If they do sell poorly, the insulated arrogance of Apple shareholders and board of directors will just respond with "well that clinches it: no one wants pro computers anymore. Let's discontinue them across the board and focus all company efforts on iOS devices. They can easily replace the old fashioned computer anyway."
Honestly, I would totally a buy a new MBP right now if it were not for the price. I am in disbelief at how expensive they are given the minor improvements YoY, and it's amazing the number of people who defend Apple's practices. I think if the same 13" laptop were $1999, some of them would still support Apple.
If they do sell poorly, the insulated arrogance of Apple shareholders and board of directors will just respond with "well that clinches it: no one wants pro computers anymore. Let's discontinue them across the board and focus all company efforts on iOS devices. They can easily replace the old fashioned computer anyway."
If you are a pro user, that means you don't depend on Apple. Necessarily, because Apple is not a vertical market seller and has never been. Apple cannot respond to your studio's daily needs. Apple can only provide you with a powerful core model. It is your job to expand that core and to shape it according to your workflow. There, is the Mac Pro. What is the most common expansion architecture today? PCIe, right? Apple gives you a core with powerful Xeon processors, workstation grade GPUs and plenty of PCIe expansion, i.e. Thunderbolt. If you don't know what to do with such a core this is your problem. You cannot blame Apple for not supplying a model plug-and-play to your needs. For plug-and-play solution you must contact vertical market sellers, system integrators and alike. They know how to build a complete powerhouse out of that core Apple supplies. Your problem is as old as the PC industry itself but you're on the wrong page, you cannot resolve your business problem with "shareholder" and "board" parameters.
...in the days where 16GB only costs $100 and a 512GB SSD only costs $100 (retail!).
I love how you mention these capacities as if there are no other aspects to the technology that need to be considered when talking about cost or performance.
It's like walking into a Bentley dealership and trying to convince the salesman that a Continental GT should cost as much as a Kia Rio because they both have 4 wheels.
I'm not even sure what you mean. 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD are just industry norms for any mid to high end laptop. They can have all the tech they want in these laptops but without a decent amount of RAM and storage it doesn't really matter.
Yep. 16GB LPDDR3 (which is what Apple uses) is industry norm. They'd use LPDDR4, if that existed.
The 512GB SSD is NOT "norm". Apple's is by far the fastest standard laptop-SSD on the market, and at by Computer World's reckoning, they're about two years ahead of the competition in that regard.
I have the entry level mid-2015 rMBP 15". I was really, really hoping to have the Skylake update of the Haskell chip in this unit. It is the quad core with the GT4e graphics solution.
http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-processors-integrate-iris-gt4e-level-graphics-chip-features-72-execution-units-128-mb-edram-llc/
I highly value lower weight and a longer battery life. It would have been great to have the entry level processor updated with this chip and the other features (less the touch strip) such as thinner, brighter panel and larger touch pad.
...it will load and run as long as there is space on disk to meet its memory needs, maybe agonizingly slow but it will run...
...until it crashes. 'Nuff said.
Not crash, until the operating system kills it because of excess unpurgeable blocks, bad programming, haphazard cross-platforming through outdated bad compilers...
Yep. 16GB LPDDR3 (which is what Apple uses) is industry norm. They'd use LPDDR4, if that existed.
I've read that even Kaby Lake won't support LPDDR4 so we'll be stuck with 16GiB until at least Cannonlake in 2018. But given Intel's very long release cycle where the proper chips for the performance notebooks come last in the cycle, and repeated delays with their chips, I wouldn't be surprised if 32GiB doesn't happen until 2019. God, I hope that isn't the case.
Yep. 16GB LPDDR3 (which is what Apple uses) is industry norm. They'd use LPDDR4, if that existed.
I've read that even Kaby Lake won't support LPDDR4 so we'll be stuck with 16GiB until at least Cannonlake in 2018. But given Intel's very long release cycle where the proper chips for the performance notebooks come last in the cycle, and repeated delays with their chips, I wouldn't be surprised if 32GiB doesn't happen until 2019. God, I hope that isn't the case.
Dell XPS15 with Kaby Lake supports 32GB of RAM, so your info must be wrong,
Yep. 16GB LPDDR3 (which is what Apple uses) is industry norm. They'd use LPDDR4, if that existed.
I've read that even Kaby Lake won't support LPDDR4 so we'll be stuck with 16GiB until at least Cannonlake in 2018. But given Intel's very long release cycle where the proper chips for the performance notebooks come last in the cycle, and repeated delays with their chips, I wouldn't be surprised if 32GiB doesn't happen until 2019. God, I hope that isn't the case.
"I wouldn't be surprised if 32GiB doesn't happen until 2019. God, I hope that isn't the case."
If my understanding is correct, even Coffee Lake won't support 32GB on 13" / 15" (Touch Bar models) because it's a 14nm successor to Kaby Lake, not the 10nm successor to Cannon Lake. Hence, it doesn't support LPDDR4 RAM. That means both Touch Bar MBP models may have to wait for Intel's Ice Lake processors (10nm successor to Cannon Lake) due out in Late 2018 / early 2019 to get 32GB RAM.
Yep. 16GB LPDDR3 (which is what Apple uses) is industry norm. They'd use LPDDR4, if that existed.
I've read that even Kaby Lake won't support LPDDR4 so we'll be stuck with 16GiB until at least Cannonlake in 2018. But given Intel's very long release cycle where the proper chips for the performance notebooks come last in the cycle, and repeated delays with their chips, I wouldn't be surprised if 32GiB doesn't happen until 2019. God, I hope that isn't the case.
Dell XPS15 with Kaby Lake supports 32GB of RAM, so your info must be wrong,
Correct, but it doesn't support low-power LPDDR4 RAM, so batter life will suffer.
Apple has had years where prices went up, prices went down, and prices stayed the same. With this new MBP I fail to see why the price increase is an issue when we're talking about an atypically large number of highly-upgraded or brand new innovations.
Fully agree on the price being a non-issue. Those who want a new MBP buy one if you have the money, save up for it if you don't. It really is that simple. Besides, prices go up, and so do salaries.
I don't agree. If you are anyhow buying a Macbook Pro, than price is never an issue. But as a professional developer I am comparing a Macbook Pro with an Ubuntu based Dell XPS. In that respect the new Macbook Pro is really disappointing: an outdated processor, no USB-A port for existing equipment, no support for 32 GB, and Apple charges 40% more. Look at the market share evolution for laptops for the last 2 years and you'll immediately see that I am not the only one who is considering the Dell option.
Wireless may well be the way forward, but it isn't there yet.
For example, without an AppleTV, there's simply no way for me to beam audio or video to a group. Maybe we'll eventually see a universal standard on TVs and audio systems that allows wireless streaming from any device, but so far no such thing exists.
Then there's networking. I can't even explain this one. I have an AC wireless system. Downloading an update to a brand-new, top-of-the-line Air, the machine reported wireless speeds of over 800 Mb, but the download window reported remaining time for the download at 26 minutes. Just for giggles, I plugged in an ethernet cable via Apple's Thunderbolt adapter and the remaining download time dropped to 6 minutes -- FOUR TIMES the speed. My internet connection is only 50 Mb, so the wireless should not have been a bottleneck. I have no idea why the wired connection was so much faster, but it reinforced in my mind the notion that wireless is not necessarily the best way to work, at least not yet.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you that a world without wires would be much more convenient. We just need wireless systems that perform as quickly and reliably as wires, and for the rest of the world outside Apple's ecosystem to be accessible before it will become a viable alternative.
I love to this flawed logic. As if removing the 256GB option would automatically put that 512GB SSD at that price point.
It's the same crap every fucking release. No matter what Apple releases the entry-level shouldn't exist and the top-end should be double. Each having the respective reasonings, "I want at least 2x so Apple should cater to those that only need x" and "if Apple is giving up y at the top end they must be able to offer 2y because I expect Apple to do anything I can imagine."
Seeing as you don't know what my logic is (or you clearly fail to grasp it), your comment is worthless. I have never mentioned that pulling the 256GB option would leave the 512GB option at the same price point.
What I said, and I made it very, very clear, was that the base line specs were not fitting of the pro label. 256GB, at this point in time is not pro. Dual core is not pro. Integrated graphics is not pro.
I know the reasons and they are not good. Apple is bleeding its users and it is bleeding them in the true sense of the word. Nothing new you might say as it's Apple's call. I have no issue with that. That said however, I believe Apple just doesn't know when to stop and has released a 'pro' machine at obscene prices and the baseline specs simply do not warrant the name 'pro'.
Perhaps you think it's unfair that I take Apple to task and point out all the ugliness of what they've done, but as a mac user since the Mac II and system 6, I am very well prepared and willing to throw my opinion into the ring. You might not agree with my logic but calling it failed without knowing what my logic is, takes the biscuit.
I love to this flawed logic. As if removing the 256GB option would automatically put that 512GB SSD at that price point.
It's the same crap every fucking release. No matter what Apple releases the entry-level shouldn't exist and the top-end should be double. Each having the respective reasonings, "I want at least 2x so Apple should cater to those that only need x" and "if Apple is giving up y at the top end they must be able to offer 2y because I expect Apple to do anything I can imagine."
Seeing as you don't know what my logic is (or you clearly fail to grasp it), your comment is worthless. I have never mentioned that pulling the 256GB option would leave the 512GB option at the same price point.
What I said, and I made it very, very clear, was that the base line specs were not fitting of the pro label. 256GB, at this point in time is not pro. Dual core is not pro. Integrated graphics is not pro.
Thank you for reiterating and backing up my point about your flawed logic.
I just laugh at people who bitch about not being more than 16Gig RAM. There are less than 2% of us that will actually use more than that regularly. I would also like to point out or maybe ask when the last time the CPU was the bottle neck? Like never. So why? As for the price...The only ones that bitch are the ones that cannot afford it. Those that can afford it know the value regardless of spec. The last thing regarding spec and performance. The true value is what can all of the components do for me? When you add up everything what do I get? With Apple you get AMAZING performance and value.
Don't laugh with software developers. If I buy a a new development machine, I am not just thinking about the requirements of today but for the requirements for the 3 years to come. Currently my development machine uses around 12 GB of RAM in a normal development setup and 22 GB if I am doing regression tests. A full automated build and regression test of my biggest project takes for the moment 39 minutes, because my development machine with 16 GB has to swap to (SSD) disk. So yes a 32 GB machine would improve my efficiency. Taking into account that software products and thus the need for more RAM grows in time, I expect that in 2019 16 GB won't even be sufficient for my development setup. So how do you want me to be attracted by an expensive machine that is not upgradeable and by consequence cannot fulfil my requirements for next 3 years?
Comments
The 512GB SSD is NOT "norm". Apple's is by far the fastest standard laptop-SSD on the market, and at by Computer World's reckoning, they're about two years ahead of the competition in that regard.
Unfortunately, that may be the case.
http://wccftech.com/intel-14nm-coffee-lake-10nm-cannonlake-2018/
If my understanding is correct, even Coffee Lake won't support 32GB on 13" / 15" (Touch Bar models) because it's a 14nm successor to Kaby Lake, not the 10nm successor to Cannon Lake. Hence, it doesn't support LPDDR4 RAM. That means both Touch Bar MBP models may have to wait for Intel's Ice Lake processors (10nm successor to Cannon Lake) due out in Late 2018 / early 2019 to get 32GB RAM.
Wireless may well be the way forward, but it isn't there yet.
For example, without an AppleTV, there's simply no way for me to beam audio or video to a group. Maybe we'll eventually see a universal standard on TVs and audio systems that allows wireless streaming from any device, but so far no such thing exists.
Then there's networking. I can't even explain this one. I have an AC wireless system. Downloading an update to a brand-new, top-of-the-line Air, the machine reported wireless speeds of over 800 Mb, but the download window reported remaining time for the download at 26 minutes. Just for giggles, I plugged in an ethernet cable via Apple's Thunderbolt adapter and the remaining download time dropped to 6 minutes -- FOUR TIMES the speed. My internet connection is only 50 Mb, so the wireless should not have been a bottleneck. I have no idea why the wired connection was so much faster, but it reinforced in my mind the notion that wireless is not necessarily the best way to work, at least not yet.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you that a world without wires would be much more convenient. We just need wireless systems that perform as quickly and reliably as wires, and for the rest of the world outside Apple's ecosystem to be accessible before it will become a viable alternative.
What I said, and I made it very, very clear, was that the base line specs were not fitting of the pro label. 256GB, at this point in time is not pro. Dual core is not pro. Integrated graphics is not pro.
I know the reasons and they are not good. Apple is bleeding its users and it is bleeding them in the true sense of the word. Nothing new you might say as it's Apple's call. I have no issue with that. That said however, I believe Apple just doesn't know when to stop and has released a 'pro' machine at obscene prices and the baseline specs simply do not warrant the name 'pro'.
Perhaps you think it's unfair that I take Apple to task and point out all the ugliness of what they've done, but as a mac user since the Mac II and system 6, I am very well prepared and willing to throw my opinion into the ring. You might not agree with my logic but calling it failed without knowing what my logic is, takes the biscuit.