Apple rumored to eventually introduce ultra-thin 15-inch notebook

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 159
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    I hope they don't go this route. One of the things about macs is they tend to have relatively long service lives assuming a lack of ultra costly hardware failures. That used to be limited more to the screen or logic board components. Any idea why they went this design route?



    Why did Apple choose to put the RAM directly on the motherboard with the MacBook Air and why do I think Apple might make the same choice with the next major redesign of the MacBook Pro? Let us count the reasons.

    1. lower cost

    2. improved reliability

    3. increases the frequency of the repurchase cycle

    4. allows thinner laptops

    5. Apple get to sell all the Mac RAM, rather than 3rd party memory vendors

    6. lighter, stronger case without an access door

    7. replaced SO-DIMMs usually end up in landfill, rather than recycled.
  • Reply 142 of 159
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    Why did Apple choose to put the RAM directly on the motherboard with the MacBook Air and why do I think Apple might make the same choice with the next major redesign of the MacBook Pro? Let us count the reasons.



    1. lower cost

    2. improved reliability

    3. increases the frequency of the repurchase cycle

    4. allows thinner laptops

    5. Apple get to sell all the Mac RAM, rather than 3rd party memory vendors

    6. lighter, stronger case without an access door

    7. replaced SO-DIMMs usually end up in landfill, rather than recycled.



    Reading the way that is written you sound pretty annoyed now, so I'll let someone else point out the flaws in some of this logic



    Well only one point but I don't think encouraging repurchasing by making the devices break faster is a good direction for any company, and it can ultimately backfire.
  • Reply 143 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Reading the way that is written you sound pretty annoyed now....



    No, I'm not annoyed at all. I'm just looking at Apple's choices from the perspective of what is good for Apple, rather than the perspective of what I want.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Well only one point but I don't think encouraging repurchasing by making the devices break faster is a good direction for any company, and it can ultimately backfire.



    No one is talking about making devices break faster.



    The only Mac I ever owned for more than 2 years is also the last Mac I added RAM to. It was the last iteration of the 12" PowerBook. It came with 512MB and I upgraded it to 1.25GB (the maximum possible). I used it for about 4 years until I bought a Rev. A MacBook Air when they were first released. I used that MacBook Air for less than 2 years until I needed 4GB of RAM. If I had not had the option of adding RAM to the PowerBook, I would have replaced it sooner. If I had had the option of adding RAM to the MacBook Air, I would have kept it longer.
  • Reply 144 of 159
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    No, I'm not annoyed at all. I'm just looking at Apple's choices from the perspective of what is good for Apple, rather than the perspective of what I want.



    If I had had the option of adding RAM to the MacBook Air, I would have kept it longer.



    In the case of the macbook air the goal seemed to minimize weight without compromising the structural integrity. That's the appeal of the device. I think the ram thing ended up that way because it would've been much more difficult to retain the rest of the design if ram upgradability was given priority. If they simply wanted it to be built as one unit like this they could have changed it long ago. I'm not sure where you got increased reliability. Either way they're buying the same ram and while it can fail, it's a rather uncommon issue. Even when it's starting to generate errors most people don't even know how to test it.



    Anyway I think device longevity is a good thing. It doesn't necessarily keep people from buying new devices. Often they'll buy the newest and hand theirs off to the spouse, kids, etc.
  • Reply 145 of 159
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    In the case of the macbook air the goal seemed to minimize weight without compromising the structural integrity.



    That's one of the goals of every laptop. It's one of the reasons why Apple integrated the battery into the MacBook Pro with the last major redesign.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    If they simply wanted it to be built as one unit like this they could have changed it long ago.



    It's only recently that there has been enough space on the motherboard to integrate the RAM, at least for the 13" MacBook Pro. Also, long ago, the MacBook Pro needed to be thick enough to include an internal HD and an internal optical drive. That's no longer true (or, at least, soon to be no longer true). I don't see Apple making the next major redesign of the MacBook Pro thicker than it would otherwise need to be just to accommodate SO-DIMMs.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    I'm not sure where you got increased reliability. Either way they're buying the same ram and while it can fail, it's a rather uncommon issue. Even when it's starting to generate errors most people don't even know how to test it.



    The sockets are an extra point of failure.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Anyway I think device longevity is a good thing. It doesn't necessarily keep people from buying new devices. Often they'll buy the newest and hand theirs off to the spouse, kids, etc.



    Device longevity and the replacement cycle are two different things. I believe nearly all Rev. A MacBook Air laptops are still in use. I also believe that very few of them are still in use by their original owners.
  • Reply 146 of 159
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post




    The sockets are an extra point of failure.






    I've never heard of that happening.





    Anyway I was just looking at the macbook air. In the case of it they're including a standard ram amount on all of them. From what I can tell no machine gets more or less than 4GB. We'll see if this changes with the macbook pro too. In any event if that happens I'm ordering mine with the absolute max possible no matter what the cost. I think I've been running with 4+ since Tiger, so it doesn't feel like much to me at this point. At that time that much ram was expensive.



    edit: should mention that wasn't on a laptop back then
  • Reply 147 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    I've never heard of that happening.



    I've seen it once with a Sun workstation back in the 1990s. I've heard of it happening with PeeCees.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    I was just looking at the macbook air. In the case of it they're including a standard ram amount on all of them. From what I can tell no machine gets more or less than 4GB.



    The 11" MacBook Air can be had with either 2GB or 4GB.
  • Reply 148 of 159
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    I've seen it once with a Sun workstation back in the 1990s. I've heard of it happening with PeeCees.







    The 11" MacBook Air can be had with either 2GB or 4GB.



    I missed that one. Bleh that's a pathetic amount of ram for Lion. I'm tempted to make a joke about the OS claiming the lion's share of the ram before you open a single application, but I'll let that one go.
  • Reply 149 of 159
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    [2GB is] a pathetic amount of ram for Lion. I'm tempted to make a joke about the OS claiming the lion's share of the ram before you open a single application, but I'll let that one go.



    I agree, but getting the entry price down to $999 was obviously important to Apple. The Mac Mini is also available with only 2GB. I think 3GB for the Mac Pro is even more pathetic. I guess the next revisions (even minor speed bumps) of these models will bring the minimum RAM up to 4GB. I don't expect Apple to introduce any more new or revised models with less than 4GB.



    I'm swapping a little bit with 4GB, probably because I tend to have a lot of tabs open in Safari. When I can buy a MacBook Air with 8GB, I will. However, I expect an 8GB MacBook Air BTO option is at least a year away.
  • Reply 150 of 159
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    Apple's objective is not to maintain margins. Apple's objective is to (continue to) increase margins. Apple have again and again demonstrated a willingness to accept smaller gains in market share in order to increase margins. I don't see any reason to expect that to change.



    Margins are important but I'm not convinced it is in Apples best interest to try to increase margins. Margins better than the industry average are OK, but as a company being interested soley in fatter margins is a path to destruction.

    Quote:



    Yes, absolutely. However, I'm not convinced that the MacBook Pro is seeing any sort of sales slump. If sales are slumping, then certainly Apple should bump the specs.



    As a business and market leader you don't wait for slump.

    Quote:



    Can we agree that at some future time it will make sense for Apple to drop internal HD support and go SSD only? We can disagree about whether that time will come in six months or six years. If we can agree that Apple will eventually do this, there is some advantage to doing it at the same time as dropping the optical brick because engineering one major redesign costs less than engineering two major redesigns. Also, it's seems that Apple are very interesting in pushing customers into the iCloud, which going SSD only would help to do.



    We can certainly agree that it will happen some time. Personally I think that time is far away because Flash technology won't get us there. Beyond that case engineering costs over three years or so are trivial.



    About iCloud, it has nothing to offer to help with the need for local storage. I can't even see a technology on the horizon that would make off device storage feasible much less desired.

    Quote:



    I have not put any thought into which interface is better, so I'll take your word for it. I only note that Apple recently chose mSATA for this application.



    Apples AIR storage modules are proprietary they are not mSATA. However that isn't the issue anyways, what I want Apple to do is to use an industry standard module some of which are just emerging. Standized modules keep prices down. More importantly a PCI - Express interface would result in longer term use of the interface.



    At this point my primary concern is avoidance of proprietary interfaces. However a new standard must be a long term play.

    Quote:



    Have you looked at pricing for 4Mb DRAM chips?



    Yes but have you looked at the state of RAM manufactures? Besides the is a marginal value in using fewer chips.

    Quote:

    I agree.





    I agree, expect that I would be surprised to see Apple support USB3.



    I wouldn't be surprised one bit. USB 3 doesn't effectively compete with Thunderbolt so there is no downside to supporting it.

    Quote:



    No, I don't think that is an accurate characterization of my expectations. I expect Apple to pursue their strategic objectives. That includes making Macs more like consumer electronics and less like DIY PeeCees.



    Apple has really good hardware that already covers the consumer world. That doesn't mean that they can't produce a machine for the professional world. I don't buy the one or the other argument, it is like saying Chevy should only produce sedans and give up on the Corvet. As long as both markets exist it should not be a problem to build hardware for both.



    Apples problem right now is the lack of hardware for the professional as the Mac Pro is a bit of a joke.

    Quote:



    I agree.



  • Reply 151 of 159
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    I've seen it once with a Sun workstation back in the 1990s. I've heard of it happening with PeeCees.



    Some versions of the Mini had real issues with the RAM expansion slot.

    Quote:

    The 11" MacBook Air can be had with either 2GB or 4GB.



    After installing LION on my early 2008 MBP I can safely say it is a crime for Apple to be selling new computers with 2GAb of RAM.
  • Reply 152 of 159
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Margins are important but I'm not convinced it is in Apples best interest to try to increase margins. Margins better than the industry average are OK, but as a company being interested soley in fatter margins is a path to destruction.



    If Apple were giving up all market growth to increase margins, then you'd be right. But Apple are still maintaining strong market growth.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    As a business and market leader you don't wait for slump.



    We may be meaning slightly different things by "slump". The shape of the sales curve is rather consistent for new technology products, though it may be stretched more or less along the time or sales axis (or both). There is a falling portion of the sales curve where it makes sense to introduce a replacement product. I meant that I have no idea whether or not MacBook Pro sales are about to reach that part of the curve. If Apple expect to reach that part of the sales curve before the end of the holiday shopping season, then they should introduce a speed bump for the MacBook Pro well before the holiday shopping season starts. If not, then Apple should wait for Ivy Bridge.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    About iCloud, it has nothing to offer to help with the need for local storage. I can't even see a technology on the horizon that would make off device storage feasible much less desired.



    Increasing the cost of local storage helps to push content into the iCloud, which appears to be a sound strategic move for Apple.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Apples AIR storage modules are proprietary they are not mSATA. However that isn't the issue anyways, what I want Apple to do is to use an industry standard module some of which are just emerging. Standized modules keep prices down. More importantly a PCI - Express interface would result in longer term use of the interface.



    At this point my primary concern is avoidance of proprietary interfaces. However a new standard must be a long term play.



    I read somewhere that Apple are using the mSATA interface, but the journalist may have had it wrong. I would also prefer an industry standard interface.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Apple has really good hardware that already covers the consumer world. That doesn't mean that they can't produce a machine for the professional world. I don't buy the one or the other argument, it is like saying Chevy should only produce sedans and give up on the Corvet. As long as both markets exist it should not be a problem to build hardware for both.



    Apple's problem right now is the lack of hardware for the professional as the Mac Pro is a bit of a joke.



    We don't disagree on the need for a Pro machine. I just don't think a Pro machine needs to be as much of a DIY kit as it has been in the past. Apple have been moving away from DIY kit and toward integrated devices. I expect further movement in that direction will be seen in the next major redesign of the Mac Pro. I'm not saying that the performance should suffer.
  • Reply 153 of 159
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    We don't disagree on the need for a Pro machine. I just don't think a Pro machine needs to be as much of a DIY kit as it has been in the past. Apple have been moving away from DIY kit and toward integrated devices. I expect further movement in that direction will be seen in the next major redesign of the Mac Pro. I'm not saying that the performance should suffer.



    I wouldn't have so much of an issue on this if Apple worked more with third party developers to ensure that updated solutions will be in place. When they leave these guys to scramble there's always a fair amount of dead time, then testing a new product.



    On the topic of margins Apple has been pressuring manufacturers for lower pricing and the government for a tax holiday. I don't really get this. There will always be a cost of doing business and especially on the manufacturing end, you don't want to gut the quality of what comes back. Apple just provides the design and prototype testing here. They aren't the ones manufacturing products, and if they pressure these guys too hard, they will end up with cheaply made junk eventually.
  • Reply 154 of 159
    cubitcubit Posts: 846member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    If it's supposed to be a desktop replacement, why in the world would it need to be thin?!



    This is an excellent question:roll eyes:





    I worry about the loss of the DVD optical drive for academic use as a projection device for films from DVDs. I have one MBP 15" dedicated to Japan-zone DVDs and use a 17" for everything else. MacBook Air? That's what I carry back and forth to Japan and use in libraries and archives, but I find the external dangle a true drag; light a it is it is just hard to use.
  • Reply 155 of 159
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    On the topic of margins Apple has been pressuring manufacturers for lower pricing and the government for a tax holiday. I don't really get this. There will always be a cost of doing business and especially on the manufacturing end, you don't want to gut the quality of what comes back. Apple just provides the design and prototype testing here. They aren't the ones manufacturing products, and if they pressure these guys too hard, they will end up with cheaply made junk eventually.



    For most of Apple's suppliers, Apple has the toughest QA policies and practices of all their customers. When Apple detect a quality flaw that cannot be fixed immediately, they very quickly reallocate production to another supplier.
  • Reply 156 of 159
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    For most of Apple's suppliers, Apple has the toughest QA policies and practices of all their customers. When Apple detect a quality flaw that cannot be fixed immediately, they very quickly reallocate production to another supplier.



    With a company with such high volume demands, there are only so many potential manufacturing partners out there that can keep up with the volume. Burning them isn't really a good solution, and you have to take their costs into consideration. They do have to purchase things like materials and equipment. They do have to pay staff (granted they pay them almost nothing). At the end any company contracted by Apple has to turn a profit on what they manufacture. If Apple pressures them too hard, this won't happen without cheapening build quality or further diminishing the wages of their workers. Going to another company doesn't totally fix this problem. I mention this because Foxconn apparently reported fairly significant losses in the last quarter, and with the ipad outside of LG and Samsung, who do you really think they can use?



    You know other display manufacturers outside of those employing TN panels purchase their panels from Samsung and LG right? If not, you do now The panel component has become heavily commoditized and these manufacturers now simply distinguish themselves by what they do with them.
  • Reply 157 of 159
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Burning them isn't really a good solution....



    No one has suggested burning anyone. It is not Apple's responsibility to worry about the costs faced by their suppliers. That is the responsibility of the suppliers, who freely negotiate contracts with Apple. I'm confident that Apple honour their contracts with their suppliers and I would be the first to condemn Apple if they didn't.



    None of Apple's suppliers enjoy free labour. They pay competitive wages. If the US and European governments continue to make employing people in their countries more expensive than the value of the labour, then companies will continue to move jobs to countries which don't make employment costs more expensive than the value of the labour.
  • Reply 158 of 159
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    No one has suggested burning anyone. It is not Apple's responsibility to worry about the costs faced by their suppliers. That is the responsibility of the suppliers, who freely negotiate contracts with Apple. I'm confident that Apple honour their contracts with their suppliers and I would be the first to condemn Apple if they didn't.



    None of Apple's suppliers enjoy free labour. They pay competitive wages. If the US and European governments continue to make employing people in their countries more expensive than the value of the labour, then companies will continue to move jobs to countries which don't make employment costs more expensive than the value of the labour.



    The thing is Apple keeps pressuring them for lower prices. A lot of these companies then end up looking for new sources of cheap labor due to inflation. The same thing will happen elsewhere. They move in where they can manufacture as cheap as possible then leave after a few years of inflation. You must see how this is a sustainability issue. Once again I've also mentioned that Apple has looked for other companies to build for them, but only so many of these guys can turn out that kind of volume. You've probably read about Foxconn looking at inland China because of inflation along coastal areas already.



    Regarding cost of employment in the US and Europe. Wages aren't too high in these places. They're simply too low in China which opens the potential for abuse. I've never claimed Apple and their partners are the only ones who do this kind of thing.



    Edit: Let me reiterate here. The reasons it costs computer companies so much less to produce (or recycle) products in these regions shouldn't exist. Labor well below minimum wage standards in the US, lax environmental laws, etc. Over time a lot of manufacturing went to areas like China for these kinds of reasons, and the money that was previously used to cover the previous costs was allocated elsewhere. It really hasn't been a positive change, but it's not unique to Apple or to the computer industry.
  • Reply 159 of 159
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    The thing is Apple keeps pressuring them for lower prices. A lot of these companies then end up looking for new sources of cheap labor due to inflation. The same thing will happen elsewhere. They move in where they can manufacture as cheap as possible then leave after a few years of inflation. You must see how this is a sustainability issue. Once again I've also mentioned that Apple has looked for other companies to build for them, but only so many of these guys can turn out that kind of volume. You've probably read about Foxconn looking at inland China because of inflation along coastal areas already.



    Edit: Let me reiterate here. The reasons it costs computer companies so much less to produce (or recycle) products in these regions shouldn't exist. Labor well below minimum wage standards in the US, lax environmental laws, etc. Over time a lot of manufacturing went to areas like China for these kinds of reasons, and the money that was previously used to cover the previous costs was allocated elsewhere. It really hasn't been a positive change, but it's not unique to Apple or to the computer industry.



    You may think that competition is a bad thing. I don't. Competition is better for everyone except the monopolists.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Regarding cost of employment in the US and Europe. Wages aren't too high in these places. They're simply too low in China which opens the potential for abuse. I've never claimed Apple and their partners are the only ones who do this kind of thing.



    You seem to have missed the point. I never wrote that wages are too high in the US and Europe. The problem is that the cost of employing people in the US and Europe is much higher (often more than double) the wages the employees receive. If I get 20 euro per hour but it costs my employer 45 euro per hour to employ me, his employment costs are too high and my job will be exported to someplace where employment costs and wages are better aligned.



    Anyway, we're way, way off topic now. I'll stop here and let you have the last word.
Sign In or Register to comment.