Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple is a genius, everything is 'just good enough', but not good enough?

mzjin

mzjin

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 28, 2011
412
0
We'll start with the rMBPs:

1) Good screen resolution, issues with screen quality, uniformity, retention

2) Fast, but not fast enough to be perfectly fluid in User Interface

3) Battery life is in many ways, a downgrade

That leads to early adopters that will be satisfied with the current rMBPs, but with clear areas of improvement, the 2nd generation MBPs will spur upgrades.d

Planned Obsolescence - 1 year - Apple Success.

The "other' MBPs & Airs:

Improved speeds and battery life with Ivy Bridge make them even better than last year's but...

1) Still carry outdated screens, Retina screens are inevitable

2) Reliance on integrated graphics - means that next year's Haswell will rocket performance by 250%. Big numbers are what Apple loves to tout in new products.

Planned Obsolescence - < 1 year - Apple succeeds again.

Looks like 2012 is a transition year.
 
I don't think I understand your point.

No product will ever be perfect and there will always be room for improvement, especially with technological advancements and suppliers like Intel / Nvidia launching new products.

There will also always be specs that will depend and be inversely proportional to other specs, namely battery life, heat and size. You have to find the right balance, you can't have everything.

What's your solution?
 
MacDawg said:
Looks like you have a hard time being satisfied with anything
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. Looks like the 2011 iMac I have can game for many years @ 60 FPS with reduced settings, and finally be relegated to a secondary Thunderbolt display towards its late life.
 
mzjin said:
We'll start with the rMBPs:

1) Good screen resolution, issues with screen quality, uniformity, retention

2) Fast, but not fast enough to be perfectly fluid in User Interface

3) Battery life is in many ways, a downgrade

That leads to early adopters that will be satisfied with the current rMBPs, but with clear areas of improvement, the 2nd generation MBPs will spur upgrades.d

Planned Obsolescence - 1 year - Apple Success.

The "other' MBPs & Airs:

Improved speeds and battery life with Ivy Bridge make them even better than last year's but...

1) Still carry outdated screens, Retina screens are inevitable

2) Reliance on integrated graphics - means that next year's Haswell will rocket performance by 250%. Big numbers are what Apple loves to tout in new products.

Planned Obsolescence - < 1 year - Apple succeeds again.

Looks like 2012 is a transition year.
Click to expand...

Wow, looks like you have it all figured out!!! I also like how the retina isn't good enough, yet the classic also isn't good enough because it's not a retina. Funny how you think that neither of these models will last for more than a year (lifespan of computer, not until refresh).
 
pgiguere1 said:
I don't think I understand your point.

No product will ever be perfect and there will always be room for improvement, especially with technological advancements and suppliers like Intel / Nvidia launching new products.

There will also always be specs that will depend and be inversely proportional to other specs, namely battery life, heat and size. You have to find the right balance, you can't have everything.

What's your solution?
Click to expand...

Benchmark products, actually.

For example, 10 hours of battery life is a good place to be at as it ensures a near full work-day's use. Macbook Pros used to be rated for 10 hours, and it will take a few more generations to get back to that.

That target, once hit, will be a lasting spec on a Laptop, that even with future upgrades, guarantees its usefulness.

Retina Displays are another area - Having a brilliant screen (without flaws and issues) will ensure your product will last much longer because the screen is great enough for spectacular media consumption.

The Retina MBP almost succeeds in this, or it does for the people who have flawless screens, and I assume will be more consistent in 2nd generation.

Things like that.

----------
Interstella5555 said:
Wow, looks like you have it all figured out!!! I also like how the retina isn't good enough, yet the classic also isn't good enough because it's not a retina. Funny how you think that neither of these models will last for more than a year (lifespan of computer, not until refresh).
Click to expand...

The Retina isn't good enough only because the quality controls on them aren't high enough. If they didn't exhibit glaring issues, of course, even with the reduced brightness, the Retina is definitely a good enough display.
 
mzjin said:
Benchmark products, actually.

For example, 10 hours of battery life is a good place to be at as it ensures a near full work-day's use. Macbook Pros used to be rated for 10 hours, and it will take a few more generations to get back to that.
Click to expand...

Because they went from a theoretical max to a realistic benchmark. BTW, Engadget benchmarked the retina MacBook Pro and found its battery life to be over 9 hours while continuously playing a video. Earlier MBP could do 7-8 hours at max.

The retina MBP has probably the longest lasting battery of all laptops of its class.
 
mzjin said:
Benchmark products, actually.

For example, 10 hours of battery life is a good place to be at as it ensures a near full work-day's use. Macbook Pros used to be rated for 10 hours, and it will take a few more generations to get back to that.

That target, once hit, will be a lasting spec on a Laptop, that even with future upgrades, guarantees its usefulness.

Retina Displays are another area - Having a brilliant screen (without flaws and issues) will ensure your product will last much longer because the screen is great enough for spectacular media consumption.

The Retina MBP almost succeeds in this, or it does for the people who have flawless screens, and I assume will be more consistent in 2nd generation.

Things like that.
Click to expand...

Ok, so a rMBP with no quality assurance issues is fine for you in everything but battery life?

I just wanted to point out that older Macs which were advertised as having 10 hours didn't actually reach that. Them being "reduced" to 7 hours is actually just Apple having changed their battery benchmark to better reflect real-word usage. In other words, the 10 hours claims were pretty much BS and benchmark were done in ideal settings that don't represent most people's computing habits.

The only way to get the rMBP to have better battery life would be to make sacrifices. There's only 2 possible solutions to that: reducing power usage or increasing battery capacity.

Reducing power usage could involve using a ULV CPU or integrated graphics only, but that would mean a huge performance loss. You could also reduce the screen brightness or resolution, but that would also suck. Increasing battery capacity would mean having a thicker body, more weight and an increased price. That's not a perfect solution either.

Like I said, it's a matter of balance and I think Apple did quite well considering their technical limitations.

You talk like Apple could have done better but didn't on purpose just so they can convince you to upgrade more easily next year. I don't think that's the case. I think they really used the best components available right now that could fit this form factor and did their best to balance things to please as much people as possible.
 
pgiguere1 said:
Ok, so a rMBP with no quality assurance issues is fine for you in everything but battery life?

I just wanted to point out that older Macs which were advertised as having 10 hours didn't actually reach that. Them being "reduced" to 7 hours is actually just Apple having changed their battery benchmark to better reflect real-word usage. In other words, the 10 hours claims were pretty much BS and benchmark were done in ideal settings that don't represent most people's computing habits.

The only way to get the rMBP to have better battery life would be to make sacrifices. There's only 2 possible solutions to that: reducing power usage or increasing battery capacity.

Reducing power usage could involve using a ULV CPU or integrated graphics only, but that would mean a huge performance loss. You could also reduce the screen brightness or resolution, but that would also suck. Increasing battery capacity would mean having a thicker body, more weight and an increased price. That's not a perfect solution either.

Like I said, it's a matter of balance and I think Apple did quite well considering their technical limitations.

You talk like Apple could have done better but didn't on purpose just so they can convince you to upgrade more easily next year. I don't think that's the case. I think they really used the best components available right now that could fit this form factor and did their best to balance things to please as much people as possible.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. I owned a Retina Macbook Pro and even with Mountain Lion and no screen issues, the machine still lagged.

It wasn't as smooth as my iPad 3, which was basically what made me realize that it felt like a repeat of the first generation Macbook Air. The new ones are going to be much better.

I am really hoping the 13" Macbook Pro Retinas will feature good discrete graphics powerful enough to a completely smooth experience. Otherwise, I would have to wait for Haswell.
 
mzjin said:
I wouldn't say that. Looks like the 2011 iMac I have can game for many years @ 60 FPS with reduced settings, and finally be relegated to a secondary Thunderbolt display towards its late life.
Click to expand...

Of course, what you have is the best, right? Like when a redesigned model of a car comes out, you would still like yours better? As long as it makes you feel better, it's all good.
 
It really isn’t planned obsolescence. They are using the latest and best Intel CPUs available, they are running the fastest Nvidia GPU they can use within their thermal specifications—it’s a GT650 clocked higher than the GT660.

They are using custom hardware such as their new cooling system, custom SSD form factor, and are making trade-offs like using soldered RAM, and they removed the optical drive to leave as much space as possible inside the machine for batteries.

If you wanted faster hardware, or better battery life from the machine today, it would have to be bigger.
If you had faster hardware inside the machine, it would run hotter & louder, and the battery life would be worse.

It’s not like Apple are intentionally compromising on hardware here—they’re putting the best hardware available today into the machines.

The alternative of course, is to say “the hardware to drive our new Retina display is not available today” and not release the computer at all, leaving you with the plain old MacBook Pros and their 1440×900 LCD. (optionally 1680×1050)

And of course, if you don’t want the Retina display, well it’s not like you have to buy one.
 
There are some problems here.

1) apple changed the rated battery life to reflect a more realistic usage, I can still hit 10h with my mbp 13, for that I have several things off, reduced brightness and Im working on texts, no external peripherals and so forth, that doesnt look like a current usage of a notebook to me.

2) the 6970m in the imac 2011 is a good gpu, the 7970m is a 50% better gpu, not in benchies, but in games, it gives you that 50% better fps in games. The 6970m in a 1080p scenario couldnt max all the games and play those at 60fps, now we are close to that. next year we will be even closer.

3) it will be annoying to change the battery, and it will take some days. The price though is fair. 95wh batteries do cost around that.

4) the QA issues here are a problem. I have to agree.

5) I cant agree with anand, when he says that its a hardware problem when you cant use the OS and safari without some lag, the 650m is a powerful gpu, and you still got some problems with it enabled and fixed. Thus its a matter of software, the OS and safari are lagging because they arent coded right. If I can drive a 2560*1440 display with a mbp 13 2011 I dont understand how a much more powerful cpu and gpu cant drive that res.
 
Mr MM said:
5) I cant agree with anand, when he says that its a hardware problem when you cant use the OS and safari without some lag, the 650m is a powerful gpu, and you still got some problems with it enabled and fixed. Thus its a matter of software, the OS and safari are lagging because they arent coded right. If I can drive a 2560*1440 display with a mbp 13 2011 I dont understand how a much more powerful cpu and gpu cant drive that res.
Click to expand...
2560×1440 is only 3.7MP, and is it really being driven as smoothly as people complaining about lag on the Retina MacBook Pro are expecting?

3840×2400 is 9.2MP—a huge increase in resolution over your display, and it then has to be downscaled to 2880×1800, which is even more taxing on the hardware.

While it’s possible that it is a software issue, you are placing far more demands on the machine.
 
my new macbook will last me the next 3 years, im happy with it. seems theres too many people out there concerned with always having the latest equipment.
i still have an iphone 4 and ipad 2 because they still do the job fine and i have no need to upgrade.
 
Why is it that there are more of us with perfectly good screens and no issues yet you latch on to the fewer people who complained? You do realize that people put more effort into complaining right?

Also, there's always something better coming. You should just never buy anything.
 
I think it is worth $100.00. Not worth $300.00. Depends on how much $100.00 is worth to the buyer, right? For me it less than tax. 300MHz for $100.00 is much better than 100MHz/ 2MB of negligible cache for $250.00.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back