>One thing constantly said to founders here is "don't let a vocal minority come in, tell you they love your product, and then turn into bullies that tell you how you should make said product. You never made it for them; they aren't your market. Don't get confused into thinking they are, just because they're loud." I think that about sums up the relationship between Apple and software developers who use their hardware.
Which is good advice for Tim Cook and all of Apple. You don't want to end up making the MBP version of this .
In most families and circles people go to the person in the group who knows the most about tech, usually professional user. This person will often recommend products they themselves value and are familiar with. Obviously I can't prove this effect was partly responsible for Apple's come back, but it's certainly true in all the social circles I'm a part of and I think a decent hypothesis.
I don't think anyone is asking for your number two reference. It's more that people simply want their use cases considered. In many cases they are not. You can argue that the key changes are not crucial, and that the USB ports are future looking. But what about the lack of 32gb ram? The lack of new processors? What about the sdcard reader (yes, consumers mostly use phones now and don't need it, but professional cameras are going to be using sdcards for the foreseeable future)?
When I switched to Windows, I learned Visual Studio and C# and built several customized tools that coworkers could only use on Windows. I also recommended Windows machines to family and friends, who almost all went with my recommendation.
When OSX came out, I and many other developers switched to it. Finally, a serious OS from Apple. When we did, we pulled lots of families and friends with us, and we made a lot more things (open source installers, for example) available for Mac users.
If Apple succeeds at restricting Macs to people who want lightweight, fashionable, "Apple lifestyle" accessories and need confusing things like folder hierarchies removed from the OS, many of us will move again and take those IT decisions we influence with us.
If I get off the Mac, for example, I will quickly forget how to do things I need to do to provide tech support to Mac-using family and friends, so I'll probably begin recommending Chromebooks to many of them, shifting some of my support away from their individual machines and onto web portals and web apps I build for them on my own servers.
And I went with iPhone because I was a Mac user, and I figured I would get some benefits from using the two together, which I did. If I'm no longer a Mac user, those benefits vanish, and I'll probably switch to an Android phone with an audio plug. (Maybe we developers are just a vocal minority, but we'll probably get pretty vocal to others about why we're leaving Apple if we do.)
Every year they seem to continue to introduce (via neglect/decisions/priorities) more reasons to pause at purchase time. And, recommendation time.
I'm not a developer. I run an online business and use a MacBook Pro for video recording, editing, and general website admin.
I needed the extra processing power, and the ports. The new model has me apprehensive, though I'll certainly look at it.
What's the target demographic this new MBP is serving, though?
I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
I think the new MBPs are, well... not good, considering the price. I really like my 2012 MacBook Air. It's still going strong, although I wish I had went for the 8GB of RAM instead of just 4.
But when I was talking about the new models with my friends and coworkers, a lot of us shared one thought: We don't think it's worth the money, but we can't spend $2000 on a laptop anyway, so whatever.
So we're not the target market.
It seems that people here don't really want one either, so 'Developers who frequent Hacker News' also doesn't seem to be the target...
It seems like maybe it's just 'wealthy people who want a sleek-looking, well made piece of hardware', which it is. Maybe it includes businesses that will provide one to their employees, and will buy the extra dongles and whatnot. There's probably a lot of them in each group. If I had the money, and didn't care that it didn't have the fastest processor, the ability to have a crazy amount of RAM, and would need an extra damn cable just to connect my iPhone, I would love to buy one too.
One thing seems pretty certain, and it's that there is room for a competitor to jump in and make a great laptop for the people who are looking for something different. I really hope someone can make it work.
I mean, I develop for the web, so I could very well switch to Windows or Linux at this point, and after some pain points, I'd probably be back up and running and around 90% as happy as I was before. But that last 10%, where things don't work quite like I want them to, well, that would grate. And over time, I'm probably going to grow to hate that machine.
Plus, what about people who make iOS apps? Or heck, even just develop for the Mac? There's literally no other option than a Mac.
This is a big part of why people are so upset, is because we can't just wait for a competitor to jump in and save us. We've let ourselves become dependant on Apple, and -- like you put it -- we seem not to be the target market anymore. As much our fault as theirs maybe, I'm not one to judge, but it still sucks.
There may be some features I'm missing though, I only use Win10 for gaming.
The message from Apple seems to be 'get an iMac'. They seem to prefer their developers to be stationary :/
In our 12-person company I introduced Macs and now everyone uses one instead of a PC. I'm not sure if businesses would have switched to Macs without some kind of endorsement from a "Hacker"-friend or employee.
If the common perception about Macs withings IT experts will change to "look nice but really not worth their money" I imagine in the long run that could hurt the sales to non-experts too.
Apple doesn't seem to know or care. I don't know who this MBP is for. Increasingly less people can justify an Apple macOS portable when an iOS device covers their requirements satisfactorily and it doesn't meet the needs of many professionals at all (present and anticipated needs for the machine's useful life).
Apple is behaving as if they're a boutique OEM.
Oh nonsense! They showed like a dozen ways that the new touch pad alone makes using professional apps easier, faster, and generally better in their keynote. They are clearly thinking specifically of the professional market. Whether they hit their mark or not is up to the market to decide. The new computers are already back-ordered by 4-5 weeks, so clearly someone's ordering them.
Does them being back-ordered matter much (outside of annoyance to consumers)?
Wouldn't it be more informative to see the absolute numbers of back orders now relative to the numbers for previous releases? For all we (public) know is that the back-ordered demand could be from smaller supply initial supply, not necessarily from record demand.
Are such numbers public knowledge?
I have absolutely 0 desire to use a tiny strip of touch above a perfectly good keyboard.
Isn't the illusion of scarcity and back orders from product launch 101 to encourage higher demand?
Lol, they were 4 weeks "back ordered" the minute they went on sale. It's not strange Apple keeps pulling this stunt (after all, they save on production costs by not actually manufacturing anything until orders come in), but it's really baffling how people keep pointing at it as a sign of success. Even the most unpopular car manufacturer will make you wait a month for a car.
(btw: "I'm certain that's probably" says it all, really.)
That's how Apple has behaved since day 1, save for the few years when Sculley was at the helm.
Not sure what you mean.
If they made the computer much faster, I imagine it'd get too hot or noisy.
The main failure IMO was that the only real innovation was a touch bar replacing function keys that as far as I can tell no one asked for or wanted.
However, macOS still beats Windows 10 because it's more intuitive and usable and has fewer quirks.
I don't want one of these because of the touchbar, though. It just seems unnecessary, and I wish they would've waited on a more practical innovation that would solve a problem and not remove physical keys and be a distraction and take away from design aesthetics.
I love some features, but the trouble on a day to day basis is not worth it.
Are you sure it's the Mac? In my experience, things suddenly start working on the network once you remove Windows from the equation.
I also used to have very slow transmission speeds between the two devices until I changed the mac to 2.4G (from 5G) (PC is wired)
I can observe a slow tendency that our corporate Mac image piles on more and more junk over time, probably because more people are using Macs than the year before and thus IT allocates more headcount to work on Mac customizations.
A lot of professionals have workflows / infrastructure that does not rely on the specs of any individual computer. Past a certain point it's the only practical approach for scaling. I suspect the vocal minority are the users in the upper end of the prosumer range who can't really justify moving to truly pro workflows / infrastructure.
Are you suggesting that they are Pro'ing it wrong?! Your comment reeks of no True Scotsman: if a persons workflow is local, then it's not "truly pro". You seem to be forgetting that not all people can be wired into the pro infrastructure all every time they need to do work (travel, connectivity).
If what they're doing works for them it's not wrong but in this case it's not working anymore. Now they have to switch operating systems, software and workflows just because a specific model of laptop wasn't updated at exactly the right time. Switching to PC laptops may be an option for some but they will still have to depend on Intel/AMD and PC OEMs to provide them with an option that perfectly fits their needs. That's only a slightly safer bet. It's not practical for everyone to build out a pro infrastructure for themselves but (especially in the case of developers) it's at least something they need to consider.
Consumers don't need Macbook Pros, they need at max Macbook Airs. A lot of them can be served by iPad Pros. And the vast majority by iPhones.
So yes, Apple is shooting itself in the foot.
As far as I can tell, the design goals are the same. The difference is that the Pros are more expensive.
1. I don't bother giving feedback much anymore
2. I invented my own programming language
I keep wanting to invent my own Kindle. Amazon comes out with new version after new version, and they've implemented 0 of my feature suggestions :-(
- 16GB max RAM
- Function keys
Personally I am only concerned about the RAM, I don't use the function keys ever and I can remap another key to replace ESC. I would have gladly forked over for a 32GB MBP, instead I just ordered an i7 ThinkPad x220, extra RAM and an SSD to see if I can do my day to day work on it before buying a top spec non-Apple X86 laptop.
Dell XPS 15" (9550) goes up to 32GB - upgradable after purchase with 2x memory slots.
Links for the 15" with 32GB:
Your body will naturally fluctuate double that in a day without your knowing.
Given the MacBook Pro has been 4.4 lbs for 4 years and given other companies have managed to make much lighter 15 inch machines it just seemed inevitable that the new MacBook Pros would also be much lighter. Maybe not 2.4 lbs lighter but certainly more then the 0.3 lbs we got. Basically it's not enough to justify upgrading so yea I'm disappointed and given I'll probably have to wait another 2+ years for any hope of getting something lighter from Apple it's certainly on my radar to consider switching.
As for my body, for whatever reason 4.5 lbs on my shoulders or back feels much heavier than 4.5 lbs of fluids in my body. Especially in hot/humid areas like pretty much anywhere in Asia in the summer.
Let me add, if they had announced machines that were significantly lighter don't you think people would be more excited? I can even imagine Apple coming up with some name like "The new Lighter MacBook Pro made with AirSteel(tm). The Macbook Pro's AirSteel case is 1/3 the weight of aluminum and twice as strong!"
(A backpack would probably feel better than a messenger bag, but my local train line is often too crowded to carry a backpack)
I've commuted on the Central line in London with a backpack and it's fine. The only place where it might get more rammed is Tokyo - where you get shoved onto the train. Just put it on the ground between your legs.
> checks /u/ramchips' user profile
>see's ramchip is in Tokyo
Well, uh. Carry on then.
have you ever considered getting an Air and using AWS for power? i might be clueless, thinkpad user here. and i lob a 19cell flatbattery around that weighs at 0.5 kilo itself.
LG makes a 15" 2.1 lbs laptop. The case is made of magnesium alloy. The specs aren't as good as a MBP but that's not really the point. The point is NOT that I want the LG. The point is that it seems possible to make the MBP much lighter.
Examples: An i7 doesn't weigh pounds more than an i5. 32gig of ram does not weight pounds more than 8gig of ram. 2TB SSD does not weigh pounds more than 512GB SSD. I have no idea if a 15" HD-DPI display weighs a lot more than a 15" 1920 display weighs. The LG even has all standard ports 4 USB-A type plugs, HDMI, etc. There was no need to make it thinner and switch to USB-C mini to get the weight down.
So that basically seems to leave battery, second GPU, case, fans, maybe keyboard and display as what's making the MBP stay heavy. I guess I tend to believe the LG with the same specs as the MBP would be at least 1 pound lighter than the current MPB
I'm still using a MBP from 2010 that I added an SSD and some extra ram too, it's still going strong although showing it's age it has served me very well over the years.
Gluing parts in that used to be user replaceable, models now are 16gb of ram only (can someone explain this one?), thinness for thinness sake, removing standard ports etc. I can live with non-apple hardware but I would much prefer to use MacOS. Considering dual-booting a hackingtosh/linux.
I get the impression they are trying to transition their laptops to life cycles closer to their phones and I won't be coming along for the ride.
"Apple told me MBP maxes out at 16GB RAM because LPDDR3 limit is 16GB/chip; Apple uses it because of performance/energy ratio."
So basically, it needed to be thin and light ... because, Apple ... which limits the size of the battery. And more RAM would consume more energy, requiring the device to potentially be thicker and heavier to accommodate a larger battery in order to meet their runtime expectations.
I don't think we're going to see 32 GB RAM in the ultrabook category until LPDDR4 is supported by Intel in their mobile-class processors.
Edit: AnandTech suggests that LPDDR3 is 25-30% more power efficient than DDR4. (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6326/additional-details-on-mic...)
EDIT: No 32GB MBP ever existed. My bad.
Which other laptop were you going to buy that supports more than 16 GB? How much does it cost? What's it size, weight, color depth and battery life?
As far as I know, the new Surface Book also only supports 16 GB of RAM. Or the new Razer Blade. The Razer Blade Pro can have 32GB of RAM, but it is twice as heavy and twice the volume of the 15" MBP.
Dell Precision and HP EliteBook W series had more than 16GB well before that; several in the company where I worked had 20 and 24GB. Neither was obscure or exotic, both were aimed at the same professional market and were 'standard issue' for the top-tier in many large companies.
Apr 2011 ... the EliteBook 8540w can accommodate up to 32GB of memory
April 25, 2011 ... The Precision mobile workstations can handle up to 32GB of 1333MHz RAM and 16GB 1600MHz RAM
... were (and are) big-ass mobile workstations. MBPr were much lighter and thinner but still super-powerful - there was no competition in that weight/volume segment. Today, with Dell XPS, Razer, Surface and so on (even the Purism Librem is basically the same shape), we have plenty of alternatives in that segment, so there were two options really: move into the Air segment, or raise the bar for performance again. They chose the former, people complaining were expecting the latter.
It's a bit of a hulk being the weight of a 2012 MBP.
Sure, you're paying for "older" hardware, so I can understand being hesitant, but they still hold up fine and will last for a long time.
Note that I don't use virtual machines, games, or video editing software so the 16gb of RAM is more than enough.
I don't use games or video editing software, but I have 2 virtualbox machines running, one with Debian and one with Windows 10 for testing purposes, along with always on Docker containers. My 16GB of ram on my mid-2015 near maxed out 15" rMBP with a Dell 27" 4k display hooked up holds up very well.
>models now are 16gb of ram only
It's not hard to rub up against 16GB in a standard developer workflow.
There's your problem.
(I use an MBP as the brain of a multi-camera video studio; I totally get why one would buy a Pro. But I'd pull 100% off of Macs before buying one.)
There is no serious Mac server, period.
Don't do the middlebrow thing. It never works.
If I'm developing an iOS/Android frontend in osx with Xamarin Studio and an asp.net backend with Visual Studio, then 16gb just won't do.
Does that lifecycle mean a refresh every year for the MBP (or gasp, other Macs)??? That would have millions of people screaming with joy if that ever happened. Based on the last few years, it's quite clear that Apple does not believe in spec refreshes or in selling more of the Mac lineup. Apple seems to want to focus only on portables a little bit, followed by all-in-ones (iMac).
Sadly, it seems like Macs have become hobby items for Apple. Something to work on with spare time. I'm very frustrated that the Mac mini has not been updated for more than two years and that it doesn't have user replaceable RAM and HDD.
Apple now has a dominant position in the PC market, not because they catered to creative professionals, but because they listened to their initial creative audience and focused on making their computers better.
Apple doesn't focus on the Mac Pro because they want to abandon creatives, it is simply because the Mac Pro doesn't enable any meaningful use-cases not served by the 5k iMac or its notebook line.
Form-factor, screen quality, battery life, weight, speed of I/O, and all the other design goals the author dismisses, are perhaps the most important metrics meaningful for the current generation of laptop buyers, including professionals.
Well said. This thought has been banging around in my head half-formed for the past couple of days. Thanks for expressing it so succinctly. I think this also answers why Apple has made the decision to limit/remove expansion and upgrade options in their hardware.
"Apple built its PC business on the backs of creative professionals because they were among the few groups who thought Macs were worth more than $0.00, thanks to its superior experience with Adobe's creative suite when compared to Windows."
This idea of creatives being the core market for Apple during its early years is often floated. I'm not questioning its veracity, though I'm curious if anyone knows of references that backs this up with numbers or research? Education was a pretty big market early on as well. How do they compare?
Check out Steve Job's first keynote after returning to Apple in 1997 starting at 18:35. He enumerates the assets the company still has at its disposable to claw its way out of almost imminent bankruptcy. He specifically mentiones creative proffesionals and educators and backs them up with some interesting stats.
From 1997 Macworld Expo
- Apple marketshare: 7%
- 80% of all computers used in advertising, graphic design, prepress, printing
- 64% of Internet websites created on Macintosh
- ~ 10-15% Mac sales traced back to people using Adobe Photoshop
- Apple single largest education company in the world
- 60% of all computers in education were Apple
- 64% of computers teachers use were Apple
- Over $2 billion business in education
Also of note: Steve was not wearing a black turtleneck.
So it's pretty clear what segments of the market Apple was dominant in.
The question in my mind is related, but slightly different: what percentage of Apples revenues and profits came from these segments? Were there other markets out there that perhaps Apple wasn't dominant in but still contributed significantly to Apple's overall revenues? That said, I wouldn't be surprised if these two segments were the majority.
Unfortunately Apple's financial reports don't break things down in detail necessary to answer your question, but because of the power hindsight, we know that Steve gave this keynote when Apple was months away from folding (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/19/steve-jobs-apple-almost-...).
If Apple had other significant sources of revenue, he likely would have touted them as prominently as he did educators and creative professionals. Since he didn't, we can conclude with some level confidence that these were the only sources of ongoing significant revenue.
How are they at all dominant in the PC market?
They also continue to erode the marketshare of the current leaders even as the overall PC market shrinks. 
Yes it does. They are the envy of every other device manufacturer, and not just because they make the most money.
The reason why Apple gets more profit than its competitors despite lower market share is because customers are willing to pay high prices for a better computer. How do we know this? When surveyed, users have consistently give Apple top marks in customer satisfaction. They've done it 13 years in a row.
Saying this lightly, I was a kid in the 90s, but I do remember a lot of ads for large Mac stacks (towers, disks, video cards, etc). Tiny SGIs in a way.
Notable films include Benjamin Button and one of the X-Men: Wolverine films.
Presumably you mean video editing shops and not blockbusters? Our video shops were green screen terminals on DOS until... well until they ceased existence.
Mmmh... how so? Internationally, Apple has less than 5% market share compared to Windows PC. And that number appears to be destined to drop if the reactions to the new generation are any indication.
I'd love it if we could find actual, objective numbers.
What is wrong with his methodology or assumptions that invalidate the 45% number?
I am honestly curious because I don't want to continue to cite a bad source.
Lenovo, Dell, HP, ASUS = 64% marketshare. Apple=7%.
Apple laptops are not dominant, they are a large niche. Microsoft dominates the PC market.
Just wanted to add a couple of things: Pro hardware can exist and has existed at Apple for most of its existence, please look back at the post and comments for evidence..
My point was not that Apple should choose between 'pro' hardware and consumer/boutique hardware, in fact, Apple has a long tradition of keeping both happy..
Maybe Apple really isn't interested in the Mac any more, or even in developers. But who makes the apps, the games, etc..
Why not keep power users, keep their 'street cred' as the 'creative platform' and make a little (a lot, actually) scratch on the side...
Old geezer cries out:
Can't we all just get along?
I don't remember having a Mac Classic Pro or a LC Pro and so forth.
Back in those days the Mac was almost nonexistent in Portugal.
There was just one official importer, Interlog, and buying anything Mac related meant traveling to Lisbon.
So the first time I actually programmed on a Mac was in 1994, on Classic and LC models.
The only ones available on the university campus on a single room! I think there were around 10 there.
The remaining ones were located in the IT department, used by the secretaries and a few teachers.
So you were using education-targeted macs, but there were always pro-level computers from Apple ever since the very early days (Lisa, Apple IIGS, Power Mac G3, G4, G5, etc). It's only once they discontinued the cheese grater Power Mac that things started to get pretty bad for users who need expansion and massive power.
Personally, I'm extremely disappointed - I've been desperately holding off buying a new MacBook Pro to replace the aging mid-2012 non-retina model I'm still using, but what would I really be upgrading for now? I already have 16gb of RAM and a big SSD, sure I don't have a Touch Bar but I don't give a shit about it anyway. The only thing I truly need is a retina screen and for that I could just buy a second-hand MBP for substantially less money, and I wouldn't need to buy a thousand dongles.
I thought this snippet from Jason Snell summarizes the new MacBook Pro offering well:
"I don’t quite get the existence of the low-end, non-Touch-Bar-having 13-inch MacBook Pro. On stage, Phil Schiller argued that it was essentially a Retina replacement for the 13-inch MacBook Air, and I can see that. But it’s $500 more and is it really a MacBook Pro? Does the MacBook Pro line need to have this extra product attached at the bottom of it, lacking the most interesting feature of the rest of the line?
"Then again, it’s not really a MacBook either, because it’s heavier and has two Thunderbolt 3 ports rather than the one USB-C port on the MacBook. It’s a tweener product and Apple has apparently decided that it doesn’t want to introduce another new name to its laptop line, so MacBook Pro it is. But it’s weird. Not necessarily bad—it really does fill a niche that’s between the full-on MacBook Pro and the MacBook—but weird nonetheless."
I think this is likely the beginning of a correction in Apple's laptop offerings. MacBook/MacBook Air/MacBook Pro was a departure from the consumer/pro split. Apple was overdue in updating the MacBook Pro and got a bit caught in the power/CPU/memory state of current offerings. For a lot of people the new MacBook Pro will be good. Just not the Pro (some) are looking for. Hopefully we will see a true Pro model next Fall.
It's going to be at least 3-5 years until the industry uses USB-C and by that point a new series of Macbook Pro will have been released.
This applies to the non-Touch Bar Macbook as well. Price and specs are fine, but why does it only have two USB-C ports?
It feels like the removal of the HDMI port is an attempt to get people to buy an AppleTV. On this "pro" model of laptop, they don't want people connecting it to a TV. But, at least for me, this doesn't cover my use case.
Magsafe, USB Type A, HDMI, and Mini DisplayPort / Thunderbolt 1/2 are all literally too wide to fit within the width of the new laptop’s sides. They would have needed to make the whole laptop noticeably thicker or otherwise differently shaped to fit any of those. The headphone jack barely fits.
Or, they could have just stayed at the level of thickness Macbook Pros already had.
Yet it has full sized USB 3.0 ports, a USB-C port, SD slot and an HDMI port.
The only reason those ports don't fit on the new MacBooks, is because the bottom curves up near the edges.
And it's far from the only ultrabook around that thickness with those kind of ports. I'm just amused that it has more variety of ports than the Pro machine which costs 3 to 4 times as much. (though, no thunderbolt 3)
But it's not even in the same market as the Macbook Pro, it should be competing with the Macbook. I was kind of hoping to upgrade it to a Macbook Pro when the new model was released.
They make the device itself simple & light, but at the expense of having a ton of octopuses hanging around for whenever you actually need to plug it into anything. They've been doing this for a while, including the Mac Pro.
I believe is fair for them to raise prices if they need to in order to properly achieve their targets. I'm willing to pay those prices every 3-4years for a better machine where I do 100% of my work. But they need to make them worth the price!
Instead, they removed a lot of useful things used every day by me, added things many won't have a use for (I use my laptop docked most of the time) and still they didn't make them top of the line spec wise (8gb/256gb at 2000$, max only 16gb), while being 500$ for the same BTO options!.
Do you mean to say you wish they would include USB-A?
That's like saying car has combustion engine.
> I don't see what else could go into the 15inch MBP that it currently lacks?
* Razer Blade: 0.70", 4.30lbs. VR-ready performance. i7, DDR4, PCIe SSD, GTX1060. Starts at $1800.
* Gigabye Aero: 0.78", 4.16lbs. VR-ready performance. i7, DDR4, PCIe SSD, GTX1060. Starts at $1500.
MBP is fine if you don't need performance. It straddles the line between netbook and laptop - which is probably why it does so well. Most people don't need more. However, Apple does not service the market that needs more in any way whatsoever. They probably never will: regardless of where the cost of Apple products comes from, they cannot compete with the bang-for-buck of the above examples (neither support Linux very well).
(Sorry, it was too easy)
Time will tell whether an extremely loud but mostly not-rationally-arguing crowd can really have an impact.
Being a fan and using Apple sends very little signal regarding their quality. Being agnostic and using Apple sends a larger signal. Right now the signal seems to be that Apple is no longer making professional class hardware. Fans and status symbol seekers will still want them. People who need to get work done will slowly stop wanting them.
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013)
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro11,3
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Memory: 16 GB
We can apologize Apple all we want, we can pretend there is a greater vision going on behind the scenes, but sorry, it just isn't, I can't even use the headphones from my new iPhone to listen music/sound in my new MacBook Pro (not alone connect my iPhone to the MacBook Pro to charge/transfer media with the lightning port) without an adapter.
That's an utter lack of vision, development path, aims of the products. It's literally a mess.
A "true Pro grade" computer offers no such advantage - in fact most of the innovation comes from making things smaller and thinner - as soon as you take away the weight/size restriction, sure you can make supercomputers in a box, but it's also pretty darn easy to do so.
And the final point - consumer bike customers usually watch bike racing, and probably dream of being a pro bike racer - few Mac customers could care less about "digital creative professionals" and don't really want to emulate being one of them.
Except that it's not easy to put supercomputer-level performance in a lightweight box (with decent battery life) that you can slip into your bag.
If Apple really wanted to push the boundaries in that way - getting great performance while still using an impossibly small laptop - there's actually a few directions they could've gone in, namely anything where you push computation into the cloud and then see the results locally. Basically come to market saying "you Windows/Linux schmucks and your tons of local VM's. You don't need that, we'll run your VM's in the cloud, and we'll make it Apple-easy for you to do so." No more local rendering, local building, nothing. The original assets are kept on some Apple cloud, a cache is kept on your machine, and whenever you start an operation, it starts the operation both on the cache and on the Apple cloud, and if the Apple cloud finishes first, then the results are returned to your computer.
Unfortunately, Apple just doesn't care anymore about its professional customers. It started with the EOL for XServe (which could've been transitioned, along with OS X Server, into a private-cloud oriented offering) and it has worked its way down into its end-user offerings.
What do you think most Mac users want?
If that's the focus, then it makes sense to emphasize thinness, aesthetics, and raise the price at the same time.
Microsoft on the other hand seem to be working hard on winning developer mindshare again, as they know they can't compete with Apple in the branding space.
I hope the surface book 2 will have a 32gb option.
1) Apple gets out of the Mac business in a few years - Apple is not the kind of company to wait patiently for its product lines to run into the ground. The only reason they really need the Mac is Xcode for all those iOS apps that need to be developed. I wouldn't be surprised to see an Xcode for iCloud, or maybe even some kind of partnership with Microsoft (Visual Studio already lets you build iOS apps, just not in Swift).
2) Apple is working on the Mac's second act (third?), which could only be a switch to ARM. It makes business sense because a lot of the R&D will be united between iOS and Mac - making those A9s and A10s sure isn't cheap. And it explains the lackluster progress from customers' perspective.
My bet is on #1, so all the criticism about the MacBook's ports or RAM is just barking up the wrong tree.
This is simply not true. MacOS is at the very least a companion OS that gets more and more tightly integrated with the iOS devices. App handover, now also copy/paste, etc etc. An iPhone without a Mac loses many of its advantages over Android. Let alone that there are no signs Apple is going to abandon the Mac business as you say, the recent MBP announcements being the best proof of it.
On (2) switching to ARM: I personally don't believe in this, because this will break a lot of software and will seriously piss off a lot of people. The switch to Intel was relatively easier back in the day because the Mac user base at the time was laughable and there was a big promise that the Macs will become a lot more powerful. I know about the bitcode and stuff, but the more I think about it, the less I believe Apple is prepared to make the switch for its laptops and desktops. Maybe, just maybe one separate product line like MacBook Air switches to ARM, but then what's the point?
Apple also did a good job with Rosetta, which they kept around for quite some time. You'll note that Intel has folks that have done binary translation of ARM in an attempt to grab some mobile market share. The same could be done on the x86 => ARM side.
But it only works if the result is fast enough. We're probably still not that close today, but what odds would you take on 5 years? If most of the software folks are writing on macs is for other Apple ARM-based products, it doesn't sound so crazy to emulate x86 for people doing "server" work.
A modest cost saving doesn't qualify and would be partially swallowed up by R&D costs. Energy/thermal savings might be a reason in theory, but how much of a laptop's energy use goes to the CPU anyway? Apple seems to be doing just fine with Intel's low-TDP parts anyway.
If only so i have a phone i can use for phone calls where i don't need to worry about the battery running out, and which i can stuff into any pocket on my body.
just as Apple used to have
F1 and LMP race cars are not sold. Not even FE cars are sold.
At the end of the keynote, I was left with the impression that the Mac Pro is going to be canned in a few months, probably along with the Mac mini - just disappear silently from the store. Even the iMac may get canned in a couple of years, leaving the portable MBP as the sole Mac available. This may be the leading act for introducing an ARM based MBP, thus eliminating the effort to deal with a refresh of other Macs to ARM based chips.
I've expressed my frustration here on this topic before. Apple seems unwilling and incompetent to put in what it takes to show that it still can do and maintain things well.
Apple is doing and will do a shitload of money anyway.
People will buy Apple stuff anyway because people already are: unless you are an Apple user, you should know how "religious" (I'm being kind here) Apple users are. They have been consciously been buying outdated and overpriced hardware until now, and they have been super proud about this too.
So this is going to last anything from five to ten years at least, still imho.
I have no true idea whether newer apple stuff is so bad or not (besides the idiotic drop of the audio jack on the iPhone). But Apple users have been subject to this Apple-isy for literally decades.
I have a suspicion that now that Apple Macbook Pros are so widespread, complaining about Apple is the new hipsteria.
This is what I feel, reading the news, on a foggy October, almost-November morning.
If Apple started making super computers to play chess then the analogy would be valid.
Besides, you can't buy an F1, but you will buy fast cars from manufacturers based on their F1 results. Ferrari could ship a Jeep tomorrow and people would still buy it thinking it's the fastest Jeep ever.
Even though Touring car and Sports car racing exist, they would be more of an analog to the (hardware manufacturer supplied) overclocking scene, than what is actually required for daily use by professionals, who don't want to sit in cages void of any comfort for endurance races.
These are the people who spent a year posting almost-daily "waiting" threads, and who would normally be discussing how to cheat or sell their souls to get the latest gizmo right away. I expect people in /r/pcmasterrace are laughing.
They are undoubtedly aware of a certain amount of discontent being vented on the internet, and will most likely consider placating it (not addressing it) a process that needs to be looked into to.
If you want to make a difference, vote with your wallet. System76 makes nice laptops, and Dell's XPS line isn't too bad.
I haven't commented yet at all since I think several issues aren't actually as big as people are concerned about them, but overall, I'm frustrated with the situation for computing.
I don't know how Apple works internally, but for me the problem is clearly not Tim Cook, but rather Jony Ive. He seems to be obsessed with some sort of purity that I appreciate in design. However form vs. function is too much of a tension to be bearable within one person. I think Apple lacks folks who weigh in on the functionality side of things. Why? Becasue Ive is magically associated with Jobs, Ive is almost like some medium to get to Jobs, or at least that's how I think some folks perceive him.
In reality Ive seems to be the person who'd rather have a nice TouchBar that spans the whole width of the keyboard instead of keeping just the escape key, which is obviously used much more than the other function keys.
I thought about this a lot and by now I know I'll definitely be okay with it, especially since there's no other non-tactile key near it (meaning my body will know I've hit escape once it touches the flatness that doesn't give in).
Another personal thing for me is the Magsafe. I really liked it not just as a trip-proof charging solution, but also for the way you connect it. It's so effortless, it's fun again and again. It's one of these micro-reinforcements that makes us love products.
And again I can see the conflict. The new beauty is that you can dock so many devices and charging with just one single cable. I think that's a pretty great feature.
If there was more functionally thinking folks with power at Apple, they'd probably suggested to keep a Magsafe and allow the MBP to be charged by either that or over the USB-C. But you see how "ugly" even this though is, right?! It's a compromise and so in the end I think the current MacBook Pro is the result of not making any compromise in any of these decisions and that yields the product they showed us.
So part of me hates this chasing of pureness since I see it almost as some neurotic obsession about the visual aesthetics. I guess it would take a lot of self-confidence for a company like Apple to be okay with things that could be easily portrayed as compromises by the press. On the other hand I realize I'm pathetic and I'm not really working on improving any of this, so I thank Apple for pissing us off because it's somehow stimulating as well. (Even if it's just stimulating as in "work harder", so I can buy one of these without thinking too much about it).
Metaphorically speaking, sometimes when a girl is nice to us, we think she's more interested in us than she really is. I think Apple was just "being nice" to us in the past and we took it the wrong way.