lorin schultz

slurpy said:

That arrow doesn't mean Apple is "collecting" your location. It means an app is using it. And to disable that, you just disable the app's location access. 

fastasleep said:

lorin schultz said:

StrangeDays said:

MplsP said:

StrangeDays said:

GeorgeBMac said:

I get it why they designed it this way.   But, essentially, it makes it a $2K+ disposable computer (it can't be upgraded and it can't be repaired) and that just goes against my grain.  I think I would have to carefully balance the benefits of the computer (and specifically how they would benefit me) and weigh that against the limited repair and upgradeability.

On the other hand, these are aimed at the truly "pro" market -- meaning not just power users but those who make their living with these machines.  So, for them, if it breaks they will be more inclined to treat it like any other piece of equipment and replace it.

Non-user-upgradable doesn’t mean “disposable”. It means you can’t upgrade it. It surely can be serviced if the need should arise. You can also resell it, as well as recycle it. Just like an iPad or even a car, neither of which most consumers ever perform repairs themselves on. 

It’s like complaining that your TV is “disposable”, despite having an expected lifespan of many, many years, and TV repair still being a thing. (I’ve had my expensive, non-user-serviceable plasma for almost a decade.)

That being said, despite being in IT I don’t know anyone, pro or consumer, who repairs their own laptops, TVs, or even cars (other than brakes or oil which isn’t really repair). Apple doesn’t design its products for DIY tinkerers. 

That's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy - if something is made incredibly difficult to repair, you won't repair it.

I have to agree with wizard and bobolicious - components which get a lot of wear and/or are likely to need replacing, should be made so it's at least easier to do so. Take the keyboard - it's a mechanical component that's exposed to the environment and gets a ton of use. Even if the new design is more reliable as hoped it's still going to be one of the higher failure items. Is there any real reason they couldn't have fastened it with screws?

Apple also touts its environmental record, but one of the best ways to reduce environmental costs of products is maximize their life span. A design that prevents repairs goes against that. A modular design would be really nice, but modularity costs space, so that's a compromise that gets made in the name of size, but they've gotten to the point that they might as well just encase the entire thing in epoxy.

Concentrate real hard folks....MBPs are serviceable. They don’t need to be upgradable, or user-serviceable, for this to be true. I’ve had mine serviced before...sacre bleu!

Me too, and was shocked to the point of almost crapping myself at the cost!

Replacing the keyboard in my 2016 15” was almost $500! For a KEYBOARD.

It may be possible to repair a MacBook Pro but it sure ain’t practical.

Did you ask for a refund after they implemented the keyboard replacement program? You can probably get your money back. 

StrangeDays said:

MplsP said:

StrangeDays said:

GeorgeBMac said:

I get it why they designed it this way.   But, essentially, it makes it a $2K+ disposable computer (it can't be upgraded and it can't be repaired) and that just goes against my grain.  I think I would have to carefully balance the benefits of the computer (and specifically how they would benefit me) and weigh that against the limited repair and upgradeability.

On the other hand, these are aimed at the truly "pro" market -- meaning not just power users but those who make their living with these machines.  So, for them, if it breaks they will be more inclined to treat it like any other piece of equipment and replace it.

Non-user-upgradable doesn’t mean “disposable”. It means you can’t upgrade it. It surely can be serviced if the need should arise. You can also resell it, as well as recycle it. Just like an iPad or even a car, neither of which most consumers ever perform repairs themselves on. 

It’s like complaining that your TV is “disposable”, despite having an expected lifespan of many, many years, and TV repair still being a thing. (I’ve had my expensive, non-user-serviceable plasma for almost a decade.)

That being said, despite being in IT I don’t know anyone, pro or consumer, who repairs their own laptops, TVs, or even cars (other than brakes or oil which isn’t really repair). Apple doesn’t design its products for DIY tinkerers. 

That's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy - if something is made incredibly difficult to repair, you won't repair it.

I have to agree with wizard and bobolicious - components which get a lot of wear and/or are likely to need replacing, should be made so it's at least easier to do so. Take the keyboard - it's a mechanical component that's exposed to the environment and gets a ton of use. Even if the new design is more reliable as hoped it's still going to be one of the higher failure items. Is there any real reason they couldn't have fastened it with screws?

Apple also touts its environmental record, but one of the best ways to reduce environmental costs of products is maximize their life span. A design that prevents repairs goes against that. A modular design would be really nice, but modularity costs space, so that's a compromise that gets made in the name of size, but they've gotten to the point that they might as well just encase the entire thing in epoxy.

Concentrate real hard folks....MBPs are serviceable. They don’t need to be upgradable, or user-serviceable, for this to be true. I’ve had mine serviced before...sacre bleu!

zoetmb said:

[...] My biggest complaint, which is not rectified in the new machine is that IMO, the touch pad is too large and when part of my palm rests on it, it moves the cursor.  This drives me nuts.  it also proves to me that Apple is not doing the kind of user testing that they used to do. 

philboogie said:

AppleZulu said:

larryjw said:

I can’t think of a technology more expense and less useful, even in the long run, than 5G. 

If implementation works out, 5G means much faster speeds, much lower latency, and the ability to connect vastly more devices. Downloading movies faster isn't really what 5G would be about. Once you're able to download a high-resolution movie faster than you can watch it, the extra speed doesn't really mean anything to you.

5G is going to be about the things that haven't been invented yet. When iPhone 1 was introduced, it didn't even have GPS built in. Then they added it. Apple farmed out maps to Google at first, until they realized that Google was using location information to do more things than deliver a GPS map program. The whole abrupt Apple maps introduction/fiasco happened precisely because even Apple hadn't initially realized the full implications of putting an active GPS device in everyone's pocket. Then they realized this add-on tech was going to be a core function. Now a very few short years later, a selling point for iPhones is that Apple is more attentive about making sure you can prevent all the various sundry apps loaded on your device from using your location data without your knowledge or permission, because lots of people have thought of new and interesting ways to use location data that didn't even exist a few years ago. 

So if 5G delivers huge bandwidth, extremely low latency, and the ability to simultaneously connect a huge number of devices, you suddenly have the ability to have lots of separate devices doing things in concert, in real time and orchestrated precisely. Thinking about those GPS maps, consider the following. Right now, if you're driving with a GPS app delivering your proposed route, you can get pretty good ETA info, and in cities that have it, you can get traffic information baked in. If a jam forms up ahead and it gets big and slow enough, your map program will offer an alternative route. Pretty cool, but it's still based on rudimentary data. There's a traffic jam on the route slowing traffic to below a certain speed range. At some threshold, the mapping app will generate an alternate route, based mostly on existing stock info on traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Also, everyone else will get the same info at the same time, causing lots of people to choose the same alternate route, creating a second traffic jam. Lather, rinse and repeat. 

That scenario with 5G could be very different. The cars that get into the accident instantly relay that info outward. So do most of the cars that have to stop behind the accident. Alternate routes start popping up in real time. If multiple alternates are available, different cars will get different recommendations, creating optimal distributed routing around the accident, minimizing secondary traffic jams. Add an increasing percentage of self-driving cars that respond instantly to these changes, and traffic becomes a whole new experience. That's just an obvious use case. It's the stuff that few or no people have thought of yet that will be truly remarkable.

Of course, there will also be the unintended consequences along with the sociopathic implementations that we'll also have to deal with, but there you go.

Uhm, GPS has nothing to do with 5G. They're completely unrelated and different technologies.