Not a developer I see. Why do so many people who have never been developers presume to know so much about those who are? (I am a former developer myself by the way.)
I said develop on, not testing. If they waited for the end of the lease to get a production ASi Mac, then can continue to code using Xcode on Intel Macs. Xcode still works on Intel Macs. Those Intel Macs are not obsolete to code on, especially not the Mac Pros. You are not going to have someone who needs a Mac Pro to fit their workflow in to the current line of ASi Macs. I love my ASi Mac Mini and don’t see why anyone in production would wait to get a real ASi Mac to test on. The fact remains, the Intel Macs are still useful for developing.
This "not a developer" argument is stupid:
The "developer" knew they had a one year lease (even people who watched the keynote knew this). We are in month 7 of 12: if the ARM app isn't done, then there's nothing stopping a tested deployment of just the intel-based version.
What kind of developer doesn't have a plan in place for when that year is up? If it's such a huge inconvenience then they need to plan around it, again it's only month 7 of 12.
Ordinary developers don't need the early access kit, the M1 systems have impressive translation features for intel-based apps. The majority of developers aren't writing code that is going to trigger issues with Rosetta translation.
These are the same people that felt it ok to spend $500 on a kit they didn't need, and knew they couldn't keep - but the size of an unexpected discount is a problem.
The optics on this are appalling: This isn't about Apple neglecting developers, this is about developers whom possess zero personal responsibility to an offer they requested, a contract they willingly signed and money that they did not need to spend. What dearly coddled morons.
I've fine with Apple cutting the lease short. They should compensate developers for the shortened lease. A $200 coupon sent AFTER the return of the unit is useless though. Devs need the coupon BEFORE they return the DTK to avoid down time. I'm not going to buy a replacement Mac today and then another one in a month so I can use the coupon. (Normally I buy a dev box every 5 years.)
I've fine with Apple cutting the lease short. They should compensate developers for the shortened lease. A $200 coupon sent AFTER the return of the unit is useless though. Devs need the coupon BEFORE they return the DTK to avoid down time. I'm not going to buy a replacement Mac today and then another one in a month so I can use the coupon. (Normally I buy a dev box every 5 years.)
Apple only ever gets money from you once every 5 years? If I were Apple I wouldn't give you a fucking dime back for your Mac mini lease.
I've fine with Apple cutting the lease short. They should compensate developers for the shortened lease. A $200 coupon sent AFTER the return of the unit is useless though. Devs need the coupon BEFORE they return the DTK to avoid down time. I'm not going to buy a replacement Mac today and then another one in a month so I can use the coupon. (Normally I buy a dev box every 5 years.)
Seriously, what downtime? You already have a machine you can work on and some developers didn’t like the DTK. If developers wanted to ensure they would work on ASi Macs they would of moved on from the DTK. A few people complained about the DTK so I’m not sure what the use of a full year of the DTK would be.
I've fine with Apple cutting the lease short. They should compensate developers for the shortened lease. A $200 coupon sent AFTER the return of the unit is useless though. Devs need the coupon BEFORE they return the DTK to avoid down time. I'm not going to buy a replacement Mac today and then another one in a month so I can use the coupon. (Normally I buy a dev box every 5 years.)
I agree it seem poorly thought through. Would’ve been better if the $200 could’ve been used as a credit for a new purchase or a rebate against one already made.
Apple just sent out a mea culpa "We heard you" email: Voucher now $500 and you can keep the device until the end of '21.
Someone messed up bigtime.
Lots of red faces for the Apple apologists here then.
No, not at all. It was Apple’s choice to change it. Good for them to do so. Contractually, Apple wasn’t required to allow keeping the device for a full year, providing any discount or providing any production hardware. Period.
The bottom line is that we really don’t know why Apple wants the leased development kits back. This could very well be a matter of licensing with a component supplier or the contingent approval of the specific units by a regulatory agency like the FCC. We really don’t know all of the details. The number of units involved and the financial impact on Apple is a drop in the bucket (even after Apple upped the rebate to $500). I cannot imagine Apple nickel and diming about this, especially with their dev community. Something else is at play here.
The number of units involved and the financial impact on Apple is a drop in the bucket (even after Apple upped the rebate to $500). I cannot imagine Apple nickel and diming about this, especially with their dev community. Something else is at play here.
Not sure I agree - all of Apple’s component units are pushed to make money, or at least not hemorrhage money. This appears to simply be a case of an Apple unit attempting to recoup the cost of the devices from developers - make no mistake, these won’t turn up on Apple Refurbished, they’ll be junked and/or the components/case salvaged. How many were distributed? Yes, a drop in the bucket compared to regular sale numbers but probably not insignificant - I’d guess over half a million.
Apple just sent out a mea culpa "We heard you" email: Voucher now $500 and you can keep the device until the end of '21.
Someone messed up bigtime.
Lots of red faces for the Apple apologists here then.
No, not at all. It was Apple’s choice to change it. Good for them to do so. Contractually, Apple wasn’t required to allow keeping the device for a full year, providing any discount or providing any production hardware. Period.
Yes, definitely. Of course it was Apple's choice, and them changing it will cause red faces here. Funny how few of the apologists have come back to rescind their defence. It is good of Apple to change it, but like many of the Apple faux-pas of late, it shouldn't have happened in the first place and a public uproar shouldn't be needed to make them think straight. It's called optics or PR - people don't like to see big companies shafting customers, and especially not devs who helped cause Apple's success. Considering how much they're wasting spending on Cook's little toy AppleTV+ ($6bn as of November 2019), this is the tiniest drop in the ocean. You can guarantee Cook's not screwing the production staff on their shows, because it's something he's actually interested in.
The number of units involved and the financial impact on Apple is a drop in the bucket (even after Apple upped the rebate to $500). I cannot imagine Apple nickel and diming about this, especially with their dev community. Something else is at play here.
Not sure I agree - all of Apple’s component units are pushed to make money, or at least not hemorrhage money. This appears to simply be a case of an Apple unit attempting to recoup the cost of the devices from developers - make no mistake, these won’t turn up on Apple Refurbished, they’ll be junked and/or the components/case salvaged. How many were distributed? Yes, a drop in the bucket compared to regular sale numbers but probably not insignificant - I’d guess over half a million.
That's just it though, these things aren't any real use to Apple. Even if they were, it's not like they somehow make more money from the return by having them back early either. So it was just a stupid decision all-round.
Just so I'm clear, developers paid for the DTK (and leasing is paying), did a fair bit of Apple's QA on the device for them, and now Apple wants it back?
I'm kinda in the "why bother" camp?
When you lease a car, you need to give it back at some point.
Yea, but a leased car retains some value after the lease expires. Is the same true here? Is there a market for used beta Macs? If so, why not let the dev who leased it buy it?
Just so I'm clear, developers paid for the DTK (and leasing is paying), did a fair bit of Apple's QA on the device for them, and now Apple wants it back?
I'm kinda in the "why bother" camp?
When you lease a car, you need to give it back at some point.
Yea, but a leased car retains some value after the lease expires. Is the same true here? Is there a market for used beta Macs? If so, why not let the dev who leased it buy it?
Why would a developer buy a dead ended Mac? Apple has stated that these FrankenMacs are not getting any further updates. The latest 11.3 Beta disabled the USB-A ports (probably a bug that won’t get fixed). Apple is being very generous in giving 100% of the DTK fee back as a voucher. That is far more valuable than allowing devs to keep the A12Z DTK mini.
Just so I'm clear, developers paid for the DTK (and leasing is paying), did a fair bit of Apple's QA on the device for them, and now Apple wants it back?
I'm kinda in the "why bother" camp?
When you lease a car, you need to give it back at some point.
Yea, but a leased car retains some value after the lease expires. Is the same true here? Is there a market for used beta Macs? If so, why not let the dev who leased it buy it?
Why would a developer buy a dead ended Mac? Apple has stated that these FrankenMacs are not getting any further updates. The latest 11.3 Beta disabled the USB-A ports (probably a bug that won’t get fixed). Apple is being very generous in giving 100% of the DTK fee back as a voucher. That is far more valuable than allowing devs to keep the A12Z DTK mini.
That just reinforces the notion that they're worth nothing, unlike a care after the lease expires.
Just so I'm clear, developers paid for the DTK (and leasing is paying), did a fair bit of Apple's QA on the device for them, and now Apple wants it back?
I'm kinda in the "why bother" camp?
When you lease a car, you need to give it back at some point.
Yea, but a leased car retains some value after the lease expires. Is the same true here? Is there a market for used beta Macs? If so, why not let the dev who leased it buy it?
Because it's a dead end SKU that Apple doesn't want to have to support?
Comments
The optics on this are appalling: This isn't about Apple neglecting developers, this is about developers whom possess zero personal responsibility to an offer they requested, a contract they willingly signed and money that they did not need to spend.
What dearly coddled morons.
Someone messed up bigtime.
That's just it though, these things aren't any real use to Apple. Even if they were, it's not like they somehow make more money from the return by having them back early either. So it was just a stupid decision all-round.