The new MacBook Pro: Why did Apple backtrack on everything?

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 173
    It is all about Jony Ive leaving the company and no longer being in total control of the designs.  His 'fashion over function' has been a mistake for years.  The moment he left, Apple was able to fix the MacBooks in 2019 by removing the butterfly keyboard.  Remember the round hockey-puck mouse?  Look what a mess that was.  Not everything he designed was a good idea, and people prefer functionality over fashion.  Now Apple can make computers that actually work and be reliable again.  That's why I never got rid of my 2015 MacBook Pro 15" model.
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMacwilliamlondondocno42
  • Reply 102 of 173
    crowley said:
    Oh sure, the "infamous" butterfly keyboard...it was supposedly more prone to failure than the prior scissor mechanism (according to tech blogs), yet nobody could provide any actual evidence or numbers that proved it. In fact, nobody could provide the repair rate of previous generation scissor keyboards, so it wasn't even possible to make a comparison. 
    Can you find me a person who enjoyed the butterfly keyboard and never had any issue with it?

    I never had what you'd call a failure, but keys on my MacBook Air would either get stuck or acquire a sticky feel on a fairly regular basis.  Blowing air into the keyboard sometimes fixed the issue, though never more than temporarily.   To my knowledge that was a common occurrence for users, and that's why it became infamous, not because of hard data, but because a large number of people had the same crappy experience, and it happened regularly.  

    The MacBook Air I had previous to that (and is still in the family) never had any issues with key failure or key stickiness in 7 years.
    The M1 Max MacBook Pro I have now has given every indication that it will have no issues either; it's a lovely machine to type on.

    So sure, maybe data isn't there to prove the matter in a court of law, but infamy isn't based on verifiable evidence, and I'll take lived experience every time anyway.  
    I liked the butterfly keyboard to type on, but I had it replaced once on my 2017 MBP. I liked the shallow feel and clicky sound it make. I make more mistakes on my 2019 MBP now. 
  • Reply 103 of 173
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    danox said:
    The silly thing with these new laptops is we’ve gone from 4 universal ports that will do anything to 3 universal ports and 2 ports that can only do one thing, so technically a less flexible machine now. 

    Also, where’s the outcry about Apple using a proprietary charging port? 
    So they never should given up on FireWire better faster and more versatile, and more importantly a superior in house solution not dependent upon tech from outside patent trolls…..
    Huh?  USBC and Thunderbolt are more flexible than HDMI and SD card readers. 

    ... unless you need HDMI or an SD slot.

    So why does it have to be 'either / or'?
    USBC can do HDMI, HDMI cannot do USBC. 

    The last time I tried to plug a USB-C cable into an HDMI port it didn't work very well.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 104 of 173
    thttht Posts: 4,442member
    crowley said:
    Oh sure, the "infamous" butterfly keyboard...it was supposedly more prone to failure than the prior scissor mechanism (according to tech blogs), yet nobody could provide any actual evidence or numbers that proved it. In fact, nobody could provide the repair rate of previous generation scissor keyboards, so it wasn't even possible to make a comparison. 
    Can you find me a person who enjoyed the butterfly keyboard and never had any issue with it?

    I never had what you'd call a failure, but keys on my MacBook Air would either get stuck or acquire a sticky feel on a fairly regular basis.  Blowing air into the keyboard sometimes fixed the issue, though never more than temporarily.   To my knowledge that was a common occurrence for users, and that's why it became infamous, not because of hard data, but because a large number of people had the same crappy experience, and it happened regularly.  

    The MacBook Air I had previous to that (and is still in the family) never had any issues with key failure or key stickiness in 7 years.
    The M1 Max MacBook Pro I have now has given every indication that it will have no issues either; it's a lovely machine to type on.

    So sure, maybe data isn't there to prove the matter in a court of law, but infamy isn't based on verifiable evidence, and I'll take lived experience every time anyway.  
    I liked the butterfly keyboard to type on, but I had it replaced once on my 2017 MBP. I liked the shallow feel and clicky sound it make. I make more mistakes on my 2019 MBP now. 
    I'll be a second to say I like the butterfly keyboard. I like the click, the bigger key caps and the flatness. I'm thinking Apple would have kept it if it was reliable, but they finally gave up after 3 tries or so. A keyboard first and foremost has to be reliable. It was just too big of a reliability problem for them to stick with it.
  • Reply 105 of 173
    thttht Posts: 4,442member
    Alex_V said:
    Captain Obvious here. Reading these comments, it is perfectly clear—if it ever wasn’t, that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. There is no conceivable product that Apple could have produced that would make everyone happy.
    Don't let the Internet get you down. Or, never let someone else's opinion determine how much you like or enjoy a product. There was a thing a while back when social media was becoming popular, where crowdsourcing (wisdom of the crowd) was the blockchain from 5 years ago, and what, "metaverse" is today. It was a term describing ascendant social media companies and why they are so powerful. Well, I think most people have now learned that there isn't any wisdom in the crowd, and, it's quite likely crowd sourced information is a net negative. The S/N is negative. Yes, it's worse than zero, social media actively makes you less informed. So, there is very very little value in any of our opinions.

    I think a I'll never forget when John Gruber said Fellowship of the Ring was a horrible movie. He, who loves James Bond movies, or amazingly enough, somehow is a fan of both the Yankees and the Cowboys. I'm surprised the universe didn't just give up and folded itself into nothingness from someone being a fan of those two sports teams. See, not much value there. ;)

    waveparticle
  • Reply 106 of 173
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,257member
    tundraboy said:
    DuhSesame said:
    tundraboy said:
    tundraboy said:
    This has nothing to do with Jony Ive. Intel forced Apple to go minimalistic because of the generous heat it produces. Give it more enclosure it would retain more heat. Now that Intel has gone, with Apple Silicon you can make it as large as you want because the heat is minimal.
    You have it backwards.  You're confusing heat with temperature.  If you go minimalistic on a device that generates a lot of heat, that heat will be 'concentrated' on a smaller volume, causing temperature to be higher, and it is temperature that damages internal components.  The key is to think in terms of heat dissipation not heat retention.  A larger enclosed volume (all other things equal) would have better heat dissipation especially if a lot of that enclosed volume is empty space that can be used for airflow to cool the internal components.
    This is the metal mass that retains heat the most not the air that flows over or in it. Besides, the air flows only from the processor to the heat sink by means of a pipe and the fan, the flow is constrained to the pipe. There is no air "moving freely" in a larger enclosure. Since the air flows only from the processor to the sink, it has no (or minimal) effect on the overall cooldown of the enclosure. To make it cool down faster, you have to make it smaller so that it retains less heat and dissipates it faster. That "cooling air in a larger enclosure" is an urban legend. There is no such thing.
    I didn't spell it out explicitly but of course when I said airflow, I'm speaking about it in the context of the MacBook Pro which has fans.

    In an electronic device, the internal components generate the heat, not the enclosure.  You want to dissipate that heat so that the temperature of the internal components don't rise to the point that they fry.  What an enclosure does is absorb the heat generated by the components and then dissipate it by radiating it off its external surface area.  (Heat never ever flows from a cold body to a hot body.  At least not in this universe.) So, all other things equal, the smaller your enclosure, the less mass it has to absorb the heat from the components, and the less external surface area it has to dissipate that heat it absorbed from the components.  And that's not even talking about heat sinks and cooling fans.

    Now let's stick heat sinks and cooling fans into the narrative.  If a smaller enclosure gives you less internal space, forcing you to use smaller heat sinks, smaller fans and smaller airflow channels, then clearly going minimalistic is going to reduce, not increase, your ability to dissipate the heat generated by the components.

    This is why your assertion that the generous heat produced by Intel chips caused Apple to go minimalistic is problematic.  The heat generated by a chip is in fact an obstacle to going minimalistic.
    If that’s the case, the current 16” will be hotter & less efficient than older retina.

    That’s not the case.  Theories works in one way, but you have more than one options in practice.

    Make your fans bigger, faster, change your heat pipe so it’ll be more efficient, increase your heatsink…. These are all the improvements on the new 16” despite still being smaller than previous Retina & unibody, as they never got enough power to reach 80W.

    Also, just because you have a large space, it doesn’t mean all the cooling power will be focused on one chip.  There are dedicated GPUs and many laptops have separate cooling system.  You only got so much for the CPU, which defeats the point.
    The example comparing large and small enclosures that I gave pointedly said 'all other things equal', which includes the components and the heat generated by the components.  So saying that what I said is wrong because it implies that 'the current 16" will be hotter and less efficient than older retina' is a logically invalid argument because the current 16" uses Apple Silicon which **generates a lot less heat** than the Intel.  "All other things equal" is violated in your counterexample.

    And theories work in one way, but you have more than one option in practice?  So you mean when it comes to heat management, the theory of thermodynamics works in one way, but in practice there are options available that violate the the theory of thermodynamics?
    The current 16" have better cooling system than any previous gen, not the chip.  
    "Well duh M1 cooler so 16" cooler." 🤦‍♂️
    You have no clue don't you?

    Go check the full consumption of the M1 Max vs. the actual temp of the 16", then check Retina.  Tell me, how much difference?

    In reality we have a goal and so long we can reach it, thickness doesn't matter, we have no problem to make fans fly.
    edited November 2021
  • Reply 107 of 173
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,257member
    ireland said:
    MplsP said:
    I still don't get why people are bitching so much about the HDMI port. Does it somehow offend your 'Apple' sensibilities? Honestly, who has a better cause to whine - the people missing a port that they need or the people who have to 'put up' with a port that they don't need?

    The fact of the matter is HDMI is THE standard if you ever need to give a presentation in a conference and is still far more common than USB C and display port. If you don't use it, fine. you lose nothing unless you actually need 4 TB 4 ports (and even then you've got the MagSafe so you're not using a port for charging. So far I've seen exactly one person who says they use all 4 TB ports. If the sight of it is that offensive to you you can take some silver epoxy and fill it in so it disappears.


    I think some of them had psychically moved so far into the suburbs of dongletown they can’t wrap their head around the change. As if they rug has been pulled out from under them. Built-in port variety > all Thunderbolt any day of the week. Besides, people now have a bus for each of the three Thunderbolt, before they were limited to two buses. The new machine is better than the previous machine in every way and all but Thunderbolt puritans can see it.
    Have all the plug you can, but if that doesn't transfer to speed, yours will be less capable.

    You can b* about adapters but the foundation is there.  Saying that doesn't makes me hates anything not Thunderbolt.
  • Reply 108 of 173
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,257member
    tht said:
    Alex_V said:
    Captain Obvious here. Reading these comments, it is perfectly clear—if it ever wasn’t, that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. There is no conceivable product that Apple could have produced that would make everyone happy.
    Don't let the Internet get you down. Or, never let someone else's opinion determine how much you like or enjoy a product. There was a thing a while back when social media was becoming popular, where crowdsourcing (wisdom of the crowd) was the blockchain from 5 years ago, and what, "metaverse" is today. It was a term describing ascendant social media companies and why they are so powerful. Well, I think most people have now learned that there isn't any wisdom in the crowd, and, it's quite likely crowd sourced information is a net negative. The S/N is negative. Yes, it's worse than zero, social media actively makes you less informed. So, there is very very little value in any of our opinions.

    I think a I'll never forget when John Gruber said Fellowship of the Ring was a horrible movie. He, who loves James Bond movies, or amazingly enough, somehow is a fan of both the Yankees and the Cowboys. I'm surprised the universe didn't just give up and folded itself into nothingness from someone being a fan of those two sports teams. See, not much value there. ;)

    I thought most of us are just clueless and whiney.  Like somehow still believes thicker really means cooler.
  • Reply 109 of 173
    One thing this article reminds me of is that the same folks that squawked the loudest about dongles and ports were perfectly willing to put up with the madness of changing connection types that is the USB Mess. Just take a gander at how many confusing variations of USB3.x connectors there were and the confusing array of features they may or may not have adhered to (not to mention lack of quality standards). And USB-C/4 is even worse. I mean … Amazon sells USB-C connector cables that only perform at USB 2.0 speeds. What the heck is that?

    but yeah… converters are so def the problem — and only for Apple 🤦🏻 
  • Reply 110 of 173
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,257member
    tundraboy said:
    tundraboy said:
    This has nothing to do with Jony Ive. Intel forced Apple to go minimalistic because of the generous heat it produces. Give it more oenclosure it would retain more heat. Now that Intel has gone, with Apple Silicon you can make it as large as you want because the heat is minimal.
    You have it backwards.  You're confusing heat with temperature.  If you go minimalistic on a device that generates a lot of heat, that heat will be 'concentrated' on a smaller volume, causing temperature to be higher, and it is temperature that damages internal components.  The key is to think in terms of heat dissipation not heat retention.  A larger enclosed volume (all other things equal) would have better heat dissipation especially if a lot of that enclosed volume is empty space that can be used for airflow to cool the internal components.
    This is the metal mass that retains heat the most not the air that flows over or in it. Besides, the air flows only from the processor to the heat sink by means of a pipe and the fan, the flow is constrained to the pipe. There is no air "moving freely" in a larger enclosure. Since the air flows only from the processor to the sink, it has no (or minimal) effect on the overall cooldown of the enclosure. To make it cool down faster, you have to make it smaller so that it retains less heat and dissipates it faster. That "cooling air in a larger enclosure" is an urban legend. There is no such thing.
    I didn't spell it out explicitly but of course when I said airflow, I'm speaking about it in the context of the MacBook Pro which has fans.

    In an electronic device, the internal components generate the heat, not the enclosure.  You want to dissipate that heat so that the temperature of the internal components don't rise to the point that they fry.  What an enclosure does is absorb the heat generated by the components and then dissipate it by radiating it off its external surface area.  (Heat never ever flows from a cold body to a hot body.  At least not in this universe.) So, all other things equal, the smaller your enclosure, the less mass it has to absorb the heat from the components, and the less external surface area it has to dissipate that heat it absorbed from the components.  And that's not even talking about heat sinks and cooling fans.

    Now let's stick heat sinks and cooling fans into the narrative.  If a smaller enclosure gives you less internal space, forcing you to use smaller heat sinks, smaller fans and smaller airflow channels, then clearly going minimalistic is going to reduce, not increase, your ability to dissipate the heat generated by the components.

    This is why your assertion that the generous heat produced by Intel chips caused Apple to go minimalistic is problematic.  The heat generated by a chip is in fact an obstacle to going minimalistic.
    That's where the vicious death cycle begins. Put bigger fans, bigger pipes, bigger sinks, they will require bigger batteries and bigger enclosures that will retain even more heat that will require even bigger fans, bigger pipes, bigger sinks that will require.... and so on.

    Bigger enclosure may absorb more heat, but once it absorbs that it becomes a heat source itself. According to your mentality we can cool down a hot object faster if we put it into an enclosure instead of leaving it in the open air !..
    It won't matter if "All else being equal", a big-ass enclosure won't make your pipe & sink anymore efficient.

    Now you can argue "why not put a bigger cooler", but with a given goal you can also make your design flatter & faster, same results.

    You can't talk anything without a goal, hence "bigger is better" have no practical use.

    That said, the 16" were aimed for bigger thermal capacity than any prev. gen, the 8+2 CPU is just a beginning.
    edited November 2021 docno42
  • Reply 111 of 173
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,660member
    tht said:
    crowley said:
    Oh sure, the "infamous" butterfly keyboard...it was supposedly more prone to failure than the prior scissor mechanism (according to tech blogs), yet nobody could provide any actual evidence or numbers that proved it. In fact, nobody could provide the repair rate of previous generation scissor keyboards, so it wasn't even possible to make a comparison. 
    Can you find me a person who enjoyed the butterfly keyboard and never had any issue with it?

    I never had what you'd call a failure, but keys on my MacBook Air would either get stuck or acquire a sticky feel on a fairly regular basis.  Blowing air into the keyboard sometimes fixed the issue, though never more than temporarily.   To my knowledge that was a common occurrence for users, and that's why it became infamous, not because of hard data, but because a large number of people had the same crappy experience, and it happened regularly.  

    The MacBook Air I had previous to that (and is still in the family) never had any issues with key failure or key stickiness in 7 years.
    The M1 Max MacBook Pro I have now has given every indication that it will have no issues either; it's a lovely machine to type on.

    So sure, maybe data isn't there to prove the matter in a court of law, but infamy isn't based on verifiable evidence, and I'll take lived experience every time anyway.  
    I liked the butterfly keyboard to type on, but I had it replaced once on my 2017 MBP. I liked the shallow feel and clicky sound it make. I make more mistakes on my 2019 MBP now. 
    I'll be a second to say I like the butterfly keyboard. I like the click, the bigger key caps and the flatness. I'm thinking Apple would have kept it if it was reliable, but they finally gave up after 3 tries or so. A keyboard first and foremost has to be reliable. It was just too big of a reliability problem for them to stick with it.
    Yes, there was a subset of users who actually liked the butterfly keyboard. Some people like pumpkin beer, too. Personally, I found it tolerable, but like @crawley, I continually have issues with mine. nothing that qualifies for a replacement, but always enough to be annoying. This despite the fact that I baby it like no other keyboard I've used. Even when I had a silicone cover for it (which made it completely intolerable,) debris would cause keys to stick.

    Then I tried the new 16" MBP keyboard at the Apple store... it was like going from a chevette to a Cadillac. A friend was with me and his first comment after tying the new keyboard was "whoa - that's so much nicer!"

    No, Apple is not going 'backwards,' they are simply correcting past mistakes. Kudos to them for doing so.
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMacdocno42
  • Reply 112 of 173
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,308member
    mcdave said:
    dewme said:
    My take is that Apple is simply trying to gain marketshare in the corporate sector where cutting edge design, aesthetics, and fashion statements don’t hold as much sway as practicality, bottom line ROI, and as a fundamental tool to enable productivity workers to get stuff done with as little friction as possible. 

    Nobody is going to feature a Dell Latitude in all of its plasticy glory as a backdrop in a flashy tv show or movie, but Dell is going to sell boatloads of these things to corporate customers. Apple wants a piece of this action. 
    Then you’re out of touch with the corporate sector. I contract into multiple companies and the dock connectors with proprietary PCIE buses have been replaced with guess what? Thunderbolt docks with a single, convenient TB cable to PCs which (finally) ship with the only single TB port they’ll ever need. PC enthusiasts on YouTube are even bragging how PC laptops easily support more TB/USB-C docks than Macs.
    Sad to see how Apple users, who used to embrace future tech, are now just a bunch of worn-out Luddites moving backwards as the PC world moves forwards.
    Not following your logic here. I’m saying that Apple is making design concessions to bring more corporate-relevant functionality to their products even if it makes their products a little less stylish and aesthetically pleasing. Are you advocating that Apple slim down their MacBook Pros to wafer thinness, include only one TB port, and offer them in rose gold to better appeal to corporate buyers?

    The only fly in the ointment for me when it comes to Apple’s desire to appeal to a big segment of corporate PC users that I’m very familiar with is the lack of x86 VM and BootCamp support on Apple Silicon Macs. Being able to run one (or several) Windows VMs, specifically VMWare, or BootCamp on a Mac allowed Macs to be used effectively in Windows development environments. This door to Mac acceptance in Windows dominated development environments is essentially closed, no matter the situation is with TB ports, HDMI, USB port types, power plug style, or battery capacity. 
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 113 of 173
    They didn’t listen to my request to bring back optical audio.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 114 of 173
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tht said:
    Alex_V said:
    Captain Obvious here. Reading these comments, it is perfectly clear—if it ever wasn’t, that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. There is no conceivable product that Apple could have produced that would make everyone happy.
    Don't let the Internet get you down. Or, never let someone else's opinion determine how much you like or enjoy a product. There was a thing a while back when social media was becoming popular, where crowdsourcing (wisdom of the crowd) was the blockchain from 5 years ago, and what, "metaverse" is today. It was a term describing ascendant social media companies and why they are so powerful. Well, I think most people have now learned that there isn't any wisdom in the crowd, and, it's quite likely crowd sourced information is a net negative. The S/N is negative. Yes, it's worse than zero, social media actively makes you less informed. So, there is very very little value in any of our opinions.

    ...

    Except social media is not 'the crowd'.  It's mostly a vocal minority whose screams and repetition drown out all others.  Or in some cases a country using it to push their agenda.
  • Reply 115 of 173
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,058member
    dewme said:
    mcdave said:
    dewme said:
    My take is that Apple is simply trying to gain marketshare in the corporate sector where cutting edge design, aesthetics, and fashion statements don’t hold as much sway as practicality, bottom line ROI, and as a fundamental tool to enable productivity workers to get stuff done with as little friction as possible. 

    Nobody is going to feature a Dell Latitude in all of its plasticy glory as a backdrop in a flashy tv show or movie, but Dell is going to sell boatloads of these things to corporate customers. Apple wants a piece of this action. 
    Then you’re out of touch with the corporate sector. I contract into multiple companies and the dock connectors with proprietary PCIE buses have been replaced with guess what? Thunderbolt docks with a single, convenient TB cable to PCs which (finally) ship with the only single TB port they’ll ever need. PC enthusiasts on YouTube are even bragging how PC laptops easily support more TB/USB-C docks than Macs.
    Sad to see how Apple users, who used to embrace future tech, are now just a bunch of worn-out Luddites moving backwards as the PC world moves forwards.
    Not following your logic here. I’m saying that Apple is making design concessions to bring more corporate-relevant functionality to their products even if it makes their products a little less stylish and aesthetically pleasing. Are you advocating that Apple slim down their MacBook Pros to wafer thinness, include only one TB port, and offer them in rose gold to better appeal to corporate buyers?

    The only fly in the ointment for me when it comes to Apple’s desire to appeal to a big segment of corporate PC users that I’m very familiar with is the lack of x86 VM and BootCamp support on Apple Silicon Macs. Being able to run one (or several) Windows VMs, specifically VMWare, or BootCamp on a Mac allowed Macs to be used effectively in Windows development environments. This door to Mac acceptance in Windows dominated development environments is essentially closed, no matter the situation is with TB ports, HDMI, USB port types, power plug style, or battery capacity. 

    Microsoft is the competition Apple can’t waste time making their stuff work, if Microsoft is as innovative as Wall Street currently thinks let them prove it.
  • Reply 116 of 173
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,238member
    tundraboy said:
    tundraboy said:
    This has nothing to do with Jony Ive. Intel forced Apple to go minimalistic because of the generous heat it produces. Give it more oenclosure it would retain more heat. Now that Intel has gone, with Apple Silicon you can make it as large as you want because the heat is minimal.
    You have it backwards.  You're confusing heat with temperature.  If you go minimalistic on a device that generates a lot of heat, that heat will be 'concentrated' on a smaller volume, causing temperature to be higher, and it is temperature that damages internal components.  The key is to think in terms of heat dissipation not heat retention.  A larger enclosed volume (all other things equal) would have better heat dissipation especially if a lot of that enclosed volume is empty space that can be used for airflow to cool the internal components.
    This is the metal mass that retains heat the most not the air that flows over or in it. Besides, the air flows only from the processor to the heat sink by means of a pipe and the fan, the flow is constrained to the pipe. There is no air "moving freely" in a larger enclosure. Since the air flows only from the processor to the sink, it has no (or minimal) effect on the overall cooldown of the enclosure. To make it cool down faster, you have to make it smaller so that it retains less heat and dissipates it faster. That "cooling air in a larger enclosure" is an urban legend. There is no such thing.
    I didn't spell it out explicitly but of course when I said airflow, I'm speaking about it in the context of the MacBook Pro which has fans.

    In an electronic device, the internal components generate the heat, not the enclosure.  You want to dissipate that heat so that the temperature of the internal components don't rise to the point that they fry.  What an enclosure does is absorb the heat generated by the components and then dissipate it by radiating it off its external surface area.  (Heat never ever flows from a cold body to a hot body.  At least not in this universe.) So, all other things equal, the smaller your enclosure, the less mass it has to absorb the heat from the components, and the less external surface area it has to dissipate that heat it absorbed from the components.  And that's not even talking about heat sinks and cooling fans.

    Now let's stick heat sinks and cooling fans into the narrative.  If a smaller enclosure gives you less internal space, forcing you to use smaller heat sinks, smaller fans and smaller airflow channels, then clearly going minimalistic is going to reduce, not increase, your ability to dissipate the heat generated by the components.

    This is why your assertion that the generous heat produced by Intel chips caused Apple to go minimalistic is problematic.  The heat generated by a chip is in fact an obstacle to going minimalistic.
    That's where the vicious death cycle begins. Put bigger fans, bigger pipes, bigger sinks, they will require bigger batteries and bigger enclosures that will retain even more heat that will require even bigger fans, bigger pipes, bigger sinks that will require.... and so on.

    Bigger enclosure may absorb more heat, but once it absorbs that it becomes a heat source itself. According to your mentality we can cool down a hot object faster if we put it into an enclosure instead of leaving it in the open air !..
    Bigger heat pipes and heatsinks do not require bigger batteries.  Fans don't really either, they aren't a significant power draw, maybe a watt for a beefy one. And bigger enclosures do not act as heat sources, they dissipate heat over a greater surface area. 

    You don't need bigger heat pipes, sinks or fans on a bigger enclosure with the same components, unless you're trying to give yourself more thermal headroom.  The idea that adding more cooling would in some way lead to a net heat increase should be immediately and obviously absurd.

    Smaller computers have more problems with thermals.  The new MBP 14 will spin up its fans much earlier and faster than the MBP 16 precisely because of the density of heat generating components, even though they're the same components as the 16. You're dead wrong on this.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 117 of 173
    thttht Posts: 4,442member
    tht said:
    Alex_V said:
    Captain Obvious here. Reading these comments, it is perfectly clear—if it ever wasn’t, that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. There is no conceivable product that Apple could have produced that would make everyone happy.
    Don't let the Internet get you down. Or, never let someone else's opinion determine how much you like or enjoy a product. There was a thing a while back when social media was becoming popular, where crowdsourcing (wisdom of the crowd) was the blockchain from 5 years ago, and what, "metaverse" is today. It was a term describing ascendant social media companies and why they are so powerful. Well, I think most people have now learned that there isn't any wisdom in the crowd, and, it's quite likely crowd sourced information is a net negative. The S/N is negative. Yes, it's worse than zero, social media actively makes you less informed. So, there is very very little value in any of our opinions.
    Except social media is not 'the crowd'.  It's mostly a vocal minority whose screams and repetition drown out all others.  Or in some cases a country using it to push their agenda.
    Definitions of what a crowd is aside, social media is more insidious than that. 99% of viral social media is basically fake nonsense. You have scripts and accelerator companies pushing to get as many likes and shares as much as possible, trying to get viral, trying to make it to top-viewed content lists. Essentially gaming Facebook and Twitters sharing algorithms. That's not even a vocal minority. That's a 2 to 3 person shop with a bunch of shell companies liking and and sharing its content. It's basically the tabloid aisle of a grocery, but instead of few people, it's tens of millions of people. 

    Every online publication is in on it. A or B headline optimization is just a mild form of it, but it will always chooses the more traumatizing headline as it produces the biggest emotional hit, and 99.9% it's just your boring and eminent sensible "Apple is ramping down orders of parts after the holiday sales ramp up" type of story. So, tantalizing tales (tabloid style) always make it to the top. A crowd of people won't be that different.

    So Alex, it is incredibly important for you to consider this. Our opinions aren't even worth 2¢. In fact, there is a high probability that our opinions just make you more stupid. You have to force yourself to forget 99.99999% of the stuff you read on the Internet.
  • Reply 118 of 173
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    Why does everything have to always be framed from a negative perspective?  Backtracking?   How about listening to customers?

    I finally got my mitts on my maxed out 16" and I have to agree with Jason Snell's assessment - they did indeed stuff a Mac Pro into a laptop.  It's simply amazing.  The only thing that would make it utterly perfect is if they would have included at least one USB-A port.  Thankfully I picked up a handful of USB-C to USB-A adapters and have just left a couple on the few USB-A things I have that I use frequently - but it's still a pain if you are out and about and someone else hands you a USB-A flash drive. I think sometimes Apple forgets that things like this aren't always 100% under your own control; there is a broader universe out there. 

    It's still a relatively minor annoyance - the rest of the machine is so far flawless.  I was a bit concerned about the size and weight of the 16" vs the 14" or my old 2015 MacBook Air - but I've pretty much gotten used to it and I'm very happy to have the much larger display.  Thankfully I won't be on the go that much any more, but even if I was this still fits nicely in my travel backpack - whereas the old 17" models would not have.  They really were the size of a dinner tray! 
    edited November 2021 williamlondonGeorgeBMacmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 119 of 173
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    M68000 said:
     May be to early to be sure,  but my reaction to looking at it the first time is that it’s an abomination.  Who cares about a tiny bit of extra screen space it gives?
    I'm glad for the extra screen space and didn't even notice it the first time I got to see a 14" MBP in a store before my 16" came in.  Played with it for almost an hour and it was only until the sales person brought the notch up that I thought to look for it.  I don't think anything else can explain how much of a non-issue it is, especially if you use dark mode - it's literally not visible. It barely shows in the menu bar and it doesn't show at all when you use full screen video.

    If you don't care about the extra screen real estate and it just utterly grinds your gears then good news - just change the scaling options in the display settings to sacrifice the extra screen real estate and force everything below the notch.  Problem solved.  You have less screen, fatter bezels and no notch.  Huzzah!  

    Apple has taken nothing away - indeed they have given more choice than we had in the past. 

    The notch is an utter non-issue and I can't believe Apple has fumbled the messaging around it so poorly.  It's really a win-win - for those whom it doesn't affect we get more vertical screen real estate.  For those who love to nit pick you can just go back to the old resolution and the notch is no longer an issue - at all.  It's each users choice.  Not sure why that aspect always gets glossed over with the notch.  

    williamlondon
  • Reply 120 of 173
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    I was shocked to see the new MacBook Pro. It really looks fat. Heavy. 
    Coming from a 2015 MacBook Air I was indeed concerned about the size and weight. 

    Luckily for me, the utterly gorgeous and humungous screen absolutely outweighs the larger and heavier unit.  I've been primarily using it on my lap for the last three days and it I quickly got used to it and no longer even think about it.  

    It's absolutely about trade offs.  If I could have gotten a MacBook Air with 64GB of RAM I would have kept the M1 MBA I had at the first of the year.  In a way I'm glad they didn't offer more RAM - the 16" screen on this MBP is amazing and I love it.  Well worth the extra size and weight - for me anyway.  

    I'm sure they will bump the MBA specs with the next round - so for those who really prefer that form factor (and it is a compelling form factor - I've had 2 myself) that would probably be the time to step up. 
    williamlondonGeorgeBMac
Sign In or Register to comment.