If Apple is going to make MacBook Pros with fixed internal batteries, then they should also make it easy for users to take out the DVD drive and replace it with a second battery or second hard drive. That way, Apple can advertise its fixed internal battery while other users get to have easily replaceable batteries at the same time. Apple can also make money from selling secondary hard drives and batteries.
All you Macbook Air defenders keep arguing that you don't need an optical drive. If you really believe that, then you should fully support the idea of hot swappable optical drives and secondary batteries. If you say that you don't need an optical drive, why would you want Apple to make a Mac laptop with a DVD drive that you can't easily take out?
All you Macbook Air defenders keep arguing that you don't need an optical drive. If you really believe that, then you should fully support the idea of hot swappable optical drives and secondary batteries. If you say that you don't need an optical drive, why would you want Apple to make a Mac laptop with a DVD drive that you can't easily take out?
1) Why are singling out those who like the MBA?
2) While I don't use an optical drive and would prefer that Apple offered a RAIDed HDD with the remaining space being for an additional battery, I can see the need for an optical drive for many on a 17" machine that might be used as a portable workstation for professionals. The MBA is more of a secondary machine for those that need to or prefer to travel light.
3) Why would the optical drive have to be hot swappable?
As a stockholder, I sure hope Apple can find a compromise between being "cheap" and "high end" for the next few years. Based on the keynote, they sold 2.3MM macs this past quarter, which was a little lower than I hoped, but seemingly in-line with estimates.
It will be hard to maintain sales and profits if the entire portfolio is biased to the high end.
You represent everything that's wrong with investors and our overhyped free market system: Greed, ignorance, and shortsightedness. Instead of recognizing Apple for their continuing innovation and financial stability - at a time when most of their competitors are clueless, deep in debt, and announcing layoffs - you are instead preoccupied with how your stock is going to do in the next quarter. It's this sort of shortsighted greed and stupidity that has brought our country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, while dragging the rest of the world along for the ride.
If Apple is going to make MacBook Pros with fixed internal batteries, then they should also make it easy for users to take out the DVD drive and replace it with a second battery or second hard drive. That way, Apple can advertise its fixed internal battery while other users get to have easily replaceable batteries at the same time. Apple can also make money from selling secondary hard drives and batteries.
You're missing the point entirely. The whole reason for designing a non-replaceable battery is economizing on space and expense by eliminating unnecessary enclosures and latching mechanisms. If you start adding other modular components like swappable hard drives and optical drives then you would end up back where you started.
This whole notion of not being able to replace one's battery is what is most appalling. Would you buy a car if the hood was sealed shut and you could not get access?.
Although car-computer analogies are ultimately meaningless, I'll bite. So what if the car did come with a sealed hood, BUT AS A RESULT the car was sleeker, lighter, more fuel efficient, and more attractive, while reliability was such that most people would probably replace it before the sealed engine compartment needed to be accessed? And as far as resale value goes, what if the cost of replacing the sealed engine unit was comparable to the cost of maintenance that you originally saved over the time you owned the vehicle, such that any reduction in the used car's value was offset by the money you saved from not having to service it? Then in the end, you'd have a financial wash, but with the benefit of a nicer car with years of maintenance-free service. I'd say that was a pretty good proposition, unless you're a mechanic.
I never called them a flop, nor "lousy at best". I was just pointing out they haven't been great. The last time the 17" macbook pro was updated was quite some time ago. And you really are comparing apples and oranges with the mba vs mbp 17. A better comparison would be the mb. I agree there is some thirst for it, but I just don't see it like I see all the others. I've already seen more unibody mbps more than I've seen mbas. It's all relative.
I think the price of the MBA is the problem. I really don't want to pay more for less. If price was the equivalent of the MB I would purchase. But I'm not going to trade lightness for power and end up paying a lot more. My laptop is mostly for home use in kitchen, living room and even bedroom. I'm not transporting it outside my house.
You represent everything that's wrong with investors and our overhyped free market system: Greed, ignorance, and shortsightedness. Instead of recognizing Apple for their continuing innovation and financial stability - at a time when most of their competitors are clueless, deep in debt, and announcing layoffs - you are instead preoccupied with how your stock is going to do in the next quarter. It's this sort of shortsighted greed and stupidity that has brought our country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, while dragging the rest of the world along for the ride.
I think truer words were never spoken. Apple got to where they are now, to get investors to invest into them. When investors invest in companies they think they own it. They don't own it, they are contributing funds for them to continue what the company has been doing to keep being successful. 100% on the greed part. You should be investing to help the company and get a little return in the end.
I hate it when people start off with "well i'm an investor", as that somehow makes them above the rest of us. Many of us choose not to gamble with our money on companies and have a clearer idea of how investing works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea
I think the price of the MBA is the problem. I really don't want to pay more for less. If price was the equivalent of the MB I would purchase. But I'm not going to trade lightness for power and end up paying a lot more. My laptop is mostly for home use in kitchen, living room and even bedroom. I'm not transporting it outside my house.
Honestly, I agree with you 100%. The base price is way too high for what the MBA offers. It has less / slower components than any other computer. It has been docked ports and I/O. It's just a niche computer imo.
Honestly, I agree with you 100%. The base price is way too high for what the MBA offers. It has less / slower components than any other computer. It has been docked ports and I/O. It's just a niche computer imo.
So the cost to power isn't a value to you. It's not to me either, but to say the price too high is unwarranted just because it's slower than the MB. The SFF CPU is $284 and $316 for the MBA, the 1.8" HDD costs more per GB and the display is much better, and thus more expensive than the MB's display.
So the cost to power isn't a value to you. It's not to me either, but to say the price too high is unwarranted just because it's slower than the MB. The SFF CPU is $284 and $316 for the MBA, the 1.8" HDD costs more per GB and the display is much better, and thus more expensive than the MB's display.
To the average consumer it doesn't break down that way. They see the higher price and then weigh the pros / cons of the computer. In the end to most consumers there are a lot more cons than pros with it.
To the average consumer it doesn't break down that way. They see the higher price and then weigh the pros / cons of the computer. In the end to most consumers there are a lot more cons than pros with it.
So if something isn't marketed to the average or majority then the product shouldn't be sold? There are premium and niche product in most, if not all, in every market. By that logic, then every single Mac has more cons than pros because you can get the same speed processor and a larger screen and double the RAM, and a lot more ports for considerably less money. Sure the processor may not be Core, or if it is it may be an older and/or cheaper version of Intel's Core but as you indirectly stated, the average consumer doesn't concern itself with those things. So are you saying that Apple's success is a fluke and that Intel is foolishly in processors that are smaller and have more FSB, L2, etc, since the average consumer won't concern themselves with the tech or actual performance in the chips?
I think the price of the MBA is the problem. I really don't want to pay more for less. If price was the equivalent of the MB I would purchase. But I'm not going to trade lightness for power and end up paying a lot more. My laptop is mostly for home use in kitchen, living room and even bedroom. I'm not transporting it outside my house.
Ummm, then clearly the MBA is not for you. Why would anyone buy an MBA if the computer never leaves the house? You are not remotely the target market. You're a macbook customer, pure and simple.
So if something isn't marketed to the average or majority then the product shouldn't be sold? There are premium and niche product in most, if not all, in every market. By that logic, then every single Mac has more cons than pros because you can get the same speed processor and a larger screen and double the RAM, and a lot more ports for considerably less money. Sure the processor may not be Core, or if it is it may be an older and/or cheaper version of Intel's Core but as you indirectly stated, the average consumer doesn't concern itself with those things. So are you saying that Apple's success is a fluke and that Intel is foolishly in processors that are smaller and have more FSB, L2, etc, since the average consumer won't concern themselves with the tech or actual performance in the chips?
Damn, people love putting words in my mouth on this forum for some reason. I never said it shouldn't be sold. Please point out where I said that. Instead of twisting words around, try and make valid points instead of trying to create points with questions.
Apple is already in a niche market. By doing something like the MBA they are going into a niche of a niche of a niche to get consumers. There isn't a large pool of customers who want that machine compared to others. Does that mean don't sell it? Of course not. As long as it turns a profit, then by all means sell it. The only reason the MBA was even brought up was because of the fixed battery in the 17" mbp a professional grade laptop. The MBA is a very niche market... there is no denying it. There aren't a lot of people that will trade power for a higher price. Even netbooks which are slower, are considerably cheaper.
No floppy drive, no serial port, no modem.. etc. People usually don't quickly understand why Apple pushes toward specific technology and many times abandon others.
What we don't understand is why Apple does that well before these techs are actually dead or without an effective replacement in place, and without previous warning. The floppy survived alive and well for years while we had to either buy four or five times more expensive USB versions if we needed something as simple as move a Word file between machines (Internet wasn't that usual in all Apple markets those days); (modem) faxes still are the easiest tool to send documents with absolute proof of the receiver having them printed out so no "oooh your eMail must have been eaten by the Intertrons"-based excuses; etc.
Then we have the idiocy of killing FW400 on the MBs (DV and HDV are not THAT dead), or creating their own variant of DisplayPort connectors (when the normal ones are just USB size-like, so WTF? Is this sort of an ADC galvanic spasm or what?), plus these not transporting audio as the standard imposes (so no fully featured DP-to-HDMI adapters ever for this generation of models).
So no: we don't accept their so-called wisdom that easily.
Anyway, what befuddles me is why they didn't the unswappable battery thing for the non-Pro MacBooks, instead. MacBook Pros ought to be the more flexible variants (what is the battery's real endurance for a full power-on MBP doing, say, Pro HD videocapture and editing on site)?
The fact that they introduced the 15" and 13" months before the 17" could be an indication that the battery was complicated to make. Their have been numerous new technologies that were in the 17" before the rest of the notebook line. Eventually the sealed battery will make it to the 15" and 13".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snafu
Anyway, what befuddles me is why they didn't the unswappable battery thing for the non-Pro MacBooks, instead. MacBook Pros ought to be the more flexible variants (what is the battery's real endurance for a full power-on MBP doing, say, Pro HD videocapture and editing on site)?
This already exists: TuneJuice for iPhone and iPod"
I have to correct myself slightly....
If Apple doesn't license MagSafe Adapter, it'll be harder for 3rd party companies to power this 17' Unibody Laptop, unless they'll come up with an Exteral Female Plug, so that one could use Apple's Power supply to plug into. Thus another workaround.
The company says this helps prolong the lifespan of the battery from the typical span of 300 charging cycles to up to 1000. That also means fewer battery packs will end up in landfills, putting a greener shine on the new notebook's environmental credentials.
Can someone help me on this, but since when has a typical charge cycle been 300? If that is the case, then how come my MacBook has been charged from nearly flat pretty much every night for the past two years and eight months? To my reckoning that's well over 900 recharges. My typical battery usage usually lasts me from about 7.30pm til about 11.30pm, just under four hours.
Can someone help me on this, but since when has a typical charge cycle been 300? If that is the case, then how come my MacBook has been charged from nearly flat pretty much every night for the past two years and eight months? To my reckoning that's well over 900 recharges. My typical battery usage usually lasts me from about 7.30pm til about 11.30pm, just under four hours.
So am I missing something here? Am I very lucky?
It's not based on how many times you charge it, it's based on how many complete cycle counts you have. You can check System Profiler under Power to see the Cycle Count and condition of your battery.
Can someone help me on this, but since when has a typical charge cycle been 300? If that is the case, then how come my MacBook has been charged from nearly flat pretty much every night for the past two years and eight months? To my reckoning that's well over 900 recharges. My typical battery usage usually lasts me from about 7.30pm til about 11.30pm, just under four hours.
So am I missing something here? Am I very lucky?
I believe it's talking about charge cycles before it starts losing it's normal hold for charges.
It's not based on how many times you charge it, it's based on how many complete cycle counts you have. You can check System Profiler under Power to see the Cycle Count and condition of for your battery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by System Profiler
Health Information:
Cycle countt636
ConditiontGood
That good? I actually forgot that I had a replacement battery a few months after I bought it because there was a problem with it. So with that in mind, it's probably had about 700-800 days of use. It seems to be working about as well as it always has. 17" MacBook battery, watch out
Comments
All you Macbook Air defenders keep arguing that you don't need an optical drive. If you really believe that, then you should fully support the idea of hot swappable optical drives and secondary batteries. If you say that you don't need an optical drive, why would you want Apple to make a Mac laptop with a DVD drive that you can't easily take out?
All you Macbook Air defenders keep arguing that you don't need an optical drive. If you really believe that, then you should fully support the idea of hot swappable optical drives and secondary batteries. If you say that you don't need an optical drive, why would you want Apple to make a Mac laptop with a DVD drive that you can't easily take out?
1) Why are singling out those who like the MBA?
2) While I don't use an optical drive and would prefer that Apple offered a RAIDed HDD with the remaining space being for an additional battery, I can see the need for an optical drive for many on a 17" machine that might be used as a portable workstation for professionals. The MBA is more of a secondary machine for those that need to or prefer to travel light.
3) Why would the optical drive have to be hot swappable?
As a stockholder, I sure hope Apple can find a compromise between being "cheap" and "high end" for the next few years. Based on the keynote, they sold 2.3MM macs this past quarter, which was a little lower than I hoped, but seemingly in-line with estimates.
It will be hard to maintain sales and profits if the entire portfolio is biased to the high end.
You represent everything that's wrong with investors and our overhyped free market system: Greed, ignorance, and shortsightedness. Instead of recognizing Apple for their continuing innovation and financial stability - at a time when most of their competitors are clueless, deep in debt, and announcing layoffs - you are instead preoccupied with how your stock is going to do in the next quarter. It's this sort of shortsighted greed and stupidity that has brought our country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, while dragging the rest of the world along for the ride.
If Apple is going to make MacBook Pros with fixed internal batteries, then they should also make it easy for users to take out the DVD drive and replace it with a second battery or second hard drive. That way, Apple can advertise its fixed internal battery while other users get to have easily replaceable batteries at the same time. Apple can also make money from selling secondary hard drives and batteries.
You're missing the point entirely. The whole reason for designing a non-replaceable battery is economizing on space and expense by eliminating unnecessary enclosures and latching mechanisms. If you start adding other modular components like swappable hard drives and optical drives then you would end up back where you started.
This whole notion of not being able to replace one's battery is what is most appalling. Would you buy a car if the hood was sealed shut and you could not get access?.
Although car-computer analogies are ultimately meaningless, I'll bite. So what if the car did come with a sealed hood, BUT AS A RESULT the car was sleeker, lighter, more fuel efficient, and more attractive, while reliability was such that most people would probably replace it before the sealed engine compartment needed to be accessed? And as far as resale value goes, what if the cost of replacing the sealed engine unit was comparable to the cost of maintenance that you originally saved over the time you owned the vehicle, such that any reduction in the used car's value was offset by the money you saved from not having to service it? Then in the end, you'd have a financial wash, but with the benefit of a nicer car with years of maintenance-free service. I'd say that was a pretty good proposition, unless you're a mechanic.
I never called them a flop, nor "lousy at best". I was just pointing out they haven't been great. The last time the 17" macbook pro was updated was quite some time ago. And you really are comparing apples and oranges with the mba vs mbp 17. A better comparison would be the mb. I agree there is some thirst for it, but I just don't see it like I see all the others. I've already seen more unibody mbps more than I've seen mbas. It's all relative.
I think the price of the MBA is the problem. I really don't want to pay more for less. If price was the equivalent of the MB I would purchase. But I'm not going to trade lightness for power and end up paying a lot more. My laptop is mostly for home use in kitchen, living room and even bedroom. I'm not transporting it outside my house.
You represent everything that's wrong with investors and our overhyped free market system: Greed, ignorance, and shortsightedness. Instead of recognizing Apple for their continuing innovation and financial stability - at a time when most of their competitors are clueless, deep in debt, and announcing layoffs - you are instead preoccupied with how your stock is going to do in the next quarter. It's this sort of shortsighted greed and stupidity that has brought our country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, while dragging the rest of the world along for the ride.
I think truer words were never spoken. Apple got to where they are now, to get investors to invest into them. When investors invest in companies they think they own it. They don't own it, they are contributing funds for them to continue what the company has been doing to keep being successful. 100% on the greed part. You should be investing to help the company and get a little return in the end.
I hate it when people start off with "well i'm an investor", as that somehow makes them above the rest of us. Many of us choose not to gamble with our money on companies and have a clearer idea of how investing works.
I think the price of the MBA is the problem. I really don't want to pay more for less. If price was the equivalent of the MB I would purchase. But I'm not going to trade lightness for power and end up paying a lot more. My laptop is mostly for home use in kitchen, living room and even bedroom. I'm not transporting it outside my house.
Honestly, I agree with you 100%. The base price is way too high for what the MBA offers. It has less / slower components than any other computer. It has been docked ports and I/O. It's just a niche computer imo.
Honestly, I agree with you 100%. The base price is way too high for what the MBA offers. It has less / slower components than any other computer. It has been docked ports and I/O. It's just a niche computer imo.
So the cost to power isn't a value to you. It's not to me either, but to say the price too high is unwarranted just because it's slower than the MB. The SFF CPU is $284 and $316 for the MBA, the 1.8" HDD costs more per GB and the display is much better, and thus more expensive than the MB's display.
So the cost to power isn't a value to you. It's not to me either, but to say the price too high is unwarranted just because it's slower than the MB. The SFF CPU is $284 and $316 for the MBA, the 1.8" HDD costs more per GB and the display is much better, and thus more expensive than the MB's display.
To the average consumer it doesn't break down that way. They see the higher price and then weigh the pros / cons of the computer. In the end to most consumers there are a lot more cons than pros with it.
To the average consumer it doesn't break down that way. They see the higher price and then weigh the pros / cons of the computer. In the end to most consumers there are a lot more cons than pros with it.
So if something isn't marketed to the average or majority then the product shouldn't be sold? There are premium and niche product in most, if not all, in every market. By that logic, then every single Mac has more cons than pros because you can get the same speed processor and a larger screen and double the RAM, and a lot more ports for considerably less money. Sure the processor may not be Core, or if it is it may be an older and/or cheaper version of Intel's Core but as you indirectly stated, the average consumer doesn't concern itself with those things. So are you saying that Apple's success is a fluke and that Intel is foolishly in processors that are smaller and have more FSB, L2, etc, since the average consumer won't concern themselves with the tech or actual performance in the chips?
I think the price of the MBA is the problem. I really don't want to pay more for less. If price was the equivalent of the MB I would purchase. But I'm not going to trade lightness for power and end up paying a lot more. My laptop is mostly for home use in kitchen, living room and even bedroom. I'm not transporting it outside my house.
Ummm, then clearly the MBA is not for you. Why would anyone buy an MBA if the computer never leaves the house? You are not remotely the target market. You're a macbook customer, pure and simple.
So if something isn't marketed to the average or majority then the product shouldn't be sold? There are premium and niche product in most, if not all, in every market. By that logic, then every single Mac has more cons than pros because you can get the same speed processor and a larger screen and double the RAM, and a lot more ports for considerably less money. Sure the processor may not be Core, or if it is it may be an older and/or cheaper version of Intel's Core but as you indirectly stated, the average consumer doesn't concern itself with those things. So are you saying that Apple's success is a fluke and that Intel is foolishly in processors that are smaller and have more FSB, L2, etc, since the average consumer won't concern themselves with the tech or actual performance in the chips?
Damn, people love putting words in my mouth on this forum for some reason. I never said it shouldn't be sold. Please point out where I said that. Instead of twisting words around, try and make valid points instead of trying to create points with questions.
Apple is already in a niche market. By doing something like the MBA they are going into a niche of a niche of a niche to get consumers. There isn't a large pool of customers who want that machine compared to others. Does that mean don't sell it? Of course not. As long as it turns a profit, then by all means sell it. The only reason the MBA was even brought up was because of the fixed battery in the 17" mbp a professional grade laptop. The MBA is a very niche market... there is no denying it. There aren't a lot of people that will trade power for a higher price. Even netbooks which are slower, are considerably cheaper.
No floppy drive, no serial port, no modem.. etc. People usually don't quickly understand why Apple pushes toward specific technology and many times abandon others.
What we don't understand is why Apple does that well before these techs are actually dead or without an effective replacement in place, and without previous warning. The floppy survived alive and well for years while we had to either buy four or five times more expensive USB versions if we needed something as simple as move a Word file between machines (Internet wasn't that usual in all Apple markets those days); (modem) faxes still are the easiest tool to send documents with absolute proof of the receiver having them printed out so no "oooh your eMail must have been eaten by the Intertrons"-based excuses; etc.
Then we have the idiocy of killing FW400 on the MBs (DV and HDV are not THAT dead), or creating their own variant of DisplayPort connectors (when the normal ones are just USB size-like, so WTF? Is this sort of an ADC galvanic spasm or what?), plus these not transporting audio as the standard imposes (so no fully featured DP-to-HDMI adapters ever for this generation of models).
So no: we don't accept their so-called wisdom that easily.
Anyway, what befuddles me is why they didn't the unswappable battery thing for the non-Pro MacBooks, instead. MacBook Pros ought to be the more flexible variants (what is the battery's real endurance for a full power-on MBP doing, say, Pro HD videocapture and editing on site)?
I guarantee you the Air is the future of the MacBook.
There aren't a lot of people that will trade power for a higher price. Even netbooks which are slower, are considerably cheaper.
Anyway, what befuddles me is why they didn't the unswappable battery thing for the non-Pro MacBooks, instead. MacBook Pros ought to be the more flexible variants (what is the battery's real endurance for a full power-on MBP doing, say, Pro HD videocapture and editing on site)?
"External Spare Battery
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...53#post1359953
Posted by: macologist
On: 01-08-2009 02:12 AM
This already exists: TuneJuice for iPhone and iPod"
I have to correct myself slightly....
If Apple doesn't license MagSafe Adapter, it'll be harder for 3rd party companies to power this 17' Unibody Laptop, unless they'll come up with an Exteral Female Plug, so that one could use Apple's Power supply to plug into. Thus another workaround.
The company says this helps prolong the lifespan of the battery from the typical span of 300 charging cycles to up to 1000. That also means fewer battery packs will end up in landfills, putting a greener shine on the new notebook's environmental credentials.
Can someone help me on this, but since when has a typical charge cycle been 300? If that is the case, then how come my MacBook has been charged from nearly flat pretty much every night for the past two years and eight months? To my reckoning that's well over 900 recharges. My typical battery usage usually lasts me from about 7.30pm til about 11.30pm, just under four hours.
So am I missing something here? Am I very lucky?
Can someone help me on this, but since when has a typical charge cycle been 300? If that is the case, then how come my MacBook has been charged from nearly flat pretty much every night for the past two years and eight months? To my reckoning that's well over 900 recharges. My typical battery usage usually lasts me from about 7.30pm til about 11.30pm, just under four hours.
So am I missing something here? Am I very lucky?
It's not based on how many times you charge it, it's based on how many complete cycle counts you have. You can check System Profiler under Power to see the Cycle Count and condition of your battery.
Can someone help me on this, but since when has a typical charge cycle been 300? If that is the case, then how come my MacBook has been charged from nearly flat pretty much every night for the past two years and eight months? To my reckoning that's well over 900 recharges. My typical battery usage usually lasts me from about 7.30pm til about 11.30pm, just under four hours.
So am I missing something here? Am I very lucky?
I believe it's talking about charge cycles before it starts losing it's normal hold for charges.
It's not based on how many times you charge it, it's based on how many complete cycle counts you have. You can check System Profiler under Power to see the Cycle Count and condition of for your battery.
Health Information:
Cycle count
Condition
That good? I actually forgot that I had a replacement battery a few months after I bought it because there was a problem with it. So with that in mind, it's probably had about 700-800 days of use. It seems to be working about as well as it always has. 17" MacBook battery, watch out