' is the person Apple is aiming for; they're mobile, more adaptable to change (which you clearly are not), and they're going to live longer than either of us.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


    If Apple is now the computer maker for hipsters perhaps they should come out and make some clarifying statements.

    Well, no, because they have more respect for their customers than that. They assume that folk who call themselves 'professionals' can look at a machine and decide whether or not it's for them, without Apple holding their hand. I mean, they're supposed to be professionals after all.  If you need Apple or any computer company to tell you whether a machine is suitable for you or not, then you probably shouldn't be attempting to buy machines yourself; you certainly shouldn't be trying to tell Apple what they should put in it.





    I'm perfectly aware of the situation. It is as I described it, or is there an 'important for Apple' Mini that slipped out the back door without me catching it?  Is there a new Mac Pro out there to update the current fossil in the lineup? Are new generation MBP users not sitting on keyboard time bombs? 

    60% of 2017 Christmas Mac sales went to NEW users. Where were the existing users?  That should have sent shockwaves through Apple. How will those 'new' iMac users see things when they realise their 'brand new' machine had already been available the previous Christmas? How will new MBP users  react when they get wind of the cause of the keyboard issues (the design itself).

    This is the new Apple (in Mac terms). This is an entire multi billion dollar business - coasting. Taking decisions that seem aimed to push prices up - simply because they can. That's why you cannot buy a new generation 15" MBP without a TB. That's why you have to purchase what you need for the entire estimated life of the machine at the checkout at Apple prices. On top of that, things like repair (even traditionally simple things like battery replacement and keyboard swapping) are impossible to carry out without impacting other areas of the machine. AppleCare is practically a must nowadays.

    Instead of actually criticising Apple for what it is doing you simply claim this is the new Apple and we must accept it or switch platforms. That's fine for your own personal opinion but don't expect others (many, right here on AI) to do the same.

    You might think Apple won't change but that doesn't mean it won't. And quietly jumping ship won't help anyone. Maybe you simply don't like people criticising the company but the best critics of any company are its own users and this space is for people to voice their opinions. Those opinions will necessarily involve references to competitors for comparative reasons. You also might not like to read how other companies are running rings around Apple but there are many, many readers who get linked into these discussions but don't actively participate in them and who can form their own opinions based on what they read here.

    That's the whole point of discussion forums and I don't expect TC to be around forever, and more importantly, I don't expect the iPhone to be anywhere near the same revenue generator for the company over the next 10 years as during the previous.


  • Reply 183 of 241
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,453member
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    danvm said:
    tmay said:
    cropr said:
    Soli said:
    cropr said:

    In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
    If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
    Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
    That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
    Battery life is kind of a big deal for the particular market that the MacBookPro is designed to, so yeah, the choice of LPDDR4 memory is an especially relevant technical detail. 

    More to the point, you seem to be quite happy buying Dells and running Linux, with a mix of MacBookPro's. Why the sad?
    And what's the particular market the Macbook Pro is designed for?  Would be nice to hear that response from Apple, so people can make the right choice.  

    Why do you need Apple to make the choice for you? Look at the machines, check the specs, see if it fits what you want to do. If it doesn't then buy something else.

    I just can't understand folk who's self-esteem is so tied to the Apple brand that they'll forgo a machine that will suit them better, and just wait for years for a machine that may not ever show up. There's a machine built for you out there, right now. What are you waiting for?

    No doubt a 32GB machine will turn up, but then you'll want USB-A ports, and Firewire Ports and SCSI ports, and so you'll still be here complaining and waiting for Apple to build a machine that doesn't fit their core customer base as it is now.


    You make it sound so easy!

    If you have decades on the platform and decades of documents to manage it isn't so easy, although its doable of course.

    Apple's Mac division isn't competitive (in the classic sense) anymore. That should be enough to get up Schiller's nose even if unit sales are healthy. I hope he does something about it or steps aside. Personally I might end up with a Windows machine but that will be down to Apple.

    Pretending everything is fine won't do anyone any good.

    If Apple is now the computer maker for hipsters perhaps they should come out and make some clarifying statements.

    I thought seeing the exact same iMac presented for TWO years running was a one-off. Maybe it wasn't.



    Well, that's just it. In the amount of time you've been whining about it, anyone else would have already done it!


    In the amount of time that you have been complaining here, harking back to the good old days of parallel ports, putting up specs of your ideal machines, anyone else could have carried out a complete Fortune 50 IT migration. 


    Instead of turning a blind eye to all the issues currently surrounding the platform (Macs left to rot, others promised for who knows when, keyboard issues, repairability issues etc) I think its far better to make your feelings known than to quietly shrug your shoulders and abandon.

    And you've done that. And in response, Apple has carried on selling machines in either greater numbers, so why would they listen to you? Simple. They won't, and then you have to do what a proper manager would do, and simply cut their losses and move on. You being stuck where you are is not Apple's fault; it's entirely your own. You've made the decision to stamp your feet and hold your breath until Apple comes round to your way of thinking. Everyone else adapted or moved on. It's just business. 

    In the time you've been here, Macs have got slimmer, the number of different ports has continued to shrink. They have been steadily been moving in the opposite direction you want them to go, and in the same amount of time, they've picked up a whole new generation of users and sales have kept pace with or gone beyond the rest of the PC market where you will find your idea machine.

    Apple's Mac division isn't competitive (in the classic sense) anymore.

    'in the classic sense' meaning 'the sense that matters to me which is my ideal view of computers from the time that Blakes7 was still on the telly.'


    That should be enough to get up Schiller's nose even if unit sales are healthy.

    Why should it if unit sales are healthy? What should keep him awake at night is making sure the Mac stays on the bleeding edge, rather than falling back to cater for people who refuse to accept they're no longer in Apple's core demographic.


    Personally I might end up with a Windows machine but that will be down to Apple.

    By George! I think he's got it! Yes, you need a Windows machine. You are a Windows user! Embrace it! There's no shame in it.  Will it be down to Apple? Depends on your point of view. They refused to make the machine you want, but by the same token, you refused to adapt.

    Pretending everything is fine won't do anyone any good.
    Well, it's fine for me.

    Y'see, what's not fine for you may be perfect for someone else. The problem is that the 'someone else' is the person Apple is aiming for; they're mobile, more adaptable to change (which you clearly are not), and they're going to live longer than either of us.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


    If Apple is now the computer maker for hipsters perhaps they should come out and make some clarifying statements.

    Well, no, because they have more respect for their customers than that. They assume that folk who call themselves 'professionals' can look at a machine and decide whether or not it's for them, without Apple holding their hand. I mean, they're supposed to be professionals after all.  If you need Apple or any computer company to tell you whether a machine is suitable for you or not, then you probably shouldn't be attempting to buy machines yourself; you certainly shouldn't be trying to tell Apple what they should put in it.





    I'm perfectly aware of the situation. It is as I described it, or is there an 'important for Apple' Mini that slipped out the back door without me catching it?  Is there a new Mac Pro out there to update the current fossil in the lineup? Are new generation MBP users not sitting on keyboard time bombs? 

    60% of 2017 Christmas Mac sales went to NEW users. Where were the existing users?  That should have sent shockwaves through Apple. How will those 'new' iMac users see things when they realise their 'brand new' machine had already been available the previous Christmas? How will new MBP users  react when they get wind of the cause of the keyboard issues (the design itself).

    This is the new Apple (in Mac terms). This is an entire multi billion dollar business - coasting. Taking decisions that seem aimed to push prices up - simply because they can. That's why you cannot buy a new generation 15" MBP without a TB. That's why you have to purchase what you need for the entire estimated life of the machine at the checkout at Apple prices. On top of that, things like repair (even traditionally simple things like battery replacement and keyboard swapping) are impossible to carry out without impacting other areas of the machine. AppleCare is practically a must nowadays.

    Instead of actually criticising Apple for what it is doing you simply claim this is the new Apple and we must accept it or switch platforms. That's fine for your own personal opinion but don't expect others (many, right here on AI) to do the same.

    You might think Apple won't change but that doesn't mean it won't. And quietly jumping ship won't help anyone. Maybe you simply don't like people criticising the company but the best critics of any company are its own users and this space is for people to voice their opinions. Those opinions will necessarily involve references to competitors for comparative reasons. You also might not like to read how other companies are running rings around Apple but there are many, many readers who get linked into these discussions but don't actively participate in them and who can form their own opinions based on what they read here.

    That's the whole point of discussion forums and I don't expect TC to be around forever, and more importantly, I don't expect the iPhone to be anywhere near the same revenue generator for the company over the next 10 years as during the previous.


    Apple isn't going to change it's designs to make them user serviceable.

    TB 3 is considered a keystone feature of the MacBook Pro, so they aren't going to leave that out.

    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.

    I won't speak to the Keyboard issue as there is limited data, but the numbers anecdotally look be in the low thousands of affected machines; I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by data.

    You aren't going to get Apple to change the MacBook, MacAir or MacBook Pro product lines in any significant way; these are products that are working very well for Apple.

    I give you this advice freely:

    Abandon all hope; abandon all things Apple, abandon AI,

    Have a nice day!
    fastasleep
  • Reply 184 of 241
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
  • Reply 185 of 241
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,453member
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
  • Reply 186 of 241
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,309member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    danvm said:
    tmay said:
    cropr said:
    Soli said:
    cropr said:

    In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
    If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
    Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
    That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
    Battery life is kind of a big deal for the particular market that the MacBookPro is designed to, so yeah, the choice of LPDDR4 memory is an especially relevant technical detail. 

    More to the point, you seem to be quite happy buying Dells and running Linux, with a mix of MacBookPro's. Why the sad?
    And what's the particular market the Macbook Pro is designed for?  Would be nice to hear that response from Apple, so people can make the right choice.  

    Why do you need Apple to make the choice for you? Look at the machines, check the specs, see if it fits what you want to do. If it doesn't then buy something else.

    I just can't understand folk who's self-esteem is so tied to the Apple brand that they'll forgo a machine that will suit them better, and just wait for years for a machine that may not ever show up. There's a machine built for you out there, right now. What are you waiting for?

    No doubt a 32GB machine will turn up, but then you'll want USB-A ports, and Firewire Ports and SCSI ports, and so you'll still be here complaining and waiting for Apple to build a machine that doesn't fit their core customer base as it is now.


    You make it sound so easy!

    If you have decades on the platform and decades of documents to manage it isn't so easy, although its doable of course.

    Apple's Mac division isn't competitive (in the classic sense) anymore. That should be enough to get up Schiller's nose even if unit sales are healthy. I hope he does something about it or steps aside. Personally I might end up with a Windows machine but that will be down to Apple.

    Pretending everything is fine won't do anyone any good.

    If Apple is now the computer maker for hipsters perhaps they should come out and make some clarifying statements.

    I thought seeing the exact same iMac presented for TWO years running was a one-off. Maybe it wasn't.



    Well, that's just it. In the amount of time you've been whining about it, anyone else would have already done it!


    In the amount of time that you have been complaining here, harking back to the good old days of parallel ports, putting up specs of your ideal machines, anyone else could have carried out a complete Fortune 50 IT migration. 


    Instead of turning a blind eye to all the issues currently surrounding the platform (Macs left to rot, others promised for who knows when, keyboard issues, repairability issues etc) I think its far better to make your feelings known than to quietly shrug your shoulders and abandon.

    And you've done that. And in response, Apple has carried on selling machines in either greater numbers, so why would they listen to you? Simple. They won't, and then you have to do what a proper manager would do, and simply cut their losses and move on. You being stuck where you are is not Apple's fault; it's entirely your own. You've made the decision to stamp your feet and hold your breath until Apple comes round to your way of thinking. Everyone else adapted or moved on. It's just business. 

    In the time you've been here, Macs have got slimmer, the number of different ports has continued to shrink. They have been steadily been moving in the opposite direction you want them to go, and in the same amount of time, they've picked up a whole new generation of users and sales have kept pace with or gone beyond the rest of the PC market where you will find your idea machine.

    Apple's Mac division isn't competitive (in the classic sense) anymore.

    'in the classic sense' meaning 'the sense that matters to me which is my ideal view of computers from the time that Blakes7 was still on the telly.'


    That should be enough to get up Schiller's nose even if unit sales are healthy.

    Why should it if unit sales are healthy? What should keep him awake at night is making sure the Mac stays on the bleeding edge, rather than falling back to cater for people who refuse to accept they're no longer in Apple's core demographic.


    Personally I might end up with a Windows machine but that will be down to Apple.

    By George! I think he's got it! Yes, you need a Windows machine. You are a Windows user! Embrace it! There's no shame in it.  Will it be down to Apple? Depends on your point of view. They refused to make the machine you want, but by the same token, you refused to adapt.

    Pretending everything is fine won't do anyone any good.
    Well, it's fine for me.

    Y'see, what's not fine for you may be perfect for someone else. The problem is that the 'someone else' is the person Apple is aiming for; they're mobile, more adaptable to change (which you clearly are not), and they're going to live longer than either of us.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


    If Apple is now the computer maker for hipsters perhaps they should come out and make some clarifying statements.

    Well, no, because they have more respect for their customers than that. They assume that folk who call themselves 'professionals' can look at a machine and decide whether or not it's for them, without Apple holding their hand. I mean, they're supposed to be professionals after all.  If you need Apple or any computer company to tell you whether a machine is suitable for you or not, then you probably shouldn't be attempting to buy machines yourself; you certainly shouldn't be trying to tell Apple what they should put in it.





    I'm perfectly aware of the situation. It is as I described it, or is there an 'important for Apple' Mini that slipped out the back door without me catching it?  Is there a new Mac Pro out there to update the current fossil in the lineup? Are new generation MBP users not sitting on keyboard time bombs? 

    60% of 2017 Christmas Mac sales went to NEW users. Where were the existing users?  That should have sent shockwaves through Apple. How will those 'new' iMac users see things when they realise their 'brand new' machine had already been available the previous Christmas? How will new MBP users  react when they get wind of the cause of the keyboard issues (the design itself).

    This is the new Apple (in Mac terms). This is an entire multi billion dollar business - coasting. Taking decisions that seem aimed to push prices up - simply because they can. That's why you cannot buy a new generation 15" MBP without a TB. That's why you have to purchase what you need for the entire estimated life of the machine at the checkout at Apple prices. On top of that, things like repair (even traditionally simple things like battery replacement and keyboard swapping) are impossible to carry out without impacting other areas of the machine. AppleCare is practically a must nowadays.

    Instead of actually criticising Apple for what it is doing you simply claim this is the new Apple and we must accept it or switch platforms. That's fine for your own personal opinion but don't expect others (many, right here on AI) to do the same.

    You might think Apple won't change but that doesn't mean it won't. And quietly jumping ship won't help anyone. Maybe you simply don't like people criticising the company but the best critics of any company are its own users and this space is for people to voice their opinions. Those opinions will necessarily involve references to competitors for comparative reasons. You also might not like to read how other companies are running rings around Apple but there are many, many readers who get linked into these discussions but don't actively participate in them and who can form their own opinions based on what they read here.

    That's the whole point of discussion forums and I don't expect TC to be around forever, and more importantly, I don't expect the iPhone to be anywhere near the same revenue generator for the company over the next 10 years as during the previous.


    Apple isn't going to change it's designs to make them user serviceable.

    TB 3 is considered a keystone feature of the MacBook Pro, so they aren't going to leave that out.

    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.

    I won't speak to the Keyboard issue as there is limited data, but the numbers anecdotally look be in the low thousands of affected machines; I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by data.

    You aren't going to get Apple to change the MacBook, MacAir or MacBook Pro product lines in any significant way; these are products that are working very well for Apple.

    I give you this advice freely:

    Abandon all hope; abandon all things Apple, abandon AI,

    Have a nice day!
    You may be right with some of that but it doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

    When the new generation MBP were announced there were no amount of people declaring the MBA EOL. That was 2016. Not only is it still in the lineup - well into 2018 - but it probably ships in numbers too. There are even rumours of a new MBA for this year.

    Never say never.

    The keyboard situation is worrying because Apple hasn't revealed the cause of the problems. It hasn't limited affectation to a specific batch or production run. It literally covers every single butterfly mechanism out there - and only for four years from date of purchase. What is your reading of that?

    My reading is that the problem has its roots in the design itself. If that is the case, the lawsuits in progress may require Apple reveal what the problems really are and how they tested for things like accumulation of small particles. As a by product of any legal proceedings, Apple may even be required to reveal how many butterfly mechanism equipped Macs it shipped since release. That would be interesting for other reasons.

    Lots of speculation on my part here but that's how I see it today.


  • Reply 187 of 241
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
  • Reply 188 of 241
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Soli said:
    Why not?
    I wonder if or when Apple will outgrow the Mac name. It’s not the processor architecture that makes the Mac (we’ve seen three of them at this point), it’s the means of interaction. They don’t seem too keen to bring multitouch to the desktop, despite its potential uses. So… do we just watch the computer market slowly dry up as Apple makes only tablets and phones? Will the last Mac–perhaps the iMac, last updated in 2022–be quietly discontinued in 2025? Who knows. 
  • Reply 189 of 241
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member
    Soli said:
    Why not?
    So… do we just watch the computer market slowly dry up as Apple makes only tablets and phones?
    I don't see how that's something anyone expects to see and yet the Mac demise has been talked about even before the iPod was launched. Then, it was about Apple folding completely, and then once the iPod was a smash it was that Apple should drop the pointless Mac to focus only on iPods… then the iPhone… and then iPhone and iPad.

    I see absolutely no reason to think the Apple will be getting of their desktop platform and I see no reason not to continue calling it the Mac (but this last point is mostly moot because what it's called is inconsequential to what it does).

    Personally, I'd like to see an ARM-based Mac notebook effectively look like a 12" MacBook but with the MacBook Air branding. A Retina, IPS display that is mostly faster than the Intel-based MacBook but with a longer lasting battery and lower price point. You won't get Boot Camp or virtualization, but for those customers that shouldn't be a concern. If you require some bloated, side-loaded app like AutoCAD that only supports Intel-based Macs for the foreseeable future then an entry-level Mac notebook isn't for you, but most people don't need all that and I think Apple could clean up in this area making the highly successful and profitable Mac line up even more of a success story.
  • Reply 190 of 241
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,453member
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
  • Reply 191 of 241
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.

    2) There are lots of reasons why Apple would want to continue allowing Intel-based Macs to exist.

    3) What do you mean by "Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM"? Are you saying that Apple will simply use iOS on an ARM-based Mac instead of using macOS? watchOS and iOS are both ARM-based system using Apple silicon but I don't expect to be able to download and run watchOS apps on the iPad in some wonky, 312 × 390 resolution window. I thought Apple was very clear about how their OSes will evolve and we can see with Mojave by looking at Home, News, Stocks, and others that they have no intention of sloppily plastering an iOS app onto macOS.
    edited June 2018 fastasleep
  • Reply 192 of 241
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,453member
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.

    2) There are lots of reasons why Apple would want to continue allowing Intel-based Macs to exist.

    3) What do you mean by "Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM"? Are you saying that Apple will simply use iOS on an ARM-based Mac instead of using macOS? watchOS and iOS are both ARM-based system using Apple silicon but I don't expect to be able to download and run watchOS apps on the iPad in some wonky, 312 × 390 resolution window. I thought Apple was very clear about how their OSes will evolve and we can see with Mojave by looking at Home, News, Stocks, and others that they have no intention of sloppily plastering an iOS app onto macOS.
    Short answer: Don't go to the trouble of making an ARM device compatible with x64.
  • Reply 193 of 241
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.

    2) There are lots of reasons why Apple would want to continue allowing Intel-based Macs to exist.

    3) What do you mean by "Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM"? Are you saying that Apple will simply use iOS on an ARM-based Mac instead of using macOS? watchOS and iOS are both ARM-based system using Apple silicon but I don't expect to be able to download and run watchOS apps on the iPad in some wonky, 312 × 390 resolution window. I thought Apple was very clear about how their OSes will evolve and we can see with Mojave by looking at Home, News, Stocks, and others that they have no intention of sloppily plastering an iOS app onto macOS.
    Short answer: Don't go to the trouble of making an ARM device compatible with x64.
    Again, no idea what that's suppose to mean in relation to Apple adding a different 64-bit architecture to their Mac lineup.
  • Reply 194 of 241
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,582member
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I would gladly buy an improved (i.e. faster) mac mini too, though I would be concerned with compatibility with third-party apps so I'm mot prepared to wish for Apple silicon until I know how that would play out.
    edited June 2018
  • Reply 195 of 241
    nhtnht Posts: 4,388member
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
    Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
    3) What do you mean by "Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM"? Are you saying that Apple will simply use iOS on an ARM-based Mac instead of using macOS? watchOS and iOS are both ARM-based system using Apple silicon but I don't expect to be able to download and run watchOS apps on the iPad in some wonky, 312 × 390 resolution window. I thought Apple was very clear about how their OSes will evolve and we can see with Mojave by looking at Home, News, Stocks, and others that they have no intention of sloppily plastering an iOS app onto macOS.
    He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.

    As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.

    I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.






  • Reply 196 of 241
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
    Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
    And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.

    He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
    Again, and?

    As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
    Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.

    I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
    Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.



  • Reply 197 of 241
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,453member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
    Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
    3) What do you mean by "Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM"? Are you saying that Apple will simply use iOS on an ARM-based Mac instead of using macOS? watchOS and iOS are both ARM-based system using Apple silicon but I don't expect to be able to download and run watchOS apps on the iPad in some wonky, 312 × 390 resolution window. I thought Apple was very clear about how their OSes will evolve and we can see with Mojave by looking at Home, News, Stocks, and others that they have no intention of sloppily plastering an iOS app onto macOS.
    He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.

    As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.

    I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.






    Right.

    Although I would expect it would be primarily a recompile under Xcode with a limited amount of recoding required.

    I don't disagree that there isn't much point to this exercise, but it might make it feasible to produce more cost effective educational and entry level products.

    This is exactly what MS is doing working with Qualcomm on the Snapdragon 1000 for Windows 10 for ARM.
  • Reply 198 of 241
    nhtnht Posts: 4,388member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
    Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
    And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.

    He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
    Again, and?

    As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
    Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.

    I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
    Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.



    And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.

    This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
  • Reply 199 of 241
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
    Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
    And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.

    He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
    Again, and?

    As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
    Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.

    I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
    Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.



    And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.

    This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
    If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
    edited June 2018
  • Reply 200 of 241
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,453member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
    Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
    And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.

    He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
    Again, and?

    As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
    Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.

    I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
    Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.



    And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.

    This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
    If it runs macOS it's a Mac. The architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS or watchOS or tvOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
    ItSoli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    Soli said:
    tmay said:
    The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
    I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
    I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
    Why not?
    Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP. 

    Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
    1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
    Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
    And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.

    He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
    Again, and?

    As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
    Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.

    I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
    Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.



    And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.

    This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
    If it runs macOS it's a Mac. The architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS or watchOS or tvOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
    Take a breath.

    Apple can do whatever it wants with the ARM architecture. They don't have to build a Mac Mini running ARM. The can end the Mac Mini anytime. The can as easily run a device the fills the Mac Mini niches, without running Mac OS X at all if they want.

    Why couldn't they build a media server running iOS or tvOS? Why couldn't they build an AppleTV with media serving capabilities? 

    Why couldn't they build the equivalent of the MacBook with iOS if they waned to?

    A real opportunity for Apple to leave a lot of legacy cruft behind and move on.


Sign In or Register to comment.