Furthermore while many longtime observers remember the unveilings of iPhone models at the WWDC in 2007, 2008 and 2010, and a wide variety of products including the HomePod, new MacBooks, and a new iPad Pro at the 2017 WWDC, those were aberrations. Apple made no hardware announcements at WWDC in 2014, 2015 or 2016.
So, did Apple have hardware releases the majority or minority of WWDCs? Which is really the aberration?
"... And so, the big secret about Apple, of course -- a not so big secret, maybe -- is that Apple views itself as a a software company."
I'm not opposed to Apple's focus being on software... if that were the case, anymore. But, I don't think that's quite what Steve was ultimately getting at. Microsoft is also a software (almost exclusively) company. It's about the integration of the two and the end user-experience... which requires hardware. Also, it isn't just any ol' software we're talking about here, either. It's game-changing software with a focus on UI excellence. If I'd seen much of that filling the 2+ hours, then I'd be cheering more (even w/o the hardware).
"The problem is, in hardware you can't build a computer that's twice as good as anyone else's anymore. Too many people know how to do it," said Jobs. "You're lucky if you can do one that's one and a third times better or one and a half times better. And then it's only six months before everybody else catches up. But you can do it in software. As a matter of fact, I think that the leap that we've made is at least five years ahead of anybody."
This might sound familiar, given that there is a minute gap between the last generation of Intel processors and the current.
This was said back when Apple's hardware was as good if not better. What we're complaining about now, is that it's Apple who is playing catchup... and not just six-months behind, but much more in some cases. And, they aren't five years ahead in software either, anymore.
Also, a computer is about more than how much gain in CPU core performance you can get. My old entry level iMac was 4-core, they are now 2-core. Same with other Mac models. Intel's new chips are 4-core and even 6-core in the same thermal range. That would be a a very welcome performance improvement! And, that isn't even getting into ports, GPUs, etc.
nht said: Because maybe its in the fucking name? Hardware has their own special events. This is like complaining that the Education Event is all about education...
Sometimes they release hardware at WWDC just like sometimes they release new edu hardware like the iPad at the spring edu special event.
Maybe I'm missing something here... where do you see an 'S' in WWDC?
GeorgeBMac said: That's pretty much because he was! It was between Steve and the product. The audience could have been 1 or a million. It was almost irrelevant.
Because: Steve wasn't putting on a show. He wasn't trying to be entertaining or interesting.
He was showing off his shiny new product that he was immensely proud of. He wanted people to see it and admire it. His so called showmanship derived from his very genuine and justified pride in the product he was showing off...
It wasn't some Barnum & Bailey showmanship. It wasn't even about Steve. It was about the product.
Well said, which brings me to the problem. The recent event was more like watching a show where people trot out on stage and try to make a number of rather boring things look interesting.
bubblefree said: So the question could be were the people who talked about hardware and WWDC concerned specifically about hardware being at WWDC or simply that Apple hasn't introduced anything for the last 6 months and that WWDC was the perfect venue given this......?
I don't even care much about frequency. If the products need no updating, I'll be the first to jump in and say, don't touch 'em. There is too much updating for the sake of updating going on in both hardware and software sometimes. But, it isn't the case that several of Apple's hardware line are even close to as good as they could be. That's the problem.
GeorgeBMac said: Apple doesn't roll out new 'stuff' just to roll out new 'stuff' like other, lesser companies do. Their focus is on the customer and, unless they can make a meaningful improvement in the way things are, they just leave it alone.
But, there are some really meaningful updates they could make. A whole generation of ports on some models. Move to SSD in others. CPUs with more cores in the same thermal range. Newer GPUs. If their stuff were up to date, I'd be screaming not to update it, as they generally haven't had a great track record of that either, recently. This is absolutely NOT about updates just to hit some timeline!
nht said: Because maybe its in the fucking name? Hardware has their own special events. This is like complaining that the Education Event is all about education...
Sometimes they release hardware at WWDC just like sometimes they release new edu hardware like the iPad at the spring edu special event.
Maybe I'm missing something here... where do you see an 'S' in WWDC?
D for Developers in the Apple Developer Program. Also for Dumbass for jokers like you.
nht said: D for Developers in the Apple Developer Program. Also for Dumbass for jokers like you.
I've seldom seen a developer with no hardware, or making software products that don't run on hardware. It's a conference focused on developers and the whole ecosystem that entails. But, that's besides the point... as the keynote for WWDC is clearly not aimed just at developers.
nht said: D for Developers in the Apple Developer Program. Also for Dumbass for jokers like you.
I've seldom seen a developer with no hardware, or making software products that don't run on hardware. It's a conference focused on developers and the whole ecosystem that entails. But, that's besides the point... as the keynote for WWDC is clearly not aimed just at developers.
Sometimes hardware is part of the mix but it's not the focus for WWDC. The keynote highlights the software improvements that may be user facing that developers should be aware of and potentially leverage. Or go "Oh shit...they just made my app obsolete".
You are doubling down on a stupid "question" about why WWDC is about developers. Because it's in the fucking name.
3rd party hardware folks have a different program: MiFi. Instead of software you get hardware dev and test tools. Instead of software betas you get MFi components. Instead of OS APIs you get tech specs.
Software also has no value in a world without oxygen in it. Oxygen is something developers are pretty interested in. Should Apple have released new oxygen at WWDC? Done a segment about oxygen?
Or is it simply understood that hardware, like oxygen, is in the pipe.
I'm not sure when you're going to get the point that the 95% of Apple customers that buy a Mac are fine, buying Apple based on the name, and literally don't care about processor generation.
I get that you have needs and wants from Apple. Everybody at AI does in one form or another. I want another cheese grater. However, I'm also aware that Apple's market is way, way bigger than AI forum-goers, or staffers, and I think that's where the breakdown is.
They could lose all of us, 100% of the entire AI reader base, and it wouldn't even be noticeable in the financials as a rounding error.
Mike Wuerthele said: I'm not sure when you're going to get the point that the 95% of Apple customers that buy a Mac are fine, buying Apple based on the name, and literally don't care about processor generation.
So, if Apple just stays with the A10 in their iPhones for a few years, the average phone buyer might not notice either (aside from the media screaming that Apple is behind... on a product that supposedly matters, I guess). Would that excuse Apple for not updating the iPhone, though? Would the excuse 'the average consumer doesn't notice' still fly?
Computers haven't needed much in terms of CPU updates for a decade now - for the 'mass market' - but most manufactures update them anyway. Apple used to.
And, as I've said over and over in these forums, CPU isn't the only factor. (And I know you know that... so I'm not sure why you keep narrowing things to CPUs and Intel when it's totally reasonable to expect Apple to update regardless, even if the CPU didn't speed-up at all.) Ports matter to people, GPUs matter to people, SSD vs HD matter to people... 2 core vs 4 core matters to people (even if some aren't aware that it does).
Mike Wuerthele said: They could lose all of us, 100% of the entire AI reader base, and it wouldn't even be noticeable in the financials as a rounding error.
I think really this is the crux of my disagreement with the position you and others are defending vs what myself and still others are calling for, here. I think it would actually matter in non-spreadsheet ways over a bit longer term. It's hard to guess exactly would it would mean for Apple to lose creatives, Mac users, the old-guard 'evangelists', etc. But, I don't think it would have zero impact, or even as low of an impact as just the percentage of users not buying stuff would be.
Tim talks a big game of Apple thinking long-term, but I'm not seeing it in a number of areas. Apple used to *really* care about things that impacted the future... education being a great example. Throwing a show and saying you care isn't the same as actually doing concrete things that advance that objective.
So, yes, I fundamentally disagree that the system is so simplistic that we can just talk about a percentage of users as bottom-line numbers. A 'Mike Wuerthele' leaving the platform might not have the same impact as a 'customer X' leaving, who didn't like their favorite phone color or emoji being left out. If developers like Rogue Amoeba are getting concerned, maybe it isn't just we forum tech geeks who don't get out enough?
I'm not sure when you're going to get the point that the 95% of Apple customers that buy a Mac are fine, buying Apple based on the name, and literally don't care about processor generation.
I get that you have needs and wants from Apple. Everybody at AI does in one form or another. I want another cheese grater. However, I'm also aware that Apple's market is way, way bigger than AI forum-goers, or staffers, and I think that's where the breakdown is.
They could lose all of us, 100% of the entire AI reader base, and it wouldn't even be noticeable in the financials as a rounding error.
Wow, Mike. I have no beef with you, but you seem to take this all very personally. I have simply shown that others independent of AI or anyone else have serious concerns about the lack of Mac updates in over 12 months. 12 months! When was the last time that Apple didn't create any significant Mac updates for 12 months! Rather than take this for what it is you seem intent on regurgitating the same party line...... that it really doesn't matter if Apple aren't updating their hardware. No one will notice. Well they did and it wasn't me but others who have nothing to do with AI but who do have a genuine interest and concern in ensuring the Mac remains competitive.
As to your point about the market being bigger than AI or Macrumors, of course it is. However lets not forget that when Apple brought out the 4th Gen MacBook Pro's and there was a groundswell of public comment, this primarily came from these Apple centric sites. This is what they noticed and why they later commented that they had heard the community and would change. Well we are still waiting.
I agree with CG. If your assertion that 95% of customers don't care about the processor generation why do Apple bother making it a point to have labelled their processors sequentially so that its easy to understand what generation is in your iPhone and why you need to buy a new one? Or why for that matter did they ever bother moving to Intel when Motorola PowerPC's could have lasted another 10 years with lower performance? I am sorry but that's nonsense. Apple sells itself as a premium brand which means premium performance. The very fact that they have not updated their laptop line in over a year now shows that their comments about taking the Pro sector seriously is not backed up by actions.
I end with this from the Verge article which sums the whole thing up "I’m sure the message we’re supposed to take away from the new ad campaign is that Apple is committed to the Mac platform, despite evidence to the contrary. Great. But instead of new ads, wouldn’t it be better if Apple released some new Macs instead?"
Not taking it personally. I just like a good discussion
There's also another fine distinction to make. The editorial is specifically talking about releases at WWDC. I have spoken about the Mac mini's age at some length in another piece.
bubblefree said: ... The very fact that they have not updated their laptop line in over a year now shows that their comments about taking the Pro sector seriously is not backed up by actions.
I end with this from the Verge article which sums the whole thing up "I’m sure the message we’re supposed to take away from the new ad campaign is that Apple is committed to the Mac platform, despite evidence to the contrary. Great. But instead of new ads, wouldn’t it be better if Apple released some new Macs instead?"
I think the response (not necessarily from Mike, though maybe) is that Apple is justified in not taking the Mac as seriously, due to their lower sales percentage in comparison to other products... or that given the percentage of sales, Apple is taking them appropriately serious enough.
That's where I disagree. It might be slightly true for a solo business person or very small business, but even then if you have a diversification of products, most business people would realize the importance of serving their whole range of customers. But, at Apple's scale, doing something like this is just bad business management. The Mac should be treated like a division of it's own and given the resources of a business (on it's own) that most companies would be envious to have... but most importantly... the customers of this division should be treated with equal importance, possibly more so, given the importance of their impact on the whole.
re: quote - yeah, this zdnet author expresses it well too:
"Yet Cupertino suddenly decided, for warped commercial reasons, to tell you that the iPad is now a computer. Which made Microsoft laugh a lot, while you wondered what the Mac was now.
...
"Make something wonderful," is Apple's tagline.
Yes, Apple. Why don't you? Why don't you make a new, wonderful Mac?
Oh, it was just an idea."
Apple enthusiasts/evangelists (who aren't fanboys) have always been critical of Apple when they felt Apple did something wrong. But, I've never seen this kind of reaction where a huge number of 'insiders' are quite upset with Apple. The 'trolls' were previously, people from the outside who just didn't get Apple. That isn't the case now.
Intel introduced 8th gen chips in August of last year and updated them in April of this year. The performance gains are much more than the 6th to 7th gen transitions given the core increases, especially in the mobile chips. If this isn't the definition of "enough improved" when Apple considers itself the premium brand then I don't know what is!
Apple needs to upgrade the graphics chips too, there's no point in upgrading just the CPU. Intel's 6-core mobile chip is a good upgrade, this brings the Macbook Pro up to Mac Pro performance, pretty much the same as a 2013 8-core Mac Pro:
That says no desktop graphics upgrades from AMD this year so not much interesting for the iMac line and the Mac Pro update is next year. There doesn't seem to be an 8th-gen Core-M chip for the Macbook yet (maybe this one https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Cannon-Lake-Y-M3-8114Y-dual-core-10-nm-CPU-gets-leaked-specs.303668.0.html ). The following says there will be an AMD desktop GPU refresh to RX 500X so that could go in an iMac update but not much performance difference:
The wait for the MBP seems to be for mobile Vega coming this year. The above site says it's to provide VR-capable notebooks. This would mean around 4TFLOPs. The current 560 is 1.8TFLOPs. I expect them to target roughly 70GFLOPs/Watt this year so the GPU targeting the MBP's power profile would be just over 3TFLOPs. This comes with 4GB HBM2 memory.
Every year Apple gets complaints for not upgrading Macs but they don't make the components like they do for iOS devices. Apple has complete control over iOS device hardware. For Macs, they have no choice but to wait for both Intel and AMD to provide updated hardware.
- Macbook upgrade after Intel releases an 8th-gen ultraportable chip - MBP upgrade after AMD releases mobile Vega - iMac upgrade possibly after RX 500X release - iMac Pro upgrade late 2018 possible with Vega 20 - Mac Pro upgrade 2019 - Mac Mini will be upgraded if they feel like upgrading it
Comments
I'm not opposed to Apple's focus being on software... if that were the case, anymore. But, I don't think that's quite what Steve was ultimately getting at. Microsoft is also a software (almost exclusively) company. It's about the integration of the two and the end user-experience... which requires hardware. Also, it isn't just any ol' software we're talking about here, either. It's game-changing software with a focus on UI excellence. If I'd seen much of that filling the 2+ hours, then I'd be cheering more (even w/o the hardware).
This was said back when Apple's hardware was as good if not better. What we're complaining about now, is that it's Apple who is playing catchup... and not just six-months behind, but much more in some cases. And, they aren't five years ahead in software either, anymore.
Also, a computer is about more than how much gain in CPU core performance you can get. My old entry level iMac was 4-core, they are now 2-core. Same with other Mac models. Intel's new chips are 4-core and even 6-core in the same thermal range. That would be a a very welcome performance improvement! And, that isn't even getting into ports, GPUs, etc.
Maybe I'm missing something here... where do you see an 'S' in WWDC?
Well said, which brings me to the problem.
The recent event was more like watching a show where people trot out on stage and try to make a number of rather boring things look interesting.
I don't even care much about frequency. If the products need no updating, I'll be the first to jump in and say, don't touch 'em. There is too much updating for the sake of updating going on in both hardware and software sometimes. But, it isn't the case that several of Apple's hardware line are even close to as good as they could be. That's the problem.
But, there are some really meaningful updates they could make. A whole generation of ports on some models. Move to SSD in others. CPUs with more cores in the same thermal range. Newer GPUs. If their stuff were up to date, I'd be screaming not to update it, as they generally haven't had a great track record of that either, recently. This is absolutely NOT about updates just to hit some timeline!
It's a conference focused on developers and the whole ecosystem that entails.
But, that's besides the point... as the keynote for WWDC is clearly not aimed just at developers.
You are doubling down on a stupid "question" about why WWDC is about developers. Because it's in the fucking name.
3rd party hardware folks have a different program: MiFi. Instead of software you get hardware dev and test tools. Instead of software betas you get MFi components. Instead of OS APIs you get tech specs.
Strangedays put it best regarding your "point"
https://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2018/06/14/on-the-sad-state-of-macintosh-hardware/
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/15/17467232/behind-the-mac-behind-the-competition
I agree wholeheartedly.....
Computers haven't needed much in terms of CPU updates for a decade now - for the 'mass market' - but most manufactures update them anyway. Apple used to.
And, as I've said over and over in these forums, CPU isn't the only factor. (And I know you know that... so I'm not sure why you keep narrowing things to CPUs and Intel when it's totally reasonable to expect Apple to update regardless, even if the CPU didn't speed-up at all.) Ports matter to people, GPUs matter to people, SSD vs HD matter to people... 2 core vs 4 core matters to people (even if some aren't aware that it does).
I think really this is the crux of my disagreement with the position you and others are defending vs what myself and still others are calling for, here. I think it would actually matter in non-spreadsheet ways over a bit longer term. It's hard to guess exactly would it would mean for Apple to lose creatives, Mac users, the old-guard 'evangelists', etc. But, I don't think it would have zero impact, or even as low of an impact as just the percentage of users not buying stuff would be.
Tim talks a big game of Apple thinking long-term, but I'm not seeing it in a number of areas. Apple used to *really* care about things that impacted the future... education being a great example. Throwing a show and saying you care isn't the same as actually doing concrete things that advance that objective.
So, yes, I fundamentally disagree that the system is so simplistic that we can just talk about a percentage of users as bottom-line numbers. A 'Mike Wuerthele' leaving the platform might not have the same impact as a 'customer X' leaving, who didn't like their favorite phone color or emoji being left out. If developers like Rogue Amoeba are getting concerned, maybe it isn't just we forum tech geeks who don't get out enough?
As to your point about the market being bigger than AI or Macrumors, of course it is. However lets not forget that when Apple brought out the 4th Gen MacBook Pro's and there was a groundswell of public comment, this primarily came from these Apple centric sites. This is what they noticed and why they later commented that they had heard the community and would change. Well we are still waiting.
I agree with CG. If your assertion that 95% of customers don't care about the processor generation why do Apple bother making it a point to have labelled their processors sequentially so that its easy to understand what generation is in your iPhone and why you need to buy a new one? Or why for that matter did they ever bother moving to Intel when Motorola PowerPC's could have lasted another 10 years with lower performance? I am sorry but that's nonsense. Apple sells itself as a premium brand which means premium performance. The very fact that they have not updated their laptop line in over a year now shows that their comments about taking the Pro sector seriously is not backed up by actions.
I end with this from the Verge article which sums the whole thing up "I’m sure the message we’re supposed to take away from the new ad campaign is that Apple is committed to the Mac platform, despite evidence to the contrary. Great. But instead of new ads, wouldn’t it be better if Apple released some new Macs instead?"
There's also another fine distinction to make. The editorial is specifically talking about releases at WWDC. I have spoken about the Mac mini's age at some length in another piece.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/11/apples-mac-mini-now-inexcusably-getting-trounced-by-cheap-intel-hardware
That's where I disagree. It might be slightly true for a solo business person or very small business, but even then if you have a diversification of products, most business people would realize the importance of serving their whole range of customers. But, at Apple's scale, doing something like this is just bad business management. The Mac should be treated like a division of it's own and given the resources of a business (on it's own) that most companies would be envious to have... but most importantly... the customers of this division should be treated with equal importance, possibly more so, given the importance of their impact on the whole.
re: quote - yeah, this zdnet author expresses it well too:
"Yet Cupertino suddenly decided, for warped commercial reasons, to tell you that the iPad is now a computer. Which made Microsoft laugh a lot, while you wondered what the Mac was now.
Apple enthusiasts/evangelists (who aren't fanboys) have always been critical of Apple when they felt Apple did something wrong. But, I've never seen this kind of reaction where a huge number of 'insiders' are quite upset with Apple. The 'trolls' were previously, people from the outside who just didn't get Apple. That isn't the case now.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1604-intel-core-i7-8750h/page2.html
What's missing is a mobile GPU:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12233/amd-tech-day-at-ces-2018-roadmap-revealed-with-ryzen-apus-zen-on-12nm-vega-on-7nm/9
That says no desktop graphics upgrades from AMD this year so not much interesting for the iMac line and the Mac Pro update is next year. There doesn't seem to be an 8th-gen Core-M chip for the Macbook yet (maybe this one https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Cannon-Lake-Y-M3-8114Y-dual-core-10-nm-CPU-gets-leaked-specs.303668.0.html ). The following says there will be an AMD desktop GPU refresh to RX 500X so that could go in an iMac update but not much performance difference:
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/61392/amd-rumored-release-radeon-rx-500x-series-q3-2018/index.html
Vega 20 could go in an iMac Pro refresh later in the year (~November/December):
http://www.game-debate.com/news/24997/32gb-hbm2-radeon-vega-20-7nm-gpu-spotted-in-3dmark-performance-benchmark
The wait for the MBP seems to be for mobile Vega coming this year. The above site says it's to provide VR-capable notebooks. This would mean around 4TFLOPs. The current 560 is 1.8TFLOPs. I expect them to target roughly 70GFLOPs/Watt this year so the GPU targeting the MBP's power profile would be just over 3TFLOPs. This comes with 4GB HBM2 memory.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-RX-Vega-Mobile-GPU.278686.0.html <- missing
Likely similar to the following:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-RX-Vega-M-GH-GPU.278680.0.html
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-RX-Vega-M-GL-GPU.278678.0.html
AMD is competing with NVidia's options and the following says NVidia's options will arrive in the second half of the year, as is Vega 20:
https://hothardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-11-mobile-gpus-second-half-2018-alleges-gigabyte
Every year Apple gets complaints for not upgrading Macs but they don't make the components like they do for iOS devices. Apple has complete control over iOS device hardware. For Macs, they have no choice but to wait for both Intel and AMD to provide updated hardware.
- Macbook upgrade after Intel releases an 8th-gen ultraportable chip
- MBP upgrade after AMD releases mobile Vega
- iMac upgrade possibly after RX 500X release
- iMac Pro upgrade late 2018 possible with Vega 20
- Mac Pro upgrade 2019
- Mac Mini will be upgraded if they feel like upgrading it