Like a previous commenter I felt slightly uncomfortable reading this. I am a big fan of Apple and have been for a very long time, but I thought that 2016 was a very poor year for them. There were more disappointments than positives: a non-S iPhone with few improvements; no desktop Macs; a MacBook Pro that can’t handle 32Gb; dongles required to connect the latest iPhone to the latest laptop etc.
There were highlights too, such as AirPods, but generally their core products were either given only minor improvements or none at all. The only exception was the MacBook Pro, and that seems to have been rushed out too soon.
I have high hopes for 2017 for all the reasons that Daniel mentions: good underlying technology; lack of decent competition; etc. However, in terms of actual products released (which is the key metric for me) I think that 2016 was the worst year for Apple in a very long time.
You're proving DED's point. Apple had a record setting iPhone 6s and then in just twelve months they came out with a whole new operating system for it and an iPhone 7 that had what you laughably state had "few improvements" even though it had an impressive list of new features.
1) New record setting performance chip
2) New larger low light camera lens
3) New duo lens system for iPhone 7 plus
4) Waterproof !
5) New duo stereo speaker system
6) New Optical image stabilization on iPhone 7
7) New wide color gamut screen
8) Larger battery
9) New larger Taptic engine
10) New virtual home button
You see why you have no credibility with your statements when you parrot anti-Apple propaganda like "it had few improvements." Also, you mimic the click bait press when you first lament that Apple was taking too long to issue new Macbook Pros and then you claim they were "Rushed out too soon."
A lot of media know nothing about iPhone except its look. So your post missed the new jet black color option.
Like a previous commenter I felt slightly uncomfortable reading this. I am a big fan of Apple and have been for a very long time, but I thought that 2016 was a very poor year for them. There were more disappointments than positives: a non-S iPhone with few improvements; no desktop Macs; a MacBook Pro that can’t handle 32Gb; dongles required to connect the latest iPhone to the latest laptop etc.
There were highlights too, such as AirPods, but generally their core products were either given only minor improvements or none at all. The only exception was the MacBook Pro, and that seems to have been rushed out too soon.
I have high hopes for 2017 for all the reasons that Daniel mentions: good underlying technology; lack of decent competition; etc. However, in terms of actual products released (which is the key metric for me) I think that 2016 was the worst year for Apple in a very long time.
- the 7 had many improvements - a dongle isn't needed to connect a 7 to the MBP, just the proper cable - real life users have shown the 16gb on the MBP is not a problem, just a story - 2016 was a great year for Apple
The 7 did not have the usual major improvements that a non-S iPhone usually has. In this case a much needed new form factor with smaller bezels. It looks like that is coming next year, which is fair enough if that’s how the timing works, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that the 7 was less of a step forward than usual for a non-S year. Especially if, like me, you didn’t want the bigger version with the twin cameras.
You need to buy an extra component (a dongle or a cable or whatever) in order to connect the latest iPhone to the latest MacBook Pro. This goes completely against the “it just works” philosophy that I usually love about Apple. I don’t mind them using the latest USB-C standards to be as future proof as possible, but at least try and ease the pain by including a dongle with the MBP.
When you say "real-life" users don’t need 32Gb I assume that you mean most users don’t need 32Gb, which is probably true (at the moment). However this is supposed to be a Pro machine and a lot of Pro users (myself included) need 32Gb for some tasks. We will have to stick to using desktop Macs for such tasks, which is why it is a bit worrying that none of them were replaced in 2016.
I understand Apple’s reasoning for all these things (apart from no dongle with the MacBook Pro). Basically the components weren’t available for desktop Macs, and for 32Gb in the MBP, and OLED screens weren’t available in enough quantities yet for a new OLED iPhone. However the end result was a set of relatively disappointing products (IMHO).
I don’t think that Apple has any long term problems. Quite the reverse in fact because I think that 2017 is looking like it could be one of Apple’s best years in ages. I just feel that 2016 was a poor year by their standards.
Rubbish. The 7 had considerable improvements. Such as new cameras and imaging chip, bringing optimal image stabilization (OIS) to the non-plus for the first time. A wide color gamut screen for the first time. Faster processor. And water resistance for the first time. These are big updates, and to claim anything other just because the shell design is similar is nonsense. How you can claim it's a disappointing release because it doesn't have OLED is a mystery to me. I don't even know what value-add OLED would offer.
It makes complete sense that you need the proper cable for the MBP, because it uses USBC which will better future-proof the notebook, while the iPhone uses USBA since most iPhone owners don't also own a USBC MBP.
I didn't say users don't need 32GB, I said it's been shown to be a non-issue by actual pros in real life. Read it here:
This article does an excellent job of pointing out a number of issues I've observed during the year as well.
I note that Mr. Dilger calls out, among others, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, for erroneous and sensational reporting that doesn't generally get held to account. I can't help but also note that Gurman is the one who led the charge this year in reporting on the (supposed) death of AirPort and networking hardware at Apple. Much of the tech media jumped on board that bandwagon, including appleinsider. To their credit, AI did entertain a good discussion of the nature of that reporting, noting that they also had their own sources on the issue. AI also seemed to take the discussion to heart, as a subsequent report significantly toned down a number of previous assumptions on the issue, making it easier for the reader to discern what is actually known, and what isn't.
I personally keyed in on the reporting on that particular story because it seems to reflect not only the sort of problems Dilger notes in this article, but also many of the broader issues in coverage of really important world and national concerns as well. In this case, the reporting took an interesting but anonymously sourced tidbit of information and quickly spun it out into a narrative based on a broad set of assumptions that don't make sense unless you buy into the sort of criticisms about Apple that, in this piece, Dilger says are nonsensical but rampant. The narrative that spun up about Airport was that Apple was unceremoniously ceasing development, sales and even support of the entire product line. This narrative led to the usual commentary about Tim Cook's shortcomings, Apple's cessation of any sort of thought or business plan, their imminent doom, and customers' need to immediately switch to other vendors for their networking needs.
Anyone taking the longer and more considered view of Apple would instead consider the actual information gathered on the subject and note that there may indeed be some changes afoot with regard to Apple's networking hardware, but it's hard at this point to know what those might be. Also, given Apple's pretty good record of giving ample warning when a product (or even a given model in a product line) will be headed for the archives and an end of active support, the alarm bells on AirPort shouldn't start ringing just yet, since they're still selling the devices and issuing firmware updates. So, Dilger's right with this article, and we all need to aim for a higher standard with this sort of thing.
I signed up today to say YES to this. Those bloggers DED called out, and many more, are on my list of bullshlingers. Not worth reading. They're a waste of time. And it's a waste of time replying to them, as has been noted so many times previously in these comments (I read 'em all).
Amazing they have an audience for such pap.
When you say "real-life" users don’t need 32Gb I assume that you mean most users don’t need 32Gb, which is probably true (at the moment). However this is supposed to be a Pro machine and a lot of Pro users (myself included) need 32Gb for some tasks. We will have to stick to using desktop Macs for such tasks, which is why it is a bit worrying that none of them were replaced in 2016.
When you say "real-life" users don’t need 32Gb I assume that you mean most users don’t need 32Gb, which is probably true (at the moment). However this is supposed to be a Pro machine and a lot of Pro users (myself included) need 32Gb for some tasks. We will have to stick to using desktop Macs for such tasks, which is why it is a bit worrying that none of them were replaced in 2016.
Just curious why do you need 32Gb of RAM for?
Because he read somewhere that he did.
All these people inisisting they can't use the machine because it only has 16GB of RAM have never actually used it, and what's worse, they continue to ignore reports from real professionals who say it isn't a problem.
It appears that with some clever jiggery-pokery with fast SSDs and clever OS programming, Apple is attempting to tackle Intel's failure by blurring the line between RAM and SSD. This is a path they set upon years ago when the bought tha Israeli outfit (whose name I can never remember!). I don't know if this was always the plan because it makes sense or because they knew Intel was going to hit roadblocks five years from now, but it is now the plan. Apple is moving away from distinguishing between storage and on board memory. In a few years time, Apple will stop mentioning onboard RAM altogether.
It's actually quite surprising how easily the so-called "professional" Mac user has been manipulated. The IT press has played on our vanity: "This isn't a machine for professionals! It doesn't have 32GB!"
And because the "emperor has no clothes" type Mac user doesn't want anyone to think they're not a professional, then they immediately shout back: "Yes, I'm a professional, so I need 32GB for some tasks" – without actually saying what those tasks are, or finding out whether or not the machine can run them anyway, which is what a true professional would do.
The Windows crowd, currently buying a machine with the same limitations, must be getting quite a kick out of this. They always said we were sheep, and watching us complain about a machine because everyone else is complaining… looks like they were right all along.
I don't like to bash journalists, but I think they deserve this hit piece. The problem is…
The problem is that they are not journalists.
As the article states, "Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen. The problem is that few modern tech writers are actually journalists. Many are casual bloggers from vendor advocacy sites with a grudge against Apple. Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen."
And perhaps, if we keep identifying them as such, and quoting their rhetoric, we only perpetuate their existence.
I don't like to bash journalists, but I think they deserve this hit piece. The problem is…
The problem is that they are not journalists.
As the article states, "Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen. The problem is that few modern tech writers are actually journalists. Many are casual bloggers from vendor advocacy sites with a grudge against Apple. Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen."
And perhaps, if we keep identifying them as such, and quoting their rhetoric, we only perpetuate their existence.
Best post of the year.
Really? Why? "Journalist" is a very nebulous category. What the word means is personal taste. Where is the dividing line between "journalist" and "casual blogger"? And wherever you decide to put that line, is one side of it really less prone to bullshit that the other? Being a professional journalist does not make anyone immune to nonsense outside their profession. I'd trust a "casual blogger" talking about their profession over a journalist any day. I'd trust a random journalist to be right about journalism, and not much else.
Imagine a runner expected to not only beat everyone else in the race, but also beat their own best time, every time, while being derided as having a boring running style and failing to invent new ways to run each time they race. Meanwhile, everyone else gets a trophy just for showing up.
"Microsoft wasn't expected to introduce a new OS every few years. Google wasn't tasked with creating a new search engine over and over again and HP and Dell churned out conventional PCs for many years without facing interrogation about the "next PC" replacement."
This is the best statement I've read all year. great job with this article.
But Google is expected to deliver a new Android version every year or there abouts.
In any case it is Apple who decided to couple iPhone releases to iOS releases. That's not something they do on the Mac, now or historically.
I don't like to bash journalists, but I think they deserve this hit piece. The problem is…
The problem is that they are not journalists.
As the article states, "Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen. The problem is that few modern tech writers are actually journalists. Many are casual bloggers from vendor advocacy sites with a grudge against Apple. Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen."
And perhaps, if we keep identifying them as such, and quoting their rhetoric, we only perpetuate their existence.
Article is a bit too defensive in nature, acting more like the "fake news" it's deriding.
2016 certainly wasn't Apple's best year, revenues down from 2015 which is note worthy considering the lineup contains new items (ipad 9.7 pro, and 12.9" model being 3months old going into the year) and more expensive memory options for iPhones, and of course the new Macbook Pros.
That's not to say it was a failure but invites criticism from those that have an opinion on how things should should be handled.
Also, the complaint about the biased media saying the Note 7 is packed full of innovation vs the iPhone 7. Well, it's not just them, just watch any of the popular Youtubers like MBKHD etc... they all say the same thing, "it's packed full of features". No one says that about the iPhone 7. It's because the iPhone executes the features it has well while the Note 7 is packed with tons and tons of features (useless?) with a bigger screen that's curved but has smaller footprint.
You really can't understand why everyone is saying it's packed???
I think Apple did well enough considering the iPhone 6ss, I mean 7. But I do expect them to blow things out of the water with the iPhone 8, can't wait for it.
Yes, I would say that Apple had a very good year in 2016: - Introduced a great new product in AirPods. Performs great, packed with innovation, and is delighting the user. I am loving mine. In bringing this same technology to Beats line with the W1 chip, Apple is well on track to grabbing the large majority of value in the headphone market as they do on their other markets. - iPhone 7 was a very solid update. I just got one a couple weeks ago and the battery life is just amazing. Often have 50% or more remaining at end of day. Just a complete joyful upgrade over my previous 5s, in every way. - Apple Watch updates with watchOS 3, lower entry pricing and the Series 2 seems to have hit a sweet spot. SW is much more useable for those with original. The early competitors are falling off and Apple has a commanding lead of the high end. While a small category now, wearables have the most promise in the electronics market in terms of potential dollars and future platform. - Updated MacBook Pro. While not without some controversy, it is hard to argue that the product isn't a huge upgrade over previous model. Many innovative features that will get more valuable with time (TouchBar, Touch ID, high performance multiple use ports that allow power, data, audio and video over a single cable). Together with best screen on a laptop, super fast storage and amazingly thin and light. Biggest impediment to more sales is high price coupled with the high USD. - Continuing advancement in custom silicon which will pay dividends across all product lines in years to come. - Great growth in services, led by Apple Music, with Apple Pay finally getting some real traction and now leading in mobile payment solutions.
Was it perfect? Of course not. Vastly better than any other company in those markets - absolutely!
When you say "real-life" users don’t need 32Gb I assume that you mean most users don’t need 32Gb, which is probably true (at the moment). However this is supposed to be a Pro machine and a lot of Pro users (myself included) need 32Gb for some tasks. We will have to stick to using desktop Macs for such tasks, which is why it is a bit worrying that none of them were replaced in 2016.
Just curious why do you need 32Gb of RAM for?
It appears that with some clever jiggery-pokery with fast SSDs and clever OS programming, Apple is attempting to tackle Intel's failure by blurring the line between RAM and SSD. This is a path they set upon years ago when the bought tha Israeli outfit (whose name I can never remember!).
The company was Anobit, and it was one of the larger acquisitions for Apple at around $400 million (more than they paid for PA Semi and Intrinsity combined, which are largely responsible for the A Series processors).
Not only did Anobit help Apple achieve the fastest SSD speeds in the industry, they no doubt were responsible for Apple putting NVMe in the iPhone 6S. A year later and no other mobile vendor has upgraded to NVMe and are still stuck using the inferior UFS 2.1 (which is funny, because Samsung bragged about the GS6 being the first phone in the world to use UFS 2.1, like it was such a big deal only to get the smack down from Apple when the 6S launched with NVMe).
An absolutely wonderful piece. It says, much better than I have been saying, just how wrong the pundits have been and how Apple has been a specific target, it may sell ads when such rubbish is written, but it prompts intelligent people to just stop reading the posts. Many sites would do themselves a favor by ceasing to publish garbage and poor journalism. I, for one, have stopped reading any sites that publish garbage
When you say "real-life" users don’t need 32Gb I assume that you mean most users don’t need 32Gb, which is probably true (at the moment). However this is supposed to be a Pro machine and a lot of Pro users (myself included) need 32Gb for some tasks. We will have to stick to using desktop Macs for such tasks, which is why it is a bit worrying that none of them were replaced in 2016.
Just curious why do you need 32Gb of RAM for?
I am a full-time iOS developer (and have been since the SDK first became available in 2008). I don't need anywhere near 32Gb for coding but I also do some data processing that parses large self-referencing XML files (up to 500Gb) and picks out relevant data for my app. It took quite some fine-tuning to get that to run in 32Gb, let alone 16Gb. So it will only run on a desktop Mac.
I realise that is a pretty specific use case and I doubt that many others have similar reasons for 32Gb, but people’s use-cases vary. Some people seem to think that just because they don’t need more than 16Gb then neither does anyone else, which is a crazy argument.
I seem to have annoyed several people by saying that the iPhone 7 was disappointing for a non-S version, so I will explain why:
Camera, CPU, GPU and OS improvements happen every year;
The 6S is relatively waterproof anyway;
I usually use headphones instead of the speakers (often whilst charging!);
Wide colour is nice but not necessary for me: I rarely notice it on my iMac (which I love);
I don't like the new taptic home “button” (but hope it means smaller bezels next year);
I have a 6S plus so OIS would not be new to me; I would have got the smaller iPhone 7, so I would not have got the dual camera (which would have niggled me).
I have had a 6S plus for a year and love the screen size but find it too big for my pockets. This is why I was hoping for the new OLED screens. Not for the properties of OLED (although the lower power usage sounds good) but because it has been rumoured for the next form factor with the smaller-bezels. I'd like to have as big as screen as possible but in as small a form factor as possible and the current iPhone design is very poor in that respect when compared to the competition. Apple have realised this judging from the rumours, but couldn't address it in time for the iPhone 7. The iPhone 4, 5 and 6 all improved this aspect but the 7 didn't, which is why I was disappointed.
I’m not saying that the iPhone 7 is a bad phone. It really is the best phone that they have ever made (TM). However the improvements over the previous phone were the least compelling that I can ever remember. I have owned every iPhone bar the 5S (which I considered for ages) and this was the only time that I was that I was completely happy sticking with last year’s iPhone.
I’m sorry if my opinion annoys so many people, but it is just an opinion. I am a big fan of Apple but just happen to think that 2016 was poor for them. I have very high hopes for 2017 though.
Comments
It makes complete sense that you need the proper cable for the MBP, because it uses USBC which will better future-proof the notebook, while the iPhone uses USBA since most iPhone owners don't also own a USBC MBP.
I didn't say users don't need 32GB, I said it's been shown to be a non-issue by actual pros in real life. Read it here:
Testing the Limits of 16 GB of RAM on a MacBook Pro
I note that Mr. Dilger calls out, among others, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, for erroneous and sensational reporting that doesn't generally get held to account. I can't help but also note that Gurman is the one who led the charge this year in reporting on the (supposed) death of AirPort and networking hardware at Apple. Much of the tech media jumped on board that bandwagon, including appleinsider. To their credit, AI did entertain a good discussion of the nature of that reporting, noting that they also had their own sources on the issue. AI also seemed to take the discussion to heart, as a subsequent report significantly toned down a number of previous assumptions on the issue, making it easier for the reader to discern what is actually known, and what isn't.
I personally keyed in on the reporting on that particular story because it seems to reflect not only the sort of problems Dilger notes in this article, but also many of the broader issues in coverage of really important world and national concerns as well. In this case, the reporting took an interesting but anonymously sourced tidbit of information and quickly spun it out into a narrative based on a broad set of assumptions that don't make sense unless you buy into the sort of criticisms about Apple that, in this piece, Dilger says are nonsensical but rampant. The narrative that spun up about Airport was that Apple was unceremoniously ceasing development, sales and even support of the entire product line. This narrative led to the usual commentary about Tim Cook's shortcomings, Apple's cessation of any sort of thought or business plan, their imminent doom, and customers' need to immediately switch to other vendors for their networking needs.
Anyone taking the longer and more considered view of Apple would instead consider the actual information gathered on the subject and note that there may indeed be some changes afoot with regard to Apple's networking hardware, but it's hard at this point to know what those might be. Also, given Apple's pretty good record of giving ample warning when a product (or even a given model in a product line) will be headed for the archives and an end of active support, the alarm bells on AirPort shouldn't start ringing just yet, since they're still selling the devices and issuing firmware updates. So, Dilger's right with this article, and we all need to aim for a higher standard with this sort of thing.
All these people inisisting they can't use the machine because it only has 16GB of RAM have never actually used it, and what's worse, they continue to ignore reports from real professionals who say it isn't a problem.
It appears that with some clever jiggery-pokery with fast SSDs and clever OS programming, Apple is attempting to tackle Intel's failure by blurring the line between RAM and SSD. This is a path they set upon years ago when the bought tha Israeli outfit (whose name I can never remember!). I don't know if this was always the plan because it makes sense or because they knew Intel was going to hit roadblocks five years from now, but it is now the plan. Apple is moving away from distinguishing between storage and on board memory. In a few years time, Apple will stop mentioning onboard RAM altogether.
It's actually quite surprising how easily the so-called "professional" Mac user has been manipulated. The IT press has played on our vanity: "This isn't a machine for professionals! It doesn't have 32GB!"
And because the "emperor has no clothes" type Mac user doesn't want anyone to think they're not a professional, then they immediately shout back: "Yes, I'm a professional, so I need 32GB for some tasks" – without actually saying what those tasks are, or finding out whether or not the machine can run them anyway, which is what a true professional would do.
The Windows crowd, currently buying a machine with the same limitations, must be getting quite a kick out of this. They always said we were sheep, and watching us complain about a machine because everyone else is complaining… looks like they were right all along.
Maybe Sog is right; it's time to start buying ads in these rags.
Already?
In any case it is Apple who decided to couple iPhone releases to iOS releases. That's not something they do on the Mac, now or historically.
2016 certainly wasn't Apple's best year, revenues down from 2015 which is note worthy considering the lineup contains new items (ipad 9.7 pro, and 12.9" model being 3months old going into the year) and more expensive memory options for iPhones, and of course the new Macbook Pros.
That's not to say it was a failure but invites criticism from those that have an opinion on how things should should be handled.
Also, the complaint about the biased media saying the Note 7 is packed full of innovation vs the iPhone 7. Well, it's not just them, just watch any of the popular Youtubers like MBKHD etc... they all say the same thing, "it's packed full of features". No one says that about the iPhone 7. It's because the iPhone executes the features it has well while the Note 7 is packed with tons and tons of features (useless?) with a bigger screen that's curved but has smaller footprint.
You really can't understand why everyone is saying it's packed???
I think Apple did well enough considering the iPhone 6ss, I mean 7. But I do expect them to blow things out of the water with the iPhone 8, can't wait for it.
- Introduced a great new product in AirPods. Performs great, packed with innovation, and is delighting the user. I am loving mine. In bringing this same technology to Beats line with the W1 chip, Apple is well on track to grabbing the large majority of value in the headphone market as they do on their other markets.
- iPhone 7 was a very solid update. I just got one a couple weeks ago and the battery life is just amazing. Often have 50% or more remaining at end of day. Just a complete joyful upgrade over my previous 5s, in every way.
- Apple Watch updates with watchOS 3, lower entry pricing and the Series 2 seems to have hit a sweet spot. SW is much more useable for those with original. The early competitors are falling off and Apple has a commanding lead of the high end. While a small category now, wearables have the most promise in the electronics market in terms of potential dollars and future platform.
- Updated MacBook Pro. While not without some controversy, it is hard to argue that the product isn't a huge upgrade over previous model. Many innovative features that will get more valuable with time (TouchBar, Touch ID, high performance multiple use ports that allow power, data, audio and video over a single cable). Together with best screen on a laptop, super fast storage and amazingly thin and light. Biggest impediment to more sales is high price coupled with the high USD.
- Continuing advancement in custom silicon which will pay dividends across all product lines in years to come.
- Great growth in services, led by Apple Music, with Apple Pay finally getting some real traction and now leading in mobile payment solutions.
Was it perfect? Of course not. Vastly better than any other company in those markets - absolutely!
The company was Anobit, and it was one of the larger acquisitions for Apple at around $400 million (more than they paid for PA Semi and Intrinsity combined, which are largely responsible for the A Series processors).
Not only did Anobit help Apple achieve the fastest SSD speeds in the industry, they no doubt were responsible for Apple putting NVMe in the iPhone 6S. A year later and no other mobile vendor has upgraded to NVMe and are still stuck using the inferior UFS 2.1 (which is funny, because Samsung bragged about the GS6 being the first phone in the world to use UFS 2.1, like it was such a big deal only to get the smack down from Apple when the 6S launched with NVMe).
I would have got the smaller iPhone 7, so I would not have got the dual camera (which would have niggled me).