It’s interesting how Apple is marketing the chips of these new devices. Macs with M1 and now an iPad Pro with M1 - I assume they will simply not use/disable any Mac-specific parts of the SOC.
Will the M1 be used in the next iPhone? Will the M1 eventually be used in lower-end iPads? Will the M1 be used in a new gaming focused AppleTV?
We would normally expect an M1X and then an M2 - i.e. an M2 around the time of the next iPhone. Will an M1 with more cores be called M!X or M2? This report seems to indicate the latter. However, they may decide to stick with the name M1 for an M1 variant that happens to have more cores. So low-end device might have an M1 with 8-8 (cpu-gpu) cores and higher end devices might have an M1 with 12-16 (cpu-gpu) cores for example.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
I don’t think that higher end machines would do well just with more of the same. People seem to be forgetting that there’s just so much space on the chip. TSMC will be supplying a revised version of the 5nm process Apple uses for the M1. So where are all those cores going to go? Then, we see predictions of 16, or 32 GPU cores too.
this is impossible on a chip that won’t be much bigger than the current one. Isn’t anyone thinking about the implications? Just look at the photo of the current chip. How big would it have to be to get all of that on it, without Apple offloading much of what’s on it now?
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses.
Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this.
I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars... Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.
If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.
I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10. So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine. Admittedly that's a low bar.
But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said: His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity.
You need to watch the video to know what he said -- which was: His MacPro continued to meet his needs because of ongoing upgrades he made to it. Since that was not possible on his MacBook Air, the machine, although fast enough, could not meet his needs -- at least not without a number of garbage workarounds.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
For every point, there is a vast majority of people who never upgrade the internals of their computers. You can rally and complain about that all you want, however there are millions of computers including Apple that haven’t been upgrade for years. Our 2014 Air and Mini are some of those. Apple is selling more ASi Macs than Intel Macs and every one of them are all soldered together. Apple knows their market. Rather than scrapping them, Macs do have a high resale value.
Did you watch the video? Andrew called bull....
He replaced a $6K machines with a $1.2K machine. And it worked. Let's see...he can replace his MBA FIVE times for the cost of the Mac Pro. Video editing with FCP was faster on the MBA than on his Mac Pro.
Nobody gives a shit about upgradeability when your cost is cut 5X. Especially when you can dock and connect to your RAID array, power, network and other peripherals with one (or two) cables. The Mac mini becomes a HUGE freaking bang for the buck. And while eGPUs don't work with enclosures other cards have been updated to with a M1 Mac. For example BlackMagic released Desktop Video 12.0 addingMac OS Big Sur and Apple M1 support for DeckLink 4K and 8K models, Intensity Pro 4K and UltraStudio Thunderbolt 3.
You need to watch the rest of the video where he reported that it didn't work -- because he couldn't upgrade it like he did his MacPro
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
For every point, there is a vast majority of people who never upgrade the internals of their computers. You can rally and complain about that all you want, however there are millions of computers including Apple that haven’t been upgrade for years. Our 2014 Air and Mini are some of those. Apple is selling more ASi Macs than Intel Macs and every one of them are all soldered together. Apple knows their market. Rather than scrapping them, Macs do have a high resale value.
Did you watch the video? Andrew called bull....
He replaced a $6K machines with a $1.2K machine. And it worked. Let's see...he can replace his MBA FIVE times for the cost of the Mac Pro. Video editing with FCP was faster on the MBA than on his Mac Pro.
Nobody gives a shit about upgradeability when your cost is cut 5X. Especially when you can dock and connect to your RAID array, power, network and other peripherals with one (or two) cables. The Mac mini becomes a HUGE freaking bang for the buck. And while eGPUs don't work with enclosures other cards have been updated to with a M1 Mac. For example BlackMagic released Desktop Video 12.0 adding Mac OS Big Sur and Apple M1 support for DeckLink 4K and 8K models, Intensity Pro 4K and UltraStudio Thunderbolt 3.
You need to watch the rest of the video where he reported that it didn't work -- because he couldn't upgrade it like he did his MacPro
I'm not sure what he is complaining about, given that it was known at the time of purchase, that it would be unable to be upgraded.
I don’t think that higher end machines would do well just with more of the same. People seem to be forgetting that there’s just so much space on the chip. TSMC will be supplying a revised version of the 5nm process Apple uses for the M1. So where are all those cores going to go? Then, we see predictions of 16, or 32 GPU cores too.
this is impossible on a chip that won’t be much bigger than the current one. Isn’t anyone thinking about the implications? Just look at the photo of the current chip. How big would it have to be to get all of that on it, without Apple offloading much of what’s on it now?
They can "easily" make up 3-4 classes of Apple silicon and scale according to platform/form factor. Can't see why they should be constrained to a specific size on Mini, iMac, Mac Pro. Reckon the next Mac mini and Mac Pro will shrink considerably but still.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
For every point, there is a vast majority of people who never upgrade the internals of their computers. You can rally and complain about that all you want, however there are millions of computers including Apple that haven’t been upgrade for years. Our 2014 Air and Mini are some of those. Apple is selling more ASi Macs than Intel Macs and every one of them are all soldered together. Apple knows their market. Rather than scrapping them, Macs do have a high resale value.
Did you watch the video? Andrew called bull....
He replaced a $6K machines with a $1.2K machine. And it worked. Let's see...he can replace his MBA FIVE times for the cost of the Mac Pro. Video editing with FCP was faster on the MBA than on his Mac Pro.
Nobody gives a shit about upgradeability when your cost is cut 5X. Especially when you can dock and connect to your RAID array, power, network and other peripherals with one (or two) cables. The Mac mini becomes a HUGE freaking bang for the buck. And while eGPUs don't work with enclosures other cards have been updated to with a M1 Mac. For example BlackMagic released Desktop Video 12.0 adding Mac OS Big Sur and Apple M1 support for DeckLink 4K and 8K models, Intensity Pro 4K and UltraStudio Thunderbolt 3.
EXACTLY!
Why spend 5K on a machine and then several K more upgrading it to drag it through 10 years when you can drop 1 or 2 K a few times over the same years. It’s more cost effective, it keeps you running recent processors with the latest and greatest AND you can sell your old computers, give to family, or donate them to help those without.
Well, incremental upgrades like memory and SSDs are budget friendly if, like many people, you don’t plan for future expenses.
The think is, his story breaks down on many levels. For instance, the thing about upgrading older machines is compatibility and trying to source the correct memory modules, etc for old tech. In fact, older tech upgrades tend to be more expensive, at least those times I wanted to do it. Also, WRT memory, the older tech devices couldn’t upgrade beyond the limits of the time. Putting in 32G in a machine with a hardware/bios limitation of 16g just doesn’t work.
EBay solved that problem for me: I have not had any problem finding quality parts at very low cost for older machines.
For example: an 8Gb Ram stick for my 9 year old Thinkpad sells for under $35. So now its sporting 16Gb of Ram.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Nah. Expecting to be able to upgrade a laptop is as stupid as expecting to upgrade a tablet. I'm a hardcore tech nerd software dev, and have never upgraded anything other than RAM on a notebook. And now I just get what I need upfront. I have never, ever upgraded the storage or (lol) processor. That may be some DIY hobby thing you're into, but 99.9% of Apple's market doesn't do it. They aren't going to make compromises for the .1%, get real.
It's appliance computing. Don't like it? Get a Dell.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars... Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.
If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.
Well considering it's global PC market share, many would say the Apple Mac computer is also a niche product and market.
That's fine -- but the important thing you're missing is that this niche market is *not* the DIY crowd. Which is the point. It's an appliance computing model, and has been since Apple's early days when Jef Raskin wrote his bible for the original Mac, "Design Considerations for an Anthropophilic Computer" in 1979 (42 years ago!!):
This is an outline for a computer designed for the Person In The Street (or, to abbreviate: the PITS); one that will be truly pleasant to use, that will require the user to do nothing that will threaten his or her perverse delight in being able to say: “I don’t know the first thing about computers,” and one which will be profitable to sell, service and provide software for.
You might think that any number of computers have been designed with these criteria in mind, but not so. Any system which requires a user to ever see the interior, for any reason, does not meet these specifications. There must not be additional ROMS, RAMS, boards or accessories except those that can be understood by the PITS as a separate appliance. For example, an auxiliary printer can be sold, but a parallel interface cannot. As a rule of thumb, if an item does not stand on a table by itself, and if it does not have its own case, or if it does not look like a complete consumer item in [and] of itself, then it is taboo.
If the computer must be opened for any reason other than repair (for which our prospective user must be assumed incompetent) even at the dealer’s, then it does not meet our requirements.
Seeing the guts is taboo. Things in sockets is taboo (unless to make servicing cheaper without imposing too large an initial cost). Billions of keys on the keyboard is taboo. Computerese is taboo. Large manuals, or many of them (large manuals are a sure sign of bad design) is taboo. Self- instructional programs are NOT taboo.
There must not be a plethora of configurations. It is better to offer a variety of case colors than to have variable amounts of memory. It is better to manufacture versions in Early American, Contemporary, and Louis XIV than to have any external wires beyond a power cord.
And you get ten points if you can eliminate the power cord.
...I´ve had several Thinkpads over the years, and I still got one. Sure, you can do upgrades of ram, ssd and in fact the cpu provided the fan/cooling is made for the same TDP. Sure, a new SSD might take down the power consumption a tad, but you are still stuck with the same s****y battery life and the very same s****y screen and the same miserable GPU (OR the power hog edition). You can bring extra batteries when/if moving around for sure, but you'll need 2 extra 94 wh ones to keep up with the M1 MacBook Pro 13.
...and when you start calculating you'll probably find that the economy in it is not that much better than buying a M1 MacBook Pro 13 which will have a decent 2nd hand value and that outperforms the old TP night and day week in week out.
LOL...
You deleted the first half of the post -- and then went on a rant that totally and completely missed the point -- and in fact turned it into something completely irrelevant!
Yawn....
My apologies for tickling your ridiculosis. What I wrote stands.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses.
Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this.
I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
How often do you service or upgrade your iPad? Your iPhone? Your Apple TV? Your Watch? Your TV set? etc... Yet these are clearly better products than the more-easily serviceable early-computing counter-parts, right? Side note, my grandad used to repair his vacuum-tube tele, but I have never done this nor will I. My solid-state flat panel TV lasts way longer, and by the time it fails, it won't be cost effective to try to repair its electronics. I'll dispose of it properly and get whatever newer tech is out.
You apparently don't understand the goals of appliance computing, after all these decades. That's fine, but that doesn't mean Apple is going to conform to you. Nor will you being able to crack open your Tesla and work on the OS or CPU.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
The question is:
Are you buying a computer to work with it, or are you buying a computer to work on it?
Are you trying to make it beter, because the computer-maker didn’t make it good enough?
Are you doing the same with your car? Every two years changing the old engine with a new, more powerful one?
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars... Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.
If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.
I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10. So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine. Admittedly that's a low bar.
But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said: His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity.
You need to watch the video to know what he said -- which was: His MacPro continued to meet his needs because of ongoing upgrades he made to it. Since that was not possible on his MacBook Air, the machine, although fast enough, could not meet his needs -- at least not without a number of garbage workarounds.
Well I was addressing your comment where you said it was “NOT about longevity”. Your original post mentioned a 10 year old machine so I assumed you meant that to mean longevity. In reading subsequent posts it looks like your point is more about being able to tailor the machine to changing needs … over time … :-)
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars... Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.
If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.
Well considering it's global PC market share, many would say the Apple Mac computer is also a niche product and market.
That's fine -- but the important thing you're missing is that this niche market is *not* the DIY crowd. Which is the point. It's an appliance computing model, and has been since Apple's early days when Jef Raskin wrote his bible for the original Mac, "Design Considerations for an Anthropophilic Computer" in 1979 (42 years ago!!):
This is an outline for a computer designed for the Person In The Street (or, to abbreviate: the PITS); one that will be truly pleasant to use, that will require the user to do nothing that will threaten his or her perverse delight in being able to say: “I don’t know the first thing about computers,” and one which will be profitable to sell, service and provide software for.
You might think that any number of computers have been designed with these criteria in mind, but not so. Any system which requires a user to ever see the interior, for any reason, does not meet these specifications. There must not be additional ROMS, RAMS, boards or accessories except those that can be understood by the PITS as a separate appliance. For example, an auxiliary printer can be sold, but a parallel interface cannot. As a rule of thumb, if an item does not stand on a table by itself, and if it does not have its own case, or if it does not look like a complete consumer item in [and] of itself, then it is taboo.
If the computer must be opened for any reason other than repair (for which our prospective user must be assumed incompetent) even at the dealer’s, then it does not meet our requirements.
Seeing the guts is taboo. Things in sockets is taboo (unless to make servicing cheaper without imposing too large an initial cost). Billions of keys on the keyboard is taboo. Computerese is taboo. Large manuals, or many of them (large manuals are a sure sign of bad design) is taboo. Self- instructional programs are NOT taboo.
There must not be a plethora of configurations. It is better to offer a variety of case colors than to have variable amounts of memory. It is better to manufacture versions in Early American, Contemporary, and Louis XIV than to have any external wires beyond a power cord.
And you get ten points if you can eliminate the power cord.
Thanks for sharing this bit of history, Jobs and Raskin were truly prescient.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses.
Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this.
I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
Not what I said. It's just that if you don't see it now, the writing is on the wall for x86 chips. The whole industry will be going towards ARM architecture system on a chip with integrated RAM, powerful enough integrated graphics engine, neural engines etc. The days of popping open the lid and adding your own RAM are gone.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars... Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.
If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.
Well considering it's global PC market share, many would say the Apple Mac computer is also a niche product and market.
That's fine -- but the important thing you're missing is that this niche market is *not* the DIY crowd. Which is the point. It's an appliance computing model, and has been since Apple's early days when Jef Raskin wrote his bible for the original Mac, "Design Considerations for an Anthropophilic Computer" in 1979 (42 years ago!!):
This is an outline for a computer designed for the Person In The Street (or, to abbreviate: the PITS); one that will be truly pleasant to use, that will require the user to do nothing that will threaten his or her perverse delight in being able to say: “I don’t know the first thing about computers,” and one which will be profitable to sell, service and provide software for.
You might think that any number of computers have been designed with these criteria in mind, but not so. Any system which requires a user to ever see the interior, for any reason, does not meet these specifications. There must not be additional ROMS, RAMS, boards or accessories except those that can be understood by the PITS as a separate appliance. For example, an auxiliary printer can be sold, but a parallel interface cannot. As a rule of thumb, if an item does not stand on a table by itself, and if it does not have its own case, or if it does not look like a complete consumer item in [and] of itself, then it is taboo.
If the computer must be opened for any reason other than repair (for which our prospective user must be assumed incompetent) even at the dealer’s, then it does not meet our requirements.
Seeing the guts is taboo. Things in sockets is taboo (unless to make servicing cheaper without imposing too large an initial cost). Billions of keys on the keyboard is taboo. Computerese is taboo. Large manuals, or many of them (large manuals are a sure sign of bad design) is taboo. Self- instructional programs are NOT taboo.
There must not be a plethora of configurations. It is better to offer a variety of case colors than to have variable amounts of memory. It is better to manufacture versions in Early American, Contemporary, and Louis XIV than to have any external wires beyond a power cord.
And you get ten points if you can eliminate the power cord.
Firstly you are implying what is a niche market and what isn’t in your own personal opinion. And I don’t what the quote you’ve posted has to do with Apples global PC market share? All it talks about is how if you have to see the inside of a computer then it’s failed, well then using this logic every Mac Pro has been a failed design. I’m afraid Macs are not as this person wrote back in 1979. An awful lot of people have upgraded their Macs, which the quote fails to recognise, because they do not like paying Apples rip off pricing for memory etc which I’m sure this person advocates tremendously as it means more profit. in fact I couldn’t think of a quote anymore out of date then the one you posted. Still has nothing to do with niche markets and your comment though.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
Who the heck is Andrew and why should I care one bit what he thinks.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses.
Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this.
I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.
we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.
increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.
there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.
Comments
this is impossible on a chip that won’t be much bigger than the current one. Isn’t anyone thinking about the implications? Just look at the photo of the current chip. How big would it have to be to get all of that on it, without Apple offloading much of what’s on it now?
I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
You need to watch the video to know what he said -- which was: His MacPro continued to meet his needs because of ongoing upgrades he made to it. Since that was not possible on his MacBook Air, the machine, although fast enough, could not meet his needs -- at least not without a number of garbage workarounds.
You need to watch the rest of the video where he reported that it didn't work -- because he couldn't upgrade it like he did his MacPro
It's appliance computing. Don't like it? Get a Dell.
That's fine -- but the important thing you're missing is that this niche market is *not* the DIY crowd. Which is the point. It's an appliance computing model, and has been since Apple's early days when Jef Raskin wrote his bible for the original Mac, "Design Considerations for an Anthropophilic Computer" in 1979 (42 years ago!!):
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/primary/docs/bom/anthrophilic.html
You might think that any number of computers have been designed with these criteria in mind, but not so. Any system which requires a user to ever see the interior, for any reason, does not meet these specifications. There must not be additional ROMS, RAMS, boards or accessories except those that can be understood by the PITS as a separate appliance. For example, an auxiliary printer can be sold, but a parallel interface cannot. As a rule of thumb, if an item does not stand on a table by itself, and if it does not have its own case, or if it does not look like a complete consumer item in [and] of itself, then it is taboo.
If the computer must be opened for any reason other than repair (for which our prospective user must be assumed incompetent) even at the dealer’s, then it does not meet our requirements.
Seeing the guts is taboo. Things in sockets is taboo (unless to make servicing cheaper without imposing too large an initial cost). Billions of keys on the keyboard is taboo. Computerese is taboo. Large manuals, or many of them (large manuals are a sure sign of bad design) is taboo. Self- instructional programs are NOT taboo.
There must not be a plethora of configurations. It is better to offer a variety of case colors than to have variable amounts of memory. It is better to manufacture versions in Early American, Contemporary, and Louis XIV than to have any external wires beyond a power cord.
And you get ten points if you can eliminate the power cord.
You apparently don't understand the goals of appliance computing, after all these decades. That's fine, but that doesn't mean Apple is going to conform to you. Nor will you being able to crack open your Tesla and work on the OS or CPU.
It's just that if you don't see it now, the writing is on the wall for x86 chips.
The whole industry will be going towards ARM architecture system on a chip with integrated RAM, powerful enough integrated graphics engine, neural engines etc.
The days of popping open the lid and adding your own RAM are gone.
Apple is ahead of the curve in that respect.
in fact I couldn’t think of a quote anymore out of date then the one you posted.
Still has nothing to do with niche markets and your comment though.
we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.
increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.
there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.