It’s one thing for me to buy a “disposable computer” when it is priced very low. It’s another thing for me when you can’t upgrade or service computers with premium-priced parts in them. This is a trend I don’t support.
Unfortunately the only way to protest Apple’s business decisions is to leave the Mac, which means giving up macOS, which I find a more productive environment for me than Windows or any of the Linux desktops like KDE and GNOME. I started using macOS back when Macs were user-serviceable, upgradeable, and reasonably affordable. I continue using the Mac for macOS, but I’m finding myself alienated by Apple's business decisions.
I wish the situation for personal computer operating systems were better. I want PC hardware with an operating system that has the same power, attention to detail, usability, and reliability that macOS has. At this point I am willing to spend my spare time on such a project.
Apple in the last 20 pushed the boundaries in terms of sleek and slim, but I argue those are last century's imperatives. Apple has the clout and profile, that if it took a stand and said 'we are going to make our products a few milimeters thicker, we are going to make them so that they can be upgraded, we realise that this will hit sales and profits, but this is the planet we are talking about', they could probably pull other members of the industry behind them'. Conspicuous non consumption might be the new fashion statement.
I have many "progressive", "pro-eco" friends who just can't understand I am still using that old crappy Nexus 5X although I could afford a new, fancier phone (and my cell phone operator would subsidize it partly and nice person from call center would add another 4 GB of free internet to existing 15, as if I could ever use so much using cell phone).
They also cannot understand that I am still driving my 10 years old car instead of leasing/buying a new car which would be more "eco friendly". I am trying to explain them that cars are not growing on trees and producing a new one is not really that environment friendly and that during past 10 years cars were not improved so much in terms of CO2 emission to justify the change (giving recent car makers test scandals it is hard to say if they improved at all. Even if I could buy electric car, which is not really an option in my country due to lack of infrastructure and my usecase - I don't drive in the city, only long travels - still producing a new car emits more CO2 than my car will emit during its remaining lifetime).
Same with driving to work (they buy those new cars for a reason, not to sit in a tram among those sweating people), same with using electric laundry dries (it is so unfashionable to air-dry laundry at home), etc.
People love to talk about being pro-eco and taking actions that make them feel good, but they can't face the truth that their consumption habits change would be infinitely more beneficial.
If anyone else is wondering, I think you're right about this. I've looked into it and there are a few people who've tried to tackle the question of what's better but I find they all have some problem with the assumptions they make, largely because it's just a difficult problem with a lot of variables. Mileage, age of each vehicle, expected life of each vehicle, what emissions can be attributed to production, whether to include emissions of the inefficiencies of recycling one but not the other, etc.
I decided that a new eco-friendly car and a similar old used car were close enough in emissions - i.e. within the same magnitude - that it wasn't worth it if it's your only reason for spending the money on a new car. What's far more effective is reducing mileage done in a car.
If any company is going to go this route though, it's not going to be Apple. It harkens back to the days where Wozniak and Jobs argued whether or not to put slots into the Apple 2, and Jobs won that one of course. His legacy runs strong in the company.
[EDIT] Apologies, Jobs relented in the instance of the Apple 2, mainly because that was Woz's baby. Later models did not allow for playing with the hardware however.
The Apple ][ had expansion slots.
"Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak was a strong believer in hardware expandability, and he endowed the Apple II with luxurious expandability [....] Steve [Jobs] was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports."
"Burrell was afraid the 128Kbyte Mac would seem inadequate [...] He realized that he could support 256Kbit RAM chips simply by routing a few extra lines on the PC board,
But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party."
I don't mind if they are not expandable or repairable, if they were design to last, heavily tested for reliability, then I am fine. It should be so reliable to the point Apple is willing to offer 2 years standard warranty to Mac products for the same price, with AppleCare going up to 4 years.
The problem is I am seeing lots and lots of small details that simply ignores reliabilit. And they are not fixing it, such the the Thunderbolt high voltage placement right next to the CPU pin with no separation, cables failing for no reason. Keyboard etc.
And if these were fixed in each iteration of MacBook Pro, we wouldn't have much problem. Except the same problem in 2016 exists as in the 2019 model as well.
And these quality issues were apparent with many newer Apple products. iPad Pro bending when you Open it in box. AirPod 2 with rough finishes that cut your ears, ( and Apple even refuse to exchange it ).
There is a reason why Repair Shops for Apple products are thriving, its because they fail and lots of people are repairing them instead of going to Apple store where their Staff simply suggest a price that you might as well buy a new one.
seriously tho, the way i see is to boycott companies hindering repairs, and plaster the repair manifesto everywhere
EDIT: political rant below
the issue at hand is that these companies actions are dictated by their boards of investors, most of them members of the so-called 1%. and for some philanthropist exceptions those people only care about acquisition of wealth. they do not care about environmental damage, as they live in a different world than all of us, they do not have to go to work to secure their basic needs.
their very lifestyle is not threatened by global warming, social injustice or wars.
when the sea level rises they still will be residing in climate-controlled mansions, but at that time build of island further away from equator,
they will still have access to best medical treatment,
they will still have best food on their plates, even if the produce on those plates will cost 10'000$ a serving they will still have the funds.
they will still roam the seas on their super-sized yachts
they world is not in danger. ours is
That's not how capitalism works.
Between green and more profit, it will always pick more profit.
The green "recycling" etc is just ecology theater. Recycling = tons of parts just ending up in China (under "recycle" programs where they're paid to get western trash), where most of it is discarded and thrown away anyway.
Absolutely. If your customers start choosing you rather than your competitors due to your green credentials, then in can lead to more profit.
In exactly the same way that Apple is gambling that security will lead to more profit, despite the fact that selling customer data is clearly a profitable short term opportunity.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen either. That will be the last concern of the majority of consumers...
And of course companies need to sabotage their sales (tell customers "just keep upgrading your existing model, buy less, etc") to get those actual (not ecology-theater) green credentials, which no company and no competitors are gonna do either.
He won't read it. His PR team will respond instead.
>if it takes the environment seriously (and I commend them on what they have done so far)
They don't it's just PR. The stuff that they should do if they took the environment seriously are offloaded to companies like Foxconn which don't care about their public image.
>be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.
They won't do that unless they get to a point that they just can't increase their margins or expand to other countries anymore. They even further invested into locking their computers on a semiconductor level( t2 chip).
>Apple has the clout and profile, that if it took a stand and said 'we are going to make our products a few milimeters thicker, we are going to make them so that they can be upgraded, we realise that this will hit sales and profits, but this is the planet we are talking about', they could probably pull other members of the industry behind them'.
That doesn't make them money. They didn't become the biggest tech company by not focusing on making money.
> That doesn't make them money. They didn't become the biggest tech company by not focusing on making money.
It does if they catch a new wave of consumer enthusiasm earlier than their competitors. I eliev such a wave exists.
At least in the US (and presumably in the EU which is much better about this sort of stuff) this is not legal. You can upgrade it on your own and Apple still has to honor the warranty.
This follows an earlier infraction over refusing to repair faults after a year without AppleCare https://www.crn.com.au/news/apple-agrees-to-two-year-warrant...
Even the new Mac mini is quite expensive compared to its predecessors. Mac mini used to be the cheap and beginner level entry into Macs/macOS. The current hardware may be worth the price, but Apple has clearly missed making something that’s a lot more affordable (with cheaper parts, fewer ports, etc.).
The Mac Mini 2014 showed the Apple to come: an overpriced, non-serviceable slab of metal.
I'm actually one of these few people who's also happy with the new MBP.
 Though this means I wouldn't be included in purchaser satisfaction ratings, because I didn't purchase.
The new MBP is basically gambling. You take your money to the Apple Store. They give you a computer, and a year down the line you see if that computer still works.
Apple products used to last an age, that is what justified the price. There are many people in this thread using old MBPs, including myself.
The more expensive a computer, the longer it is expected to last. It is quite normal to expect 5 years of use out of these things. I see plenty of evidence that this keyboard design is not capable of that.
Anecdotally, a friend of mine built a beefy PC running macOS for his main work computer (i9, 64GB RAM, etc., for about half the price of a Mac Pro). It's completely built of generic, modular parts (other than the proprietary OS), with ability to extend and repair. Apparently, Apple is listening but money speaks louder than user freedoms.
> Market failure is the economic situation defined by an inefficient distribution of goods and services in the free market...In traditional microeconomics, this is shown as a steady state disequilibrium in which the quantity supplied does not equal the quantity demanded.
GP claimed there are demands not being met, because suppliers make more money selling to a "virtual customer that's an average of all customers across all characteristics." If that's correct, arguably it is a market failure, and that's consistent with those suppliers making lots of money selling to that average customer.
It seems to me it’s more like cases where poor infrastructure prevents distribution, or excessive regulation obstructs trade, preventing vendors and purchasers from linking up. That’s a problem on both sides. It’s an actual failure of the market itself.
Even for technically challenged artists, it is not difficult because there are several technicians around here that install Hackintosh machines for this industry and update them from time to time. Their names are passed by word-of-mouth.
The bigger production houses will probably buy the new Mac Pros, but the entire freelance sector will keep their Hackintoshes or move to Windows. The pricing is just crazy.
Like I said, it can work, but relying on "word of mouth technicians" isn't very practical. There are also times when, after an update, things just break, and the "technician" may not even be able to fix the issue in a timely fashion, especially issues related to sound or QE/CI. I've done enough digging around and tinkering with kext files and video drivers to know that it can sometimes take days of concerted effort to fix these issues. I'm sure mileage varies depending on one's needs or the particular hardware configuration but you're rolling the dice every time you update.
Definitely, they've all become paranoid about updates or installing anything which is not absolutely necessary. They are a version or two of macOS behind, and never update without confirming with the technician.
I shudder at the security implications, but I'm told it has become quite common after the trashcan came out.
I predict that MacOS's premier status will be disappear before Apple manages to lock it down. The Mac app development community is dying. Apple strangled it to death with the heavy handed Mac App Store sandboxing policies. Nobody wants to develop exclusive Mac apps anymore.
Featuring a used i7 3770k and rx580, it cost $200 to build and its CPU benchmarks were on par with the macbook pro i7 2017 but much more graphically capable (which is surprisingly noticeable when doing innocuous tasks like maintaining smooth animations when switching between desktops)
These users will either have to give up user-serviceability and buy a Mac Mini or iMac, somehow pony up more money to get a $6000 Mac Pro, or abandon macOS unless they go the Hackintosh route, which is not an option in corporate environments and other places where EULAs are enforced. This is the choice that Apple presented us with.
The (non-Pro) iMac is a great substitute if they don't want user serviceability.
I personally don’t even care if it’s AMD instead of Nvidia, I just want stronger card options. The fact that the GPU in the top config iMac Pro is just on par with my now-old 980Ti really sours it.
Note that I’m saying this as a long time Mac user and iOS dev using a hackintosh tower alongside a couple of MacBooks.
A $999 ATX upgradable Mac would kill the product line stone dead. The profit margins would be tiny, reverting to industry averages, and wipe out Apple's ability to invest in high grade materials, design and software engineering.
What happens to Apple when their capacity to devote resources to differentiating their products is no better than Dell or Samsung?
They’ve been sticking to Macs since.
Is that a good thing? I am not so sure. People complain about the power they have over their app store, or their efforts to prevent people from loading apps purchased outside of the store, but turn a blind eye to the restrictions on using the OS.
Windows for what few warts remains is much more free to do with as you please.
Still, I no longer buy Apple products if they are labeled as made in China, that is a bigger affront that all the locking of software ever was.
Having an iMac on my desk also makes it difficult just to add a PC to my setup, as I would need a screen on top of this (and my desk space is scarce), but one day I might do the step - recent Gnome desktops have become very nice, and with Wayland the Linux display stack is getting nicer too.
That has not been my experience. The Apple store just refreshed my 2015 Macbook pro: new screen, new bottom case, new fan, etc. Did not charge me anything.
Apple products last much longer than others and are much cheaper to maintain.
Also touchscreen start to literally fell off after 2 year, but can’t tell if it was weak design or if my wife was careless to be honest.
This is like saying Ferrari has doubled down on its refusal to sell a budget hatchback for families.
They already have models in the "regular hatchback for families" range (and had since forever).
It's the mid-tier that suffers.
I want an upgradeable Mac tower, but I certainly don't need a Xeon workstation with ECC memory even if I can afford a Mac Pro.
I'm quite happy with my 5K iMac so far, but I'm worried about future repairs and upgrades.
It’s far easier than I thought it would be. Pick the right parts and it will work flawlessly.
Convincing Donald Trump of climate change being real seems easier than that.
However, I am curious as to the process for getting a kext signing cert, as that plays a part in the value of having the certs in the first place or not.
I didn't mention anything about serial numbers and the fun and games that goes on there when trying to get a Hackintosh working with iMessage/Facetime/iCloud services, which is a bit of a mixed bag. There could be security implications related to that, that haven't been worked out of the woodwork yet, but the kernel extensions feels like the biggest risk there.
I had a big interest in virtualization and along the years of using the mac I tried all kinds of linux servers in VMs for research and self education. I never did like ubuntu's standard desktop. I tried them all. After the Mojave fiasco I thought I'd buy a mid range computer with the latest Nvidia card (partially just because I could do that and I could not do that with mac). My mac was on the cliff edge of planned obsolescence anyway (Apple decides for you when it is time to upgrade).
Long story short it is indeed difficult to get used to Linux. You have to develop a survival attitude first. I found that changing one thing like fstab could make the system unbootable. Sudo can ruin your system fast if you are not careful and an expert. I did not want to be either careful or an expert just to get work done. So to survive my poor administration skills I found I could lean on a program called TimeShift which works a lot like timemachine for Mac. Its really like the best parts of Time Machine combined with Windows' restore points. Anytime I am about to install something new or tweak something that has the potential for causing a disaster I take a few minutes to make a snapshot via TimeMachine/Rsync. I can always go back, and if I really mess everything up I can boot into a live cd and run TimeShift from that.
TimeShift unfortunately does not do home directories very well but there is another gui/cli program called BackInTime that I use for the Time Machine like solution for my home directory and a couple others.
I use rotating backups. I have backups on a big 8 TB external drive and then I rsync that to a copy drive and leave that one offline in case my main machine gets poisoned by ransomware.
So thats my survival technique..
But is it worth it? It took me about a month to figure out what to do for disasters and bad configurations and I spent about a month deciding what "distro" to use. I tried all flavors of Ubuntu, and tried Mint but settled on Debian with the Cinnamon desktop. I got to say I really like cinnamon, it is very ram hungry but ram is cheap so it isn't a problem for me. It supports high dpi (well 2x at least). The file manager is great, it even has ftp built into it. Context menus work good, right click to open as root, or open a terminal. Cinnamon is a classic take on well established principles in UI design that were perfected over a decade ago, instead of changing things just to change them.
But so what if there are no good applications! I have a multimedia background so that was my interest. I used to use Photoshop cs6 for years but Adobe is too incompetent and greedy to rely on for the future. My photo editing needs have not changed much since I bought it in 2008 so Gimp isn't too far behind what I owned since then. I just tried using lightwave recently but it fails to work even in a VM so I decided to learn Blender. I could not justify purchasing Modo even though it is available for Linux. Main thing is Muscle memory. The proof is in the pudding for art programs. If people are doing amazing things with it, the software has merit. So I have a lot of optimism that I can still get some nice work done.
Visual studio code on linux is really nice. There were some snafus I had to get around but when it is setup its terrific.
I never used Microsoft office at home and my office requirements are simple. But if I did need it, I could use Office 365 on a web browser I presume. I just need the occasional word processor and spreadsheet.
Video editing on Linux is still a sore point but I like Olive editor and I am trying to support it with Patreon. It feels a lot like an early verion of Sonic Foundry Vegas. I in no way will ever miss Adobe Premiere
Debian has tens of thousands of software packages that are just a apt install away. That is a gigantic value. I don't have to worry about Window's malware as much as linux malware. I don't have to upgrade my hardware according to Apple's schedules and demands. I have access to the latest or near to the latest Nvidia hardware.
Desktop computing today is a disaster. I hate windows, I can't afford to waste money on inferior hardware and pray that the designers don't forsake my professional platform for consumerish goals. Debian isn't the only or the best linux perhaps. But if I didn't have Linux I would just give up on computing entirely and work at a factory or something.
DaVinci Resolve for video/audio editing on Linux, which has a great free version and may be the best editing software on the market for any platform. I've done a few professional jobs with it and greatly preferred it to Adobe Premiere/After Effects/Audition. Highly recommended.
Krita is great for photo editing/digital painting and Inkscape does a good job of replacing Illustrator for most uses. GIMP is still unbearable for professional use. This is the biggest gap in quality software for me - nothing can truly replace Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator or InDesign yet.
Figma is perfect for UI design/wireframing/prototyping and has a fully featured web app.
Blender is insanely powerful for free software these days (see Next Gen on Netflix for a feature-length movie created entirely in Blender) and Octane/Redshift render engines are available for industry quality 3D images.
VSCode handles all of my web development and native Linux terminals are much, much faster than WSL when installing and running tools like Webpack, Gulp etc.
LibreOffice covers 99% of use cases and looks pretty slick with a good theme, however I use Google Docs or Office 365 to ensure compatibility with clients' machines.
Also, the Mini and the iMacs have always had upgradeable RAM.
Thanks, I didn't know the 2014 model didn't have upgradeable RAM. The last one I bought was the 2013.
Get Ubuntu, install Docky and Macbuntu theme if you want to keep familiar desktop around before you fully convert to Linux.
It runs DaVinci Resolve and Pixar's RenderMan natively. CS6 runs reliably under Wine as well.
Can you run 3DS Max on macOS? So, isn't macOS a pro environment then?
Most people aren't asking "does $OS run an image editor?" they are asking "does Photoshop run on $OS?". Replace Photoshop with any widely known or niche application (as both are reasons to select an OS).
Our budgets are a fraction of a hollywood production though.
The base model Mac Pro isn't going to be doing much at all. The higher end model with a lot of upgrades is going to be the sweet spot. You really need to push up to a 12-16 core, with 64-128gb RAM, 11+gb GPUs and then add the afterburner card (cause Apple won't play nice with Nvidia) if you want to be doing anything with 8K RAW on a high resolution display.
Yes, the Mac Pro is essentially an infinitely upgradable machine. That's awesome. But third party support is questionable and without Nvidia that leaves a lot of speculation as to what the afterburner card will truly be able to do.
I'd kill for that motherboard in a smaller CPU buildout. In a high budget post-facility environment, it may be an ideal candidate. Currently there isn't a Mac in our reach that doesn't overheat or choke on big media projects (we refuse to look at the iMac Pro seriously).
We've been holding off buying new gear for several years. Most of the editors I work with would prefer to stay on macOS, but the base model should have been $3500 8-Core with a lot more GPU horses. Apple delivered a $6000 box without anything to back it up. At a minimum we'd have to upgrade to a bigger GPU and add the afterburner cards and a little RAM, probably pushing us close to $10k mark.
AMD Ryzen 3000 and Threadripper builds are going to be increasingly more common for normal budget media work. The Intel i9 is our current sweet spot for budget to power ratio.
If I was in an unlimited budget post-facility, yeah, I'd get one cause it looks pretty damn cool and I love macOS. But I don't expect it to solve a lot of real world problems if upgrades are bottlenecked to proprietary offerings from Apple. We're going to have to wait and see if they can keep up with the rest of the industry.
Also, why are you refusing to look at the iMac Pro? Best machine I ever had.
We have actually started buying Intel NUCs for our student labs instead of Macs. Adobe and Office work on both.
I'm fairly positive the iMac Pro would melt though. Even if it didn't melt at first, the load it lived under would greatly reduce the lifespan of the machine.
As for the CPU, I agree. However I’m not 100% sure on how much can be offloaded to the GPU these days, 5-ish years ago when I was working with video editors a lot, it wasn’t much that could be offloaded.
Maybe it’s improved a lot.
- Neither the Mac Mini nor 2019 Mac Pro are user-serviceable; you have to take your Mac to an Apple-approved repair center if you want to upgrade your RAM (see https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205041#one and https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208377). I guess it's nice to have DIMMs when the computer is out of warranty, but I'd like to preserve my warranty and not have to pay Apple's prices for RAM upgrades plus labor costs.
- The storage is soldered onto the motherboard in the Mac Mini, which precludes upgrading or replacing storage.
- The storage for the iMac Pro is a special proprietary design, precluding the use of industry-standard M.2 NVMe flash drives. (Granted, the 2013 Mac Pro doesn't use industry standard M.2 NVMe drives, either, although I've read that it's possible to use some standard NVMe drives in the 2013 Mac Pro with the help of an adapter.)
- The iMac Pro at $4999 is still much more expensive than the previous generation base Mac Pro, which was $2999.
- The iMac Pro is an all-in-one design. I prefer desktop computers that are not housed inside a monitor; what happens if the monitor fails?
Apple has been providing a totally painless backup solution for a very long time, and there's no excuse for not using it.
I think your issues really just exist in your head. Which is fine, because it is YOUR head after all, but these issues are not relevant outside of your head.
Sorry for the rant in advance, just getting fed up reading all these comments that make no sense whatsoever. It pretty much all boils down to people not wanting to pay for quality.
The iMac Pro is quite nice. But extremely expensive, the computer is tied and limited to the 27" screen (which I consider on the small side), you are tied to the graphics card ordered (not sure how the top choice compares to a full desktop card), CPUs are Xeons, so quite expensive for what they do, RAM and SSD are not accessible, not even the cooling fans can be cleaned (and eventually cooling fans have to be cleaned). Once again limited to external drives.
The standard iMac now offers an i9 CPU which seems to be a sweet spot, but you don't get the same graphics cards as the iMac Pro, but at least accessible RAM. For all iMacs of current design, its a $300 bill to get anything done on the inside, due to the glued nature. A non-glued iMac would become instantly more attractive. But all have in common that you are limited to the builtin screen which you have to dispose of, once you don't use the contained computer any more.
And what is a very practical limitation: they don't have any screen inputs. I would like to connect my (work) MacBook Pro to my iMac screen, but that is not possible. Sometimes I even used via VNC screen sharing out of desparation, but that sucks.