nht said: You guys bitching about thin and light arent traveling. The15" MBP is really nice to travel with.
That's what the MacBook is for. Like I said, I'm all for thin and light laptops, but only to the extent that they serve their purpose well. Maybe it's time for Apple to expand the laptop line to have a real MBP again and then a MBspT (MacBook semi-pro Travel).
a) The new keyboard isn’t inferior; it's just different. From what I've been reading, more people seem indifferent, or to actually prefer it over the old ones (like me), than not.
b) No, the MacBook is not built for professional creative users on the road. Having previously used a 15“ G4 (after a 12“ PowerBook), I really, really did not want to go back to lugging such a massive board around all day, but I knew that I had to upgrade to a quad, as the dual-Core just wasn’t cutting it for my needs any longer. So Apple built a Quad 15“ with the exact same weight, half the thickness and only slightly wider and deeper dimensions than my old 13“ MBP – as if they were listening and exactly following my priorities. I'm happy as a clam at high tide. Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
He didn't. Taken in context, he said that Apple's apparent priority is appealing to the largest possible audience, not making the most powerful portable computer possible. He said that his preference would be for Apple to make performance a higher priority than popularity, then followed up with the suggestion that maybe Apple could make both. I didn't perceive any assumptions. Besides, even if he had, why would you get defensive? What difference does it make to you or me if someone else thinks Apple got it wrong?
I used to feel the same way as cgWerks. I've only come to understand the value of the light, compact form through experience. Until one spends some time with it, it's hard to appreciate how much nicer it is to work with than the older, bigger, heavier design. Even then, different people have different priorities. I would probably accept a bigger heavier computer myself if I thought it would provide appreciably better performance. I don't think it would, though. I don't think there's enough real-world improvement possible to make it worth the trade. The mileage of others may vary.
Despite being really happy with the new design, I do miss the 17" display. My work involves having several windows open at once, and the loss of a few centimetres of screen width means more previously visible material is now hidden behind overlapping windows, requiring a lot more switching between them than before. For me the thin-and-light didn't come free, I gave up a certain amount of productivity.
nht said: You guys bitching about thin and light arent traveling. The15" MBP is really nice to travel with.
That's what the MacBook is for. Like I said, I'm all for thin and light laptops, but only to the extent that they serve their purpose well. Maybe it's time for Apple to expand the laptop line to have a real MBP again and then a MBspT (MacBook semi-pro Travel).
Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
He didn't. Taken in context, he said that Apple's apparent priority is appealing to the largest possible audience, not making the most powerful portable computer possible. He said that his preference would be for Apple to make performance a higher priority than popularity, then followed up with the suggestion that maybe Apple could make both. I didn't perceive any assumptions. Besides, even if he had, why would you get defensive? What difference does it make to you or me if someone else thinks Apple got it wrong?
I used to feel the same way as cgWerks. I've only come to understand the value of the light, compact form through experience. Until one spends some time with it, it's hard to appreciate how much nicer it is to work with than the older, bigger, heavier design. Even then, different people have different priorities. I would probably accept a bigger heavier computer myself if I thought it would provide appreciably better performance. I don't think it would, though. I don't think there's enough real-world improvement possible to make it worth the trade. The mileage of others may vary.
Despite being really happy with the new design, I do miss the 17" display. My work involves having several windows open at once, and the loss of a few centimetres of screen width means more previously visible material is now hidden behind overlapping windows, requiring a lot more switching between them than before. For me the thin-and-light didn't come free, I gave up a certain amount of productivity.
Bring an iPad for extra windows. Done. No compromise required.
His opinion is tiresome after a decade of Apple making thinner and lighter laptops over desktop workstation replacements. Apple isnt going to make another 17" behemoth so at this point it's just whining for the sake of whining.
if he hasn't spent time working with the current MBP then his opinion has zero value and why should we not ridicule it?
And finally if he doesn't f-ing travel as a professional user he should have bought an iMac and again his opinion has zero value because he's not a target user for the MBP.
Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
He didn't. Taken in context, he said that Apple's apparent priority is appealing to the largest possible audience, not making the most powerful portable computer possible. He said that his preference would be for Apple to make performance a higher priority than popularity, then followed up with the suggestion that maybe Apple could make both. I didn't perceive any assumptions. Besides, even if he had, why would you get defensive? What difference does it make to you or me if someone else thinks Apple got it wrong?
I used to feel the same way as cgWerks. I've only come to understand the value of the light, compact form through experience. Until one spends some time with it, it's hard to appreciate how much nicer it is to work with than the older, bigger, heavier design. Even then, different people have different priorities. I would probably accept a bigger heavier computer myself if I thought it would provide appreciably better performance. I don't think it would, though. I don't think there's enough real-world improvement possible to make it worth the trade. The mileage of others may vary.
Despite being really happy with the new design, I do miss the 17" display. My work involves having several windows open at once, and the loss of a few centimetres of screen width means more previously visible material is now hidden behind overlapping windows, requiring a lot more switching between them than before. For me the thin-and-light didn't come free, I gave up a certain amount of productivity.
I have a question. Why would Apple NOT want to target the largest possible (and still very niche) audience for the MBP? 99% of the computer using public would be fine with a $400 WalMart laptop. Why not target that entire 1%, instead of 1% of the 1%?
Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
He didn't. Taken in context, he said that Apple's apparent priority is appealing to the largest possible audience, not making the most powerful portable computer possible. He said that his preference would be for Apple to make performance a higher priority than popularity, then followed up with the suggestion that maybe Apple could make both. I didn't perceive any assumptions. Besides, even if he had, why would you get defensive? What difference does it make to you or me if someone else thinks Apple got it wrong?
What irks me is that this argument is completely missing the (IMO obvious) point:
Every computer is a particular set of compromises and priorities.
If Apple wanted to build the most powerful portable computer, they'd build a 19" rackmounted machine in a flightcase. In fact, this is why rackmount kits for Mac Pros of all generations, with extra chassis for expansion, exist: For those users who ACTUALLY need "the most powerful portable computer possible". Literally everybody else doesn't need/hasn't bought the "most powerful portable computer possible".
Pretending that using desktop RAM controllers or adding half an inch for whatever the particular "pro" missing the point happens to require for his particular myopic view of "professional usage" is what makes the difference is utterly ludicrous once you realise what a fundamentally compromised machine a laptop by its very concept actually is.
if he hasn't spent time working with the current MBP then his opinion has zero value and why should we not ridicule it?
Because it's rude and counterproductive. It just leads to irrelevant bickering. Presenting well-reasoned counter-arguments leads to understanding and is much more likely to persuade the person with whom you disagree to consider a different point of view.
his opinion has zero value because he's not a target user for the MBP.
He knows that. It doesn't make it any less disappointing. Expressing one's preferences isn't necessarily whining, even if the chances of anything changing are slim.
Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
He didn't. Taken in context, he said that Apple's apparent priority is appealing to the largest possible audience, not making the most powerful portable computer possible. He said that his preference would be for Apple to make performance a higher priority than popularity, then followed up with the suggestion that maybe Apple could make both. I didn't perceive any assumptions. Besides, even if he had, why would you get defensive? What difference does it make to you or me if someone else thinks Apple got it wrong?
I used to feel the same way as cgWerks. I've only come to understand the value of the light, compact form through experience. Until one spends some time with it, it's hard to appreciate how much nicer it is to work with than the older, bigger, heavier design. Even then, different people have different priorities. I would probably accept a bigger heavier computer myself if I thought it would provide appreciably better performance. I don't think it would, though. I don't think there's enough real-world improvement possible to make it worth the trade. The mileage of others may vary.
Despite being really happy with the new design, I do miss the 17" display. My work involves having several windows open at once, and the loss of a few centimetres of screen width means more previously visible material is now hidden behind overlapping windows, requiring a lot more switching between them than before. For me the thin-and-light didn't come free, I gave up a certain amount of productivity.
I have a question. Why would Apple NOT want to target the largest possible (and still very niche) audience for the MBP? 99% of the computer using public would be fine with a $400 WalMart laptop. Why not target that entire 1%, instead of 1% of the 1%?
I said I understand and respect cgWerk's feelings, not that I agree...
I happen to think Apple struck a good balance with the current incarnation of the MacBook Pro, but it's not hard to be sympathetic to someone who finds the keyboard unpleasant and wishes the machine were a little thicker so there would be room for something better. It's not what *I* would want, but I don't begrudge anyone else their own preferences.
Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
He didn't. Taken in context, he said that Apple's apparent priority is appealing to the largest possible audience, not making the most powerful portable computer possible. He said that his preference would be for Apple to make performance a higher priority than popularity, then followed up with the suggestion that maybe Apple could make both. I didn't perceive any assumptions. Besides, even if he had, why would you get defensive? What difference does it make to you or me if someone else thinks Apple got it wrong?
What irks me is that this argument is completely missing the (IMO obvious) point:
Every computer is a particular set of compromises and priorities.
If Apple wanted to build the most powerful portable computer, they'd build a 19" rackmounted machine in a flightcase. In fact, this is why rackmount kits for Mac Pros of all generations, with extra chassis for expansion, exist: For those users who ACTUALLY need "the most powerful portable computer possible". Literally everybody else doesn't need/hasn't bought the "most powerful portable computer possible".
Pretending that using desktop RAM controllers or adding half an inch for whatever the particular "pro" missing the point happens to require for his particular myopic view of "professional usage" is what makes the difference is utterly ludicrous once you realise what a fundamentally compromised machine a laptop by its very concept actually is.
Ooh, that's a good argument! If there's a reasonable view contrary to that one, I don't know what it would be! Nice.
I might make the same argument without the insults, but that's just ANOTHER discussion of style versus substance! LOL!
spheric said: a) The new keyboard isn’t inferior; it's just different. From what I've been reading, more people seem indifferent, or to actually prefer it over the old ones (like me), than not.
b) No, the MacBook is not built for professional creative users on the road. Having previously used a 15“ G4 (after a 12“ PowerBook), I really, really did not want to go back to lugging such a massive board around all day, but I knew that I had to upgrade to a quad, as the dual-Core just wasn’t cutting it for my needs any longer. So Apple built a Quad 15“ with the exact same weight, half the thickness and only slightly wider and deeper dimensions than my old 13“ MBP – as if they were listening and exactly following my priorities. I'm happy as a clam at high tide. Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
It's inferior if I (and many others) can't type on it as well, and it breaks more often. My opinion, as mentioned, is based on a few trips to the store playing with it for 15 minutes. I might like it more as time goes on... I grant that. But, I also follow a number of 'industry leaders' via podcast, blogs, and news sites, and the opinion of these people who use them daily has been primarily that it's a compromise keyboard and doesn't have a great reliability track-record so far. (For some fun, go listen to Marco Arment's rant.)
I completely understand that everyone is going to have a unique set of priorities, wants, and wishes. However, I'd say that there are a few things common to a majority of pro users (again, not people making money from their work, but a class of machine with certain characteristics!). A good keyboard would be one of them. A few key ports is another, though maybe that will be solved with time. I personally don't need a SD slot, but a lot of pros do. Having at least 1 USB-A port, especially on the 15", until the USB-C mess gets sorted would have been smart. One could make a good argument for Ethernet for a segment of pros (I used to do a lot of work in server rooms), though I recognize that one is iffy. Better, cooling and quieter fans are important too... though that's never been a strong-point of the MBP line.
lorin schultz said: He didn't. Taken in context, he said that Apple's apparent priority is appealing to the largest possible audience, not making the most powerful portable computer possible. He said that his preference would be for Apple to make performance a higher priority than popularity, then followed up with the suggestion that maybe Apple could make both. I didn't perceive any assumptions. Besides, even if he had, why would you get defensive? What difference does it make to you or me if someone else thinks Apple got it wrong?
I used to feel the same way as cgWerks. I've only come to understand the value of the light, compact form through experience. Until one spends some time with it, it's hard to appreciate how much nicer it is to work with than the older, bigger, heavier design. Even then, different people have different priorities. I would probably accept a bigger heavier computer myself if I thought it would provide appreciably better performance. I don't think it would, though. I don't think there's enough real-world improvement possible to make it worth the trade. The mileage of others may vary.
Despite being really happy with the new design, I do miss the 17" display. My work involves having several windows open at once, and the loss of a few centimetres of screen width means more previously visible material is now hidden behind overlapping windows, requiring a lot more switching between them than before. For me the thin-and-light didn't come free, I gave up a certain amount of productivity.
Thanks, though it's not so much about raw performance. A bit more GPU maybe, but with eGPU being a possibility, the performance is kind of what I'd expect. It's more about compromises with the keyboard, or the lack of ports (dongle-hell), or design choices like the huge trackpad. I'd trade a bit in size to have a few more ports, battery life, or a better keyboard. And, I'm not sure that the #1 priority of a professional laptop should be giving up pro features to with the smallest possible size. That should be fore the mid-range travel laptop.
Similar to the desktop line, it seems Apple has a very vacant middle. You've got incredibly small, light, and possibly underpowered. Then you've got high-end, expensive... and with the new MBP, possibly too limited in certain aspects. As Spheric noted, for a frequent traveler, they want as much power as possible in a small case, so the new MBP is perfect. But, is that the majority of pro users? Or, even if not, should Apple only target one of the two (or more) groups of 'pros'?
I'd think there are a heck of a lot of pros like me who want the power, might have more diversity in their mobile use than coffee-shop, and wouldn't mind a bit more size/weight to get back something more akin to the previous MBP line.
The problem is that I sometimes do. So, that means buying a desktop and laptop, or a MBP. But, if the MBP has been reduced to a great coffee-shop machine for entrepreneurs... not a pro-level machine for a more flexible use-case, I'm going to complain. I'm all for having a powerful coffee-shop machine too (though I wonder how many of that market segment really need the MBPs power), but it should be a separate line, not the MBP.
nht said: Bring an iPad for extra windows. Done. No compromise required.
His opinion is tiresome after a decade of Apple making thinner and lighter laptops over desktop workstation replacements. Apple isnt going to make another 17" behemoth so at this point it's just whining for the sake of whining.
if he hasn't spent time working with the current MBP then his opinion has zero value and why should we not ridicule it?
And finally if he doesn't f-ing travel as a professional user he should have bought an iMac and again his opinion has zero value because he's not a target user for the MBP.
I've used both big displays and multiple displays. They aren't the same. Again, much of this depends on what you do. Some applications are better with multiple displays (CAD, 3D animation), while for general productivity, I find one display better.
And, while I haven't spent much time on one yet, as I said above, I've formed my opinion based on my observations PLUS the observations of a lot of people who do spend their whole days with them. I'm not alone in my criticisms.
I do travel some, but spend most of my time 'docked'. I'd rather have one machine. I did have an iMac and sold it, anticipating on moving to the new MBP... and now I'm hesitating. The iMac is a fine machine if you're OK having a primary dedicated single-use display. I'd rather pick my own display(s) with a separate computer if I'm going desktop. And, why am I not the target for the MBP? It seems you and Apple are making some big assumptions... and I can probably guess what they are.
Mike Wuerthele said: I have a question. Why would Apple NOT want to target the largest possible (and still very niche) audience for the MBP? 99% of the computer using public would be fine with a $400 WalMart laptop. Why not target that entire 1%, instead of 1% of the 1%?
I guess I'd say because it's a supposed to be a professional line computer, and the target market they seem to have aimed at largely doesn't need a professional computer. So, they've compromised the pro to target the semi-pro with no real pro model to fill the gap. The average coffee-shop goer entrepreneur doesn't need a MBP. They maybe need a bit more power than a MacBook... Apple just doesn't have that outside the Air which they haven't updated properly.
I'm arguing that they need more models here to adequately cover the range of use, instead of downgrading the pro to fit the semi-pro market. It's a matter of priorities. Do you build the best product each segment of users/use-case (within reason), or do you pick the largest user-segment and make a product to fit? (essentially saying, who-cares? to the rest of the users... the big-pie-slice wins.)
When Apple made the previous generations of 17" MBP, which mode were they in? Those couldn't have been targeted at the biggest pie-slice. They did it (presumably) because they recognized there were a segment of pros that needed that kind of machine. See the difference?
spheric said: Every computer is a particular set of compromises and priorities.
If Apple wanted to build the most powerful portable computer, they'd build a 19" rackmounted machine in a flightcase. In fact, this is why rackmount kits for Mac Pros of all generations, with extra chassis for expansion, exist: For those users who ACTUALLY need "the most powerful portable computer possible". Literally everybody else doesn't need/hasn't bought the "most powerful portable computer possible".
Pretending that using desktop RAM controllers or adding half an inch for whatever the particular "pro" missing the point happens to require for his particular myopic view of "professional usage" is what makes the difference is utterly ludicrous once you realise what a fundamentally compromised machine a laptop by its very concept actually is.
Yes, we can go into extreme land. I'm noting what I see as being a move from having a reasonable product line that covered several bases and user-needs, to one that just picks the biggest pie-slice and compromises for the rest (i.e.: money over UX).
his opinion has zero value because he's not a target user for the MBP.
He knows that. It doesn't make it any less disappointing. Expressing one's preferences isn't necessarily whining, even if the chances of anything changing are slim.
Yes, and more to the point, I'm questioning this new method Apple seems to be using to optimize their profit/product-lines at the expense of user-needs, especially on the professional end.
Will they make more money this way? Sure, at least in the short term. But, the 'old' Apple often spent time and effort developing their image, market segments, and catering to use-cases that didn't return top-dollar. Look at the money they put into the education markets, or the efforts into impaired use. Those aren't money makers... at least short-term.
I'm arguing that they need more models here to adequately cover the range of use
Traditional computers, both desktop and portable, become less important to Apple with each passing day. The masses are clearly moving to hand-held devices (smart phones) as their primary computing device. Sales of Macs are unlikely to do anything but decline over time. There will always be a small group of users who need or prefer conventional computers, but the numbers aren't going to grow.
Given that scenario, it doesn't make sense (to me, anyway) for Apple to expand the line. Low volume, low profit exercises designed simply to create buzz aren't worth the effort or cost in a dying (or at least shrinking) market segment.
I'm questioning this new method Apple seems to be using to optimize their profit/product-lines at the expense of user-needs, especially on the professional end
I don't see it that way. I don't think Apple is making decisions contrary to user needs. It's a question of personal preferences.
Some people think the keyboard sucks. Others think it's great. Still others think the old style was better but the new style is an acceptable compromise to get a slimmer, lighter computer. Was Apple's choice "wrong" or are there just a variety of stated "needs" in the wild and Apple has to pick which ones they're going to serve?
Same with ports. You and I have completely opposite views on that one, but we're both "pros" using our computers to earn our living. Neither of us is "wrong." Which of us should Apple accommodate?
I don't think Apple has lost sight of what Pro users want and need, I just think the most common use cases may now be different than what we're used to.
Similar to the desktop line, it seems Apple has a very vacant middle. You've got incredibly small, light, and possibly underpowered. Then you've got high-end, expensive... and with the new MBP, possibly too limited in certain aspects. As Spheric noted, for a frequent traveler, they want as much power as possible in a small case, so the new MBP is perfect. But, is that the majority of pro users? Or, even if not, should Apple only target one of the two (or more) groups of 'pros'?
I'd think there are a heck of a lot of pros like me who want the power, might have more diversity in their mobile use than coffee-shop, and wouldn't mind a bit more size/weight to get back something more akin to the previous MBP line.
The problem is that I sometimes do. So, that means buying a desktop and laptop, or a MBP. But, if the MBP has been reduced to a great coffee-shop machine for entrepreneurs... not a pro-level machine for a more flexible use-case, I'm going to complain. I'm all for having a powerful coffee-shop machine too (though I wonder how many of that market segment really need the MBPs power), but it should be a separate line, not the MBP.
This is why your opinion gets deservedly ridiculed. The 15" MBP is fully capable of supporting pro level uses. Not a "coffee-shop machine for entrepreneurs".
I've used both big displays and multiple displays. They aren't the same. Again, much of this depends on what you do. Some applications are better with multiple displays (CAD, 3D animation), while for general productivity, I find one display better.
17" isn't a "big display" regardless of your workflow. If you need a big display at your mobile site then ship it in a pelican case and if you're going to do that you can ship an iMac.
If you had a 17" and now have a 15" then having an iPad as a secondary display gives you more usable screen real estate overall.
I do travel some, but spend most of my time 'docked'. I'd rather have one machine. I did have an iMac and sold it, anticipating on moving to the new MBP... and now I'm hesitating. The iMac is a fine machine if you're OK having a primary dedicated single-use display. I'd rather pick my own display(s) with a separate computer if I'm going desktop. And, why am I not the target for the MBP? It seems you and Apple are making some big assumptions... and I can probably guess what they are.
If you spend most of your time docked and you need 64GB RAM and a desktop level GPU you aren't the target for a MBP because it's a laptop and not a desktop replacement.
Dell and HP make desktop replacement laptops and Windows 10 is perfectly fine as an OS. Besides, if you sold your iMac to buy a MBP and haven't bought one yet then having a Mac isn't all that important for you anyway.
Cgwerks, I think you VASTLY overestimate how tiny the market is for machines that require more power than a 15” MacBook Pro supplies (especially given its Thunderbolt expandability) that cannot be stuck in a flight case and shipped where they’re needed.
I also happen to be a professional musician who's played some 150 gigs in the last three years and runs a production studio using "great coffee-shop machines for entrepreneurs..."
I cant help feeling that whatever point you may have is being undermined by the hyperbole and the fact that you’re being a bit of an ass in making it.
As for ports: I haven’t used an Ethernet port in years (except hooking up my Time Capsule to the router), and while I use USB-A ports all the time, the adapter uses way less space than the power supply I always have along in the same bag. In the studio, I use a Thunderbolt Dock attached that runs my external hard drives, FireWire interface, external monitor, keyboard, and various USB devices, and have for years.
I now have four ports that can be any and all of those things if I need them, and can take power, to boot (and supply copious amounts of bus power for external devices, including fast-charging my mobile devices). No net disadvantage that I can see.
lorin schultz said: Traditional computers, both desktop and portable, become less important to Apple with each passing day. The masses are clearly moving to hand-held devices (smart phones) as their primary computing device. Sales of Macs are unlikely to do anything but decline over time. There will always be a small group of users who need or prefer conventional computers, but the numbers aren't going to grow.
Given that scenario, it doesn't make sense (to me, anyway) for Apple to expand the line. Low volume, low profit exercises designed simply to create buzz aren't worth the effort or cost in a dying (or at least shrinking) market segment.
... I don't see it that way. I don't think Apple is making decisions contrary to user needs. It's a question of personal preferences. Some people think the keyboard sucks. Others think it's great. ... Same with ports. You and I have completely opposite views on that one, but we're both "pros" using our computers to earn our living. Neither of us is "wrong." Which of us should Apple accommodate?
I don't think Apple has lost sight of what Pro users want and need, I just think the most common use cases may now be different than what we're used to.
I agree desktop/laptop sales will continue to decline, as the average person (or even business user) can get the same work done on more mobile oriented devices (if nothing else due to the OS and management simplicity). But, we're talking about pro users here, not the average person. If Apple is going to abandon the pro users to a competitor and just chase after the big pie slice, then just let us know that so we can move on. Ultimately, I think that would be a poor decision, but it's their's to make.
re: decision and keyboard - Well, on the whole I see Apple making decisions that will place the product line for the big pie slice, not excellence. That might be 'smart business' but I disagree. That's what every other tech company does, and not how Apple got where it now is. As for the keyboard, if it's unreliable then it doesn't belong on a pro product (let alone an entry-level Apple product!). Whether it's good to type on, yes, I suppose is a bit subjective.
re: ports - The problem is that USB-C isn't very mature yet. So, the 'pro' computer ends up being a mess of dongles and docks for anyone but the coffee-shop user. The photographer needs dongles. The traveler who doesn't want to our can't use WiFi needs dongles. The 3D artist who just wants to run their 'security keyed' app needs dongles. The person who wants to use a thumb-drive needs dongles. It's workable, but a bit silly when Apple could have just included a USB-A.
re: use case changes - Is the pro user really doing things that much differently than 5 years ago? I doubt it. Apple wanted to make it smaller and lighter (yes, probably a want of everyone) and wanted to get rid of ports and push USB-C... and that, IMO, is what drove the design.
nht said: This is why your opinion gets deservedly ridiculed. The 15" MBP is fully capable of supporting pro level uses. Not a "coffee-shop machine for entrepreneurs". ... 17" isn't a "big display" regardless of your workflow. If you need a big display at your mobile site then ship it in a pelican case and if you're going to do that you can ship an iMac.
If you had a 17" and now have a 15" then having an iPad as a secondary display gives you more usable screen real estate overall. ... If you spend most of your time docked and you need 64GB RAM and a desktop level GPU you aren't the target for a MBP because it's a laptop and not a desktop replacement.
Dell and HP make desktop replacement laptops and Windows 10 is perfectly fine as an OS. Besides, if you sold your iMac to buy a MBP and haven't bought one yet then having a Mac isn't all that important for you anyway.
Certain pro level users quite well, others, not so well. The question is, why move from the MBP of a couple generations back to the current one if it isn't aimed at coffee-shop entrepreneurs? A good segment of pros are going to take the ports, possibly more performance, and a better keyboard over a slightly smaller package w/ dongles. It's the user who travels extensively, sits at coffee shops, or doesn't really need/use the ports that much who is targeted by the new MBP. It would be interesting to know what percentage of MBP owners fall into that category. My hunch is that more are like me... designers, programmers, etc. who dock the machine at the office and also use it on the go. I could be wrong.
re: 17" - I don't really want one. I was just saying there are people who do and that multiple screens aren't equal to one big one. I'd also go the MBP + iPad route for more space when mobile.
And, I don't need 64GB, or even 32GB (right now) but some do. I think Apple's trade-off there was quite reasonable actually. I'm even fine w/o the ports most of the time, as I'd have that dock at my desk (though the quality of ports might be an issue). It's the keyboard that's the big one for me, along with concerns about cooling and possibly battery life (which maybe is fixed with the 2017?).
Windows 10 and a Dell really aren't replacements, or I'd already have moved over. But, if Apple continues on this trend, I'll eventually have no choice. But, here's the thing... once I go, I'll probably leave the *whole* Apple eco-system behind. Our family alone has bought several computer, several iPads, several phones, service subscriptions, music, movies, books, etc. What happens to Apple's image when all the creatives and 'think different' people move on?
I guess the one thing I didn't hear pros screaming... is that they just *had* to have a laptop that was 2/3 to 1/2 the size, and they'd be willing to give up nearly everything to get there. This was something Apple wanted, not the pro users. (Though some will thankfully take it, if the tradeoffs weren't too much for them.)
Cgwerks, I think you VASTLY overestimate how tiny the market is for machines that require more power than a 15” MacBook Pro supplies (especially given its Thunderbolt expandability) that cannot be stuck in a flight case and shipped where they’re needed.
I also happen to be a professional musician who's played some 150 gigs in the last three years and runs a production studio using "great coffee-shop machines for entrepreneurs..."
I cant help feeling that whatever point you may have is being undermined by the hyperbole and the fact that you’re being a bit of an ass in making it.
As for ports: I haven’t used an Ethernet port in years (except hooking up my Time Capsule to the router), and while I use USB-A ports all the time, the adapter uses way less space than the power supply I always have along in the same bag. In the studio, I use a Thunderbolt Dock attached that runs my external hard drives, FireWire interface, external monitor, keyboard, and various USB devices, and have for years.
I now have four ports that can be any and all of those things if I need them, and can take power, to boot (and supply copious amounts of bus power for external devices, including fast-charging my mobile devices). No net disadvantage that I can see.
I didn't say it can't be made to work. With enough docks and dongles, yes the new machines can do as much or more than the previous models. But, with the previous models, someone could hand you a USB thumb-drive and you didn't need a dongle. Or, you could go into a server room where you had to plug into a hub and not need a dongle. Or, you could pull out the SD card from your SLR and not need a dongle.
Or, some of that space could have been used to improve cooling (thus reducing fan noise!) which is a wish of many pros.
My argument isn't that it can't be made to work. It's whether the tradeoff is justified AS THE ONLY CHOICE. Apple made the decision for everyone that all that counts is smallness. And, IMO, made compromises to pretty critical components (like the keyboard).
I've kept MBPs for many years. I don't really want one I won't be able to type on w/o repairs in a year or two.
A Mac is a Mac. A PC is a PC. Two slightly different worlds, diong the same things. I was a hardcore windows user ever since windows for workgroups and still never quite liked windows. POSIX style multithreading, file systems and a top-down, file-based operating system instead of complications like the registry have always been dearer to me and I have always stuck to Windows primarily because of office, worknetwork and obviously organizational productivity. in 2008, I switched to a Mac Pro - an eight-core DDR2 machine (3,1) which is still running today and the only thing I upgraded was the Graphics card. In 2012, I also bought a 12-core (2 x 3.47GHz) 128GB memory Mac Pro which is my primary development workstation now, and I also run several VM's and devops automation on it. Windows runs faster on it than on many windows machines. I have never had to reboot it for months at a time, and that too because I did something goofy. Stable as heck. Still had some macbook pro's here and there, but nothing as good. Today, I have a 2017 Macbook pro with the 3.1GHz i7 quad core (i7-9820HQ) 16GB of memory and a 2TB SSD. The SSD is blazing fast, I have moved my entire workflow to the new mac (including my windows VM's). I am doing this only for portability as I travel a lot and my Mac Pro doesn't fit in my backpack (just kidding). I still dont like the proprietary soldered-on components. I still dont like the fact that they discontinued the Mac Pro, which is still the best computer in the world, but for IT consultants like me, the Macbook Pro is a necessary evil. I also carry my Skylake XPS15 9550 with 32GB of memory and a quad core skylake i7, with a 1TB PM951, and use it with VMWare workstation for some workflows, but in the last 4 months, the machine is being used lesser and lesser. Now a days, there are days when I dont even carry it with me because yours faithfully does the job really well. If you make 10s of thousands of dollars using software and technology, you can afford to spend 3-4K on your primary means of that productivity. Again, personal opinion, I don't think a Windows Laptop will replace my Mac. That's my opinion; I have tried, believe me. I could survive with Windows, but there are so many things - Unified mailbox, bash/korn, brew, vmware fusion 10, that I like to use. Do I carry an iPhone, No. I use an android. A Sony Xperia xz1 compact, if you must know. I use it for the same reason I use a mac. I want my machine to just work. No thunderbolt problems, no driver issues, no random reboots. Should I get the Pixel 2. Yes, but it doesnt have an SD Card Slot, and I get the same hardware in the xz1 in a more compact shape and it just works. Just like my Mac Pro for he last 6 years and this Macbook pro now. Do I like Photos for my pictures? Yes. Do I like the icloud family sharing of 2TB storage for my entire family. Yes I do. Do I like apple music? Yes I do. I tried Groove, I still pay for Pandora (though I dont know why, I never use it). Microsoft tried music and failed. Google is trying it now, but they didnt have it when I needed it. I am on the Mac eco-system now. I don't care what anybody thinks. It just does what I need.
Comments
b) No, the MacBook is not built for professional creative users on the road. Having previously used a 15“ G4 (after a 12“ PowerBook), I really, really did not want to go back to lugging such a massive board around all day, but I knew that I had to upgrade to a quad, as the dual-Core just wasn’t cutting it for my needs any longer. So Apple built a Quad 15“ with the exact same weight, half the thickness and only slightly wider and deeper dimensions than my old 13“ MBP – as if they were listening and exactly following my priorities. I'm happy as a clam at high tide.
Stop assuming that your personally preferred set of compromises in a mobile computer is everybody else's.
I used to feel the same way as cgWerks. I've only come to understand the value of the light, compact form through experience. Until one spends some time with it, it's hard to appreciate how much nicer it is to work with than the older, bigger, heavier design. Even then, different people have different priorities. I would probably accept a bigger heavier computer myself if I thought it would provide appreciably better performance. I don't think it would, though. I don't think there's enough real-world improvement possible to make it worth the trade. The mileage of others may vary.
Despite being really happy with the new design, I do miss the 17" display. My work involves having several windows open at once, and the loss of a few centimetres of screen width means more previously visible material is now hidden behind overlapping windows, requiring a lot more switching between them than before. For me the thin-and-light didn't come free, I gave up a certain amount of productivity.
His opinion is tiresome after a decade of Apple making thinner and lighter laptops over desktop workstation replacements. Apple isnt going to make another 17" behemoth so at this point it's just whining for the sake of whining.
if he hasn't spent time working with the current MBP then his opinion has zero value and why should we not ridicule it?
And finally if he doesn't f-ing travel as a professional user he should have bought an iMac and again his opinion has zero value because he's not a target user for the MBP.
Every computer is a particular set of compromises and priorities.
If Apple wanted to build the most powerful portable computer, they'd build a 19" rackmounted machine in a flightcase. In fact, this is why rackmount kits for Mac Pros of all generations, with extra chassis for expansion, exist: For those users who ACTUALLY need "the most powerful portable computer possible".
Literally everybody else doesn't need/hasn't bought the "most powerful portable computer possible".
Pretending that using desktop RAM controllers or adding half an inch for whatever the particular "pro" missing the point happens to require for his particular myopic view of "professional usage" is what makes the difference is utterly ludicrous once you realise what a fundamentally compromised machine a laptop by its very concept actually is.
He knows that. It doesn't make it any less disappointing. Expressing one's preferences isn't necessarily whining, even if the chances of anything changing are slim.
I happen to think Apple struck a good balance with the current incarnation of the MacBook Pro, but it's not hard to be sympathetic to someone who finds the keyboard unpleasant and wishes the machine were a little thicker so there would be room for something better. It's not what *I* would want, but I don't begrudge anyone else their own preferences.
I might make the same argument without the insults, but that's just ANOTHER discussion of style versus substance! LOL!
I completely understand that everyone is going to have a unique set of priorities, wants, and wishes. However, I'd say that there are a few things common to a majority of pro users (again, not people making money from their work, but a class of machine with certain characteristics!). A good keyboard would be one of them. A few key ports is another, though maybe that will be solved with time. I personally don't need a SD slot, but a lot of pros do. Having at least 1 USB-A port, especially on the 15", until the USB-C mess gets sorted would have been smart. One could make a good argument for Ethernet for a segment of pros (I used to do a lot of work in server rooms), though I recognize that one is iffy. Better, cooling and quieter fans are important too... though that's never been a strong-point of the MBP line.
Thanks, though it's not so much about raw performance. A bit more GPU maybe, but with eGPU being a possibility, the performance is kind of what I'd expect. It's more about compromises with the keyboard, or the lack of ports (dongle-hell), or design choices like the huge trackpad. I'd trade a bit in size to have a few more ports, battery life, or a better keyboard. And, I'm not sure that the #1 priority of a professional laptop should be giving up pro features to with the smallest possible size. That should be fore the mid-range travel laptop.
Similar to the desktop line, it seems Apple has a very vacant middle. You've got incredibly small, light, and possibly underpowered. Then you've got high-end, expensive... and with the new MBP, possibly too limited in certain aspects. As Spheric noted, for a frequent traveler, they want as much power as possible in a small case, so the new MBP is perfect. But, is that the majority of pro users? Or, even if not, should Apple only target one of the two (or more) groups of 'pros'?
I'd think there are a heck of a lot of pros like me who want the power, might have more diversity in their mobile use than coffee-shop, and wouldn't mind a bit more size/weight to get back something more akin to the previous MBP line.
The problem is that I sometimes do. So, that means buying a desktop and laptop, or a MBP. But, if the MBP has been reduced to a great coffee-shop machine for entrepreneurs... not a pro-level machine for a more flexible use-case, I'm going to complain. I'm all for having a powerful coffee-shop machine too (though I wonder how many of that market segment really need the MBPs power), but it should be a separate line, not the MBP.
I've used both big displays and multiple displays. They aren't the same. Again, much of this depends on what you do. Some applications are better with multiple displays (CAD, 3D animation), while for general productivity, I find one display better.
And, while I haven't spent much time on one yet, as I said above, I've formed my opinion based on my observations PLUS the observations of a lot of people who do spend their whole days with them. I'm not alone in my criticisms.
I do travel some, but spend most of my time 'docked'. I'd rather have one machine. I did have an iMac and sold it, anticipating on moving to the new MBP... and now I'm hesitating. The iMac is a fine machine if you're OK having a primary dedicated single-use display. I'd rather pick my own display(s) with a separate computer if I'm going desktop. And, why am I not the target for the MBP? It seems you and Apple are making some big assumptions... and I can probably guess what they are.
I guess I'd say because it's a supposed to be a professional line computer, and the target market they seem to have aimed at largely doesn't need a professional computer. So, they've compromised the pro to target the semi-pro with no real pro model to fill the gap. The average coffee-shop goer entrepreneur doesn't need a MBP. They maybe need a bit more power than a MacBook... Apple just doesn't have that outside the Air which they haven't updated properly.
I'm arguing that they need more models here to adequately cover the range of use, instead of downgrading the pro to fit the semi-pro market. It's a matter of priorities. Do you build the best product each segment of users/use-case (within reason), or do you pick the largest user-segment and make a product to fit? (essentially saying, who-cares? to the rest of the users... the big-pie-slice wins.)
When Apple made the previous generations of 17" MBP, which mode were they in? Those couldn't have been targeted at the biggest pie-slice. They did it (presumably) because they recognized there were a segment of pros that needed that kind of machine. See the difference?
Yes, we can go into extreme land. I'm noting what I see as being a move from having a reasonable product line that covered several bases and user-needs, to one that just picks the biggest pie-slice and compromises for the rest (i.e.: money over UX).
Yes, and more to the point, I'm questioning this new method Apple seems to be using to optimize their profit/product-lines at the expense of user-needs, especially on the professional end.
Will they make more money this way? Sure, at least in the short term. But, the 'old' Apple often spent time and effort developing their image, market segments, and catering to use-cases that didn't return top-dollar. Look at the money they put into the education markets, or the efforts into impaired use. Those aren't money makers... at least short-term.
Given that scenario, it doesn't make sense (to me, anyway) for Apple to expand the line. Low volume, low profit exercises designed simply to create buzz aren't worth the effort or cost in a dying (or at least shrinking) market segment.
I don't see it that way. I don't think Apple is making decisions contrary to user needs. It's a question of personal preferences.
Some people think the keyboard sucks. Others think it's great. Still others think the old style was better but the new style is an acceptable compromise to get a slimmer, lighter computer. Was Apple's choice "wrong" or are there just a variety of stated "needs" in the wild and Apple has to pick which ones they're going to serve?
Same with ports. You and I have completely opposite views on that one, but we're both "pros" using our computers to earn our living. Neither of us is "wrong." Which of us should Apple accommodate?
I don't think Apple has lost sight of what Pro users want and need, I just think the most common use cases may now be different than what we're used to.
17" isn't a "big display" regardless of your workflow. If you need a big display at your mobile site then ship it in a pelican case and if you're going to do that you can ship an iMac.
If you had a 17" and now have a 15" then having an iPad as a secondary display gives you more usable screen real estate overall.
If you spend most of your time docked and you need 64GB RAM and a desktop level GPU you aren't the target for a MBP because it's a laptop and not a desktop replacement.
Dell and HP make desktop replacement laptops and Windows 10 is perfectly fine as an OS. Besides, if you sold your iMac to buy a MBP and haven't bought one yet then having a Mac isn't all that important for you anyway.
I also happen to be a professional musician who's played some 150 gigs in the last three years and runs a production studio using "great coffee-shop machines for entrepreneurs..."
I cant help feeling that whatever point you may have is being undermined by the hyperbole and the fact that you’re being a bit of an ass in making it.
As for ports: I haven’t used an Ethernet port in years (except hooking up my Time Capsule to the router), and while I use USB-A ports all the time, the adapter uses way less space than the power supply I always have along in the same bag. In the studio, I use a Thunderbolt Dock attached that runs my external hard drives, FireWire interface, external monitor, keyboard, and various USB devices, and have for years.
I now have four ports that can be any and all of those things if I need them, and can take power, to boot (and supply copious amounts of bus power for external devices, including fast-charging my mobile devices). No net disadvantage that I can see.
re: decision and keyboard - Well, on the whole I see Apple making decisions that will place the product line for the big pie slice, not excellence. That might be 'smart business' but I disagree. That's what every other tech company does, and not how Apple got where it now is. As for the keyboard, if it's unreliable then it doesn't belong on a pro product (let alone an entry-level Apple product!). Whether it's good to type on, yes, I suppose is a bit subjective.
re: ports - The problem is that USB-C isn't very mature yet. So, the 'pro' computer ends up being a mess of dongles and docks for anyone but the coffee-shop user. The photographer needs dongles. The traveler who doesn't want to our can't use WiFi needs dongles. The 3D artist who just wants to run their 'security keyed' app needs dongles. The person who wants to use a thumb-drive needs dongles. It's workable, but a bit silly when Apple could have just included a USB-A.
re: use case changes - Is the pro user really doing things that much differently than 5 years ago? I doubt it. Apple wanted to make it smaller and lighter (yes, probably a want of everyone) and wanted to get rid of ports and push USB-C... and that, IMO, is what drove the design.
Certain pro level users quite well, others, not so well. The question is, why move from the MBP of a couple generations back to the current one if it isn't aimed at coffee-shop entrepreneurs? A good segment of pros are going to take the ports, possibly more performance, and a better keyboard over a slightly smaller package w/ dongles. It's the user who travels extensively, sits at coffee shops, or doesn't really need/use the ports that much who is targeted by the new MBP. It would be interesting to know what percentage of MBP owners fall into that category. My hunch is that more are like me... designers, programmers, etc. who dock the machine at the office and also use it on the go. I could be wrong.
re: 17" - I don't really want one. I was just saying there are people who do and that multiple screens aren't equal to one big one. I'd also go the MBP + iPad route for more space when mobile.
And, I don't need 64GB, or even 32GB (right now) but some do. I think Apple's trade-off there was quite reasonable actually. I'm even fine w/o the ports most of the time, as I'd have that dock at my desk (though the quality of ports might be an issue). It's the keyboard that's the big one for me, along with concerns about cooling and possibly battery life (which maybe is fixed with the 2017?).
Windows 10 and a Dell really aren't replacements, or I'd already have moved over. But, if Apple continues on this trend, I'll eventually have no choice. But, here's the thing... once I go, I'll probably leave the *whole* Apple eco-system behind. Our family alone has bought several computer, several iPads, several phones, service subscriptions, music, movies, books, etc. What happens to Apple's image when all the creatives and 'think different' people move on?
I guess the one thing I didn't hear pros screaming... is that they just *had* to have a laptop that was 2/3 to 1/2 the size, and they'd be willing to give up nearly everything to get there. This was something Apple wanted, not the pro users. (Though some will thankfully take it, if the tradeoffs weren't too much for them.)
I didn't say it can't be made to work. With enough docks and dongles, yes the new machines can do as much or more than the previous models. But, with the previous models, someone could hand you a USB thumb-drive and you didn't need a dongle. Or, you could go into a server room where you had to plug into a hub and not need a dongle. Or, you could pull out the SD card from your SLR and not need a dongle.
Or, some of that space could have been used to improve cooling (thus reducing fan noise!) which is a wish of many pros.
My argument isn't that it can't be made to work. It's whether the tradeoff is justified AS THE ONLY CHOICE. Apple made the decision for everyone that all that counts is smallness. And, IMO, made compromises to pretty critical components (like the keyboard).
I've kept MBPs for many years. I don't really want one I won't be able to type on w/o repairs in a year or two.