melgross

bloggerblog said:

melgross said:

bloggerblog said:

Pro hardware without Apple's pro software

Usually it's the software that compels you to buy the hardware. The iPad Pro is desirable hardware with no compelling software. Not sure if FCP is going to be enough

That’s a problem because there were too many major upgrades to the hardware this year. So there are several scenarios. One would have been to have that software out before the tablet. Then we would have reviewers and posters complaining about the hardware not keeping up with the software, with a lousy experience.

second would have been to come out with FCS, Logic and Xcode at the same time as the new machine. Ok, but then we would get complaints that the OS couldn’t handle the requirements of those apps.

the third was to release the the tablet first, as they did, just before WWDC. Then, just a few weeks later, introduce OS changes needed, and the apps, along with some third parties intro’ing theirs, as they usually do. Which they did.

none of these is perfect. But the major OS changes had to wait for iPadOS 15 no matter what. Possibly the apps need to wait for that as well. So announcing them in June is what we could expect.

so, from what I gather, some people think Apple shouldn’t have come out with the M1 iPad until after the software came out later this year. I really don’t agree. There are plenty of apps that will benefit from this model, even without a new OS. I use some of them, and I can’t wait until my new iPad gets here late June (I hope).

This is not the first iPad Pro that had solid performance in every category, but Apple is still unable to demonstrate a convincing use case, they had plenty of time. I know from Adobe that they're not getting enough demand for iPad equivalents, they run their surveys and receive low interest. I had pushed back stating it's like asking people wehther they want a car or a faster horse, they're just going by their survey results. I know Apple even invested their own talent to get PS and Ai to the iPad, but I feel these apps are slowly reaching their EOL. Modern day pro apps like After Effects, Adobe XD, FCP, Visual Studio, and Xcode are the way to go.

To be fair the iPad Pro is a tough case to make, on one end you need a keyboard to type, on the other it's easier to just use a touch-pad rather than floating your entire arm limb over the screen, so why not just buy a laptop. I am aware of the convenience of gestures, but those can also be performed on the touchpad. I had that discussion with myself every time I was tempted to buy an iPad Pro.

MplsP said:

entropys said:

The software issue isn’t apps. Although apps could do more than they do with that SOC.
the software issue is the IpadOS itself.

file management is its biggest problem. End of story. 

Multi user ability. It’s a pro machine.
Multi windowing, multitasking all need fundamental work

The list is bigger, but those are the biggies preventing iPad being a laptop replacement, instead of a laptop alternative.

This. Andrew is right, of course, but as I read the story I kept asking myself - is the lack of software actually because of the OS? I can’t say for sure, but I can say that the OS is lacking.

melgross said:

bloggerblog said:

Pro hardware without Apple's pro software

Usually it's the software that compels you to buy the hardware. The iPad Pro is desirable hardware with no compelling software. Not sure if FCP is going to be enough

That’s a problem because there were too many major upgrades to the hardware this year. So there are several scenarios. One would have been to have that software out before the tablet. Then we would have reviewers and posters complaining about the hardware not keeping up with the software, with a lousy experience.

second would have been to come out with FCS, Logic and Xcode at the same time as the new machine. Ok, but then we would get complaints that the OS couldn’t handle the requirements of those apps.

the third was to release the the tablet first, as they did, just before WWDC. Then, just a few weeks later, introduce OS changes needed, and the apps, along with some third parties intro’ing theirs, as they usually do. Which they did.

none of these is perfect. But the major OS changes had to wait for iPadOS 15 no matter what. Possibly the apps need to wait for that as well. So announcing them in June is what we could expect.

so, from what I gather, some people think Apple shouldn’t have come out with the M1 iPad until after the software came out later this year. I really don’t agree. There are plenty of apps that will benefit from this model, even without a new OS. I use some of them, and I can’t wait until my new iPad gets here late June (I hope).

When did they introduce iPadOS 15? Or are you assuming they will announce a major update at WWDC?

Last year’s iPad pro is still limited by the OS and software, so they could easily have updated the software without the hardware being a limiting factor. In the end it doesn’t matter that much if they introduce the ipad and then the new OS & software a month later or vice versa, but the route they chose does leave people questioning their apparent focus on hardware while neglecting software.

charlesn said:

Amazon could stop this easily and I'm not sure why they don't. Why do I have to use a third party site like Fake Spot to analyze the overall credibility of reviews for a product? Surely Amazon could do the same and with greater accuracy. Then, in place of reviews, slap an "Unreliable Reviews" label on the product page. Sales of that product would plummet, and all the monetary incentive for fake reviews would vanish instantly. Problem solved.  

Fake reviews--not to mention fake products--undermine Amazon's business. As it stands, there are many products I will not buy on Amazon from third party sellers when it's an item with a known history of counterfeits, which could be anything from razor blade cartridges to products from high end designers. I know that even when Amazon is the seller, it's not completely immune from counterfeit products, but at least I know that's unintentional and not part of its business model.

I also will not buy any non-brand name product, even with great reviews, until after I check them through Fake Spot--it's not foolproof, to be sure, but it's better than nothing. The vast majority of times, I find that great reviews for non-brand names fail a Fake Spot analysis, and I'm always pleasant surprised when even a "B" rating is returned for accuracy. 

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

thedba said:

GeorgeBMac said:

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.

I agree.   a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.

But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence.  And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.

I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.

mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.

so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.

It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.