Apple should focus more on Mac and release new products each year, as with iOS. Do not forget Mac Pro with Apple Thunderbolt Display.
Not enough people are buying machines like this to make it worthwhile releasing them each year; otherwise, they'd do it.
Given the way Apple is going pretty soon they won't have enough people buying any of their machines to make it worthwhile to release anything each year... they can then focus on Watch Bands (I'm sure Angela Ahrendts would consider that the perfect Apple roadmap)
So, without improvements for three years, Apple was selling more laptops than they have since pre-IOS days. And now the improved laptop is selling in greater numbers than the last one that no one was buying. And you say at this rate, Apple will have no customers.
Do you think it's possible that Apple knows what its customers want, and you don't?
For those of you saying that CR doesn't have advertising, then how do you explain the image below? If you think this is fabricated, then go to the web site yourself and click on ad choices at that bottom.
You are aware of the difference between accepting advertising and getting a check for site metrics from an ad network, right? Seems kind of hard to bias reporting when the people writing you checks, like Google, accept ad dollars from literally thousands of vendors, wouldn't ya think? "Hello, Facebook, yeah we're up to our auto review this year so be sure to strong-arm Subaru and we'll give them a swell review". In case you haven't read the reviews for cars, CR was merciless on Subaru. While you ponder that, or look for other reasons for bias, consider how many sites give you the option of turning all that off.
CR does get things wrong on occasion, and I've seen them print retractions and warnings about previous product reviews.
Or, you can read Amazon reviews and Yelp, doh-mattah to me. I trust CR over a public traded company any day of the week.
In many ways, this is even worse. Rather than chasing a single advertisers, these sites end up chasing all of them, and this results in what we see all over the internet these days: poorly researched, badly written pieces that are more about generating as many clicks as possible rather than making the article the best it can be.
In this case, given the strange results, I would have worked with Apple to come up with the cause of the problem and added that to the article while still giving it the same low score. But I imagine CR was in a hurry to get the piece out as soon as possible and get the maximum impact before the Christmas slowdown.
On the other hand, one could argue that being a consumer reporting site rather than a technical one then perhaps pinpointing the exact cause is not in their remit. But on the other other hand, what consumer is going to leave the laptop running, loading the same web page over and over until the battery runs down? From a consumer point of view, is that a valid test?
You don't have to exhaust all your technology culture in one post to prove that Apple has a battery problem with the new MBPs ;-) Keep it short please...
Noted.
For the record, last year I got teased at work for my verbose emails. I started making them shorter, and wound up sending twice as many. Follow-up details and clarifying misunderstandings. This being a discussion forum, and readers having the option to skip over posts, I happen to think it's better to err on the side of clarity.
I'm all for clarity, but since communication is the goal we—yes, I include myself—seek from our clarity, there is a benefit from learning to be less prolix and discursive (as well not using words that certain readers have to look up ).
Personally, I try to use paragraphs to keep my comments from seeming too overwhelming at first glance, as well as numbering my comments when I have multiple, distinct points to make for a given reply.
tl;dr: Being clear doesn't mean you can't be succinct, but one shouldn't force themselves to be laconic when more clarify is required.
Apple should focus more on Mac and release new products each year, as with iOS. Do not forget Mac Pro with Apple Thunderbolt Display.
Not enough people are buying machines like this to make it worthwhile releasing them each year; otherwise, they'd do it.
Given the way Apple is going pretty soon they won't have enough people buying any of their machines to make it worthwhile to release anything each year... they can then focus on Watch Bands (I'm sure Angela Ahrendts would consider that the perfect Apple roadmap)
So, without improvements for three years, Apple was selling more laptops than they have since pre-IOS days. And now the improved laptop is selling in greater numbers than the last one that no one was buying. And you say at this rate, Apple will have no customers.
Do you think it's possible that Apple knows what its customers want, and you don't?
As someone else stated. It could be halo effect from iPhones and iPads and the impression some people have that if you have a Mac you are cool. A bit like people who go into Starbucks because that's what trendy people did even though you pay more.
However, if it is halo effect, it begs the question why they aren't selling more.
For those of you saying that CR doesn't have advertising, then how do you explain the image below? If you think this is fabricated, then go to the web site yourself and click on ad choices at that bottom.
You are aware of the difference between accepting advertising and getting a check for site metrics from an ad network, right? Seems kind of hard to bias reporting when the people writing you checks, like Google, accept ad dollars from literally thousands of vendors, wouldn't ya think? "Hello, Facebook, yeah we're up to our auto review this year so be sure to strong-arm Subaru and we'll give them a swell review". In case you haven't read the reviews for cars, CR was merciless on Subaru. While you ponder that, or look for other reasons for bias, consider how many sites give you the option of turning all that off.
CR does get things wrong on occasion, and I've seen them print retractions and warnings about previous product reviews.
Or, you can read Amazon reviews and Yelp, doh-mattah to me. I trust CR over a public traded company any day of the week.
What you call "site metrics" is your exact browsing history on that site. They don't accept advertising but they sell your browsing habits, your items of interest to advertisers. Every minute detail of your browsing, everthing you click are reported to advertisers. This is just like a hidden camera following you and recording you in the shopping mall. This is worse than displaying ads. You can ignore displayed ads or turn them off with some browser extensions, but you cannot hide your browsing history and your items of interest while you navigate in that site.
Which has nothing to do with Consumer Reports' independence or review integrity, which is what is being questioned.
What independence? Are they a statutory institution? A true independence can only be acquired by some form of law, not by self-claiming independent.
They are dependent on clicks and that one is a click-bait article. "CR doesn't recommend" brings always more clicks than "CR recommends" regarding a famous brand.
Independence meaning freedom from institutional bias, obviously. Despite some people claiming that they show paid ads, they don't, so don't have that bias.
They are somewhat dependent on clicks, but also on their reputation, and just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it a click bait article. The number of times CR has not recommended an Apple product is minimal, they have a lot of credibility here.
In addition to battery issues, the latest MacBooks have the
WORST keyboards of any laptops available today. There is hardly any key travel
- it is like typing on a virtual screen on an iPad. Imagine, if Yamaha Pianos
reduced the travel of their piano keys - there would be an outrage. Creative
people - including writers using a keyboard - need to feel and touch the keys
to connect with their work. Apple's obsession withy thin-ness is making their
machines unusable. Don't get me started on their removal of the physical home
button on the iPhone. Apple is waging war on tactility - and will lose millions
of customers as a result. People love to touch, feel and experience things. It
is core to being a human being.
This has got to be the most hilarious comment of the day so far.
If you don't the difference between typing on a keyboard and playing a piano then I can't help you.
And I won't get you started on the removal of the physical home button on the iPhone because the button is still there, it just happens to be touch sensitive.
I'm always amazed at people who come here and insist that Apple will lose millions of customers if they don't do this or if they remove that.
The problem with people who spew this argument is that they are invariable talking about themselves, and making the mistake of assuming that everyone wants what they want. It's a very narrow point of view in my opinion.
Apple is not standing still and neither is its customer base. The youngsters starting to use computers professionally today have grown up with narrow travel keyboards and touch sensitive screens, so that is who Apple is catering for. You think that Apple should carry on making keyboards and screens and fitting ports for the middle-aged?
Will Apple lose millions of customers; doubtful. Most of Apple's customers live outside forums and are younger and more adaptable than the whiners who hang around here. They'll lose customers, but they'll gain more.
And of course, in twenty years time, the new old faces will come here and complain how Apple has dumped Thunderbolt 5 ports and gone completely wireless, and now all their twenty-year-old thunderbolt drives, barely large enough to hold a million mega hi-def movies, are now obsolete.
You know he was trying to prove a point. Of-course he knows the difference between playing the piano and typing on a keyboard.
As a new owner of the Macbook Pro, I fully agree the new keyboard is absolutely horrible, even after 3 weeks of use. It's noisy, the lack of travel is super annoying and the Touch Bar is nothing more than a gimmick (because you type blindly and don't look at a keyboard, and now miss actual function keys).
Well, I have no idea what he was trying to prove by comparing the reduction of travel on a piano to the reduction of travel on a laptop. They are used for completely different activities (believe it or not).
Rayz2016,
The exact same principle applies to both piano
and computer keyboards.
The amount of keyboard travel helps
determine the quality of tactile feedback received by the finger. This feedback
is the result of a combination of upward resistance, downward pressure,
response speed and the time it takes go through a full cycle. This process
happens in milliseconds – so even if we don’t register these feedback dimensions
at a cognitive level – we certainly do feel them at a somatic, visceral level.
The shorter the keyboard travel, the less
opportunity the finger has to gain a complete experience from pressing the key.
It feels more binary – like turning a switch on or off. Whereas with a longer
travel keyboard, there are more pressure calibration points, which create the
feeling that you are pushing down and through the key – which feels good to the
touch. You are not just switching something on or off, like on a virtual
keyboard.
This is why piano manufacturers pay so much
attention to the amount of travel and calibration pressure of their keyboards.
Because it really, really matters to how people interact with their machines.
Computer companies like Apple should do the same.
Most people, of course, will barely notice
these subtleties in their keyboards. But over time, they may find that their
new MacBook is no longer as satisfying to use as their older models. They may
not know why – and could even blame their dissatisfaction on another factor.
But for those of us who are sensitive to keyboard quality – and appreciate the dynamics
involved - there is no doubt that the ultra-short travel on the new MacBook is
a serious mistake.
The current MBP is a failure. 5. Overpriced as hell.
Strange how my life has been destroyed by the collapse of my ability to remember things and yet I can still remember how people said this about the first-gen aluminum PowerBook, the first-gen unibody MacBook, and the first-gen retina MacBook… And LOW AND BEHOLD, the prices came down. Fortunately Apple products have something like a 7 year life cycle (you know, unless specific professional use, blah blah), so you can afford to wait until you can afford a new one.
The exact same principle applies to both piano
and computer keyboards.
The amount of keyboard travel helps
determine the quality of tactile feedback received by the finger. This feedback
is the result of a combination of upward resistance, downward pressure,
response speed and the time it takes go through a full cycle. This process
happens in milliseconds – so even if we don’t register these feedback dimensions
at a cognitive level – we certainly do feel them at a somatic, visceral level.
The shorter the keyboard travel, the less
opportunity the finger has to gain a complete experience from pressing the key.
It feels more binary – like turning a switch on or off. Whereas with a longer
travel keyboard, there are more pressure calibration points, which create the
feeling that you are pushing down and through the key – which feels good to the
touch. You are not just switching something on or off, like on a virtual
keyboard.
This is why piano manufacturers pay so much
attention to the amount of travel and calibration pressure of their keyboards.
Because it really, really matters to how people interact with their machines.
Computer companies like Apple should do the same.
Most people, of course, will barely notice
these subtleties in their keyboards. But over time, they may find that their
new MacBook is no longer as satisfying to use as their older models. They may
not know why – and could even blame their dissatisfaction on another factor.
But for those of us who are sensitive to keyboard quality – and appreciate the dynamics
involved - there is no doubt that the ultra-short travel on the new MacBook is
a serious mistake.
A piano key is an analog input where the pressure and speed the key is hit affects the output. This is why piano manufactures pay a lot of attention to key feel.
A computer keyboard key is indeed just binary.
How much travel and resistance is desirable for good feel varies from user to user and every mobile keyboard is a compromise.
Its not a "serious mistake" if I value mobility and size over feel.
Docked I have a Das Keyboard with Cherry MX brown keys. Mobile I don't much care. The user experience is fairly compromised even when using the Logitech Bluetooth keyboard I bring when I check a bag.
I just want to carry less onto the plane and have a keyboard I can get a few hours work done. Not write War and Peace. The new 15" MBP strikes me as a better balance between docked performance (70% use) and mobile weight and size (30% use) than prior models.
Plus I prefer shorter travel keyboards as they are faster for typing. Which is partly why I picked Brown over Blue.
For those of you saying that CR doesn't have advertising, then how do you explain the image below? If you think this is fabricated, then go to the web site yourself and click on ad choices at that bottom.
You are aware of the difference between accepting advertising and getting a check for site metrics from an ad network, right? Seems kind of hard to bias reporting when the people writing you checks, like Google, accept ad dollars from literally thousands of vendors, wouldn't ya think? "Hello, Facebook, yeah we're up to our auto review this year so be sure to strong-arm Subaru and we'll give them a swell review". In case you haven't read the reviews for cars, CR was merciless on Subaru. While you ponder that, or look for other reasons for bias, consider how many sites give you the option of turning all that off.
CR does get things wrong on occasion, and I've seen them print retractions and warnings about previous product reviews.
Or, you can read Amazon reviews and Yelp, doh-mattah to me. I trust CR over a public traded company any day of the week.
What you call "site metrics" is your exact browsing history on that site. They don't accept advertising but they sell your browsing habits, your items of interest to advertisers. Every minute detail of your browsing, everthing you click are reported to advertisers. This is just like a hidden camera following you and recording you in the shopping mall. This is worse than displaying ads. You can ignore displayed ads or turn them off with some browser extensions, but you cannot hide your browsing history and your items of interest while you navigate in that site.
Which has nothing to do with Consumer Reports' independence or review integrity, which is what is being questioned.
What independence? Are they a statutory institution? A true independence can only be acquired by some form of law, not by self-claiming independent.
They are dependent on clicks and that one is a click-bait article. "CR doesn't recommend" brings always more clicks than "CR recommends" regarding a famous brand.
Independence meaning freedom from institutional bias, obviously. Despite some people claiming that they show paid ads, they don't, so don't have that bias.
They are somewhat dependent on clicks, but also on their reputation, and just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it a click bait article. The number of times CR has not recommended an Apple product is minimal, they have a lot of credibility here.
Independence doesn't mean freedom. Independence is how you use your freedom. Freedom from institutional bias does not necessarily mean independence as it is when your independence is recognized and respected by the public that you're really independent and that requires some legal formalism. It is a clickbait article unless they put a disclaimer stating clearly that they sell visitors data to advertisers.
For those of you saying that CR doesn't have advertising, then how do you explain the image below? If you think this is fabricated, then go to the web site yourself and click on ad choices at that bottom.
You are aware of the difference between accepting advertising and getting a check for site metrics from an ad network, right? Seems kind of hard to bias reporting when the people writing you checks, like Google, accept ad dollars from literally thousands of vendors, wouldn't ya think? "Hello, Facebook, yeah we're up to our auto review this year so be sure to strong-arm Subaru and we'll give them a swell review". In case you haven't read the reviews for cars, CR was merciless on Subaru. While you ponder that, or look for other reasons for bias, consider how many sites give you the option of turning all that off.
CR does get things wrong on occasion, and I've seen them print retractions and warnings about previous product reviews.
Or, you can read Amazon reviews and Yelp, doh-mattah to me. I trust CR over a public traded company any day of the week.
What you call "site metrics" is your exact browsing history on that site. They don't accept advertising but they sell your browsing habits, your items of interest to advertisers. Every minute detail of your browsing, everthing you click are reported to advertisers. This is just like a hidden camera following you and recording you in the shopping mall. This is worse than displaying ads. You can ignore displayed ads or turn them off with some browser extensions, but you cannot hide your browsing history and your items of interest while you navigate in that site.
Which has nothing to do with Consumer Reports' independence or review integrity, which is what is being questioned.
What independence? Are they a statutory institution? A true independence can only be acquired by some form of law, not by self-claiming independent.
They are dependent on clicks and that one is a click-bait article. "CR doesn't recommend" brings always more clicks than "CR recommends" regarding a famous brand.
Independence meaning freedom from institutional bias, obviously. Despite some people claiming that they show paid ads, they don't, so don't have that bias.
They are somewhat dependent on clicks, but also on their reputation, and just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it a click bait article. The number of times CR has not recommended an Apple product is minimal, they have a lot of credibility here.
Independence doesn't mean freedom. Independence is how you use your freedom. Freedom from institutional bias does not necessarily mean independence as it is when your independence is recognized and respected by the public that you're really independent and that requires some legal formalism. It is a clickbait article unless they put a disclaimer stating clearly that they sell visitors data to advertisers.
Give over. That has nothing to do with the original point you replied to, and they do have a clear "Ad Choices" page which has already been mentioned in this thread. Even if they didn't, that wouldn't make it clickbait. Your persnickety, and not particularly correct, interpretations of what independence constitutes in this example is just a barrel of nonsense and misdirection. Apple are now working with Consumer Reports, so they clearly see them as credible, yet you can't. Who is biased really?
For those of you saying that CR doesn't have advertising, then how do you explain the image below? If you think this is fabricated, then go to the web site yourself and click on ad choices at that bottom.
You are aware of the difference between accepting advertising and getting a check for site metrics from an ad network, right? Seems kind of hard to bias reporting when the people writing you checks, like Google, accept ad dollars from literally thousands of vendors, wouldn't ya think? "Hello, Facebook, yeah we're up to our auto review this year so be sure to strong-arm Subaru and we'll give them a swell review". In case you haven't read the reviews for cars, CR was merciless on Subaru. While you ponder that, or look for other reasons for bias, consider how many sites give you the option of turning all that off.
CR does get things wrong on occasion, and I've seen them print retractions and warnings about previous product reviews.
Or, you can read Amazon reviews and Yelp, doh-mattah to me. I trust CR over a public traded company any day of the week.
What you call "site metrics" is your exact browsing history on that site. They don't accept advertising but they sell your browsing habits, your items of interest to advertisers. Every minute detail of your browsing, everthing you click are reported to advertisers. This is just like a hidden camera following you and recording you in the shopping mall. This is worse than displaying ads. You can ignore displayed ads or turn them off with some browser extensions, but you cannot hide your browsing history and your items of interest while you navigate in that site.
Which has nothing to do with Consumer Reports' independence or review integrity, which is what is being questioned.
What independence? Are they a statutory institution? A true independence can only be acquired by some form of law, not by self-claiming independent.
They are dependent on clicks and that one is a click-bait article. "CR doesn't recommend" brings always more clicks than "CR recommends" regarding a famous brand.
Independence meaning freedom from institutional bias, obviously. Despite some people claiming that they show paid ads, they don't, so don't have that bias.
They are somewhat dependent on clicks, but also on their reputation, and just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it a click bait article. The number of times CR has not recommended an Apple product is minimal, they have a lot of credibility here.
Independence doesn't mean freedom. Independence is how you use your freedom. Freedom from institutional bias does not necessarily mean independence as it is when your independence is recognized and respected by the public that you're really independent and that requires some legal formalism. It is a clickbait article unless they put a disclaimer stating clearly that they sell visitors data to advertisers.
Give over. That has nothing to do with the original point you replied to, and they do have a clear "Ad Choices" page which has already been mentioned in this thread. Even if they didn't, that wouldn't make it clickbait. Your persnickety, and not particularly correct, interpretations of what independence constitutes in this example is just a barrel of nonsense and misdirection. Apple are now working with Consumer Reports, so they clearly see them as credible, yet you can't. Who is biased really?
Working with CR to understand their tests. That is not an endorsement of any "credibility" or whatsoever.
For those of you saying that CR doesn't have advertising, then how do you explain the image below? If you think this is fabricated, then go to the web site yourself and click on ad choices at that bottom.
You are aware of the difference between accepting advertising and getting a check for site metrics from an ad network, right? Seems kind of hard to bias reporting when the people writing you checks, like Google, accept ad dollars from literally thousands of vendors, wouldn't ya think? "Hello, Facebook, yeah we're up to our auto review this year so be sure to strong-arm Subaru and we'll give them a swell review". In case you haven't read the reviews for cars, CR was merciless on Subaru. While you ponder that, or look for other reasons for bias, consider how many sites give you the option of turning all that off.
CR does get things wrong on occasion, and I've seen them print retractions and warnings about previous product reviews.
Or, you can read Amazon reviews and Yelp, doh-mattah to me. I trust CR over a public traded company any day of the week.
What you call "site metrics" is your exact browsing history on that site. They don't accept advertising but they sell your browsing habits, your items of interest to advertisers. Every minute detail of your browsing, everthing you click are reported to advertisers. This is just like a hidden camera following you and recording you in the shopping mall. This is worse than displaying ads. You can ignore displayed ads or turn them off with some browser extensions, but you cannot hide your browsing history and your items of interest while you navigate in that site.
Which has nothing to do with Consumer Reports' independence or review integrity, which is what is being questioned.
What independence? Are they a statutory institution? A true independence can only be acquired by some form of law, not by self-claiming independent.
They are dependent on clicks and that one is a click-bait article. "CR doesn't recommend" brings always more clicks than "CR recommends" regarding a famous brand.
Independence meaning freedom from institutional bias, obviously. Despite some people claiming that they show paid ads, they don't, so don't have that bias.
They are somewhat dependent on clicks, but also on their reputation, and just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it a click bait article. The number of times CR has not recommended an Apple product is minimal, they have a lot of credibility here.
Independence doesn't mean freedom. Independence is how you use your freedom. Freedom from institutional bias does not necessarily mean independence as it is when your independence is recognized and respected by the public that you're really independent and that requires some legal formalism. It is a clickbait article unless they put a disclaimer stating clearly that they sell visitors data to advertisers.
Give over. That has nothing to do with the original point you replied to, and they do have a clear "Ad Choices" page which has already been mentioned in this thread. Even if they didn't, that wouldn't make it clickbait. Your persnickety, and not particularly correct, interpretations of what independence constitutes in this example is just a barrel of nonsense and misdirection. Apple are now working with Consumer Reports, so they clearly see them as credible, yet you can't. Who is biased really?
Working with CR to understand their tests. That is not an endorsement of any "credibility" or whatsoever.
Sure, because Apple would work with any other reviewer. That's happened so many times before.
"Truth" is an extreme word here. They lost me with this statement:
"If more Mac users switch, the Apple ecosystem will become less sticky-opening the door to people abandoning higher-value products like the iPhone and iPad."
On the one hand they acknowledge the Mac is only 10% of Apple's sales, then assert that the loss of that 10% will affect its iPhone sales significantly. Losing 10% of Apple's iPhone sales would hurt but it wouldn't be the end of the Brand. Not to mention that they are already assuming that all 10% of those Mac users are using iPhones and iPads already. Anecdotally I know that's not true, whatever the actual extent.
So the premise of this article is flawed from the start. Apple most likely could lose the Mac entirely without substantially affecting their bottom line, especially if they transition many of their core services to more fully support other operating systems. But that doesn't seem to be the plan. Moving toward iOS as a more fully developed platform does. And as long as it does he job, who cares? Maybe they will alienate some of the Mac "loyalists", but just what percentage of the paucity of Mac sales do they actually represent anyway?
no business can afford to lose customers, but then no business can please all customers all the time. I don't know if Apple has an actual path or not with respect to the future of the Mac, but I'm fairly certain their success as a company does not hinge on the Mac.
LOL, but on a serious note it amazes me how many people have thrown a fit over that.
At least some of them are the same people that will parrot that Apple is all about form over function, but then complain when a better backlighting makes it infeasible to have the backlight bleed through the rear of the display casing.
Rayz2016 said: I probably wouldn't have much use for the touch bar either since I tend to plug laptops into a monitor and use a separate keyboard, but does that mean the toucher is useless, or just not useful for me?
To me, this is more about the UX/UI aspect of having to look down at the Touch Bar while trying to watch what's happening on the screen. Since it's an ever-changing display, it doesn't seem like muscle memory would work well, and you're not going to feel edges of touch-areas and such. I'd not say it's useless, but it doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. I guess I should try it first, but it doesn't seem like good UX design. (Nor, is a touch-screen laptop, but that's more ergonomics.)
Rayz2016 said: So, without improvements for three years, Apple was selling more laptops than they have since pre-IOS days.
And now the improved laptop is selling in greater numbers than the last one that no one was buying. And you say at this rate, Apple will have no customers. Do you think it's possible that Apple knows what its customers want, and you don't?
Current sales are rather irrelevant to the long-term. Apple is a hot brand right now, with pent-up demand, especially on the Mac front. No matter what they release, there will be some record sales for a bit. And, so long as these things don't have TOO much trouble, they'll sell a bunch, no doubt. However, the bigger question is what a shift in which market they target and serve will have on the overall eco-system. I'm not sure Apple, long term, can afford to abandon the 'creators' and 'think different' crowd and chase the Kardashians w/o consequences. The fashion crowd are a fickle bunch.
crowley said: Sure, because Apple would work with any other reviewer. That's happened so many times before.
Damage control. In the past, Apple was doing so well overall... and Jobs was managing the image... they they could ignore such things. With many now questioning their viability and such huge screw-ups, they almost have to respond.
LOL, but on a serious note it amazes me how many people have thrown a fit over that.
At least some of them are the same people that will parrot that Apple is all about form over function, but then complain when a better backlighting makes it infeasible to have the backlight bleed through the rear of the display casing.
Well, many buyers DO care about the logo.
As an improvement, Apple should rather implement self-customizable RGB LED, not removing it. (Apple, welcome to contact me for a job, I've been a PM for my entire career, LOL.)
People care that much much more than Apple could imagine.
They may try to remove the logo completely, leaving nothing on the A-cover, and see how much the sales will drop, haha...
LOL, but on a serious note it amazes me how many people have thrown a fit over that.
At least some of them are the same people that will parrot that Apple is all about form over function, but then complain when a better backlighting makes it infeasible to have the backlight bleed through the rear of the display casing.
Well, many buyers DO care about the logo.
Then those buyers are douche bags for caring only about showing off their HW over actually using it.
As an improvement, Apple should rather implement self-customizable RGB LED, not removing it.
The improvement is to not wasting time and money while also making the casing thicker for something that offers no function for the user.
KWCH said: Well, many buyers DO care about the logo.
Then those buyers are douche bags for caring only about showing off their HW over actually using it.
I remember back before Apple was popular, and we Apple-loyalists were being accused of buying Apple products for fashion, rather then that they were actually better products. Now, Apple self-fulfills those former insults. Looks like the fashion crowd won, folks... but just remember that the fashion crowd will also turn on a dime when something else 'pretty' and 'popular' comes along. And, by that time, we loyalists (due to quality and UX) will be long gone.
Comments
And now the improved laptop is selling in greater numbers than the last one that no one was buying.
And you say at this rate, Apple will have no customers.
Do you think it's possible that Apple knows what its customers want, and you don't?
In many ways, this is even worse. Rather than chasing a single advertisers, these sites end up chasing all of them, and this results in what we see all over the internet these days: poorly researched, badly written pieces that are more about generating as many clicks as possible rather than making the article the best it can be.
In this case, given the strange results, I would have worked with Apple to come up with the cause of the problem and added that to the article while still giving it the same low score. But I imagine CR was in a hurry to get the piece out as soon as possible and get the maximum impact before the Christmas slowdown.
On the other hand, one could argue that being a consumer reporting site rather than a technical one then perhaps pinpointing the exact cause is not in their remit. But on the other other hand, what consumer is going to leave the laptop running, loading the same web page over and over until the battery runs down? From a consumer point of view, is that a valid test?
It's a tricky one.
Personally, I try to use paragraphs to keep my comments from seeming too overwhelming at first glance, as well as numbering my comments when I have multiple, distinct points to make for a given reply.
tl;dr: Being clear doesn't mean you can't be succinct, but one shouldn't force themselves to be laconic when more clarify is required.
However, if it is halo effect, it begs the question why they aren't selling more.
They are somewhat dependent on clicks, but also on their reputation, and just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it a click bait article. The number of times CR has not recommended an Apple product is minimal, they have a lot of credibility here.
Rayz2016,
The exact same principle applies to both piano and computer keyboards.
The amount of keyboard travel helps determine the quality of tactile feedback received by the finger. This feedback is the result of a combination of upward resistance, downward pressure, response speed and the time it takes go through a full cycle. This process happens in milliseconds – so even if we don’t register these feedback dimensions at a cognitive level – we certainly do feel them at a somatic, visceral level.
The shorter the keyboard travel, the less opportunity the finger has to gain a complete experience from pressing the key. It feels more binary – like turning a switch on or off. Whereas with a longer travel keyboard, there are more pressure calibration points, which create the feeling that you are pushing down and through the key – which feels good to the touch. You are not just switching something on or off, like on a virtual keyboard.
This is why piano manufacturers pay so much attention to the amount of travel and calibration pressure of their keyboards. Because it really, really matters to how people interact with their machines. Computer companies like Apple should do the same.
Most people, of course, will barely notice these subtleties in their keyboards. But over time, they may find that their new MacBook is no longer as satisfying to use as their older models. They may not know why – and could even blame their dissatisfaction on another factor. But for those of us who are sensitive to keyboard quality – and appreciate the dynamics involved - there is no doubt that the ultra-short travel on the new MacBook is a serious mistake.
A computer keyboard key is indeed just binary.
How much travel and resistance is desirable for good feel varies from user to user and every mobile keyboard is a compromise.
Its not a "serious mistake" if I value mobility and size over feel.
Docked I have a Das Keyboard with Cherry MX brown keys. Mobile I don't much care. The user experience is fairly compromised even when using the Logitech Bluetooth keyboard I bring when I check a bag.
I just want to carry less onto the plane and have a keyboard I can get a few hours work done. Not write War and Peace. The new 15" MBP strikes me as a better balance between docked performance (70% use) and mobile weight and size (30% use) than prior models.
Plus I prefer shorter travel keyboards as they are faster for typing. Which is partly why I picked Brown over Blue.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-how-apple-alienated-mac-loyalists-blm-bsi-20161225-story.html
"If more Mac users switch, the Apple ecosystem will become less sticky-opening the door to people abandoning higher-value products like the iPhone and iPad."
On the one hand they acknowledge the Mac is only 10% of Apple's sales, then assert that the loss of that 10% will affect its iPhone sales significantly. Losing 10% of Apple's iPhone sales would hurt but it wouldn't be the end of the Brand. Not to mention that they are already assuming that all 10% of those Mac users are using iPhones and iPads already. Anecdotally I know that's not true, whatever the actual extent.
So the premise of this article is flawed from the start. Apple most likely could lose the Mac entirely without substantially affecting their bottom line, especially if they transition many of their core services to more fully support other operating systems. But that doesn't seem to be the plan. Moving toward iOS as a more fully developed platform does. And as long as it does he job, who cares? Maybe they will alienate some of the Mac "loyalists", but just what percentage of the paucity of Mac sales do they actually represent anyway?
no business can afford to lose customers, but then no business can please all customers all the time. I don't know if Apple has an actual path or not with respect to the future of the Mac, but I'm fairly certain their success as a company does not hinge on the Mac.
At least some of them are the same people that will parrot that Apple is all about form over function, but then complain when a better backlighting makes it infeasible to have the backlight bleed through the rear of the display casing.
Current sales are rather irrelevant to the long-term. Apple is a hot brand right now, with pent-up demand, especially on the Mac front. No matter what they release, there will be some record sales for a bit. And, so long as these things don't have TOO much trouble, they'll sell a bunch, no doubt. However, the bigger question is what a shift in which market they target and serve will have on the overall eco-system. I'm not sure Apple, long term, can afford to abandon the 'creators' and 'think different' crowd and chase the Kardashians w/o consequences. The fashion crowd are a fickle bunch.
Damage control.
In the past, Apple was doing so well overall... and Jobs was managing the image... they they could ignore such things. With many now questioning their viability and such huge screw-ups, they almost have to respond.
As an improvement, Apple should rather implement self-customizable RGB LED, not removing it.
(Apple, welcome to contact me for a job, I've been a PM for my entire career, LOL.)
People care that much much more than Apple could imagine.
They may try to remove the logo completely, leaving nothing on the A-cover,
and see how much the sales will drop, haha...
The improvement is to not wasting time and money while also making the casing thicker for something that offers no function for the user.