Some of the complaints I’m seeing from people like Marco Arment are ridiculous and disingenuous. Complain about pricing, fine. But expecting Apple to basically revert back to the 2015/2012 design? Marco knows damn good and well Apple isn’t going to abandon a new design only a couple years after introducing it and certainly isn’t going to re-introduce ports that were removed. Also there is no evidence the keyboard issue was because of the butterfly design (John Gruber claims he heard it was due to a specific metal parts supplier issue) so people complaining about that are being disingenuous too. Especially considering most of them hated it to begin with. IMO the only valid complaints would be pricing and the non-TB model not being updated.
I think Marco is just hating for the sake of it. I know he says he criticizes because he loves Apple and I believe that, but he also is being unreasonably obtuse about this issue.
1. Apple says it’s a tiny fraction of their customer base, and they are the ones with the data. 2. The data collected by AI shows a normalization back to KB failure rates consistent with the 2015 model.
I dont understand all these Apple pundits suddenly willing to accept anecdotes over data when they normally are against such illogical thinking.
One side of this that nobody seems to have noticed. For the first time in a number of years the new Macs are out in time for Back To School shopping. For once you can get a new Mac for school and actually get a NEW Mac for school.
Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it...........
The market demanded it, Apple listened.
Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year. DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.
Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out.
You're right - engineering is always a compromise.
Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
The only reason it was a comprise was due to the fact Apple lowered the battery over 20% in the pursuit of thinness. How about go slightly thicker and not comprise on a working machine?
Sigh.
have you listen everything that I said?
But then, if you just wanna blaming on thiness for blaming on thiness, go ahead.
IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues. If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had. I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life. My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially. Before that, I never got more than four hours.
But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years. Apple was supposed to be better than this.
You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?
I'm running a mid 2012 MBP 15 with 8 GB RAM a 500 GB SSD, 2.6 Ghz i7.
I should consider myself a power user of sorts since I routinely have PS, IL, ID, AI all running at the same time along with both Chrome and Safari as well as a few other minimal applications, and quite honestly it works very well. My MBP is not my main machine. That would be my iMac 5K, but for a month at a time on the road the MBP works just as well as when brand new. I have absolutely no motivation to upgrade unless it is no longer supported or dies which I don't expect anytime soon . Macs just last a long time.
Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it...........
The market demanded it, Apple listened.
Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year. DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.
Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out.
You're right - engineering is always a compromise.
Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
The only reason it was a comprise was due to the fact Apple lowered the battery over 20% in the pursuit of thinness. How about go slightly thicker and not comprise on a working machine?
Sigh.
have you listen everything that I said?
But then, if you just wanna blaming on thiness for blaming on thiness, go ahead.
IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues. If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had. I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life. My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially. Before that, I never got more than four hours.
But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years. Apple was supposed to be better than this.
You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?
Congratulations on it being perfect for you but that doesn't mean it's perfect for everyone and Apple could just as easily stop prioritizing those aspects in favour of others or offer a solution to both groups.
Whatever they do, your conclusion is condescending. Speed and performance are entirely relative. Yesterday, Apple's fastest laptop option was 'X'. Today it is 'Y' and up to 70% faster. Yesterday they were were selling three year old hardware that didn't have the fastest performance. Clearly there is a proportion of Apple users who are willing to sacrifice speed and performance.
Complete fabrication. Speed and reliability are real, quantitative, measurable things. Integrated components of the sort Apple went with are better in both. Sorry that offends you.
melgross said: [...] Maybe 5% of people “need” 32GB RAM. Another 15%, or so “think” they need it, and the rest don’t.
I was in another camp. I thought 16GB would be fine. For most of what I do, I was right. Unfortunately, for the most important thing I do, the thing that was the reason for buying the machine in the first place, the thing that pays the bills, I was wrong. Since I linked my sound effects library to Pro Tools it stops every few minutes to complain that I don't have enough RAM. It's really annoying and counter-productive.
I'm thrilled to now have the option to increase RAM capacity!
Continuation of whining and bitching in ...3 ...2 ...1
From the people who said Apple using DDR4 RAM in an MBP was unrealistic and was never going to happen?
I don't recall anyone saying that -- but I do recall people explaining why the 16GB limit was there, and it was due to the low-power RAM being selected. Now they're selecting non-LP... What the reasoning is, I don't know -- maybe they improved power efficiency elsewhere to recoup the battery affects, or maybe they just tossed their hands in the air.
Which is exactly what the "whiners" were asking for, so not unrealistic at all, and it very much has happened. Certain parts of the "defend Apple at all costs" crowd aren't saying much about their previous insistence that "whiners" didn't know what they were talking about.
Yes, some people did say that.
Nobody ever said it “would never!” happen as you claim. Happy to read a link that shows otherwise. People did explain why the 16gb limit existed for LPDDR on that chipset.
Have fun with your strawman. Thwack thwack!! Take that, strawman!
I wonder what the difference between the Radeon 560X and previous generation 560 is?
We don't know either, we're trying to find out.
If this can be believed, it’s just a slightly faster clock speed.
We're hoping its more than that. A whole 73Mhz faster will amount to precisely diddly squat. We're expecting machines in on Saturday or Monday, and we'll let you know.
Continuation of whining and bitching in ...3 ...2 ...1
From the people who said Apple using DDR4 RAM in an MBP was unrealistic and was never going to happen?
I don't recall anyone saying that -- but I do recall people explaining why the 16GB limit was there, and it was due to the low-power RAM being selected. Now they're selecting non-LP... What the reasoning is, I don't know -- maybe they improved power efficiency elsewhere to recoup the battery affects, or maybe they just tossed their hands in the air.
Which is exactly what the "whiners" were asking for, so not unrealistic at all, and it very much has happened. Certain parts of the "defend Apple at all costs" crowd aren't saying much about their previous insistence that "whiners" didn't know what they were talking about.
Yes, some people did say that.
Nobody ever said it “would never!” happen as you claim. Happy to read a link that shows otherwise. People did explain why the 16gb limit existed for LPDDR on that chipset.
Have fun with your strawman. Thwack thwack!! Take that, strawman!
Reasonable people said that would definitely happen when Intel finally released category chips that supported LPDDR4 RAM and there was no precedence for this move. There was even a lot of whining about Dell (and others) offer non-LP RAM and wondering why Apple couldn't do it as fi there was engineering reason that made it impossible for them to figure out, to which reasonable people said Apple could easily do it if they wanted to.
This claim that Apple would never move to 32 GiB RAM for a notebook is as ridiculous as those that keep saying Apple doesn't care about the Mac and that they'd be killing the Mac line soon.
I personally wonder if Apple will still offer 16 GiB then or just move to 32 GiB of soldered RAM in 2019, like it did with only having a 16 GiB option with the 2015 model.
I wonder what the difference between the Radeon 560X and previous generation 560 is?
We don't know either, we're trying to find out.
If this can be believed, it’s just a slightly faster clock speed.
We're hoping its more than that. A whole 73Mhz faster will amount to precisely diddly squat. We're expecting machines in on Saturday or Monday, and we'll let you know.
Do you know exactly what the T2 chip does over the T1, besides offers "Hey Siri"?
This new machine is everything I wished for! More RAM! More cores! More storage! T2! New keyboard! Yay!
Now the problem is realizing that my wish list costs more than the income it will earn justifies paying. Apparently my imagination doesn't understand that stuff costs money.
Still, it's mostly good news. It's nice to see the cost of the RAM upgrade is within reason. Still more than OWC, but not so much more as to instil rage.
Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it...........
The market demanded it, Apple listened.
Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year. DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.
Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out.
You're right - engineering is always a compromise.
Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
The only reason it was a comprise was due to the fact Apple lowered the battery over 20% in the pursuit of thinness. How about go slightly thicker and not comprise on a working machine?
Sigh.
have you listen everything that I said?
But then, if you just wanna blaming on thiness for blaming on thiness, go ahead.
IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues. If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had. I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life. My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially. Before that, I never got more than four hours.
But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years. Apple was supposed to be better than this.
You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?
Congratulations on it being perfect for you but that doesn't mean it's perfect for everyone and Apple could just as easily stop prioritizing those aspects in favour of others or offer a solution to both groups.
Whatever they do, your conclusion is condescending. Speed and performance are entirely relative. Yesterday, Apple's fastest laptop option was 'X'. Today it is 'Y' and up to 70% faster. Yesterday they were were selling three year old hardware that didn't have the fastest performance. Clearly there is a proportion of Apple users who are willing to sacrifice speed and performance.
Complete fabrication. Speed and reliability are real, quantitative, measurable things. Integrated components of the sort Apple went with are better in both. Sorry that offends you.
Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it...........
The market demanded it, Apple listened.
Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year. DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.
Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out.
You're right - engineering is always a compromise.
Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?
The only reason it was a comprise was due to the fact Apple lowered the battery over 20% in the pursuit of thinness. How about go slightly thicker and not comprise on a working machine?
Sigh.
have you listen everything that I said?
But then, if you just wanna blaming on thiness for blaming on thiness, go ahead.
IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues. If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had. I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life. My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially. Before that, I never got more than four hours.
But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years. Apple was supposed to be better than this.
You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?
Congratulations on it being perfect for you but that doesn't mean it's perfect for everyone and Apple could just as easily stop prioritizing those aspects in favour of others or offer a solution to both groups.
Whatever they do, your conclusion is condescending. Speed and performance are entirely relative. Yesterday, Apple's fastest laptop option was 'X'. Today it is 'Y' and up to 70% faster. Yesterday they were were selling three year old hardware that didn't have the fastest performance. Clearly there is a proportion of Apple users who are willing to sacrifice speed and performance.
Complete fabrication. Speed and reliability are real, quantitative, measurable things. Integrated components of the sort Apple went with are better in both. Sorry that offends you.
Link?
You need a link to know that integrated components are more reliable than socketed? Do you also need evidence that an integrated circuit is more reliable and power effiicient than a series of pluggable vacuum tubes?
This new machine is everything I wished for! More RAM! More cores! More storage! T2! New keyboard! Yay!
Now the problem is realizing that my wish list costs more than the income it will earn justifies paying. Apparently my imagination doesn't understand that stuff costs money.
Still, it's mostly good news. It's nice to see the cost of the RAM upgrade is within reason. Still more than OWC, but not so much more as to instil rage.
Obviously the solution is to drastically increase income... problem solved!
This new machine is everything I wished for! More RAM! More cores! More storage! T2! New keyboard! Yay!
Now the problem is realizing that my wish list costs more than the income it will earn justifies paying. Apparently my imagination doesn't understand that stuff costs money.
Still, it's mostly good news. It's nice to see the cost of the RAM upgrade is within reason. Still more than OWC, but not so much more as to instil rage.
Obviously the solution is to drastically increase income... problem solved!
"You know, it occurs to me you could solve all your problems by obtaining more money."
Some of the complaints I’m seeing from people like Marco Arment are ridiculous and disingenuous. Complain about pricing, fine. But expecting Apple to basically revert back to the 2015/2012 design? Marco knows damn good and well Apple isn’t going to abandon a new design only a couple years after introducing it and certainly isn’t going to re-introduce ports that were removed. Also there is no evidence the keyboard issue was because of the butterfly design (John Gruber claims he heard it was due to a specific metal parts supplier issue) so people complaining about that are being disingenuous too. Especially considering most of them hated it to begin with. IMO the only valid complaints would be pricing and the non-TB model not being updated.
I think Marco is just hating for the sake of it. I know he says he criticizes because he loves Apple and I believe that, but he also is being unreasonably obtuse about this issue.
1. Apple says it’s a tiny fraction of their customer base, and they are the ones with the data. 2. The data collected by AI shows a normalization back to KB failure rates consistent with the 2015 model.
I dont understand all these Apple pundits suddenly willing to accept anecdotes over data when they normally are against such illogical thinking.
Marco hated the keyboard even before these issues surfaced. He thinks Apple is obsessed with thinness over all else (even though there are Windows laptops as thin or thinner than the MBP). Marco also makes assumptions without having facts to back it up. In this case he’s assuming the keyboard issues are due to the laptops being too thin. He has no hard data to back up that assumption. As far as the other complaints I think it’s disingenuous to feign outrage over things you know Apple was never going to do (like go back to the 2015 design).
Comments
1. Apple says it’s a tiny fraction of their customer base, and they are the ones with the data.
2. The data collected by AI shows a normalization back to KB failure rates consistent with the 2015 model.
I dont understand all these Apple pundits suddenly willing to accept anecdotes over data when they normally are against such illogical thinking.
“are completely ignoring” would be more accurate.
I should consider myself a power user of sorts since I routinely have PS, IL, ID, AI all running at the same time along with both Chrome and Safari as well as a few other minimal applications, and quite honestly it works very well. My MBP is not my main machine. That would be my iMac 5K, but for a month at a time on the road the MBP works just as well as when brand new. I have absolutely no motivation to upgrade unless it is no longer supported or dies which I don't expect anytime soon . Macs just last a long time.
I'm thrilled to now have the option to increase RAM capacity!
Nobody ever said it “would never!” happen as you claim. Happy to read a link that shows otherwise. People did explain why the 16gb limit existed for LPDDR on that chipset.
Have fun with your strawman. Thwack thwack!! Take that, strawman!
This claim that Apple would never move to 32 GiB RAM for a notebook is as ridiculous as those that keep saying Apple doesn't care about the Mac and that they'd be killing the Mac line soon.
I personally wonder if Apple will still offer 16 GiB then or just move to 32 GiB of soldered RAM in 2019, like it did with only having a 16 GiB option with the 2015 model.
Now the problem is realizing that my wish list costs more than the income it will earn justifies paying. Apparently my imagination doesn't understand that stuff costs money.
Still, it's mostly good news. It's nice to see the cost of the RAM upgrade is within reason. Still more than OWC, but not so much more as to instil rage.