bubblefree

Getting rid of the SIM tray is a stupid move. In a world of open standards, where SIM cards are still used everywhere in the world, why move to esims only? The old model where you had both esim and physical SIM tray was the best option and gave customers choice. Apple's reasoning around multiple esims and security is nonsense. They could have multiple esims and a physical SIM tray if they wanted. If people wanted security then use an esim, if they wanted convenience then use their physical SIM card.
I wonder if this move is related to Apple bowing to pressure from US carriers who don't want people to avoid roaming costs by using a local country SIM card when they travel? If so, it opens up another antitrust issue that Apple could do without.

22july2013 said:

bubblefree said:

Getting rid of the SIM tray is a stupid move. In a world of open standards, where SIM cards are still used everywhere in the world, why move to esims only? 

Perhaps to reduce costs, simplify design, and make the phone more water resistant? Which of these reasons makes no sense to you?

Er... all of them. Reduce costs - negligible in a phone which costs $1000. Simplify design - Sim tray is still being used in EVERY other market apart from USA. Design is the same. Make Phone more water resistant - iPhone 13 is already very water resistant.
This isn't about any of these things OR the stuff Apple is saying (Security or using multiple esims). This is simply about control. GSM became the overriding technical standard over CDMA because it allowed people to choose which service they wanted to use without the carrier getting involved. Buy a SIM and put it in your phone. Apple is now trying to reassert this control into its products. Trouble is it will be years (if ever) before the rest of the world follows. Mention esim in most developed countries and they look at you like you are an alien. This isn't about what is right for Apple's customers but what is right for Apple's commercial partners - the mobile carriers.

Getting rid of the SIM tray is a stupid move. In a world of open standards, where SIM cards are still used everywhere in the world, why move to esims only? The old model where you had both esim and physical SIM tray was the best option and gave customers choice. Apple's reasoning around multiple esims and security is nonsense. They could have multiple esims and a physical SIM tray if they wanted. If people wanted security then use an esim, if they wanted convenience then use their physical SIM card.
I wonder if this move is related to Apple bowing to pressure from US carriers who don't want people to avoid roaming costs by using a local country SIM card when they travel? If so, it opens up another antitrust issue that Apple could do without.

Some interesting reading after Apple introduced the new ads praising Mac.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/15/17467232/behind-the-mac-behind-the-competition

https://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2018/06/14/on-the-sad-state-of-macintosh-hardware/

Seems others have spotted that the Mac line up hasn't been updated for over a year now.

Even the title of this piece made me laugh at the ridiculousness of AI. I haven't seen any press stories that Apple is doomed. That's just one of those fake news approaches which does nothing to create a productive dialog.

What I have seen is lots of press stories and user comments with concerns and intense frustration (from customers) that Apple's approach to hardware is plain wrong. We're in June and there has been no Mac hardware introductions this year and now it looks like we will wait until September / October until the next event for this to happen. At the same time the Mac Mini hasn't had an update for 4 years and the Mac Pro refresh is still a long way off. How can this be a good thing? There is no regular update cycle going on here to keep Apple's customers competitive with other platforms but a schedule driven around another set of priorities. 

Has Intel been slow to introduce new chips... yes. Have Apple been even slower at introducing new computers..... yes! Gen 8 Intel chips are out and have been since October of last year and we haven't seen any iMac or laptop updates. My teenage son finds it hysterical that I would even think that Macs are competitive in the market for computers nowadays, given the 6 core mobile chip in his laptop. This is in essence Apple's problem. They believe their own marketing but less and less people, including the next generation of customers do.

macxpress said:

bubblefree said:

ljc94512 said:

bubblefree said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

bubblefree said:

If this is true it shows Apple has the worst product update strategy in the whole business and are taking their customers for granted. The MacBook Pro's have processors that are 2 generations behind! Dell and others have introduced 8th gen intel processors months ago. Apple is a like a slow moving dinosaur. What is wrong with a MacBook Pro update every 8 to 12 months? We deserve better than this......

The last MacBook Pro update was... 12 months ago.

And IF this story is true we won't be seeing an update until October at the earliest....... This would mean a 16 month refresh cycle! With all their R&D budget I would expect them to be able to introduce a processor update to their devices within a few months of Intel releasing them onto the market. Given that the 8th gen chips started shipping in late 2017 that seems like wishful thinking!

Not the chips that are suitable for the MacBook Pro though.  Apple has had longer than 12 months upgrade cycle before as well, I don't see a big issue with that.  

Sorry LJC94512 but that's not true. Quad core performance with 8th Gen was introduced last year and Dell had machines available in November....... 

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3237065/laptop-computers/dell-xps-13-2017-review-intels-8th-gen-cpu-makes-a-great-laptop-even-greater.html

AND they had a major redesign for the laptop in March and it has been available since then.....

https://www.cnet.com/products/dell-xps-13-2018/review/

As I said, Apple is moving like a Dinosaur here. Whether you are supporter of Apple or not, it's hard to justify how long these refresh cycles take when others are moving over 6 months faster!

Maybe these are off or something, but the 8th Gen CPU really isn't any better in terms of performance. 

This is what's currently used in the cheapest 15" MacBook Pro:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7700HQ+@+2.80GHz

Highend CPU in current MacBook Pro:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7820HQ+@+2.90GHz&id=2952

Optional CPU in current MacBook Pro:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7920HQ+@+3.10GHz


The CPU in the Dell you specified is the Intel 8550u CPU (8th gen) benchmark is here:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-8550U+@+1.80GHz

Benchmarks: 

7700HQ: 8862
7820HQ: 9409
7920HQ: 10230

8550U: 8325

These are all Core i7 models.

You will see the performance of that is below that of the one you think Apple could be using. The updated one does use less watts, but doesn't appear to be faster. 


My point being...just because its new(er) doesn't mean its better in terms of performance which goes back to my other point of, so you just want Apple to put the newest CPU in for the sake of updating when there may actually be little to no performance increase. I think back to the days of the G4 where Apple would release new Macs with updated G4 CPU's that performed WORSE than the outgoing model in terms of performance in real world testing. Once again, the latest and greatest doesn't always mean its better and just because Dell, HP, etc are using them doesn't mean they're ahead of Apple by any means. 

I am not talking about the 15 inch versions which are quad core already but the 13 inch versions which is the most popular machine by far. This is what the Dell XPS13 story is all about - comparing apples to apples and not cherry picking chips to suit your story. However to prove you wrong, even with the 7700 which is running at 45W it cannot beat the 8550 running at 15W! Don't believe me then read this:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3235813/laptop-computers/intel-8th-gen-core-i7-review.html

Going back to the 13 inch version the 7th Gen MB Pro uses a 2 core chip. All 8th Gen are 4 core, even at the i3 and i5 level I believe. The speed differences as the article point out are very real and very signifiant. The conclusion of this article states "There's only one way to describe our experience with the Core i7-8550U inside the Dell XPS 13: Impressed. No wait, damned impressed would be a better way to couch it."

My point being..... The 8th Gen chips are much much faster, offer better battery life and have been around since November of last year. Why does it take 7 months for them to make it into MB Pro's? This is a legitimate question when Apple is positioning itself as the premium brand in the notebook market and when customers expect them to be competitive.

If this is true it shows Apple has the worst product update strategy in the whole business and are taking their customers for granted. The MacBook Pro's have processors that are 2 generations behind! Dell and others have introduced 8th gen intel processors months ago. Apple is a like a slow moving dinosaur. What is wrong with a MacBook Pro update every 8 to 12 months? We deserve better than this......

netrox said:

ralphie said:

I think the whole no sim tray is a deal made with US carriers to force you into their high priced roaming when traveling.  Should be investigated.

Just no.

I want convenience of SIM being activated from home and I want my phone tracked if it's stolen. I want my phone to be free from specific carriers. I want to have more than one plan. I want the freedom that eSIM offers. 

Criminals hate that. What good is the new iPhone if they cannot sell it or can be tracked? 

"The freedom that eSIM offers"?!? What freedom is that? Freedom to have to use Apple software to add or change any eSIM? The freedom to be able to only use foreign carriers that support eSIM when travelling? (of which there are very very few) The freedom to not be able to add a physical SIM card from almost any network carrier on the planet because your phone doesn't have a SIM tray?
Apple created Find My to stop phones being stolen and used by thieves. It doesn't work. The thieves simply found a way around it. I know because my daughters iPhone was stolen this year and showed up in China being used. What makes you think that eSIM's will stop phone theft. Chances are they won't and like Find My they won't stop thieves.

macplusplus said:

bubblefree said:

macplusplus said:

bubblefree said:

Unfortunately the flawed belief that everyone wants the thinnest laptop possible

This is exactly why people want these laptops. People buy these because they are thin and portable, do not heat, dissipate heat quickly preventing CPU throttling thus maintaining performance all the way. If they wanted bulky laptops they would buy PC laptops.

They are thin because of the heat, they are made of aluminum because of its heat conductivity. Not because of Apple's obsession with thinness. iMacs are made of mobile components and as thin as possible because of the same heat issues. If Apple has an obsession with, this is with the heat, not with the thinness. Heat destroys your computer and kills its performance.

Thanks, I get the heat issue. If I want a really thin machine I could always choose the MacBook which is running a low power chip simply to reduce heat and power usage.... but I don't! The point I was trying to make is that the trade offs of moving the MB Pro line to be even thinner negate many of the reasons it has been considered a Pro machine. 

What tradeoff? They give you the fastest SSD in the industry, the most developed color space, the best screen on a laptop, the best heat management without CPU throttling, the best connection and expansion standards, true low power notebook RAM and you call the lack of some obsolete stupid built-in dongles a tradeoff? After seeing that statement I haven't read the rest of your posting.

If you'd said at least "that's an awesome machine but I don't know who will use it"...

As I said in the posting, each to their own. What works for some people doesn't work for others. It's not all about creating the fastest or the best heat management or the lowest power RAM. Apple isn't Apple because they delivered these types of innovations in the past. Apple is Apple because they have built the best overall solution that meets peoples needs which include these kinds of innovations. Customers have been willing to pay a premium because Apple have delivered an overall solution that provides much more than the best individual technologies and this includes a transition strategy about moving from one technology standard to another. The very fact that so many people have been so vocal about these machines shows clearly that Apple have failed to do that here. You can try and dismiss the concern about dongles and adapters but this has been an overwhelming sore point for prospective customers. My own view is that relying on adapters to provide a solution is not a well thought out strategy but a lazy way of transitioning.

macplusplus said:

bubblefree said:

Unfortunately the flawed belief that everyone wants the thinnest laptop possible

This is exactly why people want these laptops. People buy these because they are thin and portable, do not heat, dissipate heat quickly preventing CPU throttling thus maintaining performance all the way. If they wanted bulky laptops they would buy PC laptops.

They are thin because of the heat, they are made of aluminum because of its heat conductivity. Not because of Apple's obsession with thinness. iMacs are made of mobile components and as thin as possible because of the same heat issues. If Apple has an obsession with, this is with the heat, not with the thinness. Heat destroys your computer and kills its performance.

Thanks, I get the heat issue. If I want a really thin machine I could always choose the MacBook which is running a low power chip simply to reduce heat and power usage.... but I don't! The point I was trying to make is that the trade offs of moving the MB Pro line to be even thinner negate many of the reasons it has been considered a Pro machine. The keyboard is awful and the lack of USB A ports mean that you need an adapter for everything. This may work for some people and I am cool with that but it doesn't work for me or for many others. I am happy with the size of the 2015 MB Pro as it is a good balance between portability and features. I don't need it to be thinner or smaller and the trade offs mean that the new MB Pro doesn't work for me. I am sure there will be plenty of people that it works for but the reality of the backlash against the design shows that it also doesn't work for many others. Neither side is right or wrong, they just have their own needs and in this case Apple has forced a design onto the market that clearly doesn't meet a lot of peoples needs. That is not a positive step for Apple and their muddled reaction shows they are not focused on delivering solutions for their core or strategically important markets but are simply focused on a mass market machine with a Pro label but which doesn't really deliver a Pro solution. What Apple should have done is created a 3 tier laptop family with this new design in the middle. They can still do this by creating a much more pro machine at the top end with a new marketing approach like Pro Plus or similar but I doubt it will ever happen. The Apple culture has changed and they seem to be unwilling or unable to deliver a Mac line that feeds different market segments. If they were focused on this they would have introduced a Skylake version of the Mini 6 months ago and updated the Pro which hasn't had any update in years.