PDA

View Full Version : MBA Fan Issue




puma1552
Feb 23, 2010, 07:48 AM
Hey there, been using a MBA second revision. I've noticed however that it will exhibit peculiar behavior; namely that the fans will tend to ramp up despite the machine not being very hot; iStat shows that the CPU is hovering in the 60-65*C range, and normally the fans will stay around 2500 RPM. However if something ramps up the CPU, the fans will ramp up (as they should), but won't come down after the machine cools short of a restart. SMC works for a while, but then the issue returns.

EDIT: After an appointment at the genius bar they said it was fine; they tested it but ultimately said their machines at the GB are much the same because the MBA has a more aggressive curve for the fans compared to other Macs due to how thin it is. So, no worries. FWIW I also did a clean reinstall of Snow Leopard (had only done the upgrade path prior and not a true clean install) and I think that took care of it completely. Thanks for all the help. :)



bigjnyc
Feb 23, 2010, 08:11 AM
Just this weekend my buddy came over with his Rev. B and he had it hooked up to my 24" ACD.... we had no such problems, couldnt even hear the fans at all. We were running iphoto, ichat, Safari and even played some flash videos and the fans were fine. the only difference is that he has the SSD model, but I dont know if that matters. I would call Applecare on the phone and explain the situation, if you tell them that it specifically happens when hooked up to your ACD they might have you send it in and test it with an ACD. Perhaps if they can replicate the problem they will take care of you. Doesnt hurt to try.

Winni
Feb 23, 2010, 08:29 AM
The easy thing would be to call the support and have them send a technician to your house to fix the machine on site. But you bought a computer from Apple... and they don't offer real service. Dell and HP do that.

Anyway, from your description, this sounds like a real hardware defect and you really should bring your machine to service. Once it's fixed, sell it.

duky
Feb 23, 2010, 08:32 AM
Does it also slow down and become very sluggish to use or is it just the noise from the fans that is bothering you? I have the SSD model and usually when the fans go off there is a culprit: video chatting, lots of YouTube or hulu or graphics editing work that I do in my case. In some instances I also get the computer becoming sluggish but most of the time when it happens it's just fan noise and pretty soon after I stop doing that task the fans subside.

In short, it sounds like you have a problem if the fans refuse to subside even after shutting down whatever application is causing the heat (or in your case shutting down the computer). But of course it could just be a platter vs SSD thing though I'm not sure why that would be. I'd suggest calling Apple and seeing what they suggest or downloading a fan control application.

darngooddesign
Feb 23, 2010, 08:38 AM
Does it happen if you aren't connected to the ACD?

If so, don't connect it.

puma1552
Feb 23, 2010, 08:50 AM
Nope, no issues with the ACD unless I ramp up the CPU.

duky
Feb 23, 2010, 09:19 AM
If so, don't connect it.

That's not a great solution considering Apple advertises the LED Cinema Display to work with the MacBook Air.

Mactagonist
Feb 23, 2010, 11:10 AM
Nope, no issues with the ACD unless I ramp up the CPU.

Try Coolbook. It is only $10 and it helped keep my MBP nice and cool when I was using it.

www.Coolbook.se

Scottsdale
Feb 23, 2010, 03:04 PM
I have had both my B/C MBAs hooked up to both a 24" LED ACD and a 30" ACD with no problems. I have never had a problem after hundreds of hours with a 24" LED ACD. I only used a 30" personally a few times.

I wonder about the usage. I also wonder about the 1.6 GHz Penryn being overworked? I don't know for sure about that. I have had both 1.86 and 2.13 GHz Penryns with no problems at all. I notice that the "magic number" for clock speed performance seems to be around 2 GHz within Mac OS X. Meaning Flash, videos, and other browser plug-ins can hit a CPU really hard within OS X, and the slower the clock speed the more problems will see. I know you stated no Flash, but what is running within your browser then? I also switched to Safari to eliminate problems when running FireFox with CPU usage.

More than anything, I would look into a browser plug-in hitting the CPU really hard? Have you watched in Activity Monitor to see what's happening to your computer?

Bottom line though, I have never seen a slow down related to connecting an external display.

jmoore5196
Feb 23, 2010, 08:11 PM
Interestingly enough, I have the identical problem!

My MBP is out with a hard drive failure, and I have a multimedia project due by the weekend ... InDesign, PhotoShop, lots of Garageband and even the odd Appleworks page thrown in.

The MBA, which heretofore I had never really pushed, is obviously running hot all the time ... even with just Safari open, the fans are still at the limit. I had it away from my 24" ACD for a couple of hours this morning and did not notice the fan activity then.

I enjoy traveling with the MBA, but (with apologies to Scottsdale) I don't think it was built to take much of a load. I've effectively lost several hours this week between staring at the beach ball and Garageband crashes. For a "time is money" guy, this is pretty hard to take.

ARF900
Feb 23, 2010, 08:15 PM
The MBA in my mind is a novelty item, it was never intended to do anything more than very primitive web surfing. The Rev A especially, just go sit on the couch with it unplugged and forget the display, it should hold you over until your MBP gets back.

naid
Feb 23, 2010, 08:41 PM
Why don't you use a PC for a week, it will make you appreciate your MBA.

Also, as already suggested, try Coolbook. It does work.

puma1552
Feb 23, 2010, 09:55 PM
Coolbook may be fine but I personally don't believe in having to use third-party software to control the cooling. Thanks for the suggestion though.

naid
Feb 23, 2010, 10:05 PM
The MBA fans can get twitchy at times. You said the machine is not hot -- have you looked at all the available temperatures via iStat, not just the CPU temperature?

Give Coolbook a try, it's a small price to pay for a potential fix to your problem. It takes a bit of experimenting to get the right settings but once you do, your laptop will be quieter and cooler. I personally tried it on three laptops (2 x MBA, 1 x MBP) with great results on all.

Mactagonist
Feb 23, 2010, 10:13 PM
If you want it to work, use coolbook. If you want to keep raging against the man, dont.

It is what it is, you can either accept that and work around the MBA's limitations or move on to something else and return/sell it.

pvmacguy
Feb 23, 2010, 10:27 PM
My old rev. A would ramp up the fans when connected to my 20" acd. They would stay at 6200 rpm at 55 to 60 degrees C. Took it to the apple store and there ended up being a thermal module failure as well as gpu failure. Fixed that and it was alright for a little while. Then the problem arose again. My warranty was up next month so it went on craiglist and someone traded me a 2,2 mbp with 2.33 ghz and this thing is a dream compared to the air. I do miss the light weight though. :p

So needless to say take yours in sounds like the same issue I had.

Scottsdale
Feb 23, 2010, 11:36 PM
Interestingly enough, I have the identical problem!

My MBP is out with a hard drive failure, and I have a multimedia project due by the weekend ... InDesign, PhotoShop, lots of Garageband and even the odd Appleworks page thrown in.

The MBA, which heretofore I had never really pushed, is obviously running hot all the time ... even with just Safari open, the fans are still at the limit. I had it away from my 24" ACD for a couple of hours this morning and did not notice the fan activity then.

I enjoy traveling with the MBA, but (with apologies to Scottsdale) I don't think it was built to take much of a load. I've effectively lost several hours this week between staring at the beach ball and Garageband crashes. For a "time is money" guy, this is pretty hard to take.

I actually believe you must have an HDD in your MBA to be seeing The Spinning Beach Ball from Hell like that. With my stock SSD, a beach ball was a rare deal. With a Runcore SSD, the beach ball is almost never seen. With a stock HDD, The Spinning Beach Ball from Hell is a "constant" just as a mouse pointer is a constant. Give an MBA a Penryn 1.86/2.13 GHz CPU, an Nvidia GPU, an SSD and Mini Display Port, and the thing drives a 24" LED ACD without any work at all. I refuse to say the MBA isn't capable. I do agree it's not a MacBook "PRO" but then neither is a MacBook Pro a "Pro." Needless to say the MBA is not marketed as a capable professional computer. In addition, the MBA has an underclocked GPU running at about 80% of the power of the 13" MBP. Also remember the MBA has limited space to cool via fans or heat sync.

OP: I rarely ever hear my fans. I do apologize though, as I incorrectly assumed it was overheating since the fans were going nuts. I do see the fans go sometimes when I am really hitting the system hard via HD video playback.

alphaod
Feb 24, 2010, 05:00 PM
Why don't you use a PC for a week, it will make you appreciate your MBA.

Also, as already suggested, try Coolbook. It does work.

I use a PC every day; makes me wonder how Apple gets away with expensive underperforming computers.

archipellago
Feb 24, 2010, 05:21 PM
Why don't you use a PC for a week, it will make you appreciate your MBA.

Also, as already suggested, try Coolbook. It does work.


if he used a PC for a week, he wouldn't go back to his MBA

Fourkill
Feb 24, 2010, 08:19 PM
Have you tried an OS re install? I also own a Rev A MBA that did this till i reinstalled OSX.

koruki
Feb 24, 2010, 08:33 PM
As light and gorgeous the MBA is, I wouldn't buy another one after it started to struggle to even play youtube (evil flash but still!) haha. Hot enough to grill a sandwich, I have extended Apple care on it and thinking if I should just complain as it didn't use to get this hot when it was new.

alphaod
Feb 27, 2010, 07:04 PM
As light and gorgeous the MBA is, I wouldn't buy another one after it started to struggle to even play youtube (evil flash but still!) haha.

I don't think the issue is the computer, but more than flash is coded poorly on OS X; I can play YouTube videos on my N900 just fine with any issues. My freaking netbook (with Windows 7) runs 1080p YouTube and it doesn't even have a fan.

Scottsdale
Feb 27, 2010, 09:01 PM
I don't think the issue is the computer, but more than flash is coded poorly on OS X; I can play YouTube videos on my N900 just fine with any issues. My freaking netbook (with Windows 7) runs 1080p YouTube and it doesn't even have a fan.

Windows 7 and Flash is incredible on the MBA! The problem isn't the MBA's hardware, it's Apple's unwillingness to let Adobe "win" at anything. Until Adobe is irrelevant, Apple will continue to ensure ALL of us OS X users SUFFER! It's bad business by Apple, IMHO.

Scottsdale
Feb 28, 2010, 12:25 PM
Apple product users expect far more from their products. This post really shows how in depth the expectations go... a "dead quiet" room and three meters away an electric sound... "This thing definitely needs a new board."

LMAO! If any of us had a Dell or HP and we heard that we would just expect it to me normal or part of computing... still LMAO!!!

playalistic
Feb 28, 2010, 04:04 PM
Windows 7 and Flash is incredible on the MBA! The problem isn't the MBA's hardware, it's Apple's unwillingness to let Adobe "win" at anything. Until Adobe is irrelevant, Apple will continue to ensure ALL of us OS X users SUFFER! It's bad business by Apple, IMHO.

Without wishing to go too off-topic, what makes you think it is Apple's fault that flash runs so bad on Mac? Do you think this is some kind of espionage on Apple's part? It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple that Adobe have produced a huge turd of a plugin.

Scottsdale
Feb 28, 2010, 05:35 PM
Without wishing to go too off-topic, what makes you think it is Apple's fault that flash runs so bad on Mac? Do you think this is some kind of espionage on Apple's part? It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple that Adobe have produced a huge turd of a plugin.

Bottom line, Apple cannot accept that Flash is an Internet "standard," because Flash threatens Apple's whole business model when it comes to iTunes video content, App store applications, and the future of the Internet as well as competing with Apple's own applications.

If Flash only was used for navigation and pretty graphics on websites, Apple would have allowed Adobe access to the APIs a long time ago. The problem for Apple is that Flash challenges Apple for app store irrelevance allowing any game via the Internet. Flash challenges Apple for video content that Apple charges money for but people can go watch for free on sites like Hulu. Adobe even challenges Apple in its software applications.

Apple can say this is all about Adobe not making Flash work properly, but Flash would work fine if it was allowed access to APIs making it run properly. Consider this... 98% of ALL Internet devices ran a Flash plug-in in December of 2008. Apple is the sole problem for Adobe. EVERY smartphone runs Flash except Apple's iPhone (those that don't currently, like Windows Phone 7 Series will by the time they're released). Apple cannot let Adobe "win" because it will continue to threaten Apple's business model.

I am all for an improvement if there's one available out there, but that improvement isn't going to happen overnight. Now, we have an iPad coming out. It will NOT allow Flash content there either. Apple needs to ensure that app store apps don't lose relevance to Internet available apps that run via Flash straight through a web browser. Apple also needs to ensure that iTunes video content continues to be sold and not watched for free on sites like Hulu via Flash.

This has NOTHING to do with Flash not running properly... it would run just as well as it does on Windows if Apple didn't see it as a threat! I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see the iPad losing 10.5 hours of battery and only playing a video for 1.5 hours if running Flash. Those numbers are absurd, ridiculous, and a flat out LIE by Steve Jobs if he really said that! I am certain that if Adobe was allowed to make a Flash plug-in for the iPad/iPhone it would run just as well as it does on all the other ARM devices and smartphones capable of running Flash. Would it take more battery than watching no video at all, ABSOLUTELY... but it's not going to drop the battery life by 85% plus!

So Apple fans can continue to blame Adobe, but the truth is in the MONEY! Follow the money and find where the real blame hides. People are smart enough to not just BLAME Apple here. Follow the money and figure it out for yourselves people.

caonimadebi
Feb 28, 2010, 10:35 PM
this basically sums up my experience of owning the MBA (HDD Rev B+SSD Rev C). The fan would rev up to 6200rpm when I hooked it up to a large external display and had more than one application open. Watching HD-quality video was impossible on the external screen, it just stutters. Your MBA is not defective, MBA is just a 3-lb POS like that.

chrono1081
Feb 28, 2010, 11:05 PM
Without wishing to go too off-topic, what makes you think it is Apple's fault that flash runs so bad on Mac? Do you think this is some kind of espionage on Apple's part? It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple that Adobe have produced a huge turd of a plugin.

+1 Sorry Scottsdale you are wrong on this one. Its nothing to do with Apple and all to do with Adobe. Apple doesn't write Adobe flash, Adobe does.

Many people (talk to any web designer) will tell you flash is garbage. There are better alternatives out there and they are quickly being adopted. Flash is simply not coded well. Its extremely buggy and causes things to crash on mac and win machines but more so on mac because Adobe never took the time to actually code it correctly for Mac OS. Apple has already stated that it will not support flash on mobile devices until Adobe improves it. I don't know if you've ever seen flash run on a mobile device in person but if you have you can see where Apple is coming from.

Apple isn't trying to take market share from Adobe, they are pushing for use of newer, better web technologies (like HTML 5) which lots of places are already using (Youtube, Hulu will be using it, etc).

Adobe has been cranking out crap ever since they bought up all of their competition. This stretches far further then flash. Adobe Acrobat Pro for example is so extremely problematic that Adobe doesn't even know how to fix things like their dreaded "C++ error" that even a reinstall won't get rid of. Adobe's solution? Upgrade (and pay for) a newer version of Adobe Acrobat Pro. (This happens on win machines).

Take a look at Adobe Master collection. CS3 had many bugs making many expensive plugins unusable. Adobe dropped support for CS3 as soon as it stopped shipping and CS4 was out. Adobe's solution? You guessed it. Upgrade to CS4.

Yet another reason why I stopped supporting Adobe. I used to be an Adobe evangalist and loved their products but they have changed.

Scottsdale
Mar 1, 2010, 01:30 PM
+1 Sorry Scottsdale you are wrong on this one. Its nothing to do with Apple and all to do with Adobe. Apple doesn't write Adobe flash, Adobe does.

Many people (talk to any web designer) will tell you flash is garbage. There are better alternatives out there and they are quickly being adopted. Flash is simply not coded well. Its extremely buggy and causes things to crash on mac and win machines but more so on mac because Adobe never took the time to actually code it correctly for Mac OS. Apple has already stated that it will not support flash on mobile devices until Adobe improves it. I don't know if you've ever seen flash run on a mobile device in person but if you have you can see where Apple is coming from.

Apple isn't trying to take market share from Adobe, they are pushing for use of newer, better web technologies (like HTML 5) which lots of places are already using (Youtube, Hulu will be using it, etc).

Adobe has been cranking out crap ever since they bought up all of their competition. This stretches far further then flash. Adobe Acrobat Pro for example is so extremely problematic that Adobe doesn't even know how to fix things like their dreaded "C++ error" that even a reinstall won't get rid of. Adobe's solution? Upgrade (and pay for) a newer version of Adobe Acrobat Pro. (This happens on win machines).

Take a look at Adobe Master collection. CS3 had many bugs making many expensive plugins unusable. Adobe dropped support for CS3 as soon as it stopped shipping and CS4 was out. Adobe's solution? You guessed it. Upgrade to CS4.

Yet another reason why I stopped supporting Adobe. I used to be an Adobe evangalist and loved their products but they have changed.

Did you even read my argument for Adobe? I am not saying Flash isn't without its problems. I even agree that maybe there is something better to move forward to in the future. The problem is right now (as of late 2008/early 2009) there are 98% saturation of web browsable devices that have Flash capable plug-ins installed and view Flash content perfectly fine. Everyone has accepted Flash as a standard. It's all over the web whether Apple likes it or not. Surfing the web on an iPhone is a JOKE - but the bottom line is it's a phone. The iPad is being marketed as a premium Internet device and it will not even display content on the Internet!

Moving forward, perhaps there is a better solution to Flash but it needs to be an acceptable standard that the vast majority of Internet devices will be able to provide access to. But getting rid of Flash isn't as easy as Steve Jobs twisting NY Times CEO's arm into abandoning Flash and using h.264 and HTML5 on NYTimes.com. The web is full of sites that aren't even video-based that use Flash for a navigation system. Flash is everywhere, and it's not just about videos, animations, games, and beating Apple. It is going to take MANY YEARS to get rid of Flash. Think of all of the small businesses and entrepreneurs that have listened to web designers, who spent years paying for Flash design schooling, and had something as simple as a navigation bar animated with Flash.

Come up with a much better argument if you really want to challenge anything I have said. Adobe is a threat to Apple's business model. Not everyone is willing to pay for content, and right now Flash is the solution for sites like Hulu.com. People will go watch 2.5 minutes of commercial to see an hour long TV show rather than pay Apple $1.99 for the same thing less 2.5 minutes of commercial but requiring 2.5 minutes of download time in advance anyways. Apple's business model is flawed. And before you go jumping down my throat, I have 40% of my entire portfolio invested in AAPL. I believe Apple is expecting people to pay for content when people are already used to getting the same content for FREE. This isn't like downloading illegal music, where Apple came in and solved a problem. This is watching a 45-minute television show without 2.5 added minutes of commercials for $2 or adding 2.5 minutes of commercials and watching the same stuff for FREE.

I want Apple to succeed. I also want to be able to surf the web on my iPhone and iPad. I want Apple to give Adobe access to the APIs to make Flash work well UNTIL the Internet is "fixed" with a standard that Apple is ***** happy with. The bottom line is people that pay a gigantic premium to own Apple products are getting ripped off because Apple doesn't like Adobe and it threatens a large part of its business model. I want the best web development we can all get, but EVERYONE should be able to view it until the standard can be changed. Right now, Flash is an accepted standard and the ONLY dissenter is Apple because of Apple's business model dilemma.

As an Apple shareholder, I should be happy... but as an Apple user I am downright FURIOUS that I cannot surf the web on my iPhone that costs me $200 per month... and my MacBook Air flies through Flash on Windows 7 while it's an ***** JOKE on Mac OS X. If Adobe's Flash is so bad, why does it run so amazingly well on Windows? Same hardware?

Anyone that thinks this is about Adobe's "crap software" hasn't even looked at the real argument... THEY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE MONEY! In life, every decision is made about MONEY! The Apple problem isn't crap software, it's that Adobe can provide devices FREE APPS, FREE VIDEOS, FREE CONTENT... and Apple counts on that revenue so Apple has to find blame and an excuse to keep its customers away from the FREE!

People have to understand that life is always about following the money. With every corporate, business, political, or government decision, FOLLOW THE MONEY and you shall discover the truth! Come on, you're smarter than believing this is about some crap code... then Apple could have fixed if it that was the real problem. This is about Flash being a flaw in Apple's revenue stream from videos to apps and even software.

ouimetnick
Mar 1, 2010, 05:13 PM
I agree with scottsdale. If apple actually tried to collaborate with Adobe, the i'm sure flash would be fine on Apple Apple products. But no! Use iTunes, screw hulu. Use the App Store, screw adobe. Thats what Steve is saying. He is just a greedy person, who wants to make as much $$$ as possible. Thats also why quality control has declined. I paid $599 for a iPhone. The glass is un even. Its display is so washed out. Apple fan boys say "then go buy a cheap go phone then" My point is I PAID $600 (SIX HUNDRED DOLARS) for a PHONE. It shouldn't have small defects. Those 27inch iMacs. They can't possibly have the ultimate display. if they flicker, and have yellow tints.

lucifiel
Mar 1, 2010, 05:55 PM
So in short: Apple wants to change the way the web works. The reason for this is because if flash is allowed to persist free stuff will encroach upon Apple's (quite sizeable) revenue from iTunes.

To this end, Apple supports HTML5.

Ahh but here's the kicker, videos (much like flash) will be playable under HTML5. And correct me if I'm wrong (i'm not savvy in the way of web stuff anymore), isn't HTML5 going to do what flash can do but better? In that case, if we follow Scottsdales's argument (and it is entirely lucid and rational, albeit argued with fervour we rarely see anymore), should Apple abandon its support of HTML5 as well?

Time will tell, but presently, Apple DOES support HTML5, so I am led to believe that it's not JUST about revenue lost from iTunes, could be a reputation thing, could be Apple harnassing strong dislike for Adobe for however many other reasons, I'm not sure, but the support of HTML5 which is just "flash but better" seems to indicate Scottsdale's argument is incomplete at best.

This is of course premised on the assumption that HTML5 = flash but better. If I'm wrong about this, then eh, I'm wrong.

Scottsdale
Mar 1, 2010, 06:20 PM
So in short: Apple wants to change the way the web works. The reason for this is because if flash is allowed to persist free stuff will encroach upon Apple's (quite sizeable) revenue from iTunes.

To this end, Apple supports HTML5.

Ahh but here's the kicker, videos (much like flash) will be playable under HTML5. And correct me if I'm wrong (i'm not savvy in the way of web stuff anymore), isn't HTML5 going to do what flash can do but better? In that case, if we follow Scottsdales's argument (and it is entirely lucid and rational, albeit argued with fervour we rarely see anymore), should Apple abandon its support of HTML5 as well?

Time will tell, but presently, Apple DOES support HTML5, so I am led to believe that it's not JUST about revenue lost from iTunes, could be a reputation thing, could be Apple harnassing strong dislike for Adobe for however many other reasons, I'm not sure, but the support of HTML5 which is just "flash but better" seems to indicate Scottsdale's argument is incomplete at best.

This is of course premised on the assumption that HTML5 = flash but better. If I'm wrong about this, then eh, I'm wrong.

But HTML5 is NOT a standard widely used today. As of a year ago, 98% of all Internet accessible devices could display Flash content.

Provide us with a short-term solution while ensuring the future provides all of us with a better long-term solution. Win the long-term by showing your customers that you really give a damn about their user experiences with Apple products!

lucifiel
Mar 1, 2010, 06:51 PM
But HTML5 is NOT a standard widely used today. As of a year ago, 98% of all Internet accessible devices could display Flash content.

Provide us with a short-term solution while ensuring the future provides all of us with a better long-term solution. Win the long-term by showing your customers that you really give a damn about their user experiences with Apple products!

Oh I don't disagree that Apple is being a royal pain in the arse for witholding geniune support for Flash, my point is that the motivation behind witholding Flash may not be purely driven by encroachment upon iTunes revenue.

That's not to say that I think encroachment upon iTunes revenue isn't significant and isn't upon the minds of the people running Apple, I'm merely saying two things:

a) it is not the only thing that drives this course of action - as to what the real motivation is, who knows. I think it is likely Adobe AND Apple who are to blame, blaming one or the other solely comes across as a tad unfair; and

b) Apple may not be as warm to HTML5 as we'd all like to believe, IF Scottsdale's assertions are correct (which I think are part of the story, not the whole story).

Scottsdale
Mar 1, 2010, 08:47 PM
Oh I don't disagree that Apple is being a royal pain in the arse for witholding geniune support for Flash, my point is that the motivation behind witholding Flash may not be purely driven by encroachment upon iTunes revenue.

That's not to say that I think encroachment upon iTunes revenue isn't significant and isn't upon the minds of the people running Apple, I'm merely saying two things:

a) it is not the only thing that drives this course of action - as to what the real motivation is, who knows. I think it is likely Adobe AND Apple who are to blame, blaming one or the other solely comes across as a tad unfair; and

b) Apple may not be as warm to HTML5 as we'd all like to believe, IF Scottsdale's assertions are correct (which I think are part of the story, not the whole story).

I believe you're wrong. If Flash ONLY did basic animations and didn't encroach on Apple's business model of charging for content that Flash offers free, Apple would have begged Adobe to fix Flash on the Mac. Apple wants to find a real reason to blame Adobe for Flash's deficiencies so it can get away with not providing acceptable access to free content.

Same deal with Windows 7... Apple provides crap drivers because it doesn't want the user to enjoy Windows more. The truth is, I believe Apple would be in five times as many homes (and ten times as many businesses) if it had Windows OS sold with every Mac. Include both OS X and Windows and sell ten times as many Macs!

People are willing to pay a premium for the experience... but so many people tell me they couldn't move to a Mac because they "NEED" to run this application or that application that isn't available on Mac OS X.

Apple can win by the experience... it doesn't need a crap version of Linux to beat the competition! That is not to imply disrespect for OS X. However, I don't find any advantage to OS X other than its inability to run .EXEs thereby eliminating viruses. Windows 7 is amazing and video content is STUNNING whether in Flash or any other player. I get far better entertainment performance from the exact same MBA when I am in Windows 7 than when I use OS X.

Microsoft has gotten a bad wrap because of drivers. But where you figure Apple succeeds is by offering so few actual product variances that its drivers are a "once-and-done" basic offering which reduces the end experience for the Mac users. Look, the Nvidia 9400m is found in EVERY Mac except the Mac Pro! It is an acceptable product for a MacBook Air, but is it acceptable for a MacBook Pro, and other $1000+ computers like iMacs or even MBs. Or is Apple so focused on "MARGINS" that it has completely dropped the ball on "user experience."

We used to pay a hell of a lot more money for a Mac but we not only got a superior OS, we got much higher-end components than we do now, and the experience was incredible... Look at what has happened to buying a Mac. We find $2 worth of LED backlights for the keyboard as our reason to pay so much more for a Mac... or that the aluminum is a premium even though 3 lb. of aluminum is worth less than $5. The components aren't just low-end now, they're downright JUNK. The competition is providing twice the components for half the price. Sure people are going to go max out a Dell and prove they're the exact same price, but that's not the point. Anyone can prove anything they want on the Internet... but it's going out and spending money that actually proves points. I want to get some "premium" for my premium dollars. More than ever, I am completely disappointed with the entire Apple product line. Even the MBA is stuck with 2 lousy GBs of RAM... WTF? Isn't this 2010? Notebooks for $399 have double the RAM shipped standard!

This is sounding like a rant, and that isn't what I am intending... I am just completely disappointed with Apple. My iPhone cannot surf the web while my brother's Droid does everything 10X faster and better than my iPhone. He surfs the web just fine. I pay hundreds of dollars a month for half the capabilities... just for the "experience" of downloading a few apps and not having a built-in keyboard that slides out?

The iPad has so much potential, but it cannot even surf the web. It's a joke! Sure it will read news content, display videos, and more but I have to pay for every single bit of it all! If I use a computer for the same price, I get to read the web for free. I get to watch television shows on Hulu.com for free. The iPad is about paying $499 to $829 now and paying for every bit of content you read on the thing! Apple cannot be happy just making money, it has to eliminate the competition via professing it will result in a 10.5 hour drop in battery performance... SO WHAT! It's MY iPAD! Shouldn't I get to do what I want with it? If Adobe was allowed to optimize Flash for the iPad I am sure it would be just as fine as any other Droid smartphone that can run Flash without dropping battery 85% faster!

Take the AppleTV... another JOKE! It's so outdated it's ridiculous.

The MacBook "Pro" is about the furthest thing from a "PRO" computer there is on the market. Consumer laptops at half the costs have dedicated graphics with up to 1 GB of dedicated video RAM while the 13" and low-end 15" MBPs have an Nvidia 9400m? What? The MBPs have been stuck with dual core less than optimal CPUs for years while the competition had quad core and now most of them have a Core i5/i7 CPUs now! Apple will probably add a lousy 4XXX ATI card or stick with Intel's graphics and call it a day when it does have to upgrade or sales stop... could even continue with good ole C2D!

Apple has some nice products, but I am sick of being sold inferior components to get the "Apple Experience." I would rather Apple give me the option to buy what I want to buy. Give me the option to run Blu Ray and sell it to me for $400, don't just tell me it's a "Bag of hurt" and tell me what I want. Update the damn 30" display as it's now completely a joke for $1799. Upgrade the Macs... ALL OF THEM NEED IT!

Update your ***** products Apple!

Now I am ready to throw my damn MBA at a wall and my iPhone too! Heck, every piece of Apple product I own would look good smashed up against a wall right now!

Sorry for losing my mind here on this thread...

lucifiel
Mar 1, 2010, 09:06 PM
First, in relation to my post, i only think your first two paragraphs deal with the issues i raised, the rest of your post is not really what I'm trying to get at.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, I think that macs are overpriced and they aren't really as "revolutionary" or "mind blowing" or whatever other hyperbole that could have been applied, instead they've become...well stale and samey.

I've addressed this before, rather flippantly i will admit, but my point is this: samey-ness sells. BUT I hear "samey" should be "updated components" i hear you all yell. I agree. But here's Apples little dilemena, they want to retain their brand image: exclusiveness. You can't hope to overtake Windows if you're edging for "exclusivenes" So they straddle the middle with this ********: "we'll release awesome stuff...it'll be awesome for about 6 months (if that)"...then we won't update for bloody ages forcing people to get royally screwed if they purchase outside of the 2 month window when things are still relevant. The problem is Apple's desire to milk it's products AND simultaneously say to the world "we don't need to offer discounts to sell our products"

I know you have made this point, and I agree with you, BUT I also disagree with you on the Flash point.

I understand that Flash is quite ubiquitous, and that it's a pain in the arse to have be a crippled piece of **** on OS X, but whilst Apple is to blame, it is not the only blame worthy party.

Adobe can improve flash, it has been pointed out that flash is not good code, (this doesn't detract from the ubiquity of flash), and Apple is using Adobe's crappyness as justification, which I think is a part of the reason for the current situation. Is it the major part? Doubtful. Given enough resources I'm sure both companies could make a good working version of Flash which won't suck balls.

Will they cooperate? Time will tell. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

I'll once again reiterate my point: Flash is crippled not solely due to Apple. Yes Apple is to blame to an extent, but Adobe must pick itself up too. Not that it will, it has no need to, nor does it have any real rewards for doing so. People are lapping up Flash even in spite of its flaws.

You've pointed out that 98% of sites use Flash. I don't know if that's true, but Flash is pervasive, and I'll agree that surfing net without flash is like eating butter without bread. But the point remains Adobe could try harder. And if it did and Apple still said "**** off" then we'll know who really is the bastard.

Of course if Apple retains it's "ohh Flash sucks" ******** after Adobe fixes Flash then my point disappears. But until that point, I don't think it fair to pin nothing on Adobe.

Oh and one last thing: Apple marketting works, think about this **** we have to put up with, yet people STILL buy Macs, and the revenue is only increasing, or so it seems. But this brings us back to Apple's "exclusivity" problem.

ouimetnick
Mar 1, 2010, 09:06 PM
I believe you're wrong. If Flash ONLY did basic animations and didn't encroach on Apple's business model of charging for content that Flash offers free, Apple would have begged Adobe to fix Flash on the Mac. Apple wants to find a real reason to blame Adobe for Flash's deficiencies so it can get away with not providing acceptable access to free content.

Same deal with Windows 7... Apple provides crap drivers because it doesn't want the user to enjoy Windows more. The truth is, I believe Apple would be in five times as many homes (and ten times as many businesses) if it had Windows OS sold with every Mac. Include both OS X and Windows and sell ten times as many Macs!

People are willing to pay a premium for the experience... but so many people tell me they couldn't move to a Mac because they "NEED" to run this application or that application that isn't available on Mac OS X.

Apple can win by the experience... it doesn't need a crap version of Linux to beat the competition! That is not to imply disrespect for OS X. However, I don't find any advantage to OS X other than its inability to run .EXEs thereby eliminating viruses. Windows 7 is amazing and video content is STUNNING whether in Flash or any other player. I get far better entertainment performance from the exact same MBA when I am in Windows 7 than when I use OS X.

Microsoft has gotten a bad wrap because of drivers. But where you figure Apple succeeds is by offering so few actual product variances that its drivers are a "once-and-done" basic offering which reduces the end experience for the Mac users. Look, the Nvidia 9400m is found in EVERY Mac except the Mac Pro! It is an acceptable product for a MacBook Air, but is it acceptable for a MacBook Pro, and other $1000+ computers like iMacs or even MBs. Or is Apple so focused on "MARGINS" that it has completely dropped the ball on "user experience."

We used to pay a hell of a lot more money for a Mac but we not only got a superior OS, we got much higher-end components than we do now, and the experience was incredible... Look at what has happened to buying a Mac. We find $2 worth of LED backlights for the keyboard as our reason to pay so much more for a Mac... or that the aluminum is a premium even though 3 lb. of aluminum is worth less than $5. The components aren't just low-end now, they're downright JUNK. The competition is providing twice the components for half the price. Sure people are going to go max out a Dell and prove they're the exact same price, but that's not the point. Anyone can prove anything they want on the Internet... but it's going out and spending money that actually proves points. I want to get some "premium" for my premium dollars. More than ever, I am completely disappointed with the entire Apple product line. Even the MBA is stuck with 2 lousy GBs of RAM... WTF? Isn't this 2010? Notebooks for $399 have double the RAM shipped standard!

This is sounding like a rant, and that isn't what I am intending... I am just completely disappointed with Apple. My iPhone cannot surf the web while my brother's Droid does everything 10X faster and better than my iPhone. He surfs the web just fine. I pay hundreds of dollars a month for half the capabilities... just for the "experience" of downloading a few apps and not having a built-in keyboard that slides out?

The iPad has so much potential, but it cannot even surf the web. It's a joke! Sure it will read news content, display videos, and more but I have to pay for every single bit of it all! If I use a computer for the same price, I get to read the web for free. I get to watch television shows on Hulu.com for free. The iPad is about paying $499 to $829 now and paying for every bit of content you read on the thing! Apple cannot be happy just making money, it has to eliminate the competition via professing it will result in a 10.5 hour drop in battery performance... SO WHAT! It's MY iPAD! Shouldn't I get to do what I want with it? If Adobe was allowed to optimize Flash for the iPad I am sure it would be just as fine as any other Droid smartphone that can run Flash without dropping battery 85% faster!

Take the AppleTV... another JOKE! It's so outdated it's ridiculous.

The MacBook "Pro" is about the furthest thing from a "PRO" computer there is on the market. Consumer laptops at half the costs have dedicated graphics with up to 1 GB of dedicated video RAM while the 13" and low-end 15" MBPs have an Nvidia 9400m? What? The MBPs have been stuck with dual core less than optimal CPUs for years while the competition had quad core and now most of them have a Core i5/i7 CPUs now! Apple will probably add a lousy 4XXX ATI card or stick with Intel's graphics and call it a day when it does have to upgrade or sales stop... could even continue with good ole C2D!

Apple has some nice products, but I am sick of being sold inferior components to get the "Apple Experience." I would rather Apple give me the option to buy what I want to buy. Give me the option to run Blu Ray and sell it to me for $400, don't just tell me it's a "Bag of hurt" and tell me what I want. Update the damn 30" display as it's now completely a joke for $1799. Upgrade the Macs... ALL OF THEM NEED IT!

Update your ***** products Apple!

Now I am ready to throw my damn MBA at a wall and my iPhone too! Heck, every piece of Apple product I own would look good smashed up against a wall right now!

Sorry for losing my mind here on this thread...

Don't worry. I agree with you on every pout in this thread. Except smashing my apple gear. I can buy a Dell for $950 and it has better specs than the 2K 15 inch MBP. Apple gambits say your paying for the experience and OSX and design. Well Aluminum, Mac OSX, Glowing apple logo, great battery, and mag safe and other small things arn't worth the extra $1100! Plus I can get the Core i5 2.40 GHz speedboost to 2.93 GHz, 4GB DDR3 RAM and a 320 GB 7200 RPM Sara HD for under 1K. I don't care too much about graphics. If the Intel GMA 950 or 945 what ever is in my Latitude D620 serves me fine, I don't new any better graphics. But I'm sure the most lousy integrated graphics today will be way better than the GMA 950

BornAgainMac
Mar 1, 2010, 09:12 PM
Fans are not the only thing spinning on this thread.

Good flash stuff from both sides of the coin.

lucifiel
Mar 1, 2010, 09:15 PM
Don't worry. I agree with you on every pout in this thread. Except smashing my apple gear. I can buy a Dell for $950 and it has better specs than the 2K 15 inch MBP. Apple gambits say your paying for the experience and OSX and design. Well Aluminum, Mac OSX, Glowing apple logo, great battery, and mag safe and other small things arn't worth the extra $1100! Plus I can get the Core i5 2.40 GHz speedboost to 2.93 GHz, 4GB DDR3 RAM and a 320 GB 7200 RPM Sara HD for under 1K. I don't care too much about graphics. If the Intel GMA 950 or 945 what ever is in my Latitude D620 serves me fine, I don't new any better graphics. But I'm sure the most lousy integrated graphics today will be way better than the GMA 950

The point of Apple products has shifted (as I believe) from "oh man Awesome specs!!" to "aww man I'm so hip and cool with my mac"

I'm sorry to say this, but I just don't think Apple really caters to the "I need mad specs and performance" crowd anymore, it's all about image.

And critique their treatment of the performance crowd all you want, the image of "i'm a cool guy on a mac" sells and it sells well, thus will we see a change in Apple's strategy? Hah, hell no. Not till we move away from the culture of "aww man that guy MUST be cool cos he's got a mac"

One last thing before I get slammed, if you're about to say "aww but everyone on this forum cares about specs" know this: YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. Most people who use a mac will not post on a forum. Hell I bet some don't even know how to do so, AND image sells better than specs in terms of volume.

Is this a sad reflection on society? Perhaps. But it's also the way things are.

jmj
Mar 1, 2010, 09:16 PM
Why doesn't everyone use ClickToFlash? I can watch YouTube videos endlessly w/o the fans flipping out - and that's on a MacBook with mere 1 GB of RAM.

John Nack claims that Flash 10.1 will see a 50% drop in CPU usage on OS X during video streaming, so we'll see.

lucifiel
Mar 1, 2010, 09:22 PM
Why doesn't everyone use ClickToFlash? I can watch YouTube videos endlessly w/o the fans flipping out - and that's on a MacBook with mere 1 GB of RAM.

John Nack claims that Flash 10.1 will see a 50% drop in CPU usage on OS X during video streaming, so we'll see.

Because that misses the point, yes we could side step the issue, but why should we? We paid a premium, shouldn't we be allowed to enjoy something as basic as running stuff which appears on a lot, if not most, websites?

jmj
Mar 1, 2010, 09:29 PM
Because that misses the point, yes we could side step the issue, but why should we? We paid a premium, shouldn't we be allowed to enjoy something as basic as running stuff which appears on a lot, if not most, websites?

Granted, I don't play many games online, but I don't really think I'm missing anything, except ads.

It's funny that Adobe is now swarming to improve Flash on OS X after swearing up and down for years that it was impossible to do so.

jmj
Mar 1, 2010, 09:34 PM
Also, how is it Apple's fault that Flash on OSX is an unstable, insecure, CPU hogging piece of junk?

lucifiel
Mar 1, 2010, 09:36 PM
Also, how is it Apple's fault that Flash on OSX is an unstable, insecure, CPU hogging piece of junk?

The argument goes (and I'm not totally in agreement), Apple refuses Adobe the neccessary tools to program something that works on OSX.

jmj
Mar 1, 2010, 10:31 PM
The argument goes (and I'm not totally in agreement), Apple refuses Adobe the neccessary tools to program something that works on OSX.

Ah. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around.

If you hate flash on Mac, just be thankful you're not a Linux user. Those poor bastards have it worse re: flash.

chrono1081
Mar 1, 2010, 11:46 PM
The argument goes (and I'm not totally in agreement), Apple refuses Adobe the neccessary tools to program something that works on OSX.

Thats just Adobe ******** for "We don't want to dedicate the time to program flash from the ground up for MacOSX using the correct API's that are given to us through Cocoa, we want to write a wrapper instead to save time and money"

Sorry, I will NEVER side with Adobe on this one.

lucifiel
Mar 2, 2010, 12:06 AM
Thats just Adobe ******** for "We don't want to dedicate the time to program flash from the ground up for MacOSX using the correct API's that are given to us through Cocoa, we want to write a wrapper instead to save time and money"

Sorry, I will NEVER side with Adobe on this one.

*shrug* I am only epousing the point of view that I've seen, like I said, I'm not in agreement with it in totality.

I'm of the opinion that both companies are at "fault" but it's more to do with "it's just not worth the investment" for either companies. Ergo, here we are.

Scottsdale
Mar 2, 2010, 02:46 AM
You've pointed out that 98% of sites use Flash. I don't know if that's true, but Flash is pervasive, and I'll agree that surfing net without flash is like eating butter without bread. But the point remains Adobe could try harder. And if it did and Apple still said "**** off" then we'll know who really is the bastard.

Of course if Apple retains it's "ohh Flash sucks" ******** after Adobe fixes Flash then my point disappears. But until that point, I don't think it fair to pin nothing on Adobe.

Oh and one last thing: Apple marketting works, think about this **** we have to put up with, yet people STILL buy Macs, and the revenue is only increasing, or so it seems. But this brings us back to Apple's "exclusivity" problem.

Actually, I didn't say that 98% of sites use Flash... it's nowhere near that. What I at least attempted to say, whether it came across or not, is that a year ago 98% of devices that had web browsers and were connected to the Internet could VIEW Flash content and already had a Flash plug-in installed.

I still believe that Adobe has begged Apple not only for the API access in OS X, but that it has also begged Apple to let it make Flash for the iPhone/iPad. Apple simply says it sucks but Apple doesn't care about its users need for the web or Flash as a standard now and just blames Adobe for its current Flash implementation on the Mac. The thing is, Flash could be just as good on OS X as it is on Windows, but Apple will not allow access to the APIs to make it happen. I truly believe Adobe has every intention to provide all Internet surfers the best Flash access to content possible. Think how much Adobe has invested in Flash. It isn't just selling Adobe CS4 to a few web designers. There are entire web design schools focusing solely on Flash and CS because it's the current standard. Until there's something better that has 98% penetration in terms of Internet surfing ability to access Flash content, Flash will continue to be the standard.



The point of Apple products has shifted (as I believe) from "oh man Awesome specs!!" to "aww man I'm so hip and cool with my mac"

I'm sorry to say this, but I just don't think Apple really caters to the "I need mad specs and performance" crowd anymore, it's all about image.

And critique their treatment of the performance crowd all you want, the image of "i'm a cool guy on a mac" sells and it sells well, thus will we see a change in Apple's strategy? Hah, hell no. Not till we move away from the culture of "aww man that guy MUST be cool cos he's got a mac"

One last thing before I get slammed, if you're about to say "aww but everyone on this forum cares about specs" know this: YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. Most people who use a mac will not post on a forum. Hell I bet some don't even know how to do so, AND image sells better than specs in terms of volume.

Is this a sad reflection on society? Perhaps. But it's also the way things are.

You're 100% correct! I can accept it for the most part but the Apple pricing system is downright unfair to the buyer who does care or even the one that doesn't care. Apple product buyers suffer dearly for not buying an Apple product right after it has been released. Beyond that, Apple offers no discount for the exponentially decreasing component costs. The costs of the components of an MBP is probably mid $XXX when it ships brand new. By the time it's nine months old (like now), it's probably worth several hundred dollars less.

Technology changes so fast everywhere EXCEPT APPLE! I agree it makes Apple more money to sell to the sucker that is forced to buy nine months in instead of day one or twenty. My second MBA was stolen, and I waited two plus months waiting for a new MBA because it was then a ridiculous price for such dated tech... and the smaller or more premium the product, the bigger the cost of not waiting for an update. Look at what happened to the MBA. Apple decided not to focus on a major improvement and instead focused on cutting the MBA's price to allow a competitor to all of those buyers who wanted a secondary computing device until its iPad was ready for sale.

I fully expect a new MBA refocused on taking advantage of the luxury market who want premium product and experience as a primary Mac rather than those who want a secondary computing device on the run.

Because that misses the point, yes we could side step the issue, but why should we? We paid a premium, shouldn't we be allowed to enjoy something as basic as running stuff which appears on a lot, if not most, websites?

Well said!

Granted, I don't play many games online, but I don't really think I'm missing anything, except ads.

It's funny that Adobe is now swarming to improve Flash on OS X after swearing up and down for years that it was impossible to do so.

That is not true at all. Sure most sites owned by big companies or those with a technology focus with their Internet sites don't use Flash for things like navigation when HTML is obviously the better choice. However, the web designers that spent two or three years learning Flash and Adobe CS don't think about the alternative of Flash not working because they know 98% of all Internet "surfable" devices or browsers have a Flash plug-in. It has led to Flash being used everywhere from making pretty navigation bars that highlight when rolled over by a mouse to intro animation that shows company information only on Flash, to content filled pages that cannot be seen when the device surfing the site doesn't have Flash plug-in capable browser.

This was NEVER a problem until Apple decided to screw its customers over and blame it on implementation when it is obvious that's nothing more than a cover story! Flash threatens the App store. Flash threatens Apple's paid content via iTunes, iBooks, iPad/iPhone applications that solely display content. Flash and Adobe's CS suite competes with Apple too on software sales. And the ever so wonderful Apple just laid off 40 Final Cut programmers too. Apple cannot allow Flash on the iPad/iPhone because people would have a much easier time bypassing the app store, watching videos for free adding 2.5 minutes worth of commercials as "payment," and it does compete directly with Apple's own implementations of software that competes with Adobe and even Apple's Quicktime.

Also, how is it Apple's fault that Flash on OSX is an unstable, insecure, CPU hogging piece of junk?

Read the thread and follow the money. This is nothing more than Apple's agenda and propaganda. Why can I run Flash on Windows 7 on my same MBA so well without taxing the CPU at all? When Adobe has access, it comes through extremely well with successful implementations of software displaying Flash content over the Internet without terrible loss or waste. Apple should step up and give Adobe access to APIs to make Flash work fine for now while Apple works on providing a solution for the long-term. It's not a solution to say the customers just cannot use Flash and in the long-run accept HTML5 and h.264. The long-run plan is fine, but the short-term solution is not fair and isn't a solution at all. Apple's customers deserver better from Apple. It's Apple's customers that suffer... and it's all propaganda from Steve Jobs that leads people down the fanboi path.

Ah. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around.

If you hate flash on Mac, just be thankful you're not a Linux user. Those poor bastards have it worse re: flash.

The problem is there are so many different packages or versions of Linux. Adobe has stated clearly that it simply isn't feasible to make Flash better on every single version of Linux. If there was a "standard" for the APIs used across all versions of Linux, I believe Adobe would come through. Even then, realize how few computers are running Linux (perhaps 5% as many as are running OS X).

Thats just Adobe ******** for "We don't want to dedicate the time to program flash from the ground up for MacOSX using the correct API's that are given to us through Cocoa, we want to write a wrapper instead to save time and money"

Sorry, I will NEVER side with Adobe on this one.

It's not about "siding" with Adobe. It's about ensuring Apple gives its users the experience they're paying for... if Apple worked with Adobe on a very low-level, the two could provide a great short-term solution until HTML5 and h.264 was relevant. Heck, I don't think Apple would have to do more than provide a few APIs to ensure proper integration and I am sure Adobe would be more than willing to let Apple "play" to make it happy too.

This isn't going to happen because Adobe is an incredible threat to Apple's business model. Yet, Apple blames Adobe for creating crap software... that's not the problem here... anyone that "follows the money" can figure this one out in a few minutes of logical interpretation.

*shrug* I am only epousing the point of view that I've seen, like I said, I'm not in agreement with it in totality.

I'm of the opinion that both companies are at "fault" but it's more to do with "it's just not worth the investment" for either companies. Ergo, here we are.

Well, I believe Adobe has a lot riding on making Flash work effectively for OS X. I don't believe it makes logical sense for Adobe to not care about Flash performance on OS X. Furthermore, I think Adobe would bend over backwards to make Apple users happy on every point of a Flash implementation for the iPhone/iPad OS. Think about this logically, Adobe has many reasons to ensure Flash success on Apple's products.

Apple has one reason to ensure Adobe fails... ADOBE THREATENS APPLE'S BUSINESS MODEL OF CHARGING FOR CONTENT THAT ADOBE SOFTWARE CAN PROVIDE ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT AN APP STORE, ITUNES, IBOOKS, IPHONE/IPAD REQUIRED! Follow the money!

Don't just side with one side or the other... ensure you're getting what you're paying for from Apple. Everyone should ignore about 95% of what Steve Jobs says about other companies. It's all propaganda meant to deter from the real reason for Apple's system and business. Follow the money and determine why Apple makes the decisions it does. For me, it is obvious that Apple sees Adobe as a threat to its business model. A long time ago, in business school, a professors spent three hours using examples of "following the money" to understand why any company makes every decision.

Apple has some amazing potential with its products, but I find its current lineup is more frustrating than ever because of Apple's perceived threats to its business model. Again I use this analogy to show why I believe Apple is the problem with Flash. If Flash only provided access to "pretty" navigation and animations on websites, Apple would be all over making sure it worked just as well on OS X and the iPad/iPhone as it does on Windows/Android. But since Flash provides access to web games that Apple would prefer selling in its App Store, movies and content Apple would prefer selling in iTunes and iBooks store, and in the suite it competes with Apple's own software... but Apple didn't invest money in ensuring it had developed an Internet standard that provided incredible content over the web, and Adobe won its way onto 98% of all devices with Internet access and a browser.

I sure wish I could blame this on Adobe, but when I use my critical thinking and reasoning skills (following the money) it only makes sense that Apple is impeding progress because it sees a threat to a large stream of revenue. Apple wants its success from the transformation of free illegal downloaded music to work with television, movies, magazines, and other content. The problem is when people get used to "free" it's difficult for them to ever accept paying for the same thing again. There is no illegal downloading issue when it comes to all of this other content. Hulu provides television shows in HD content to customers for FREE. Apple cannot beat that, and Hulu only makes money by showing 2.5 minutes of commercials for a 43 minute television show. Apple has a hard time to compete with free... so it must eliminate its competition.

jjahshik32
Mar 2, 2010, 03:21 AM
The point of Apple products has shifted (as I believe) from "oh man Awesome specs!!" to "aww man I'm so hip and cool with my mac"

I'm sorry to say this, but I just don't think Apple really caters to the "I need mad specs and performance" crowd anymore, it's all about image.

And critique their treatment of the performance crowd all you want, the image of "i'm a cool guy on a mac" sells and it sells well, thus will we see a change in Apple's strategy? Hah, hell no. Not till we move away from the culture of "aww man that guy MUST be cool cos he's got a mac"

One last thing before I get slammed, if you're about to say "aww but everyone on this forum cares about specs" know this: YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. Most people who use a mac will not post on a forum. Hell I bet some don't even know how to do so, AND image sells better than specs in terms of volume.

Is this a sad reflection on society? Perhaps. But it's also the way things are.

I'm sorry but I totally and absolutely disagree with you about your "image" argument.

If Apple was only all about being hip and concerned with image, why would they even develop OSX in the first place? They could just do as other manufacturers and slap on linux or windows while still catering the cool looking aluminum/thin/glowing apple logo notebooks.

I'm sorry but for me (and I'm sure majority of Apple users) would leave in an instant if OSX were to disappear and Apple suddenly sold their same designed notebooks with only windows/linux running.

OSX is the number one reason that I buy a Mac, period. Ever since I've switched, I've NEVER thought even once or had the urge to think that I was cool because I had a mac.

I've seen people like you on campus plenty of times because when I'm using my mac on campus studying hard minding my own business, once in a while someone will walk by with a friend while glancing over at my notebook, and speaking out loud so that everyone else can hear that he/she hates macs because they cost an arm and a leg. And that they can never get used to OSX (while trying it out for a good 15 minutes and giving up at the apple store).

What I really want to know is where did the thinking of using macs was cool? Watching those Mac commercials, that thought never even entered my mind or persuaded me into buying a mac. It was all about just the OSX/no virus/better/more efficient/friendlier interface for me.

I have a strong feeling that this is how those feelings first played out of people thinking Mac users are "cool", "hip" or whatever. Its probably someone who wants a mac but cant afford one, so they grow a little angrier inside everyday because for those who can afford one (sorry not trying to sound snobbish, I work hard for the money to buy my macs, but hey its life and I'm a realist~) are using it while enjoying the whole experience but then that someone comes up with a reasoning full of hatred that the Mac user thinks he's "sooo cool" with his expensive Mac (while sony vaios/ alienware cost even more).

Hell more than half the time I forget the what my mac looks like. Even if they looked like yellow beige box (as long as it runs OSX) I'll continue to buy. Its just that Apple innovates everything and "image" just happens to be one of them.

I'm sure design/image matters to almost every computer manufacturer but I guess Apple just has the hands down best designs out there.

One thing I CAN say about is that usually when something is too good, there are ALWAYS haters. =P

And guess which company and its products are hated the most? You've guessed it!

One prime example is the iPhone. I know many people out there who absolutely hates the iPhone just because its made by Apple with no other reasons.

I think those people are just ignorant and all I can say is that we all live once and their missing out!!

Oh and one last thing I was going to mention is that half of my friends did eventually switch over to an iPhone (and some to mac notebooks due to them being impressed by the iPhone so they gave the notebook a chance). But what I find interesting is that before the price drop of the 1st gen iPhone (when it used to cost $499), my friends would say its too ridiculously expensive and that the iPhone isnt all that great (while they were buying unlocked tmobile sidekicks for $699, I never understood the logic).

But once the price dropped with the contract, they're all about the iPhone now. They rave about it all the time. How quickly people's mind changes.

lucifiel
Mar 2, 2010, 06:08 AM
I'm sorry but I totally and absolutely disagree with you about your "image" argument.

If Apple was only all about being hip and concerned with image, why would they even develop OSX in the first place? They could just do as other manufacturers and slap on linux or windows while still catering the cool looking aluminum/thin/glowing apple logo notebooks.


Because part of "image" is exclusivity, Mac OS X offers that. That and Vista was really really bad. My point is, the whole "oh my computer is SO different to yours that mine has this rad OS" is part of the image. The whole "oh it just works" philosophy reeks of appealing to the lowest common denominator. For the record it's NOT easy to appeal to lowest common denominator, it took great innovation and skill to do so, but the point remains: you simplify so that non-techies have a good time on the computer.

This of course does not mean that Mac OS X doesn't have the tools for sophisticated computer work, it's Linux foundation and terminal operations, etc. are very powerful, in fact the whole system is vastly powerful, BUT that doesn't change the fact that image is important to Apple branding.

If you think that most people buy Macs because of the OS alone, I honestly think you're sorely mistaken, I think the OS is an elegant perk on top of a very very beautiful and cool laptop. And to the lay person, the fact that it is running a different OS adds to image.

I actually kind of agree with your sentiment as to why people bash macs. But that's not the whole equation, I don't think Mac Fanboys do people who use macs any favours either, but that's not here or there.

At Scottsdale:

I'm sorry for misquoting you, I wasn't trying to misrepresent your points, as I have indicated, I'm largely in agreement with you, but just as Apple views Adobe as a threat, it is also entirely possible that Adobe views Apple as a threat.

Adobe knows of Apple's track record to "change the game", and perhaps there is an element of gamesmanship between the pair to see who can screw whoever the most, and if there is, would that be so surprising?

That and there seems to stink of a little bit of the most basic "game" in the game theory sense, but I loathe to delve any deeper into this train of thought as I'm tired and I haven't studied game theory in years.

Your comment that Apple does not keep up with technological change is both, in my mind, correct and astute, it's entirely true; instead Apple promotes it's "branding" and "image"; or at least that's what I view it does.

philosopherdog
Mar 2, 2010, 06:58 AM
Dell and HP do that? Very funny. Firstly, you'll want to buy extended if you buy any crap from either of those makers, and secondly the standard warranty involves shipping your junk to them. I'd never buy HP again. Absolutely the worst junk made. Dell isn't a whole lot better. Lots of class actions against them and profits are way down for good reason. Neither are known for good service. Just try calling either of them. Unless you're purchasing get ready for a run around and a long wait. At least with Apple you can walk the thing into a store even without a warranty and get somebody to look at it. Anyhow Apple gear is generally way better engineered. Chances of needing service are generally less. The only thing you need a house call for really is a desktop machine and Apple Care includes this for the iMac and Pro line. Dude you're talking out your ass here.

The easy thing would be to call the support and have them send a technician to your house to fix the machine on site. But you bought a computer from Apple... and they don't offer real service. Dell and HP do that.

Anyway, from your description, this sounds like a real hardware defect and you really should bring your machine to service. Once it's fixed, sell it.

drummerlondonw3
Mar 2, 2010, 07:02 AM
I have been following this thread as it's popping up and I look today and pow!

Better get my reading glasses on :)

Compile 'em all
Mar 2, 2010, 07:26 AM
I'm sorry for misquoting you, I wasn't trying to misrepresent your points, as I have indicated, I'm largely in agreement with you, but just as Apple views Adobe as a threat, it is also entirely possible that Adobe views Apple as a threat.

Apple doesn't view Adobe as a threat. Period.

jjahshik32
Mar 2, 2010, 12:19 PM
Because part of "image" is exclusivity, Mac OS X offers that. That and Vista was really really bad. My point is, the whole "oh my computer is SO different to yours that mine has this rad OS" is part of the image. The whole "oh it just works" philosophy reeks of appealing to the lowest common denominator. For the record it's NOT easy to appeal to lowest common denominator, it took great innovation and skill to do so, but the point remains: you simplify so that non-techies have a good time on the computer.

This of course does not mean that Mac OS X doesn't have the tools for sophisticated computer work, it's Linux foundation and terminal operations, etc. are very powerful, in fact the whole system is vastly powerful, BUT that doesn't change the fact that image is important to Apple branding.

If you think that most people buy Macs because of the OS alone, I honestly think you're sorely mistaken, I think the OS is an elegant perk on top of a very very beautiful and cool laptop. And to the lay person, the fact that it is running a different OS adds to image.

I actually kind of agree with your sentiment as to why people bash macs. But that's not the whole equation, I don't think Mac Fanboys do people who use macs any favours either, but that's not here or there.

At Scottsdale:

I'm sorry for misquoting you, I wasn't trying to misrepresent your points, as I have indicated, I'm largely in agreement with you, but just as Apple views Adobe as a threat, it is also entirely possible that Adobe views Apple as a threat.

Adobe knows of Apple's track record to "change the game", and perhaps there is an element of gamesmanship between the pair to see who can screw whoever the most, and if there is, would that be so surprising?

That and there seems to stink of a little bit of the most basic "game" in the game theory sense, but I loathe to delve any deeper into this train of thought as I'm tired and I haven't studied game theory in years.

Your comment that Apple does not keep up with technological change is both, in my mind, correct and astute, it's entirely true; instead Apple promotes it's "branding" and "image"; or at least that's what I view it does.

OSX wasnt built for only image either. It was purely built for an overall more efficient, virus free system. And apple happened to once again did right with the look of OSX as it is a beautiful system as well.

I agree that people dont buy certain manufactured notebooks based solely on the operating system (since every other manufacturers only support linux or windows), but I was referring to specifically Mac users.

sweettooth52000
Mar 2, 2010, 03:46 PM
Dell and HP do that? Very funny. Firstly, you'll want to buy extended if you buy any crap from either of those makers, and secondly the standard warranty involves shipping your junk to them. I'd never buy HP again. Absolutely the worst junk made. Dell isn't a whole lot better. Lots of class actions against them and profits are way down for good reason. Neither are known for good service. Just try calling either of them. Unless you're purchasing get ready for a run around and a long wait. At least with Apple you can walk the thing into a store even without a warranty and get somebody to look at it. Anyhow Apple gear is generally way better engineered. Chances of needing service are generally less. The only thing you need a house call for really is a desktop machine and Apple Care includes this for the iMac and Pro line. Dude you're talking out your ass here.

I JUST purchased a high end HP desktop. I had to go through some verification processes with HP and they were extremely efficient and helpful. Calling with any questions they/I might have had, and staying in tough via email within maybe half an hour or so.

They also for around 160$ offer a 2 year care package, or like 215 for 3. Includes phone/email/repairs/house visits, etc.

Not to mention I got for 2,000:
Elite-180t
2.6(3)gHz
1TB HDD / 7200rpm
12 g RAM
1.8g NVidia (i dont' remember exactly which one)

And a 25" widescreen display.

I've also had a Dell laptop for 4 years that has Never had to be repaired. Not once. Still working great.

Your generalizations of companies that have the industry in control is just not justified.




On a side note, what exactly CAN OSX do that Win7 can't? Other than being a little prettier, and only working on a Mac?



I'm not against Mac's, but people using them can just be plain ignorant.

lucifiel
Mar 2, 2010, 04:14 PM
OSX wasnt built for only image either. It was purely built for an overall more efficient, virus free system. And apple happened to once again did right with the look of OSX as it is a beautiful system as well.

I agree that people dont buy certain manufactured notebooks based solely on the operating system (since every other manufacturers only support linux or windows), but I was referring to specifically Mac users.

My implication wasn't that OS X was built for the purposes of being pretty, my point is that it's prettiness has become a part of the image process.

I will happily concede that OSX started off as a project to offer a more secure and robust OS (whether it does or not is of course always up for debate, but that's not the issue here), but as time has gone by my argument is that Apple, whilst caring about these things because they are good selling points, cares MORE about the image that a Mac offers.

Might I also add, not all mac users think "oh man awesome OS, it's so secure, let's buy it", instead it's more likely, "ohh shiny...and as a perk cool OS". The initial attracting factor for many is more likely to be "shiny pretty laptop" (or desktop, those iMacs are gorgeous) rather than "oo Linux based security of OS X".

I'm of course not saying that -all- mac users think the way I'm postulating, I'm saying that Apple is promoting itself in a way to appeal to a broader consumer base (and what business wouldn't?) by promoting image. It may have started off as a minor factor, but at this point in time, I think it is a little naive to think that one of Apple's main consideration isn't image.

At Compile 'em all:

I disagree. Scottsdale's argument is quite persuasive, and as you've offered very little to argue your point, I have difficulty accepting your assertion as it is. If you care to elaborate, I'm of course open to persuasion.

jmj
Mar 2, 2010, 06:59 PM
"Apple cannot allow Flash on the iPad/iPhone because people would have a much easier time bypassing the app store"

This is a bit illogical. There wasn't even an app store on the first gen iPhone. It's also a big leap to assume that mobile flash could produce anywhere near the quality of games found in the app story (many of which are free, btw). Can you imagine how fast a flash based game would drain your battery? Yeah, no thanks. Not to mention you couldn't even play a lot of these flash games on a touch screen.

Have many mobile devices actually have flash anyway?

lucifiel
Mar 2, 2010, 07:27 PM
"Apple cannot allow Flash on the iPad/iPhone because people would have a much easier time bypassing the app store"

This is a bit illogical. There wasn't even an app store on the first gen iPhone. It's also a big leap to assume that mobile flash could produce anywhere near the quality of games found in the app story (many of which are free, btw). Can you imagine how fast a flash based game would drain your battery? Yeah, no thanks. Not to mention you couldn't even play a lot of these flash games on a touch screen.

Have many mobile devices actually have flash anyway?

the fact that there isn't an app store on the 1st gen iPhone is beside the point. There is now, and Apple is reaping the rewards. The revenue from the app store is one thing, the "buy the iPhone because it has an app store which has stuff you couldn't otherwise do" is another selling point.

As to how fast flash drains battery, it would depend on how well it is written now wouldn't it?

That and flash is used in places like hulu which is a sucker of iTunes products. But I have reservations about this point as, if HTML5 is supported, yet offers what Flash can do, it seems a little illogical to explain the entire situation as "Apple is afraid of loss revenue", since HTML5 has the same potential.

Like i said previously, I'm not sure it is entirely Apple's fault, but I'm pretty sure Apple isn't helping.

Scottsdale
Mar 3, 2010, 01:48 AM
the fact that there isn't an app store on the 1st gen iPhone is beside the point. There is now, and Apple is reaping the rewards. The revenue from the app store is one thing, the "buy the iPhone because it has an app store which has stuff you couldn't otherwise do" is another selling point.

As to how fast flash drains battery, it would depend on how well it is written now wouldn't it?

That and flash is used in places like hulu which is a sucker of iTunes products. But I have reservations about this point as, if HTML5 is supported, yet offers what Flash can do, it seems a little illogical to explain the entire situation as "Apple is afraid of loss revenue", since HTML5 has the same potential.

Like i said previously, I'm not sure it is entirely Apple's fault, but I'm pretty sure Apple isn't helping.

I am pretty sure I remember Apple "working with" Adobe to try to get Flash on the original iPhone. I believe Apple had a vision of the app store long before it released the iPhone in its first iteration anyways.

It all comes down to what people are used to doing. If people get used to watching TV programs for $.99 or $1.99 on iTunes, they will never mind paying for the shows in the first place... they can watch them whenever they want. I pay for a lot of content myself. I buy shows that I like that I started watching after the series was a year in. I went back and bought the entire three seasons of it just in the last few months. I love that I can watch those whenever I want... on a plane, in bed with nothing else to watch, or even at the hospital undergoing treatment.

On the other hand, I expect other content for free because I have gotten used to watching it for free already. I would rather watch 2.5 minutes of commercials and see Lost whenever I want to watch it on Hulu than pay Apple $2 for the same thing. The other thing is I don't view 2.5 minutes of commercials as a time killer or problematic but rather a fair proposition for my time versus money. If an Apple show was $.99 or I had to watch 12 minutes of commercials, I would pay the $.99. It all comes down to choices of what people are used too. People were used to normal television broadcasting which required them to sit down in front of the TV at a certain time, watch 17 minutes of commercials per hour and not miss a minute to see the entire show... the Internet sites like Hulu.com are a bargain and the perfect solution compared to that. Some sites use Flash in ways to extremely challenge Apple's business model for the future. Selling iPods is great not only for the $200 sale of the iPod but making all the money on the music content in addition. Apple wants that with videos and even print media content, but the problem is websites can provide the same tech for free via Flash and streaming content along with commercials to pay for the content. Apple isn't going to "win" with video content as long as there are free alternatives that don't offer a drastic difference in value or time costs from the viewer.

In five years, technology will be completely different. Apple will already have its hooks in some people. I am sure Apple would rather sites like Hulu.com never even be invented because it provides "CHOICES." Apple doesn't like CHOICES so Apple eliminates Flash from its products and people lose their choices for content and ultimately pay for said content.

I say this to my Pops all the time. He will stay up until 10:20pm every night to watch the weather. I keep telling him in a few years he will tap a "weather" icon on an iPad and his local weatherman will give him a five minute weather forecast that was the most recent recorded and will get automatically updated every three hours or something.

The world we live in is changing, but and people will pay for convenience but they will not pay for something if they're used to getting it for free and they now have to pay. Perhaps Apple will develop its own commercial laden content and be able to provide it free also. It may very well be a choice soon as Apple has bought both AdMob and Lala which are advertising and music streaming services... the point is Apple is quickly learning it has to alter and change with the times because it realizes the iTunes for music works but people have alternative choices to listen to anything streamed instead of downloading and playing whenever to stream it and listen for free and not get "ownership" of a digital file. Apple needs to prosper in both selling content and providing it via paid advertising sponsorship. It's the exact same deal with video and alternative media content. Apple is going to compete in every facet to ensure its relevance... because it realizes the world sometimes wants free content.

For now, avoiding Flash ensures that at least on Apple's own products it doesn't lose a lot of business when they're sold specifically to sell Apple's own content services. In addition, it gives time for Apple to transform its business model and ensure that only it can provide content for its own devices whether that content is being paid for by the end user/viewer or by advertising sponsors who will give Apple revenue for Apple's own products anyways. Look at the stupid search feature on the iPhone, Apple is making a boatload of money where I never had even considered it. On the Internet, traffic makes money inherently and Apple needs to ensure it controls the flow of traffic through its own devices.

ExcelonGT
Mar 7, 2010, 01:34 PM
here's a post that might actually help the O.P.

I used to have this same exact problem with the fans comming on too often.
The problem is the horrible thermal paste application job that the manufacturer does from the factory

many of us early MBA owneres have had huge success re-applying the thermal paste. This is not a difficult process, but you do have to be comfortable opening up your MBA

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=567129&highlight=macbook+air+arctic+silver

robeddie
Mar 10, 2010, 07:14 AM
It's not a solution to say the customers just cannot use Flash and in the long-run accept HTML5 and h.264. The long-run plan is fine, but the short-term solution is not fair and isn't a solution at all.

Is there not a catch-22 here? Is there an argument to be made that if Apple were to fully support flash, and do it well, that no one would BOTHER to switch over to HTML5 and h.264?

Perhaps Apple, knowing the strength the iPhone has at the moment, is taking this window of opportunity to essentially 'force' the issue and get developers to move away from Flash. This may be their one chance to do this, otherwise we may be permanently doomed to a flash based internet.

Rizvi1
Mar 14, 2010, 04:36 PM
Try Coolbook. It is only $10 and it helped keep my MBP nice and cool when I was using it.

www.Coolbook.se

I should probably get this on my wife's MacBook Air. I'm not sure what rev she has but it's the 1.6 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo w/ 2 GB 1067 MHz DDR3. We had bought it April 2009. We've struggled to watch videos off of hulu on here. I just installed snow leopard so maybe that will help, but if not, I'll try coolbook out. I found this site for settings: http://theappleblog.com/2009/04/15/fix-macbook-air-streaming-video-and-overheating-problems/

I actually believe you must have an HDD in your MBA to be seeing The Spinning Beach Ball from Hell like that. With my stock SSD, a beach ball was a rare deal. With a Runcore SSD, the beach ball is almost never seen. With a stock HDD, The Spinning Beach Ball from Hell is a "constant" just as a mouse pointer is a constant. Give an MBA a Penryn 1.86/2.13 GHz CPU, an Nvidia GPU, an SSD and Mini Display Port, and the thing drives a 24" LED ACD without any work at all. I refuse to say the MBA isn't capable. I do agree it's not a MacBook "PRO" but then neither is a MacBook Pro a "Pro." Needless to say the MBA is not marketed as a capable professional computer. In addition, the MBA has an underclocked GPU running at about 80% of the power of the 13" MBP. Also remember the MBA has limited space to cool via fans or heat sync.

OP: I rarely ever hear my fans. I do apologize though, as I incorrectly assumed it was overheating since the fans were going nuts. I do see the fans go sometimes when I am really hitting the system hard via HD video playback.

Is it possible to go into a MacBook Air to swap out the Hard Drive for an SSD? i have a 120gb SAMSUNG HS12UHE in here. What about improving the ram?

stoconnell
Mar 14, 2010, 05:56 PM
Is it possible to go into a MacBook Air to swap out the Hard Drive for an SSD? i have a 120gb SAMSUNG HS12UHE in here. What about improving the ram?

Yes. There are a few after market solutions for the MacBook Air. Your computer will require a SATA drive with the LIF connection. RAM is soldered on the motherboard.

There are some threads in this forum about a runcore replacement SSD (http://www.runcorestore.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=800000BE-1249411461).

Rizvi1
Mar 16, 2010, 03:58 PM
^^ Thanks for this info. I have to research the gain in performance with this. this is my wife's MBA so she only does so much with it. If it was mine I would definitely be looking for performance improvements everywhere i could

spookiewon
Apr 21, 2010, 12:59 AM
The easy thing would be to call the support and have them send a technician to your house to fix the machine on site. But you bought a computer from Apple... and they don't offer real service. Dell and HP do that.

Anyway, from your description, this sounds like a real hardware defect and you really should bring your machine to service. Once it's fixed, sell it.

Ha, Ha. Dell and HP have done nothing to help with my defective under warranty machines of theirs I have right now in my home. SEND SOMEONE????? they just spend 5-6 hours at a crack "troubleshooting" on the phone then promise to "escalate" it tomorrow, but they're going off shift today. They never faollow through and the machine stays broken until the warranty expires, then they tell you "tough luck." I have several defective Apple hardware issues but new hardware was sent overnight and I returned the defective hardware in the box the old came in. No one needed to come to my home (ec.xcept UPS, and they're generally here anyway with an Amazon purchase) and a total of 5 mi utes on the phone. HP and Dell have crappy ratings on customer support because their support is crappy.